Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T04:15:56.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of interaction between PPARG, PPARA and ADIPOQ gene variants and dietary fatty acids on plasma lipid profile and adiponectin concentration in a large intervention study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2011

Aseel AlSaleh*
Affiliation:
Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NH, UK
Thomas A. B. Sanders
Affiliation:
Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NH, UK
Sandra D. O'Dell
Affiliation:
Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, School of Medicine, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NH, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Ms Aseel AlSaleh, fax +44 20 7848 4171, email aseel.alsaleh@kcl.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unsaturated fatty acids are ligands of PPAR-γ, which up-regulates genes involved in fatty acid transport and TAG synthesis and the insulin-sensitising adipokine adiponectin, which activates fatty acid β-oxidation via PPAR-α action in liver. We investigated the effect of dietary fatty acid interaction with PPARG, PPARA and ADIPOQ gene variants on plasma lipid and adiponectin concentrations in the Reading Imperial Surrey Cambridge King's study, a five-centre, parallel design, randomised controlled trial of 466 subjects at increased cardiometabolic risk. After a 4-week run-in to baseline, SFA was replaced by MUFA or carbohydrate (low fat) in isoenergetic diets for 24 weeks. Habitual dietary PUFA:SFA ratio×PPARG Pro12Ala genotype interaction influenced plasma total cholesterol (P=0·02), LDL-cholesterol (P=0·002) and TAG (P=0·02) concentrations in White subjects. PPARA Val162Leu×PPARG Pro12Ala genotype interaction influenced total cholesterol (P=0·04) and TAG (P=0·03) concentrations at baseline. After high-MUFA and low-fat diets, total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol were reduced (P<0·001) and gene×gene interaction determined LDL-cholesterol (P=0·003) and small dense LDL as a proportion of LDL (P=0·012). At baseline, ADIPOQ −10066 G/A A-allele was associated with lower serum adiponectin (n 360; P=0·03) in White subjects. After the high-MUFA diet, serum adiponectin increased in GG subjects and decreased in A-allele carriers (P=0·006 for difference). In GG, adiponectin increased with age after the high MUFA and decreased after the low-fat diet (P=0·003 for difference at 60 years). In conclusion, in Whites, high dietary PUFA:SFA would help to reduce plasma cholesterol and TAG in PPARG Ala12 carriers. In ADIPOQ −10066 GG homozygotes, a high-MUFA diet may help to increase adiponectin with advancing age.

Type
70th Anniversary Conference on ‘From plough through practice to policy’
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Abbreviations:
HM

high MUFA

HDL-C

HDL-cholesterol

HS

high saturated fat

LDL-C

LDL-cholesterol

LF

low fat

LPL

lipoprotein lipase

P:S

PUFA:SFA ratio

PPRE

peroxisome proliferator response element

RISCK

Reading Imperial Surrey Cambridge King's

sdLDL

small dense LDL

SREBP

sterol regulatory element-binding protein

TC

total cholesterol

TZD

thiazolidinedione

The metabolic syndrome is defined by dyslipidaemia, glucose intolerance, hypertension and visceral obesity and is associated with an increase in the risk of type 2 diabetes and CVD( Reference Alberti, Zimmet and Shaw 1 ). Both environmental and genetic predisposition contribute to development. Among environmental factors, dietary habits (intake of fat, carbohydrate, alcohol and micronutrients) are of crucial importance. Low-fat (LF) diets reduce body weight( Reference Astrup, Grunwald and Melanson 2 ) and LF and high complex carbohydrate diets produce a significant reduction in total cholesterol (TC), LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) and TAG( Reference Feldeisen and Tucker 3 , Reference Yu-Poth, Zhao and Etherton 4 ). Recently, the type of fat consumed, SFA, MUFA or PUFA, has received more attention. Atherogenic dyslipidaemia is characterised by increased TAG-rich lipoproteins, small LDL-C particles and reduced HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C)( Reference Grundy, Abate and Chandalia 5 ). Diets rich in SFA have an adverse effect( Reference Riccardi, Giacco and Rivellese 6 , Reference Vessby, Gustafsson and Tengblad 7 ), whereas consumption of a MUFA-rich diet at the expense of SFA promotes healthy blood lipid profiles, improves insulin sensitivity and regulates glucose levels( Reference Gillingham, Harris-Janz and Jones 8 ). Substitution of carbohydrate by MUFA generally decreases TAG. Effects of high MUFA (HM) intake on LDL-C are less well defined, with reports of a reduction( Reference Berglund, Lefevre and Ginsberg 9 , Reference Kris-Etherton, Pearson and Wan 10 ) or no effect( Reference Feldeisen and Tucker 3 ).

The lack of consistent outcomes in dietary intervention studies could reflect variation in genetic background. Understanding the nature of multiple gene–gene interaction and gene–environment interactions is pivotal in understanding the causes and progression of the metabolic syndrome and its management( Reference Roche, Phillips and Gibney 11 ). In population-based studies, the habitual dietary intake of fat is an important consideration in determining an association of any SNP with risk of metabolic syndrome.

PPAR-γ

PPAR-γ is a member of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily( Reference Lehrke and Lazar 12 ), a transcription factor with extensive influence over expression of genes related to inflammation, adipose cell differentiation, atherosclerosis and metabolism( Reference Costa, Gallo and Letizia 13 ). The major natural ligands of PPAR-γ are PUFA, as well as prostanoids( Reference Xu, Lambert and Montana 14 ), which suggests a role in transducing nutritional to metabolic signals( Reference Semple, Chatterjee and O'Rahilly 15 ). Synthetic ligands include the thiazolidinediones (TZD)( Reference Lehrke and Lazar 12 ). On ligand-dependent activation, PPAR-γ heterodimerises with retinoid-X receptor-α and binds to a peroxisome proliferator response element (PPRE) in the promoter region of the target genes (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. (Colour online) PPAR mechanism of action. The major natural ligands of PPAR-γ and PPAR-α are PUFA, as well as prostanoids. Upon ligand-dependent activation, both PPAR heterodimerise with retinoid-X receptor-α (RXR-α) and bind to a peroxisome proliferator response element (PPRE) in the promoter region of the target genes to initiate transcription.

Role in lipid homoeostasis

Expression of the LDL receptor gene is activated by sterol regulatory element-binding protein (SREBP)-2( Reference Hua, Yokoyama and Wu 16 ). Activated PPAR-γ up-regulates the insulin-induced gene INSIG1, the key regulator of SREBP activity( Reference Kast-Woelbern, Dana and Cesario 17 ). Reported effects of PPAR-γ agonist TZD are mainly increased HDL-C, increased size/decreased density of LDL-C particles and increased lipoprotein (a)( Reference Goldberg 18 ). PPAR-γ activation by troglitazone has been shown to reduce nuclear SREBP-2 and down-regulate LDL clearance from plasma by the liver LDL receptor( Reference Klopotek, Hirche and Eder 19 ) and troglitazone and rosiglitazone have been shown to increase plasma LDL-C concentrations( Reference Ovalle and Bell 20 ).

