Common Genetic Variations Involved in the Inter-Individual Variability of Circulating Cholesterol Concentrations in Response to Diets: A Narrative Review of Recent Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of nutrigenetic studies dedicated to the identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) modulating blood lipid profiles in response to dietary interventions has increased considerably over the last decade. However, the robustness of the evidence-based science supporting the area remains to be evaluated. The objective of this review was to present recent findings concerning the effects of interactions between SNPs in genes involved in cholesterol metabolism and transport, and dietary intakes or interventions on circulating cholesterol concentrations, which are causally involved in cardiovascular diseases and established biomarkers of cardiovascular health. We identified recent studies (2014–2020) that reported significant SNP–diet interactions in 14 cholesterol-related genes (NPC1L1, ABCA1, ABCG5, ABCG8, APOA1, APOA2, APOA5, APOB, APOE, CETP, CYP7A1, DHCR7, LPL, and LIPC), and which replicated associations observed in previous studies. Some studies have also shown that combinations of SNPs could explain a higher proportion of variability in response to dietary interventions. Although some findings still need replication, including in larger and more diverse study populations, there is good evidence that some SNPs are consistently associated with differing circulating cholesterol concentrations in response to dietary interventions. These results could help clinicians provide patients with more personalized dietary recommendations, in order to lower their risk for cardiovascular disease.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".