Consumption of polyphenol-rich dark chocolate may protect DNA from oxidative damage, preventing artery hardening and heart disease, says a new study.
Writing in the British Journal of Nutrition, Italian researcher report that consumption of dark chocolate containing 860 milligrams of polyphenols, and 58 milligrams of epicatechin, led to a 20 per cent reduction in DNA damage two hours after consumption.
The study adds to an ever growing body of science supporting the cardiovascular benefits of polyphenol-rich chocolate.
Led by Angela Spadafranca from the University of Milan and using chocolate supplied by Ferraro, the researchers assigned 20 healthy subjects with an average age of 24.2 to consume a balanced diet for four weeks. After two weeks the group was split in two, with one group receiving additional dark chocolate, while the other receiving white chocolate.
Measurements taken at regular intervals after consumption showed that the benefits were observed relatively quickly, with increases in blood levels of catechin observed two hours after consumption of the dark chocolate, with coincidental decreases in DNA damage in mononuclear blood cells.
However, the effects were not observed 22 hours after consumption, leading the researchers to speculate that this was related to the kinetics of the flavonoids.
“Similar epicatechin plasma levels at two hours following consumption of cark chocolate on the first and last occasions are not associated with a long-term increase in epicatechin plasma concentrations, and suggest that flavonoid plasma levels are dependent upon intake from recent food sources,” wrote the researchers.
“The present results are clinically encouraging especially in the field of the diet therapy of obesity, pathology related to greater incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer,” they wrote.
“In fact, dark chocolate, habitually excluded by hypoenergetic diets for its high-fat and energy content, is a sweet food that should be reconsidered: if included in controlled amounts, in a weight loss programme it could have healthy effects, and could improve the compliance of patients to diet therapy,” added Spadafranca and her co-workers.
A tasty market
Chocolate is big business. Market researcher, Euromonitor, puts the market at $100bn and notes the rise of dark and premium chocolate that is boosting the category but remains at little more than a few per cent with the bulk of the growth coming from North America and Asia.
Euromonitor estimates the global market for functional chocolate at $371.9m in 2009, growing to $460.3m in 2012. In 2002 it was worth only $141.5m.
In 2009 the bulk of sales are coming from the Asia Pacific at $175m, followed by North America at $93.8m and western Europe at $95.9m.
But North America is expected to overtake next year and will be worth $128.2m in 2012, compared to near-stagnant western Europe at $103.2m. The Asia Pacific will be worth $221.2m by then.
Source: British Journal of Nutrition
Published online ahead of print, First View article, doi: 10.1017/S0007114509992698 “Effect of dark chocolate on plasma epicatechin levels DNA resistance to oxidative stress and total antioxidant activity in healthy subjects”
Authors: A. Spadafranca, C. Martinez Conesa, S. Sirini and G. Testolin
Science is constantly trying to get behind the main factors for the obesity epidemic. From our hurried, fast food lifestyle to our laziness and penchant for T.V. watching rather than exercise, it seems relatively clear that, in most cases, the obesity epidemic is a result of our lifestyle choices. But for some, their genetics play a role that may be hard to fight against.
Family reunions let everyone in the family come together and see the role that genetics has played in their life; maybe you have Aunt Bertha’s red hair or Cousin Vinny’s brown eyes. Unfortunately, you can also inherit Uncle Roger’s pot belly and Grandpa Joe’s wide tush. This is because genetics plays a role in your fat cells and where they are stored.
Because of your DNA, you have a genetic predisposition to carry fat cells in the same areas as your family. Since families blend the DNA of many different people, you may take after one side of your family more than another. This could mean that you and your brother have the genetic predisposition to having love handles while your older sister doesn’t.
In addition to your propensity to carry fat in certain places, you’ll find that your body’s response to exercise mimics others in your family as well. If you have the right genes, you may find that you build muscle very quickly when weight training or, if you’re on the unfortunate end, you don’t.
But, what is the role of genes in weight management? Can you manipulate your genes to work for you rather than against you? For some with genetically linked health issues like thyroid problems, medications can be a solution. Medications can help your body run as it should and can pick up the slack for any glands that are impaired due to genetic lineage.
For most people, medication is not the answer. Instead, learning how your body responds to food and exercise if key to fighting your genes and managing your weight. If your family is filled with overweight people, and you see the signs in your own body that this is probably your destiny too, follow these steps to head genetics off at the pass.
Eat right. Cut out sugars, simple carbohydrates (like white rice and white bread), and stay away from fast food. For some, learned eating habits play a bigger role in weight gain than genetics. Be sure to reevaluate the food lessons you’ve learned from your family and try to make the right decisions regarding what goes in your mouth.
Exercise regularly. Ideally, you should exercise for one hour a day, five to six days per week. Unfortunately, real life often gets in the way of this. If you can exercise four times per week for one half hour per work out, you’ll find you can stave off the effects of genetics.
Stick with it. Fighting your genes is not easy and you may find that you have to work harder than others to receive fewer results. Just remember the alternative facing you and stick with it.
Before embarking on any new physical fitness routine or new and improved eating plan, you should consult a physician. In addition to letting you know if the routine you want to try is healthy for you, they may have some other helpful tips to give you. Speaking with a nutritionist about your eating plan will also help you get ideas for variety and make sure that you haven’t included any foods that will hurt your weight management goals rather than help them.
Roll over, Mendel. Watson and Crick? They are so your old man’s version of DNA. And that big multibillion-dollar hullabaloo called the Human Genome Project? To some scientists, it’s beginning to look like an expensive genetic floor pad for a much more intricate—and dynamic—tapestry of life that lies on top of it.
There’s a revolution sweeping biology today—begrudged by a few, but accepted by more and more biologists—that is changing scientific thinking about the way genes work, the way diseases arise and the way some of the most dreadful among them, including cancer, might be diagnosed and treated. This revolution is called epigenetics, and it is not only beginning to explain some of the biological mysteries that deepened with the Human Genome Project. Because of a series of accidental events, it is already prolonging the lives of human patients with deadly diseases.
