4.7 Article

Measuring Dietary Botanical Diversity as a Proxy for Phytochemical Exposure

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13041295

关键词

botanical diversity; chronic disease risk; gut microbiome; metagenomics; metabolomics; dietary pattern

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, NIH [5R00CA218694-03]
  2. Huntsman Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant [P30CA040214]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study of pharmacognosy provides a taxonomy for botanical families with potential functions in human health. Dietary phytochemicals can affect gut microbial composition and function, which in turn influences host health through multiple mechanisms. The development of a botanical diversity index (BDI) allows for evaluating plant food consumption as a metric for quantifying exposure to phytochemicals and investigating their impact on gut microbial ecology and functionality.
The study of natural plant molecules and their medicinal properties, pharmacognosy, provides a taxonomy for botanical families that represent diverse chemical groupings with potentially distinct functions in relation to human health. Yet, this reservoir of knowledge has not been systematically applied to elucidating the role of patterns of plant food consumption on gut microbial ecology and function. All chemical classes of dietary phytochemicals can affect the composition of the microbes that colonize the gut and their function. In turn, the gut microbiome affects the host via multiple mechanisms including gut barrier function, immune function, satiety and taste regulation and the activity of biological signaling pathways that influence health and disease. Herein, we report the development of a botanical diversity index (BDI) to evaluate plant food consumption as a novel metric for identifying and quantifying phytochemicals to which an individual is exposed. A rationale is advanced for using the BDI to investigate how plant food diversity impacts gut microbial ecology and functionality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据