It is well known that n-3 fatty acids, ligands of PPAR-γ, decrease the plasma concentration of TAG( Reference Harris, Lu and Rambjor 21 ). PPAR-γ may mediate this effect through enhancement of synthesis, clearance or hydrolysis. Troglitazone has been shown to decrease SREBP-1 target genes fatty acid synthase (FASN) and glycerol-3-phosphate acyltransferase (GPAM) resulting in reduction of TAG synthesised from de novo-derived fatty acids, intracellular and secreted TAG concentrations( Reference Shah, Rader and Millar 22 ). Other PPAR-γ targets are fatty acid transport protein and CD36( Reference Tontonoz, Nagy and Alvarez 23 ), which facilitate the transport of fatty acids across cell membranes, and acyl-CoA synthetase, which facilities esterification to prevent their efflux( Reference Martin, Schoonjans and Lefebvre 24 ), so PPAR-γ also enhances clearance of TAG from plasma by this route. Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) is a rate-limiting determinant of plasma TAG hydrolysis and as the LPL gene is a target of PPAR-γ( Reference Schoonjans, Peinado-Onsurbe and Lefebvre 25 ) TAG could also be reduced by this mechanism. In summary, PPAR-γ activation by unsaturated fatty acids is expected to decrease TAG and possibly increase plasma LDL-C concentration.

PPARG gene Pro12Ala polymorphism

Four subtypes of PPAR-γ mRNA transcribed from different promoters give rise to two different PPAR-γ proteins( Reference Zieleniak, Wojcik and Wozniak 26 ). The PPAR-γ2 protein is exclusively expressed in adipose tissue( Reference Lehrke and Lazar 12 ). Since PPAR-γ regulates several genes in different tissues, variation in the PPARG gene is likely to be associated with an alteration of the expression levels of targets( Reference Costa, Gallo and Letizia 13 ). The most widely studied SNP is Pro12Ala in the PPAR-γ2 isoform, located in codon 12 of exon 3( Reference Tellechea, Aranguren and Perez 27 ). The frequency of the minor allele is 0·076 in Europeans( 28 ), lower in non-Caucasians( Reference Gouda, Sagoo and Harding 29 ).

Numerous studies have investigated association of Pro12Ala with the risk of obesity and diabetes. Results generally indicate a favourable effect of Ala12 carriage, but there are contrary findings. A meta-analysis of over 30 000 subjects, reported a significant association between Ala12 and the lowest risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in overweight Caucasians( Reference Huguenin and Rosa 30 ). Ala12 associates with reduced risk of obesity in some studies( Reference Deeb, Fajas and Nemoto 31 ), but not others( Reference Altshuler, Hirschhorn and Klannemark 32 ). Contrary findings indicate association with increased risk of weight gain in obese patients( Reference Masud and Ye 33 ), and higher BMI, waist circumference and fat mass( Reference Robitaille, Despres and Perusse 34 , Reference Tonjes, Scholz and Loeffler 35 ). In a recent meta-analysis, Ala12 carriers had significantly increased TC and HDL-C and lower plasma TAG compared with Pro homozygotes( Reference Huang, Zhao and Zhao 36 ). Other studies have reported no association between Pro12Ala and TAG concentrations( Reference Mori, Ikegami and Kawaguchi 37 ) or plasma lipids( Reference Ringel, Engeli and Distler 38 , Reference Meshkani, Taghikhani and Larijani 39 ).

Pro12Ala and diet

An increase in PPAR-γ mRNA in adipose tissue of mice exposed to a high-fat diet( Reference Vidal-Puig, Jimenez-Linan and Lowell 40 ) suggested that dietary modulation might influence adipogenesis induced by PPAR-γ in response to raised plasma concentration of fatty acid ligands. PUFA affinities for PPAR-γ depend largely on their chain length and degree of saturation( Reference Xu, Lambert and Montana 14 ). Thus, the metabolic impact of this polymorphism is potentially dependent on gene interaction with different types of dietary fat. A direct effect was reported in functional studies, in which the PPAR-γ Ala variant had decreased binding affinity for the PPRE and thus reduced transactivation ability, both in TZD-induced adipogenesis and a luciferase reporter gene assay( Reference Deeb, Fajas and Nemoto 31 , Reference Masugi, Tamori and Mori 41 ).

The outcomes of previous studies on dietary interaction with Pro12Ala have been variable. Total fat intake was positively associated with increased BMI and waist circumference( Reference Robitaille, Despres and Perusse 34 ) and inversely correlated with plasma TC( Reference Memisoglu, Hu and Hankinson 42 ) in Pro12 homozygotes but not in Ala12 allele carriers. Memisoglu et al. ( Reference Memisoglu, Hu and Hankinson 42 ) found that intake of MUFA was inversely associated with BMI in Ala12 carriers, but not in Pro12 homozygotes. Thus, the responsiveness of Ala12 carriers to dietary fat only emerged when MUFA rather than total fat intake was analysed. Luan et al. ( Reference Luan, Browne and Harding 43 ) had previously shown greater sensitivity of Ala12 carriers to dietary PUFA in determination of BMI. Interaction between the PUFA:SFA (P:S) ratio and genotype in determining BMI was highly significant. As P:S increased, BMI decreased in Ala12 carriers but not in Pro12 homozygotes. Both findings( Reference Memisoglu, Hu and Hankinson 42 , Reference Luan, Browne and Harding 43 ) are compatible with unsaturated fatty acids acting as specific ligands for PPAR-γ( Reference Xu, Lambert and Montana 14 ) and lower transcriptional activity of the Ala variant reducing PPAR-γ-mediated adipogenesis( Reference Deeb, Fajas and Nemoto 31 ). The Ala12 variant appears to be a diet-dependent metabolic sensor, whose protective effect appears to depend on the amount and type of dietary fat.

Pro12Ala interaction with habitual dietary PUFA:SFA ratio in the Reading Imperial Surrey Cambridge King's study

The Reading Imperial Surrey Cambridge King's (RISCK) study is a parallel 2×2 factorial design compared with a control intervention, to investigate effects of dietary fat intake on variables characterising the metabolic syndrome( Reference Jebb, Lovegrove and Griffin 44 ). After a 4-week run-in on a high-SFA Western-type ‘reference diet’ (HS (high saturated fat)), subjects were randomised to continuation on the HS diet, a ‘HM’ diet in which SFA was reduced and replaced with MUFA and ‘LF diet’, in which SFA was reduced through replacement of total fat with carbohydrate. All participants followed prescribed diets for 24 weeks. A total of 549 subjects completed the RISCK study. Based on self-reported ethnicity, individuals of White, S. Asian, Black African and ‘other’ ancestry were distinguished. In view of the small sample size of the S. Asian and other ancestries and absence of the Pro12Ala SNP in Blacks, we chose to focus our genetic investigation on the White subjects only. Initially we were interested in the effect of P:S interaction with Pro12Ala genotype on plasma lipid concentrations. For this we utilised habitual intake at recruitment, as PUFA intake was constant in the interventions.