Over the past several years, and largely without much public notice, physicians have reported success using epigenetic therapies against cancers of the blood and have even made progress against intractable solid-tumor malignancies like lung cancer. The story is still preliminary and unfolding (dozens of clinical trials using epigenetic drugs are currently underway), but Dr. Margaret Foti, chief executive officer of the American Association for Cancer Research, recently noted that epigenetics is already resulting in “significant improvements” in cancer diagnosis and therapy. “It’s really coming into its own now,” she said. Leaping on the bandwagon, the National Institutes of Health made epigenetics the focus of one of its cutting-edge “Roadmap” initiatives announced last fall.
“I think we were all brought up to think the genome was it,” says C. David Allis, a scientist at Rockefeller University whose research in the 1990s helped catalyze the current interest in epigenetics. “But even when the genome was a done deal, some people thought, ‘Is that the whole story?’ It’s really been a watershed in understanding that there is something beyond the genome.”
The emergence of epigenetics represents a fundamental rethinking of how molecular biology works. Scientists have learned that while DNA remains the basic text of life, the script is often controlled by stage directions embedded in a layer of biochemicals that, roughly speaking, sit on top of the DNA. These modifications, called epimutations, can turn genes on and off, often at inappropriate times. In other words, epigenetics has introduced the startling idea that it’s not just the book of life (in the form of DNA) that’s important, but how the book is packaged.
At one level, this higher order of control makes perfect sense. Biologists have long known that developing organisms—humans included—need a full complement of genes at the moment of fertilization, but that many genes subsequently get turned on and off as the embryo develops. In humans, this is a lifelong process. There are genes for a fetal version of hemoglobin, for example, and then an adult version that kicks in after birth; through epigenetic control, the fetal genes are permanently turned off at a certain stage of development, and the adult genes are permanently activated. As each one of us developed from a fertilized egg, stem cells in the early embryo matured into brain cells, liver cells and indeed several hundred specialized cells and tissues; at each step of that maturation process, our DNA was modified. When we entered puberty, quiescent genes were suddenly activated. And as we age, the dings of earlier life experiences seem to shape the activity of our DNA. Many if not most of those changes are epigenetic in nature, where the DNA itself remains unchanged, but the packaging has been dramatically perturbed; animal experiments suggest that environmental factors, from childhood diet and maternal care to stress, can play epigenetic havoc with our basic DNA hardware.
The interest in epigenetics has assumed critical mass in the past 10 years for several reasons. The Human Genome Project, often touted as “biology’s moonshot,” provided the basic text of life, in the form of the complete human sequence of DNA, but scientists have had a hard time linking specific genetic causes to many common illnesses. The role of “misspelled” DNA (in the form of both classic mutations and genetic variation, first teased out in the 19th century by the monk Gregor Mendel) has turned out to explain, in the words of a recent New England Journal of Medicinecommentator, “only a small fraction of disease.” “We were all raised on the Watson and Crick concept of DNA-driven inheritance,” Allis says. “It turns out that epigenetics may be even more responsible for gene expression and disease than DNA alone, especially in more advanced multicellular organisms.” In the 1990s, meanwhile, scientists like Allis reported basic but breathtaking discoveries that showed how several groups of enzymes, common to every cell, could create epimutations without ever changing the DNA script.
Basic research has shown that enzymes can tamper with genetic information in at least two distinct ways. In some cases, the on-off switch of a gene can be smothered when an enzyme attaches chemicals to the DNA; known as DNA methy-lation, this process essentially silences a gene that should be on. In other cases, a separate class of enzyme improperly disrupts the normal cellular packaging of DNA. Typically, the gossamer thread of DNA is wound around a spool of protein called histone; when this second class of enzymes strips away part of the packaging, the DNA becomes so tightly wound up that it can’t loosen up enough to be read by the cell. In effect, the slip jacket for specific genes is so tight that it’s impossible to crack open the spine and get a glimpse of the genetic text. Conversely, sometimes genes that should remain permanently interred in a tomb of histone suddenly come back to life, like some cellular version of Night of the Living Dead.
In the past five years, the evidence has become “absolutely rock solid” to cancer researchers that epigenetic changes play a fundamental role in cancer, according to Robert A. Weinberg, an elder statesman of cancer biology at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. DNA methylation, he adds, “may ultimately be far more important than gene mutation in shutting down tumor suppressor genes,” one of the cell’s main mechanisms to short-circuit an incipient cancer.
Each epigenetic change seems to leave a chemical flag, or “mark,” on the DNA, and hence researchers are intensely cataloging these marks into “epigenomes” as a possible clue to diagnosis, prognosis and perhaps even prevention of disease. Unlike genetic markers, which reveal small “typographic” variations in the spelling of genes, epigenetic markers indicate places where entire genes have been silenced or activated. Paula Vertino of the Emory University School of Medicine, for example, has identified patches of DNA that seem especially prone to be inappropriately silenced or activated in breast and lung cancer; researchers at Johns Hopkins have used epigenetic markers in brain-cancer cells to predict which patients are likelier to benefit from chemotherapy. Recent laboratory findings suggest that deciphering the layers of genetic control modifying DNA has implications not just for cancer, but also for chronic diseases associated with aging, like heart disease and diabetes; for mental disorders like autism and depression; for stem-cell biology; and even for our notions of what constitutes an inherited disease. Everything is up for grabs.
“There’s only one genome,” says Wolf Reik, professor of epigenetics at the University of Cambridge in England, “but hundreds of epigenomes.” And unlike string theory in physics, for example, epigenetics is neither an exotic intellectual idea nor a theory awaiting verificationby future data. The biology is real, and the practical effects have already reached the bedside.
