Prevention of Potential Adverse Metabolic Effects of a Supplementation with Omega-3 Fatty Acids Using a Genetic Score Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The consumption of long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFA) has been reported to have beneficial health effects, notably, by reducing plasma triglyceride levels. Nonetheless, a concomitant decrease in insulin sensitivity has also been observed, but is highly variable among subjects. Herein, we aimed to determine the importance of the genetic background in the interindividual variability of the insulin sensitivity response following an n-3 PUFA supplementation. METHODS: A total of 210 participants completed a 6-week n-3 PUFA supplementation with 5 g/day of fish oil (providing 1.9-2.2 g of eicosapentaenoic acid + 1.1 g of docosahexaenoic acid). Insulin resistance was estimated by the homeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR), and participants were further classified as high-risk or low-risk depending on their HOMA-IR change following the n-3 PUFA supplementation, as compared to pre-supplementation values. Genome-wide genotyping data were obtained for 138 participants using HumanOmni-5-Quad BeadChips containing 4,301,331 single nucleotide polymorphisms. A genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) was carried out between high-risk and low-risk participants. The population study was split into training (60%) and testing (40%) datasets to assess the predictive accuracy of a genetic risk score (GRS) constructed by summing the number of risk alleles. RESULTS: Following the n-3 PUFA supplementation, 32 participants had increased HOMA-IR as compared to initial values and were classified as high risk (23.2%), whereas remaining subjects were classified as low risk (n = 106, 76.8%). A total of 8 loci had frequency differences between high-risk and low-risk participants at a suggestive GWAS association threshold (p value <1 × 10-5). After applying 10-fold cross validation, the GRS showed a significant association with the risk of increased HOMA-IR in the testing dataset (OR = 3.16 [95% CI, 1.85-7.14]), with a predictive accuracy of 0.85, and explained 40% of variation in HOMA-IR change. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the genetic background has a relevant role in the interindividual variability observed in the insulin sensitivity response following an n-3 PUFA supplementation. Subjects being at risk of insulin sensitivity lowering following an n-3 PUFA supplementation may be identified using genetic-based precision nutrition approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".