There was a significant interaction between dietary P:S ratio and genotype as a determinant of plasma concentrations of TC (P=0·02), LDL-C (P=0·002) and TAG (P=0·02) after adjustment for BMI, age and gender. When the P:S ratio was low (⩽0·33), mean plasma TC concentration in Ala12 carriers was significantly higher than in non-carriers (P=0·003). As P:S increased, the concentration of TC fell by 10%. The trend in reduction as the ratio increased from ⩽0·33 to >0·65 was significant (P=0·02). An even more significant difference was seen in LDL-C concentration between carriers and non-carriers in the lowest P:S quartile (P=0·0001). As P:S increased, the concentration fell by 19·5% in Ala12 carriers, but here the trend was NS (P>0·05). There were no significant differences in plasma TAG concentrations between Ala12 carriers and non-carriers in any P:S quartile. However, there was a significant trend in the reduction of plasma TAG in Ala12 carriers as the P:S ratio increased from 0·34 to >0·65, in which concentration fell by 50·0% (P=0·002). Plasma TAG concentrations stratified by genotype and P:S quartile are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Mean TAG concentration with respect to quartiles of habitual dietary PUFA:SFA (P:S) ratio and PPARG Pro12Ala genotype in White subjects. The numbers of genotyped subjects with measurements in each quartile of P:S ratio ⩽0·33, 0·34–0·47, 0·48–0·65 and >0·65, were as follows: PP: 64, 76, 59, 49; PA+AA:16, 8, 19 and 17. The geometric mean concentrations of TAG are shown. Bars represent 95% CI. Dietary P:S ratio×genotype interaction determined by univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) significantly influenced plasma TAG (P=0·02), after adjustment for BMI, gender and age. There was a significant trend in reduction of plasma TAG concentration between P:S ratio 0·34 to >0·65 (P=0·002) in Ala12 allele carriers.

As mentioned earlier, PPAR-γ activation by troglitazone has been shown to raise circulating LDL-C( Reference Klopotek, Hirche and Eder 19 ) and increased plasma concentration has been observed following TZD treatment( Reference Ovalle and Bell 20 ). As the PPAR-γ-Ala12 form has lower transactivational ability than the wild-type( Reference Deeb, Fajas and Nemoto 31 ), Ala12 allele carriers would be expected to show a fall in LDL-C concentration, as we observed in the higher P:S quartiles. However, at P:S <0·33, the concentration of PUFA ligand may not have been sufficient to activate LDL clearance in carriers of the low-activity isoform.

Plasma TAG concentration in Ala12 carriers fell consistently in the higher P:S quartiles. As mentioned earlier, PPAR-γ activity is expected to reduce plasma TAG( Reference Harris, Lu and Rambjor 21 ). Lindi et al. ( Reference Lindi, Schwab and Louheranta 45 ) found a significantly greater decrease in serum TAG concentration in Ala12 carriers than in Pro12 homozygotes in response to n-3 fatty acid supplementation, when the intake of SFA was below 10%, i.e. at high P:S intake. This is consistent with our finding of a fall in plasma TAG concentration in Ala12 carriers as P:S intake increased, but is inconsistent with reduced lipase activity associated with a less-active PPAR-γ-Ala isoform.

In order to determine whether gene interaction was related to decreased SFA, rather than increased PUFA, we utilised data from dietary interventions. As these did not differ in PUFA content, we were only able to investigate change in SFA. The HS and LF diets allowed comparison of high and low SFA, with constant MUFA and PUFA intake. As carriage of Ala12 was not significantly associated with change in either plasma LDL-C or TAG concentrations, the interaction does not appear to depend on a decrease in SFA.

PPAR-α

PPAR-α is a nuclear receptor mostly expressed in tissues with high levels of fatty acid oxidation, such as liver and muscle( Reference Auboeuf, Rieusset and Fajas 46 ) and regulates target genes involved in the transportation and oxidation of fatty acids( Reference Aoyama, Peters and Iritani 47 ). PPAR-α ligands can be both exogenous lipid-lowering drugs such as fibrate and fenofibrate and endogenous SFA and unsaturated fatty acid( Reference Yoon 48 , Reference Corton, Anderson and Stauber 49 ).

Like PPAR-γ, ligand-activated PPAR-α heterodimerises with retinoid-X receptor-α before binding to target gene promoters( Reference Zieleniak, Wojcik and Wozniak 26 ), which usually contain one or more PPRE( Reference Chu, Lin and Rao 50 ). In addition, PPAR-α transactivation is modulated by co-factors or co-repressors( Reference Yoon 48 ), which in the absence of a ligand inhibit its activity( Reference Pyper, Viswakarma and Yu 51 ). AMP-activated protein kinase activation increases expression of PPAR-α target genes in muscle( Reference Lee, Kim and Park 52 ). PPAR-α also appears to alter its own expression( Reference Pyper, Viswakarma and Yu 51 , Reference Pineda, Jamshidi and Flavell 53 ) and transcriptional activity is also regulated by phosphorylation, which stabilises its binding to the PPRE( Reference Yoon 48 ).

Role in lipid homoeostasis

In the liver, fibrate agonists of PPAR-α enhance fatty acid transport protein and acyl-CoA synthetase, which generate fatty acyl-CoA, carnitine palmitoyl transferase-1, essential for facilitating the entry of fatty acyl carnitine into mitochondria, and genes involved in mitochondrial β-oxidation( Reference Staels, Vu-Dac and Kosykh 54 ). Other genes involved in peroxisomal( Reference Coleman, Lewin and Van Horn 55 , Reference Jia, Qi and Zhang 56 ) and microsomal β-oxidation( Reference Reddy 57 ) are tightly regulated by PPAR-α. INSIG1, the key regulator of SREBP activity, is up-regulated by activation of PPAR-α in liver by clofibrate( Reference König, Koch and Spielmann 58 ), leading to reduction in expression of the SREBP-2 target LDL receptor gene LDLR ( Reference Hua, Yokoyama and Wu 16 ) and an increase in plasma LDL-C concentration. The hypotriglyceridaemic action of fibrates involves effects on LPL and apoC-III expression( Reference Lemieux, Salomon and Despres 59 , Reference Staels, Dallongeville and Auwerx 60 ) and on enzymes involved in TAG synthesis. PPAR-α induces LPL gene transcription( Reference Staels, Dallongeville and Auwerx 60 ) and represses expression of apoC-III, a natural inhibitor of LPL activity( Reference Lemieux, Salomon and Despres 59 ), which further enhances LPL-mediated catabolism of very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) production( Reference Staels, Dallongeville and Auwerx 60 ). Treatment with PPAR-α agonist WY14 643 reduces FASN and GPAM, resulting in reduced synthesis of TAG( Reference Shah, Rader and Millar 22 ).