In the 1990s, Stephen Baylin of Johns Hopkins University led the effort showing that epigenetic changes in DNA were associated with cancer; in fact, disruptions in tumor suppressor genes, which normally protect cells against cancer, are more often due to epigenetic silencing than outright mutation. In May, Baylin and Peter Jones of the University of Southern California received a three-year, $9.1 million grant to launch accelerated testing of epigenetic therapy in patients with lung, colon and breast cancer, with interim results promised within a year. The Hopkins group has presented preliminary results at recent meetings showing that a combination of two epigenetic drugs produced several responses (including one complete remission) in patients with advanced lung cancer. “The trials are still ongoing, and we don’t know what percentage of patients will respond, if it will be 10 or 20 percent,” says Baylin. “But we have had very robust responses, of both primary tumors and metastases, in non-small-cell lung cancer.” “That’s just extraordinary,” says Foti of AACR, noting the poor prognosis for patients with these advanced cancers.
If the amount of clinical testing seems surprising, it’s probably because the medical part of the epigenetics story is unfolding in reverse: doctors had the drugs long before they had a theory suggesting how to use them properly. Indeed, several of the drugs now being tested against cancer have been around for decades, but in the past were used in the wrong way for the wrong reason. Azacitidine, for example, was first discovered in Czechoslovakia in the 1960s as a traditional chemotherapy drug, and doctors used it to kill cancer cells the old-fashioned way: giving as much as patients could tolerate. Jones, a South African by birth who now heads the Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center at USC, discovered in the 1980s that the drug had another mode of action: it could turn genes back on by stripping away the “duct tape” of DNA methylation that muffled genes. This suggested a different kind of attack on cancer—not by killing cancer cells outright, but by reversing the epigenetic changes that make a cell cancerous in the first place.
In the 1980s, as a young oncology fellow at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, Lewis Silverman proposed testing azacitidine as an epigenetic drug—that is, at lower doses than is typical for traditional chemotherapy, where it still might be effective reversing silenced genes. Silverman has since shown that low doses of the drug reduce the symptoms of a type of leukemia and allows patients to live longer. The Food and Drug Administration approved azacitidine in May 2004; the drug is now marketed as Vidaza.
A different class of epigenetic drug has emerged from work at Harvard, Columbia and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. In addition to the silencing effect of methylation, genes can be turned on and off by enzymes that tighten or loosen the packaging of DNA. Paul Marks and Ronald Breslow at Columbia created a small molecule, called vorinostat, that blocks the action of the enzymes that tamper with DNA’s packaging, thus turning inactivated genes back on. That drug was approved by the FDA in 2006 for a rare form of lymphoma and is now being tested against a number of other cancers; Merck markets the drug as Zolinza. Part of the current clinical excitement is that there are already hints that combinations of these and second-generation drugs may be more effective at reversing the epigenetic changes in cancer cells.
Researchers remain guarded in their optimism. Issa concedes that the first-generation epigenetic drugs have not included a home run like Gleevec, the molecular treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia that produces dramatic and lasting remissions. And it is not unusual for deleterious side effects to become more apparent as drugs are used more widely—a particular concern in the case of drugs that have the potential to modify gene expression broadly in normal cells. But people who have witnessed the explosion of promising results in the past year have difficulty suppressing their excitement. “The promise is staggering,” says Allis.
The stakes in epigenetics go well beyond clinical therapies, however. There have been hints from laboratory experiments and epidemiological studies that epigenetic changes in one generation—caused, for example, by smoking or diet—can be passed on to children and even grandchildren. Reik, who is also associate director of the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, is investigating how the overlay of epigenetic changes is erased from DNA when mice make their germ cells—how all the epigenetic changes, like some microscopic version of duct tape, get stripped off the DNA that goes into the sperm in males and eggs in females. “People are now beginning to realize that there are probably things that don’t get wiped out or erased in the germ cells,” he says, “so these are so-called epimutations that can be passed on from parents to children and to grandchildren—not genetic changes passed on, like Mendel, but an epimutation.
“We don’t know how common this might be,” Reik adds, choosing his words carefully, “but it’s potentially quite revolutionary. It’s not only challenging Mendel, but potentially challenging even Darwin. We are very careful when we talk about these things.”
May 18, 2009 10:00 pm US/Central
DALLAS (CBS 11 News) ? Reporting Ginger Allen
A simple DNA test may be able to determine if a child has what it takes to become a ‘super athlete’. While some claim that, knowing the results could help parents make decisions about where their kids might excel; other local parents and doctors wonder if such a test is really a good idea.
Nico Rodvold of Dallas is an active 2-year-old who never seems to slow down. “Imagine the most active child you can imagine and that’s what I have. That’s Nico,” said the boy’s mother, Amparo.
Amparo has run in multiple marathons and Nico’s dad trained for the 1996 Olympics. But will great genes help the little boy become an Olympic sprinter in the 2028 games?
Mike Weinstein, of Atlas Sports Genetics, claims that his DNA test offers parents a glimpse of the future. “You can test a person directly right after they’re born,” he explained. “We’re really trying to design the test to open up the doors and widen the range of available sports that may be best suited for a particular person’s, the way they’ve been built.”
Considering Weinstein’s declaration, CBS 11 News asked Nico’s parents to give the test a try. After taking a small swipe inside Nico’s cheek, the family sent the test to a lab in Australia.
Once the sample was received, scientists would analyze the ACTN3 gene. Every human being has two ACTN3 genes; one from each parent. The testing in Australia would look for a variant on either gene. If there is no sign of the variant, the similarities may signal a future ‘elite athlete’.
Dr. Angela Scheuerle, medical geneticist at Medical City Dallas Hospital, is concerned that most parents don’t truly understand the science of genetics and she worries some will take the results too seriously. “Just ethically, I have difficulty with the idea of determining somebody’s future with a single sort of ‘wishy washy’ test as a baby,” she said.
It took two weeks to get the test results on Nico and his parents. His father read the results. “He may be equally suited for sprint and power and/or endurance.”
The Rodvold’s say the test results won’t change how they raise Nico or any of their three children, including one that is due any day now.
The Rodvold’s, Atlas Sports Genetics, and Dr. Scheuerle all agree that the test is just one of many factors that can determine whether a child will be an elite athlete. All say that coaching, skill, and desire are just as important.
The Salk Institute has received a $5.5 million grant from the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to launch the Salk Center for Nutritional Genomics. The new Center will employ a molecular approach to nutrition and its impact on the role of metabolism on the immune system, cancer, diabetes and lifespan, thereby increasing the understanding of how nutrients affect health.
The new center will draw expertise from leading laboratories at the Institute to deepen its diabetes research with the intent to unravel the mechanisms that modulate the body’s energy balance and the factors that set the stage for metabolic disease.
“Given the fact that metabolism has clearly established itself as a common denominator in many research fields, I am very pleased that our scientists will have the opportunity to collaborate further and delve even deeper into this vitally important area of biological science,” said Salk President William R. Brody.
“The Salk Center for Nutritional Genomics will enable our investigators to develop new approaches to understand the metabolic changes associated with Type I and Type II diabetes, cancer and aging,” he said. “It will also help accelerate the development of new therapies and disease-prevention strategies.”
The grant will fund a Metabolic Core Facility, an interdisciplinary Fellows Program and breakthrough technologies, including the study of gene networks based on massive parallel sequencing of millions of genomic DNA fragments, which allow scientists to investigate a huge number of variables simultaneously and dramatically increase the speed and effectiveness of their work.
Adult obesity, which has increased 75 percent since 1980 in the U.S., is associated with a slew of metabolic disorders, including glucose intolerance, insulin resistance, high cholesterol and high blood pressure — all of which are well-established risk factors for cardiovascular disease and Type II diabetes.
“The study of metabolic control will provide fundamental answers that have profound implications for human disease and its treatment,” said Marc Montminy, professor in the Clayton Foundation Laboratories for Peptide Biology at Salk. “Our scientists look at the genomics of metabolic control as the hub of a wheel whose individual spokes lead out to new insights into other disorders such as diabetes, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and aging.”
Posted on December 1st, 2008dna4wellnessNo comments
Dec., 2008 Time Magazine – Time’s Best Inventions of 2008
By Anita Hamilton
#1 is The Retail DNA Test
Before meeting with Anne Wojcicki, co-founder of a consumer gene-testing service called 23andMe, I know just three things about her: she’s pregnant, she’s married to Google’s Sergey Brin, and she went to Yale. But after an hour chatting with her in the small office she shares with co-founder Linda Avey at 23andMe’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., I know some things no Internet search could reveal: coffee makes her giddy, she has a fondness for sequined shoes and fresh-baked bread, and her unborn son has a 50% chance of inheriting a high risk for Parkinson’s disease.
Learning and sharing your genetic secrets are at the heart of 23andMe’s controversial new service — a $399 saliva test that estimates your predisposition for more than 90 traits and conditions ranging from baldness to blindness. Although 23andMe isn’t the only company selling DNA tests to the public, it does the best job of making them accessible and affordable. The 600,000 genetic markers that 23andMe identifies and interprets for each customer are “the digital manifestation of you,” says Wojcicki (pronounced Wo-jis-key), 35, who majored in biology and was previously a health-care investor. “It’s all this information beyond what you can see in the mirror.”
We are at the beginning of a personal-genomics revolution that will transform not only how we take care of ourselves but also what we mean by personal information. In the past, only élite researchers had access to their genetic fingerprints, but now personal genotyping is available to anyone who orders the service online and mails in a spit sample. Not everything about how this information will be used is clear yet — 23andMe has stirred up debate about issues ranging from how meaningful the results are to how to prevent genetic discrimination — but the curtain has been pulled back, and it can never be closed again. And so for pioneering retail genomics, 23andMe’s DNA-testing service is Time’s 2008 Invention of the Year.
The 1997 film Gattaca depicted it as a futuristic nightmare, but human-genotyping has emerged instead as both a real business and a status symbol. Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein says he is backing 23andMe not for its cinematic possibilities but because “I think it is a good investment. This is strictly medical and business-like.” Google has chipped in almost half the $8.9 million in funding raised by the firm, which counts Warren Buffett, Rupert Murdoch and Ivanka Trump among its clients.
Weinstein isn’t saying what his test told him, but Wojcicki and her famous husband are perfectly willing to discuss their own genetic flaws. Most worrisome is a rare mutation that gives Brin an estimated 20% to 80% chance of getting Parkinson’s disease. There’s a 50% chance that the couple’s child, due later this year, will inherit that same gene. “I don’t find this embarrassing in any way,” says Brin, who blogged about it in September. “I felt it was a lot of work and impractical to keep it secret, and I think in 10 years it will be commonplace to learn about your genome.”
And yet while Wojcicki and Brin aren’t worried about genetic privacy, others are. In May, President George W. Bush signed a bill that makes it illegal for employers and insurers to discriminate on the basis of genetic information. California and New York tried to block the tests on the grounds that they were not properly licensed, but have so far been unsuccessful. Others worry about how sharing one’s genetic data might affect close relatives who would prefer not to let a family history of schizophrenia or Lou Gehrig’s disease become public. And what if a potential mate demands to see your genome before getting serious? Such hypotheticals are endless. And some researchers argue that the tests are flawed. “The uncertainty is too great,” says Dr. Muin Khoury, director of the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who argues that it is wrong to charge people for access to such preliminary and incomplete data. Many diseases stem from several different genes and are triggered by environmental factors. Since less than a tenth of our 20,000 genes have been correlated with any condition, it’s impossible to nail down exactly what component is genetic. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” says Dr. Alan Guttmacher of the National Institutes of Health.
23andMe is unfazed by its detractors. “It’s somewhat paternalistic to say people shouldn’t get these tests because ‘we don’t want people to misunderstand or get upset,’” says board member Esther Dyson. There can be a psychological upside too: some people decide to lead healthier lifestyles. Brin is currently funding Parkinson’s research. And not all customers’ results are as troubling as his. Nate Guy, 19, of Warrenton, Va., was relieved that though his uncle had died of prostate cancer, his own risk for the disease was about average. He even posted a video about it on YouTube. And unflattering findings can have a silver lining. “Now I have an excuse for not remembering things, because my memory is probably genetically flawed,” Guy says.