PPARA gene Leu162Val polymorphism

The human PPAR-α gene PPARA gene contains fifteen coding SNP. The active isoform PPARA1 encodes the entire region, whereas PPARA2 is truncated( Reference Golembesky, Gammon and North 61 ). The most widely studied SNP Leu162Val is located in codon 162 of exon 5( Reference Tai, Demissie and Cupples 62 ). The frequency of the minor allele (Val162) is 0·042 in Europeans( 28 ). Many studies have examined association of PPARA Leu162Val with plasma lipid profiles, with conflicting results. Associations of Val162 with higher( Reference Robitaille, Brouillette and Houde 63 Reference Shin, Kanaya and Krauss 66 ) and lower( Reference Nielsen, Hansen and Echwald 67 ) concentrations of plasma TAG have been found. Val162 has been associated with higher levels of LDL-C( Reference Tai, Demissie and Cupples 62 , Reference Sparsø, Hussain and Andersen 64 ) and with higher( Reference Flavell, Pineda Torra and Jamshidi 68 ) and lower( Reference Uthurralt, Gordish-Dressman and Bradbury 65 , Reference Tai, Collins and Robins 69 ) concentrations of HDL-C. Higher concentrations of apoA-1( Reference Flavell, Pineda Torra and Jamshidi 68 ), apoC-III( Reference Tai, Demissie and Cupples 62 , Reference Shin, Kanaya and Krauss 66 ) and apoB( Reference Vohl, Lepage and Gaudet 70 ) have been found in Val162 carriers. However, several studies have found no associations with lipid profile, BMI, body fat composition or insulin sensitivity( Reference Silbernagel, Stefan and Hoffmann 71 , Reference Skogsberg, Kannisto and Cassel 72 ). Only one other investigation has examined PPARA Leu162Val and PPARG Pro12Ala interaction in determination of plasma lipid concentrations, which found no effect in obese subjects( Reference Aberle, Hopfer and Beil 73 ).

Reports of the relative activities of the Leu162 and Val162 PPAR-α isoforms in vitro have been contradictory, possibly owing to dependence on ligand concentration. Sapone et al. ( Reference Sapone, Peters and Sakai 74 ) found Val162 allele had greater activity than Leu162 at high, but lower activity at low ligand concentration. Flavell et al. ( Reference Flavell, Pineda Torra and Jamshidi 68 ) originally found Val162 showed greater transactivation in a reporter construct. However, recently Rudkowska et al. found transcription to be higher in Leu162 than Val162 constructs containing the LPL PPRE, after n-3 fatty acid transactivation( Reference Rudkowska, Caron-Dorval and Verreault 75 ). They also found an inverse correlation between LPL activities and plasma TAG levels in Leu162 homozygotes but not in Val162 carriers( Reference Rudkowska, Verreault and Barbier 76 ), suggesting that Val162 has lower transactivational ability than Leu162 under physiological conditions.

Leu162Val and diet

Reports of PPARA Leu162Val interaction with fatty acid intake in determination of plasma lipids are inconsistent, including no interaction with PUFA( Reference Tai, Corella and Demissie 77 ), Val162 allele association with higher TC, LDL-C and apoA1 after a high-PUFA diet( Reference Paradis, Fontaine-Bisson and Bossé 78 ) and higher TAG and apoCII after low PUFA intake( Reference Tai, Corella and Demissie 77 ). In the latter, when PUFA intake was less than 4%, Val162 carriers had higher plasma TAG compared with Leu162 homozygotes, but when PUFA intake was more than 8%, Val162 allele carriers had lower plasma TAG. In Leu162 homozygotes, waist circumference increased with a higher intake of dietary fat, but no significant interaction was found in determining TC, LDL-C, HDL-C or apoB concentrations( Reference Robitaille, Brouillette and Houde 63 ). Only one other study has examined PPARG Pro12Ala and PPARA Leu162Val after dietary intervention. After a 2·5-year low-energy diet, in non-diabetic obese women there were significant favourable changes in lipid profile, but no significant interactive effects on anthropometric or biochemical characteristics at baseline or at the follow-up( Reference Aldhoon, Zamrazilova and Aldhoon Hainerová 79 ).

PPARG Pro12Ala andPPARA Leu162Val interaction in the Reading Imperial Surrey Cambridge King's study: effect of MUFA

We hypothesised that carriage of PPARG Pro12Ala and PPARA Leu162Val allelic combinations might influence concentration of plasma lipids according to the availability of dietary unsaturated fatty acid ligands. At baseline, after a 4-week run-in on the HS diet, carriage of the PPARG Ala12 allele was associated with a modest increase in plasma TC (n 415; P=0·05), LDL-C (P=0·04) and apoB (P=0·03) after adjustment for BMI, age, gender and ethnicity. Although SFA are relatively poor stimulators of PPAR-γ activity( Reference Xu, Lambert and Montana 14 ) these outcomes are likely to reflect lower transactivation of target genes by the PPAR-γ-Ala form( Reference Deeb, Fajas and Nemoto 31 ). The PPARA Leu162Val genotype was not associated with concentrations of plasma lipids at baseline, but PPARA Val162Leu×PPARG Pro12Ala genotype interaction influenced TC (P=0·04) concentration after adjustment for covariates.

After HM and LF diets, plasma TC, LDL-C and apoB concentrations were reduced (P<0·001), but surprisingly there was no change in TAG concentration( Reference Jebb, Lovegrove and Griffin 44 ). Independent associations of PPARG Pro12Ala or PPARA Leu162Val genotypes with changes in concentrations of plasma lipids with respect to baseline were NS after randomisation to diets. However, there was significant interaction between the two genotypes as determinants of plasma LDL-C concentration, (P=0·003) and small dense LDL (sdLDL) as a proportion of LDL (P=0·012) after adjustment for change in BMI, age, gender and ethnicity. Carriage of both variant alleles was associated with a greater reduction in LDL-C and proportion as sdLDL after HM diet than after LF diet. PUFA is a stronger activator of PPAR than MUFA( Reference Xu, Lambert and Montana 14 ), but was constant in both interventions. As PPAR variant carriage affected plasma lipids only after the HM diet, the effects may depend on HM concentration.