Wojcicki and Avey see themselves not just as businesswomen but also as social entrepreneurs. With their customers’ consent, they plan to amass everyone’s genetic footprint in a giant database that can be mined for clues to which mutations make us susceptible to specific diseases and which drugs people are more likely to respond to. “You’re donating your genetic information,” says Wojcicki. “We could make great discoveries if we just had more information. We all carry this information, and if we bring it together and democratize it, we could really change health care.”
Posted on November 20th, 2006dna4wellnessNo comments
Monday, November 20, 2006 | 5:32 PM
By Carolyn Johnson
Nov. 19 – KGO (KGO) — The diet of the future will likely depend on your genetic make up. It’s called nutrigenomics, and companies are already marketing the technology to dieters looking to lead healthier lives. But critics say it’s premature and there’s not yet enough information available as to how food and diet truly interact with ones genes.
Biljana Mihailovich lost 17 pounds and 3 1/2 inches around her waist and she credits Los Angeles-based nutritionist Carolyn Katzin for her success.
Biljana Mihailovic, DNA Diet Client: “Initially I came to lose weight and in the 6 weeks I did lose it. But I stayed on her diet and I stayed on her recommendations and I feel a lot healthier.”
Katzin’s trademarked plan is called the DNA Diet. She says most of her clients actually aren’t looking to lose weight, but to optimize their health.
Carolyn Katzin, Certified Nutrition Specialist: “We can probably eat a wide range of foods and live in a wide range of temperatures, but there’s a difference between surviving and thriving.”
Katzin’s clients first complete a kit, filling out a lifestyle questionarre and using swabs to collect cells from inside the cheek.
The samples are then sent to Sciona Labs for nutritional genetic testing. Nineteen genes are analyzed.
Sciona’s website says it zeroes in on variations in genes that affect everything from bone and heart health to insulin sensitivity and detoxification.
Dr. Jim Kaput, Director, UC Nutrigenomic Medicine Lab: “The 19 genes is a good start, but you’ve got to remember we have an estimated 25,000 genes in our DNA and they’re only testing a small proportion of them.”
Molecular biologist Jim Kaput directs the laboratory of nutrigenomic medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago.
While he says the science behind these tests is valid, he’s concerned about trying to do too much, too soon with it.
Dr. Jim Kaput: “For any nutrient that you eat, it will interact with more than just one gene, so if you have a gene that works with antioxidants, you can’t say because of that one gene you should eat more broccoli.”
But Carolyn Katzin believes analyzing these 19 genes offers an important beginning.
Carolyn Katzin, Certified Nutrition Specialist: “If I tell someone they have this particular gene called the glutathione-s-transferase mu, which is a very important detox gene, and many people are missing it — maybe as many as 50 percent of Caucasians are missing it — then you have an opportunity to eat vegetables that will help support your other liver enzymes that are more specialized to take the place of that.”
Biljana’s genetic testing found her so-called “detox gene” to be null or inactive. Katzin explained the lab results to her and recommended upping her intake of cabbage, onion and garlic, to compensate, as well as giving her recipes customized to meet her needs.
Biljana says the personalization made a big difference.
Biljana Mihailovic, DNA Diet Client: “It was a lot more specific and tailored, yes, because it never worked before and now it worked.”
Katzin also relies on the basics — measuring and weighing her clients, doing body fat analysis and charting the changes.
She sees the genetic testing as one more tool and a motivating force.
Carolyn Katzin, Certified Nutrition Specialist: “There is new evidence coming out of England and other places that if you give individuals their genetic test results, even if it’s for a couple of genes and if it can motivate those people to change their lifestyle, there’s actually a benefit for that.”
But there’s also a hefty price associated with these genetic tests, ranging from a couple hundred dollars to more than $1,000, and without a knowledgeable nutritionist working with you, Kaput questions the value.
Dr. Jim Kaput, Director, UC Nutrigenomic Medicine Lab: “Most of the time the dietary advice that’s given by these companies you could probably just get off the web.”
As for the science to back up nutrient-gene interaction, Kaput expects major advances within the next decade as more research funding is made available both here and in Europe.
He’d like to see a certification program for the field of nutritional genomics, something Katzin — who’s studied under Kaput — welcomes.
Carolyn Katzin, Certified Nutrition Specialist: “It is an enormously complex field and there are no simple answers. I’m trying to make it accessible to people, trying to help people understand that this is relevant and it’s the future and this is how we’re beginning.”
UC Davis is home to the Center of Excellence for Nutritional Genomics. It’s a partnership among the University, Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, the Ethnic Health Institute, and the USDA Western Human Nutrition Research Center.
Posted on October 10th, 2005dna4wellnessNo comments
October 10, 2005 – USA Today
NEW YORK (AP) — As a registered dietitian, Ruth DeBusk has eaten a healthy diet for a long time. As a geneticist, she wondered if she could do better.
So earlier this year, she had her DNA tested by a company that gives personalized nutrition advice based on genetics. The results indicated she needed more folate.
So DeBusk doubled her minimum amount of folate, a B vitamin found in leafy greens and citrus.
“I’m more diligent about being sure that I get it every day if possible, because it really matters,” said DeBusk, who has a private practice in Tallahassee, Fla., and has written a book on nutrition and genetics.
“I’ll actually make an effort to drink a glass of orange juice or eat an extra big salad in the evening, being aware it hasn’t been one of my better folate days.”
That’s the way it’s supposed to work in a field called nutritional genomics or nutrigenomics. The basic idea is this: There are genes that affect the risk of getting illnesses like heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and diabetes, and the impact of those genes can be modified by what you eat. Everybody carries one version or another of each of those genes. So why not find out what gene versions you have and base dietary advice on that?
“Every time we go to the supermarket we’re using educated guesses about what we should eat and what we shouldn’t eat,” says Raymond Rodriguez, director of the National Center of Excellence for Nutritional Genomics at the University of California, Davis.
In the future, more of that guesswork may be replaced with accurate, personal DNA-based dietary advice, which Rodriguez says is “rapidly emerging on the horizon.”
But that time isn’t here yet, most experts say. Nutrigenomics is still in its infancy, with plenty to be learned, and it’s not yet clear what role it may play in standard medical practice.
Most of the research targets heart disease and cancer, and scientists may be ready to deliver personalized diet recommendations in those areas within five years, said Jose Ordovas, director of the nutrition and genomics laboratory at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Nutrition Research Center at Tufts University in Boston.
“We have scientific evidence that the concept is right, that we can provide something along those lines in the future,” Ordovas said. “We are not there yet.”
No? You can walk into some pharmacies or grocery stores right now and pay $99 for a DNA test kit that will get you personalized diet advice for heart health, bone health, or any of three other areas. It’s from Sciona Inc., a small company based in Boulder, Colo., that started offering DNA-based diet advice in 2001. Such tests are also available by mail order and on the Internet.
Sciona customers collect their own DNA with a cheek swab, complete a diet and lifestyle questionnaire and send it all in for analysis. Sciona encourages customers to review its advice with a doctor.
The company acknowledges that some scientists say it’s too soon to offer such a service, but says its testing is based on solid research. Current testing focuses on 19 genes and the company is studying others, said Rosalynn Gill-Garrison, chief scientific officer and a company founder.
Sciona’s approach basically starts with standard healthy-eating recommendations and modifies them when genetic analysis indicates a need for something more, Gill-Garrison said.
After a DNA test, Sciona may recommend steps like eating more broccoli or omega-3 fatty acids, she said, or limiting caffeine to protect against bone loss.
Gill-Garrison said studies show that people with a certain version of a gene called MTHFR tend to have high blood levels of a substance called homocysteine, which has been linked to a higher risk of heart disease and stroke. Studies also show that people with this gene version can reduce their homocysteine levels by taking in more folate, she said. So that’s the advice Sciona customers with that gene version get.
High levels of homocysteine also can be spotted with a standard blood test at a doctor’s office.
Ordovas said the trouble with anybody providing gene-based dietary advice now is that scientists don’t yet have the whole picture of what genes should be considered. With current tests, it’s like trying to size up a landscape by looking through a keyhole, he said. You can’t tell what you’re not seeing.
“At least in that very narrow region of our genome that they are looking, they have potential that they may provide some valuable information, and it could benefit some people,” he said. But advice based on current tests “can also be misleading because you are ignoring pieces that are very important,” he said.
Rodriguez said he doubts anybody will be harmed by the current tests, and that they’re beneficial because they get people to think about diet and lifestyle. But he said they remind him of the first VCRs or CD players to hit the market.
“It is an expensive new technology … and it will probably, in my estimation, become more efficient, more accurate and more affordable with time.”
DeBusk, who said she has no financial ties to any of the companies, figures the time for DNA-based diet advice has come.
“The scientist in me says we shouldn’t do this now, we need to wait another 20 years until many studies have been done,” she said. But her clients want to know what the best science is right now, and “it’s difficult to say, ‘Come back in 20 years.’ You can’t do that.
“Do we know everything we’d like to know? No… Do we know enough to start introducing this type of technology and start the long process of educating people? I would say yes.”
By Bruce Grierson Published: Sunday, May 4, 2003, NY Times
A trip to the diet doc, circa 2013. You prick your finger, draw a little blood and send it, along with a $100 fee, to a consumer genomics lab in California. There, it’s passed through a mass spectrometer, where its proteins are analyzed. It is cross-referenced with your DNA profile. A few days later, you get an e-mail message with your recommended diet for the next four weeks. It doesn’t look too bad: lots of salmon, spinach, selenium supplements, bread with olive oil. Unsure of just how lucky you ought to feel, you call up a few friends to see what their diets look like. There are plenty of quirks. A Greek co-worker is getting clams, crab, liver and tofu — a bounty of B vitamins to raise her coenzyme levels. A friend in Chicago, a second-generation Zambian, has been prescribed popcorn, kale, peaches in their own juice and club soda. (This looks a lot like the hypertension-reducing ”Dash” diet, which doesn’t work for everyone but apparently works for him.) He is allowed some chicken, prepared in a saltless marinade, hold the open flame — and he gets extra vitamin D because there’s not enough sunshine for him at his latitude. (His brother’s diet, interestingly enough, is a fair bit different.) Your boss, who seems to have won some sort of genetic lottery, gets to eat plenty of peanut butter, red meat and boutique cheeses.
Nobody is eating exactly what you are. Your diet is uniquely tailored. It is determined by the specific demands of your genetic signature, and it perfectly balances your micronutrient and macronutrient needs. Sick days have become a foggy memory. (Foggy memory itself is now treated with extracts of ginkgo biloba and a cocktail of omega-3 fatty acids.)
”Ultimately, the feedback you’ll get will be continuous,” says Wasyl Malyj, an ”informatics” scientist at the University of California at Davis working with the new Center of Excellence for Nutritional Genomics, who is helping me blue-sky here. The appeal of this kind of laser-targeted diet intervention is hard to miss. If you turn out to be among the population whose cholesterol count doesn’t react much to diet, you’ll be able to go ahead and eat those bacon sandwiches. You’ll no longer be spending money on vitamin supplements that aren’t doing anything for you; you’ll take only the vitamins you need, in precisely the right doses. And there’s a real chance of extending your life — by postponing the onset of diseases to which you’re naturally susceptible — without having to buy even a single book by Deepak Chopra.
This, then, is the promise — and the hype — of nutritional genomics, the second wave of personalized medicine to come rolling out of the Human Genome Project (after pharmacogenomics, or designer drugs). The premise is simple: diet is a big factor in chronic disease, responsible, some say, for a third of most types of cancer. Dietary chemicals change the expression of one’s genes and even the genome itself. And — here’s the key — the influence of diet on health depends on an individual’s genetic makeup.