Fig. 3 shows the follow-up concentrations of plasma LDL-C and sdLDL as a proportion of LDL after the HM and LF diets above the baseline, with respect to PPARG Pro12Ala and PPARA Leu162Val genotype combinations. The results of gene×gene interaction were highly significant for these data. Our ANOVA model used the variability of the whole dataset to measure the background variation, and produced evidence of a significant effect of gene–gene interaction on LDL-C and proportion as sdLDL. The significance should nevertheless be treated with caution and confirmation awaits replication in a larger sample.

Fig. 3. Interaction between PPARG Pro12Ala and PPARA Leu162Val genotype groups after dietary treatments influences plasma LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration and small dense LDL (sdLDL) as proportion of LDL. Interaction between PPARG Pro12Ala and PPARA Leu162Val genotypes was a significant determinant of change in plasma concentrations of (a) LDL-C (P=0·003) and (b) sdLDL as proportion of LDL (P=0·012) after high MUFA (HM) and low fat (LF) diets, after adjustment for baseline values, change in BMI, age, gender and ethnicity using three-way ANOVA. PP represents subjects homozygous for the PPARG Pro12 allele and PA+AA carriers of the Ala12 allele. LL represents subjects homozygous for the PPARA Leu162 allele and LV+VV carriers of the Val162 allele. Mean follow-up concentrations of LDL-C (mmol/l) and sdLDL as proportion of LDL (%) adjusted for baseline values after 24 weeks on HM or LF diets are shown. Bars indicate 95% CI. The figure is based on subjects with genotypes for both SNP and measurements of plasma lipids after HM and LF diets. The numbers of subjects in each genotype group LL/PP, LL/PP+PA, LV+VV/PP and LV+VV/PP+PA were as follows: HM diet: 121, 24, 17, 4; LF diet: 126, 34, 9 and 4.

As explained earlier, PPAR-γ activation by troglitazone reduces nuclear SREBP-2 and down-regulates LDL clearance from plasma by SREBP-2 target, the liver LDL receptor( Reference Klopotek, Hirche and Eder 19 ). Expression of the LDL receptor is also reduced by clofibrate( Reference König, Koch and Spielmann 58 ). Activation of PPAR-α and PPAR-γ would thus impair LDL receptor expression, down-regulate LDL clearance from plasma and increase circulating LDL-C concentration, as found in response to TZD( Reference Ovalle and Bell 20 ), but LDL apoB-100 levels generally decrease in response to fibrates( Reference Shah, Rader and Millar 22 ). PPAR-γ-Ala12 and PPAR-α-Val162 forms have lower transactivational ability than the wild types( Reference Deeb, Fajas and Nemoto 31 , Reference Rudkowska, Verreault and Barbier 76 ). Hence, carriers of PPARG Ala12 and PPARA Val162 would express higher LDL receptor activity, leading to maximum clearance and the largest fall in LDL-C concentration, as we observed. All the other genotype combinations showed smaller reductions in LDL-C after the HM diet. As Ala12 was associated with higher TC concentration and interaction with Val162 yielded higher LDL-C after the HS diet, the lower LDL-C in carriers of both variants after the HM diet appears to be a response to increased availability of MUFA.

One of the most consistent effects of TZD is to increase the mean LDL particle size and/or reduce LDL density( Reference Goldberg, Kendall and Deeg 80 ). Were PPAR-γ to be implicated directly, carriage of the lower activity PPAR-γ-Ala form would be expected to associate with a higher proportion of small LDL particles. This was found to be the case by Hamada et al. ( Reference Hamada, Kotani and Tsuzaki 81 ), where PPARG Ala12 carriers had a significantly higher proportion of sdLDL fractions four to seven independent of lipid concentration. As mentioned previously, high-fat intake is associated with an increase in large LDL and decrease in sdLDL( Reference Krauss and Dreon 82 ). Bouchard-Mercier et al. ( Reference Bouchard-Mercier, Godin and Lamarche 83 ) found no significant change in LDL peak particle diameter in PPARG Pro12 homozygotes or Ala12 carriers after high SFA intake, but a significant increase in LDL peak particle diameter in Ala12 carriers after high intake of PUFA, which unlike SFA are PPAR-γ activators( Reference Xu, Lambert and Montana 14 ). They found that high SFA intake associated with larger LDL particle size in PPARA Leu162 homozygotes, but with a higher proportion of sdLDL in Val162 carriers. Fibrate ligands of PPAR-α can reduce production of VLDL( Reference Shah, Rader and Millar 22 ) and lower sdLDL( Reference Caslake, Packard and Gaw 84 , Reference Berneis and Krauss 85 ), and so in carriers of the less-active PPAR-α-Val form, activation by dietary ligands could result in a shift to a higher proportion of sdLDL. We found no significant change in the proportion of sdLDL in carriers of PPARG Ala12 or PPARA Val162 on switching from the HS diet at baseline to the HM or LF diets, but a significant reduction in the proportion of sdLDL in carriers of both PPARA Val162 and PPARG Ala12 alleles after the HM diet. This cannot be explained by reduced activity of both variants, because as indicated above, this would be expected to lead to a higher proportion of sdLDL.

Adiponectin

Adiponectin is a 244-amino-acid plasma protein secreted exclusively by adipocytes. It is an insulin sensitising adipokine with anti-atherogenic, anti-diabetic and anti-inflammatory functions( Reference Oh, Lee and Rhee 86 ). Plasma adiponectin concentration is negatively correlated with human obesity, hypertension, insulin resistance and increased plasma TAG concentrations( Reference Isobe, Saitoh and Takagi 87 , Reference Brochu-Gaudreau, Rehfeldt and Blouin 88 ). In the circulation, adiponectin is present in three oligomeric complexes, with different biological functions, acting though distinct signalling pathways. The basic trimer is the low-molecular-weight isoform( Reference Tsao, Tomas and Murrey 89 ). The hexametric isoform is formed through the association of two homotrimers( Reference Wang, Lam and Yau 90 ). High-molecular-weight adiponectin is the biologically active form.

Effect of gender, age and ethnicity

The sexual dimorphism of adiponectin is well known; males have significantly lower plasma concentrations than females( Reference Marques-Vidal, Bochud and Paccaud 91 ). The gender differences have been attributed primarily to the inhibitory effect of testosterone on adiponectin production established in vitro ( Reference Nishizawa, Shimomura and Kishida 92 ). Adiponectin concentrations generally increase with age( Reference Adamczak, Rzepka and Chudek 93 ), mainly explained by changes in sex hormones( Reference Isobe, Saitoh and Takagi 87 ). As insulin sensitivity declines with age, this may reflect development of resistance, or survival in those with higher concentrations. Cohen et al. ( Reference Cohen, Gammon and Signorello 94 ) reported significantly lower concentrations in Black than in White individuals.

Effect on insulin sensitivity

Adiponectin acts on two receptors AdipoR1 in skeletal muscle and AdipoR2, more abundant in the liver( Reference Kadowaki and Yamauchi 95 ) (Fig. 4). In the liver, adiponectin activates PPAR-α and AMP-activated protein kinase, a key energy sensor that maintains cellular energy homoeostasis, via AdipoR2. Activation of AMP-activated protein kinase down-regulates enzymes involved in gluconeogenesis, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase and glucose-6-phosphatase. It also increases the inhibitory phosphorylation of acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase, promoting fatty acid oxidation, and inhibits the action of genes such as SREBP, required for fatty acid synthesis. The activation of PPAR-α by AMP-activated protein kinase decreases TAG in the liver by stimulating fatty acid oxidation( Reference Kadowaki and Yamauchi 95 ). In muscle, adiponectin acts via AdipoR1 to stimulate fatty acid oxidation and glucose utilisation. AdipoR1 targets genes such as CD36, involved in fatty acid transport, acyl-CoA oxidase, involved in fatty acid oxidation and uncoupling protein-2, involved in energy dissipation as heat( Reference Kadowaki and Yamauchi 95 ). Therefore, adiponectin increases fatty acid oxidation in liver and muscle, leading to reduced adipose tissue mass, a fall in pro-inflammatory cytokines and promotion of insulin signalling.

Fig. 4. Adiponectin mechanism of action. Adiponectin activates AMP kinase (AMPK) and PPAR-α in liver and skeletal muscle. In muscle, globular and full-length adiponectin activate AMPK, stimulating inhibitory phosphorylation of acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC), promoting fatty-acid oxidation, and GLUT4 translocation promoting glucose uptake. Activation of PPAR-α also leads to stimulation of fatty-acid oxidation and decreased TAG. In the liver, full-length adiponectin activates AMPK, thereby reducing enzymes involved in gluconeogenesis, also increasing phosphorylation of ACC and stimulating fatty-acid oxidation. Activation of PPAR-α decreases TAG as in muscle. All actions increase insulin sensitivity. PEPCK, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase; G6Pase, glucose-6-phosphatase. (Adapted from Kadowaki and Yamauchi( Reference Kadowaki and Yamauchi 95 )).

Effect on plasma lipid profile

Adiponectin is correlated negatively with plasma TAG( Reference Hotta, Funahashi and Arita 96 ) and positively with HDL-C concentration( Reference Matsubara, Maruoka and Katayose 97 ). The mechanism may relate to insulin resistance. Insulin is a well-known stimulator of adipose tissue LPL activity( Reference Nellemann, Gormsen and Christiansen 98 ), which catalyses the rate-limiting step in the hydrolysis of the TAG component in circulating VLDL and chylomicrons( Reference Schittmayer and Birner-Gruenberger 99 ). Adiponectin promotes mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation and reduction in circulating fatty acids, which in turn promotes LPL activity( Reference Ganguly, Schram and Fang 100 ). Adiponectin also activates PPAR-α, which up-regulates expression of apo-proteins A-I and A-II, promoting hepatic HDL-C secretion( Reference Mohamadkhani, Sayemiri and Ghanbari 101 ).

ADIPOQ gene polymorphisms

Fifty-three SNP have been identified at the adiponectin gene ADIPOQ locus( Reference Heid, Wagner and Gohlke 102 ). There are many, often conflicting, reports of SNP associations with circulating adiponectin concentrations( Reference Yang and Chuang 103 ) and various metabolic syndrome traits. In an earlier study of SNP at the ADIPOQ locus −11391 G/A, −10066 G/A, −7734 A/C and +276 G/T in this laboratory, we found −10066G, −11391A, −7734A and +276T were significantly associated with higher serum adiponectin concentration in two large cohorts( Reference Kyriakou, Collins and Spencer-Jones 104 ). Association of elevated adiponectin with the −11391 A-allele has been reported widely( Reference Heid, Wagner and Gohlke 102 ,105–Reference Bouatia-Naji, Meyre and Lobbens 108 ), although one group found lower adiponectin in G-allele carriers( Reference Petrone, Zavarella and Caiazzo 109 ). Associations between +276G and lower adiponectin concentrations have also been reported in Spanish( Reference Gonzalez-Sanchez, Zabena and Martinez-Larrad 110 ), European( Reference Mackevics, Heid and Wagner 111 ), Korean( Reference Jang, Lee and Chae 112 ) and Japanese( Reference Hara, Boutin and Mori 113 ) subjects. The −10066G allele has also been associated with higher adiponectin concentration elsewhere( Reference Woo, Dolan and Deka 107 ).

Association between ADIPOQ gene variants and metabolic syndrome risk factors has been established in many studies. +276G carriage predisposed to higher CVD risk in Koreans( Reference Jang, Lee and Chae 112 ). In Italians +276T was a risk allele in one study( Reference Filippi, Sentinelli and Trischitta 114 ) and protective in another( Reference Chiodini, Specchia and Gori 115 ). In Spanish subjects +276G was associated with impaired glucose tolerance( Reference Gonzalez-Sanchez, Zabena and Martinez-Larrad 110 ) and higher homoeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance in Korean( Reference Jang, Lee and Chae 112 ), Italian( Reference Menzaghi, Ercolino and Di Paola 116 ) and Japanese( Reference Hara, Boutin and Mori 113 ) subjects. +276T has been associated with lower( Reference Menzaghi, Ercolino and Di Paola 116 , Reference Menzaghi, Ercolino and Salvemini 117 ) and higher( Reference Melistas, Mantzoros and Kontogianni 118 ) homoeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance. Higher LDL-C and lower HDL-C levels have been found in +276T allele carriers( Reference Berthier, Houde and Cote 119 ) and +276G was associated with higher concentration of TAG in Koreans( Reference Jang, Lee and Chae 112 ). The +276G allele was associated with higher BMI in Italians( Reference Menzaghi, Ercolino and Di Paola 116 ) but with lower BMI in Swedish and African Americans( Reference Ukkola, Ravussin and Jacobson 120 , Reference Beebe-Dimmer, Zuhlke and Ray 121 ). Higher waist:hip ratio was found in carriers of the −11391A allele( Reference Dolley, Bertrais and Frochot 122 ) and there are reports of increased risk of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes associated with the −11391 G/G genotype( Reference Vasseur, Helbecque and Dina 105 , Reference Petrone, Zavarella and Caiazzo 109 ).