How does that work? Consider what happens, biologically, when we eat a meal. Until quite recently, most scientists thought food had basically one job: it was metabolized to provide energy for the cell. Indeed, that is what happens to most dietary chemicals — but not all of them. Some of them don’t get metabolized at all; instead, the moment they’re ingested, they peel off and become ligands, molecules that bind to proteins involved in ”turning on” certain genes to one degree or another. A diet that’s particularly out of balance, nutritional-genomics scientists say, will cause gene expressions that nudge us toward chronic illness — unless a precisely tailored ”intelligent diet” is employed to restore the equilibrium.
Take genestein, a chemical in soy, which attaches to estrogen receptors and starts regulating genes. Different individuals may have estrogen receptors that react to genestein differently. Genetic variations like that one, some scientists say, help explain why two people can eat exactly the same diet and respond very differently to it — one maintaining his weight, for example, and the other ballooning.
There is a buzz around nutritional genomics at the moment, which is partly a matter of timing. A sea change is under way in the approach scientists are taking to disease — they’re looking less to nature or nurture alone for answers, and more to the interactive symphony of ”systems biology” that nutrigenomics epitomizes.
At the same time, chatter around this new science has been amplified by a controversy. The idea of the biological relevance of race — even its very existence — is hotly debated. And the assumption of real genetic markers that distinguish one ethnic group from another is at the philosophical heart of nutrigenomics.
Here’s the most familiar example: If you’re of Northern European ancestry, you can probably digest milk, and if you’re Southeast Asian, you probably can’t. In most mammals, the gene for lactose tolerance switches off once an animal matures beyond the weaning years. Humans shared that fate as well — until a mutation in the DNA of an isolated population of Northern Europeans around 10,000 years ago introduced an adaptive tolerance for nutrient-rich milk. The likelihood that you tolerate milk depends on the degree to which you have Northern European blood.
”That, essentially, is the model — a very dramatic one,” says Jim Kaput, the founder of NutraGenomics, a biotechnology company. ”As humans evolved, and as our bodies interacted with foods on each of the continents, we sort of self-selected for these naturally occurring variants. And certain populations have variants that, when presented with Western-type food — which is usually fatty and overprocessed and high in calories — pushes them toward disease rather than health.”
Plenty of examples bear out this ill fit between certain cultures and certain diets — suggesting, if not quite proving, some interplay of genes and nutrition: the Japanese who relocated to the United States after World War II soon saw their cholesterol levels soar. The Alaskan Inuit, whose metabolism was perfectly suited to moving around all day, looking for high-fat food, were suddenly saddled with an evolutionary disadvantage when they began living in heated homes and traveling on snowmobiles, and they now show high levels of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The Masai of East Africa have developed new health problems since they abandoned their traditional cattle-meat-and-blood-and-milk diet for corn and beans.
The cradle of nutrigenomics is the cradle of humankind itself: the original migration out of Africa created widely separated subpopulations with distinct collections of gene variants. The members of each subpopulation tend to respond similarly to diet and environmental conditions. But the genetics of race is an inexact science. And since many people have ancestors from different continents — making them a genetic admixture — the data are rarely clean-cut. In other words, ethnicity is relevant to nutritional genomics, but only as a starting point. Which is why the idea of sorting ourselves by race and pursuing a diet consistent with the original continental diet isn’t going to be very helpful. And why, in fact, the customized diets of most people’s perfect genomic future will probably not be all that different from one another.
Kaput estimates that the middle 60 percent of the bell curve are probably not going to need to deviate too much from the basic fruit-and-vegetable-heavy diet recommended by the Department of Agriculture. The folks who will benefit from customized nutritional packets, he says, will be the 20 percent at either end: those at the top who don’t have to worry much about what they eat — and will thus be able to cut corners — and the 20 percent on the bottom, who respond disastrously to conventional diets and will discover that they need to follow special diets or eat specific supplements. The problem for everyone will be figuring out where they fall on the curve of each disease profile.
Just how far in the future are we projecting here? When will nutrigenomics be ready for public consumption? Even many of those who have faith in the science concede that the staggering complexity of interactions among genes, and between genes and the environment, will be a real challenge to solve. As a workable concept, ”eat right for your genotype” may be a decade or two — or more — down the road.
”Right now, no one in their right mind would offer genetic testing or tell you what drug to take,” says Dr. Muin Khoury, director of the Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control. Despite that warning, a handful of companies are already offering genomics profiles and nutritional supplements to early adopters looking for an edge. One company, the North Carolina-based Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratory, offers a genetics-testing service called Genovations. Clients pay up to $1,500 for a preventive health profile.
For nutrigenomics to realize its potential, though, vast, ethnically diverse databases of genomic profiles will have to be assembled, from which researchers will try to divine patterns.
But that, of course, opens up a whole new can of genetically modified worms. Once our genotypes are in databanks, can we really be sure they won’t be sold to employers or insurance companies? And in what social gulag will those poor saps find themselves who simply cannot resist tucking into a double-cheese all-beef sub during the seventh-inning stretch?
Bruce Grierson is a writer in Vancouver. His last article for the magazine was a profile of J. J. Goldstein, a teenage spelling champion.
Posted on October 1st, 2002dna4wellnessNo comments
By ANDREW POLLACK Published: Tuesday, October 1, 2002, NY Times
Some people can eat slabs of steak and butter without gaining weight or raising their cholesterol levels. Others assiduously shun fats and still have a high risk of heart disease. The different response to diet is determined in part by one’s genes.
Now scientists are beginning to apply genetics to diet, a new field known as nutritional genomics, or nutrigenomics. In the near term, the study is expected to reveal how particular diet ingredients affect health. The ultimate goal will be to tailor one’s diet to genetic makeup.
Mass market products like corn flakes may one day come in different varieties, geared to different subsets of people based on their genes. And dietary guidelines issued by the government or medical societies will have to make more distinctions based on genetic profiles.
”We’re moving into an era where the one-size-fits-all public health strategy for disease prevention will not apply as it currently does,” said Dr. Muin J. Khoury, director of the Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Pharmaceutical companies are working on a related field known as pharmacogenomics, with the goal of developing so-called personalized medicine. It is known that people with certain genetic variations will not receive benefit from certain painkillers or will suffer serious side effects from a dose of a cancer drug that helps others.