ADIPOQ polymorphisms and diet

Inconsistent associations between the ADIPOQ variants and serum adiponectin, BMI and insulin resistance suggest that environmental influences may be influential. A few studies have explored the relationship between dietary factors and adiponectin concentrations or gene–nutrient interactions involving SNP at the ADIPOQ locus. In the largest study to date, in American Whites, −11391 A-allele carriers in the highest fiftieth percentile of MUFA intake had lower BMI and risk of obesity compared with G/G homozygotes( Reference Warodomwichit, Shen and Arnett 123 ). In another study, after switching from an SFA- to MUFA-rich diet, −11377 C/C homozygotes were significantly less insulin resistant compared with G-allele carriers( Reference Pérez-Martínez, López-Miranda and Cruz-Teno 124 ). In a recent study, an interaction between ADIPOQ −11377 C/G genotype with SFA, but not MUFA or PUFA, significantly affected homoeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, but there were no significant effects on serum adiponectin concentration( Reference Ferguson, Phillips and Tierney 125 ).

ADIPOQ and PPAR-γ

One potential pathway for dietary interaction with ADIPOQ is via activation of PPAR-γ( Reference Kim, Jang and Paik 126 ). PPAR-γ agonists such as TZD have been clearly shown to increase serum adiponectin concentrations in both human subjects and rodents( Reference Iwaki, Matsuda and Maeda 127 ). PUFA have been reported to increase plasma adiponectin concentrations and may up-regulate ADIPOQ by acting as ligands of PPAR-γ( Reference Iwaki, Matsuda and Maeda 127 ). Both natural and artificial ligands of PPAR-γ enhance the expression of adiponectin mRNA in adipose tissue and dramatically increase plasma concentration of adiponectin( Reference Maeda, Takahashi and Funahashi 128 ). The mechanism involves a functional PPRE and a responsive element of liver receptor homolog-1 in the ADIPOQ promoter( Reference Iwaki, Matsuda and Maeda 127 ).

ADIPOQ −10066 G/A in the Reading Imperial Surrey Cambridge King's study: effect of MUFA

Diets low in carbohydrate( Reference Pischon, Girman and Rifai 129 ) and high in unsaturated fat increase adiponectin( Reference Esposito, Pontillo and Di Palo 130 ). We hypothesised that variants in ADIPOQ could interact with dietary intake of unsaturated fat and age to influence serum adiponectin in the absence of significant change in BMI, in RISCK study participants.

After 4-week run-in on the HS diet, there were significant differences between males and females in fasting glucose and TAG (higher in males), HDL-C, adiponectin, insulin sensitivity and percentage body fat (lower in males). Adiponectin positively correlated with age (β=0·217, P<0·001) and negatively with BMI (β=−0·161, P<0·001) in agreement with previous reports( Reference Isobe, Saitoh and Takagi 87 , Reference Adamczak, Rzepka and Chudek 93 ). Adiponectin was significantly higher in White Europeans than in S. Asians (P=0·001) and Black Africans (P=0·001) as reported previously( Reference Cohen, Gammon and Signorello 94 ) and higher in females (mean 11·1 (sd 6·2) μg/ml) than males (mean 8·5 (sd 4·1) μg/ml) (P<0·001), as is well known( Reference Marques-Vidal, Bochud and Paccaud 91 ). However, there were no significant interactions between gender×age (P=0·697), gender×BMI (P=0·139) or gender×ethnicity (P=0·15) in determination of serum adiponectin concentration.

Surprisingly, replacement of SFA by isoenergetic MUFA or carbohydrate diets for 24 weeks did not significantly improve adiponectin concentration. Previously, we reported no significant effect on insulin sensitivity following this dietary regimen( Reference Jebb, Lovegrove and Griffin 44 ). Small changes in adiponectin concentration after dietary intervention may not have been sufficient to affect insulin sensitivity, or the intervention period may not have been long enough to produce an effect. This is consistent with other reports( Reference Yannakoulia, Yiannakouris and Bluher 131 Reference Peake, Kriketos and Denyer 133 ). Long-term effects were seen only after a 10-year Mediterranean diet in diabetic women( Reference Mantzoros, Williams and Manson 134 ). These data suggest that adiponectin concentrations are unlikely to be affected by relatively short-term dietary changes, but reflect intakes over longer time periods( Reference Pischon, Girman and Rifai 129 ).

We hypothesised that stratification by genotype might uncover influential interaction between diet and ADIPOQ variants in determination of serum adiponectin concentration following dietary intervention. Our genetic investigations were based on the White subjects. We investigated four SNP which we previously showed to have the strongest replicated associations with serum adiponectin( Reference Kyriakou, Collins and Spencer-Jones 104 ): −11391 G/A is located in the promoter region −10066 G/A and −7734 A/C are both located in intron 1 and +276 G/T is in intron 2.

After the 4-week run-in on HS diet, +276T was associated with higher (n 340; P=0·006) and −10066A with lower serum adiponectin concentration (n 360; P=0·03) after adjustment for covariates, in agreement with previous reports( Reference Kyriakou, Collins and Spencer-Jones 104 , Reference Woo, Dolan and Deka 107 ).There were no significant differences in the change in serum adiponectin concentration after HM or LF diets, with the exception of −10066 G/A. After the HM diet GG subjects showed a 3·8% increase (95% CI −0·1, 7·7) and GA+AA subjects a 2·6% decrease (95% CI −5·6, 0·4) in serum adiponectin (P=0·006 for difference, after adjustment for change in BMI, age and gender). However, gene×diet interaction in determination of serum adiponectin was NS (P=0·12) after adjustments( Reference AlSaleh, O'Dell and Frost 135 ).

Activation of PPAR-γ by unsaturated fatty acids increases with chain length and degree of unsaturation( Reference Sanderson, de Groot and Hooiveld 136 ). The switch from SFA to MUFA could lead to increased expression of the ADIPOQ gene and serum adiponectin concentration through increased availability of PPAR-γ-activating ligands. The PPRE lies in a 1·3 kb linkage disequilibrium block( Reference Heid, Wagner and Gohlke 102 ). If the −10066A-allele was in linkage disequilibrium with a variant in the PPRE reducing affinity for the receptor, this could account for higher serum adiponectin in response to MUFA in GG homozygotes and the lower concentration in A-allele carriers.

We were interested to discover whether the strong relationship between adiponectin concentration and age seen at baseline was modified by diet. There was no significant interaction between either genotype or diet in determining adiponectin concentration. We then looked at whether age×genotype interaction was influential after dietary intervention. Fig. 5 compares the effect of HM and LF diets on % change in serum adiponectin concentration in White −10066 GG homozygotes and A-allele carriers. In GG homozygotes over 40 years of age, adiponectin concentration increased progressively after the HM diet and decreased after the LF diet. The difference in % change in serum adiponectin between GG subjects on HM and LF diets in the oldest 61–70-year age group was significant (P=0·003). In A-allele carriers there was little change in serum adiponectin concentration compared with baseline with increasing age, after HM or LF diet. Interaction between gene×age×diet in determination of change in serum adiponectin concentration approached significance after adjustment for gender and change in BMI (n 303; P=0·07). However, interaction between gene×age×diet×gender was NS after adjustment for change in BMI( Reference AlSaleh, O'Dell and Frost 135 ).