Nutrigenomics would expand the idea of personalized care into the consumer world. ”This will take the benefit of the Human Genome Project and extend it from the hospital to the home,” said Dr. Raymond L. Rodriguez, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California at Davis.
Already there are some examples. People with phenylketonuria, a rare inherited disease that leads to mental retardation, can avert problems with a special diet low in proteins. People with a particular gene variant cannot digest milk.
The advent of consumer genetics is also raising concerns. Already some small companies are offering vitamins or dietary advice customized to people based on genetic tests. Customers swab the inside of their cheeks with cotton to obtain their DNA.
But many experts say not enough is known yet to support the claims of these companies. ”I’m really skeptical that this is going to lead to health benefits at the stage of knowledge we’re in,” said Dr. Ronald M. Krauss, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who was the chairman of the dietary guidelines committee of the American Heart Association.
The companies defend their tests. ”This is not voodoo; this is science,” said John R. DePhillipo, chief executive of GeneLink, of Margate, N.J., which is developing customized vitamins and skin products based on gene tests. NuGenix, a company owned by Mr. DePhillipo’s children, recently began selling customized vitamins at $300 for the test and a one-month supply.
GeneLink does not make public which genes it tests for, but one of them is manganese superoxide dismutase, which is involved in reducing so-called oxidative stress. A variant of the gene that is not as efficient as other forms has been shown to raise the risk of breast cancer, Parkinson’s disease and other diseases, said Dr. Robert P. Ricciardi, a professor of microbiology at the University of Pennsylvania and a founder of GeneLink.
People with this variant would be given vitamins with an extra dose of antioxidants. ”It’s giving some sort of rational approach to nutrients and formulations,” said Dr. Ricciardi. ”A lot of people are just mega-dosing on stuff.”
Sciona, a British company, is selling customized dietary advice for about $200. The company tests for 19 variations in nine genes. Six genes are involved in removing toxins from the bodies. Consumers who have variations that the company says slow this process are advised, for instance, to avoid well-done red meats, which have higher levels of certain toxins.
Another test is for the gene that produces Mthfr, an enzyme involved in using folic acid, an important vitamin. People with a less efficient version of this gene are told to eat more liver, broccoli and other foods rich in the vitamin.
Outside experts acknowledge that scientific papers link certain diseases to genetic variations and diet. But they say dozens or hundreds of genes may be involved. In some cases, data on genetic variations can be conflicting. In addition, they say, the companies have not proved that the diet or vitamins they recommend will really make a difference. For instance, Dr. Khoury of the C.D.C. said, it is not clear that people with the Mthfr variant need more folic acid than they are already getting.
”There is so much uncertainty about the meaning of these genetic tests,” he said. ”Right now we are telling people to exercise, eat well, eat a diet high in fiber, low in fat. From what I see, so far there is no added clinical benefit from the genetic tests.”
Dr. Helen Wallace, deputy director of GeneWatch U.K., a group that led opposition to Sciona’s test, said the advice was too generalized to be worth paying for. ”Most of us could probably do with eating more broccoli,” she said.
Dr. Chris Martin, Sciona’s chief executive, said that although some of the advice was common sense, people took it ”much more seriously” because it was personalized. He said the company had sold more than 600 tests so far.
Genetic tests that are offered as services, in contrast to those offered as testing kits, are not stringently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Companies do not have to prove claims, for example, that a particular genetic variation is linked to a higher risk of disease or the inability to use a vitamin. And dietary supplements and cosmetics are also lightly regulated.
Another concern is that some genes that may be tested for dietary purposes are risk factors for serious diseases. Should consumers be told, and do they risk being denied insurance or jobs if that information leaks out? Do they need medical advice? Sciona initially sold its advice through retail stores, but after controversy arose, it is now selling only through doctors and dietitians.
People with a version of a gene called APOE, for instance, tend to have their cholesterol go up or down more rapidly in response to dietary changes, Dr. Krauss said. But this same gene variant, known as APOE4, also means a higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease. ”We don’t even like to measure APOE anymore because it would get people worried about Alzheimer’s,” he said. In some cases, he and others said, it is not necessary to test genes. Other tests, like those for cholesterol, can help guide diet decisions.
Still, despite skepticism about some early applications, interest is growing. Several companies, some still operating in their founders’ living rooms, have sprung up: Galileo Laboratories in Santa Clara, Calif.; Alphagenics of Gaithersburg, Md.; NutraGenomics of Chicago; and NuDisCo of St. Louis.
But much of the early focus is not on customizing foods but on using genomics to unravel the mechanisms by which certain food ingredients affect the body. ”We’d like to know the molecular mechanism of nutrients,” said Dr. Young S. Kim, a program director at the National Cancer Institute, which recently held a workshop on nutritional genomics and cancer prevention.
Scientists at Johns Hopkins have found which genes are turned on by sulforaphane, a compound in broccoli that helps prevent cancer. Dr. Len Augenlicht, professor of medicine and cell biology at the Albert Einstein Cancer Center in the Bronx, found that different genes were turned on and off in mice when they ate the rodent equivalent of an unhealthy Western diet than when they ate a healthy diet.
Dr. Jose M. Ordovas, director of nutrition and genomics at the Agriculture Department’s Human Nutrition Research Center at Tufts, said dietary guidelines would soon have to be customized. ”There are some people at very high risk of cardiovascular disease who, if they follow the current recommendations, they make it even worse,” he said.
Moderate alcohol consumption, he said, is considered to reduce risk of heart disease. But for people with the Alzheimers-linked APOE4 gene, alcohol consumption raises the level of bad cholesterol. People with a certain variant of a gene called APOA1 should eat more polyunsaturated fats than called for in the guidelines.
Nutrigenomics could raise questions about policies to fortify foods. If it is found that only a subset of the population benefits from fortified foods, ”do you give a whole population a higher exposure than normal to a nutrient, without knowing what the risk is?” asked Dr. Patrick J. Stover, the director of the Cornell Institute for Nutritional Genomics.
By Carolyn Johnson
Social Links