Fig. 5. Effect of high-MUFA (HM) and low-fat (LF) diets on adiponectin concentration with respect to −10066 G/A genotype and age in White subjects. % changes (95% CI) in geometric mean adiponectin concentration adjusted for change in BMI and gender are shown in each age group, after subjects consumed HM (n 151) or LF (n 152) diets. (a) −10066 GG subjects (n 111) and (b) −10066 GA+AA subjects (n 192). The number of genotyped subjects in each age group 35–40, 41–50, 51–60 and 61–70 years were as follows: HM diet: GG 6, 18, 13, 20; GA+AA 13, 22, 30 and 29; LF diet: GG 9, 8, 21, 16; GA+AA 13, 27, 36 and 22. Interaction between gene×age×diet in determination of change in serum adiponectin concentration found by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was NS after adjustment for change in BMI (n 303; P=0·07). *Denotes significant difference in % change in serum adiponectin between GG subjects on HM and LF diets (P=0·003). (From AlSaleh A et al. ( Reference AlSaleh, O'Dell and Frost 135 ).)

Serum adiponectin might be expected to be lower in GG subjects after the LF diet, in which carbohydrates replace PPAR-γ-activating fatty acids, than after the HM diet. In A-allele carriers, substitution of carbohydrate for MUFA would have little effect if reduced affinity of the PPRE, rather than ligand activation were to be the rate-limiting step. This would be compatible with other reports of lower serum adiponectin after high-carbohydrate( Reference Pischon, Girman and Rifai 129 ) and higher serum adiponectin with a diet rich in MUFA( Reference Yeung, Appel and Miller 137 ). If aging is associated with the development of adiponectin resistance, the change in adiponectin concentrations may reflect a capability of responding by increasing production after HM, but not LF, diets.

Conclusion

The strength of the RISCK study lies in its design as a randomised, tightly controlled feeding trial with high adherence and retention rates and diets with practical relevance to the general population. Analysis of White subjects showed that at the lowest PUFA:SFA intake, carriage of the less active PPAR-γ Ala12 isoform associated with higher plasma TC and LDL-C. The significant trends in the reduction of plasma TC and TAG in Ala12 carriers as the P:S ratio increased suggests that these subjects might be advised to maintain a high PUFA:SFA intake ratio to reduce plasma concentrations of atherogenic lipids. sdLDL particles are recognised as an important risk factor for CVD and numerous dietary elements have a significant impact on several characteristics of the LDL size phenotype. Significant predictive value of individual disease risk or responses to diet could potentially be gained by combining genotype information from the PPARA Leu162Val and PPARG Pro12Ala loci. The switch from SFA to MUFA could lead to increased expression of the ADIPOQ gene and serum adiponectin concentration through increased availability of PPAR-γ-activating ligands. In White ADIPOQ −10066 GG homozygotes, increase in adiponectin with age suggests that a HM diet may help to increase adiponectin concentrations with advancing years.

Limitations to these SNP association studies include relatively small sample sizes, and multiple testing remains a controversial issue in interpretation. Replication in other cohorts is the most reliable method to distinguish true from false-positive associations. Substantiated effects of common SNP in modifying the outcome of dietary intervention studies in larger samples should help in the identification of individuals at risk of complex disease who would benefit from personalized dietary recommendations.

Acknowledgements

Research based on the RISCK study was supported by the UK Food Standards Agency (project NO2031), registered at clinicaltrials.gov as ISRCTN29111298. We acknowledge the contributions of the principal investigators and their staff at the four other centres: Bruce Griffin (University of Surrey), Gary Frost (Imperial College London), Julie Lovegrove (University of Reading) and Susan Jebb (Cambridge). Foods were supplied by Unilever Food and Health Research Institute (Unilever R&D, Vlaardingen, The Netherlands), Cereal Partners UK (Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK), Grampian (Banff, UK), Weetabix Ltd (Kettering, UK) and Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd (London, UK). None of these providers had any role in the design and implementation of the study or analysis and interpretation of the data. A. A. gratefully acknowledges a PhD studentship from the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Higher Education. T. A. B. S. has acted as a consultant to Seven Seas and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Global Dairy Platform and external scientific review committee of the Malaysian Palm Oil Board, and chairs Cadbury's Global Nutrition Advisory Panel. All research groups received products from a range of food companies gratis for research purposes, including Archer Daniel Mills, Croda, Matthews Foods, Nestle, PepsiCo, Jordan, GSK, and Unilever. A. A. and S. D. O. declare no conflicts of interest. A. A. drafted this paper and S. D. O. and T. A. B. S. discussed and modified it.

References

1. Alberti, KG, Zimmet, P & Shaw, J (2006) Metabolic syndrome – a new world-wide definition. A consensus statement from the International Diabetes Federation. Diab Med 23, 469480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Astrup, A, Grunwald, GK, Melanson, EL et al. (2000) The role of low-fat diets in body weight control: A meta-analysis of ad libitum dietary intervention studies. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24, 15451552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Feldeisen, SE & Tucker, KL (2007) Nutritional strategies in the prevention and treatment of metabolic syndrome. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 32, 4660.Google Scholar
4. Yu-Poth, S, Zhao, G, Etherton, T et al. (1999) Effects of the National Cholesterol Education Program's Step I and Step II dietary intervention programs on cardiovascular disease risk factors: A meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 69, 632646.Google Scholar
5. Grundy, SM, Abate, N & Chandalia, M (2002) Diet composition and the metabolic syndrome: What is the optimal fat intake? Am J Med 113, Suppl. 9B, 25S29S.Google Scholar
6. Riccardi, G, Giacco, R & Rivellese, AA (2004) Dietary fat, insulin sensitivity and the metabolic syndrome. Clin Nutr 23, 447456.Google Scholar
7. Vessby, B, Gustafsson, IB, Tengblad, S et al. (2002) Desaturation and elongation of fatty acids and insulin action. Ann N Y Acad Sci 967, 183195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Gillingham, LG, Harris-Janz, S & Jones, PJ (2011) Dietary monounsaturated fatty acids are protective against metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Lipids 46, 209228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Berglund, L, Lefevre, M, Ginsberg, HN et al. (2007) Comparison of monounsaturated fat with carbohydrates as a replacement for saturated fat in subjects with a high metabolic risk profile: Studies in the fasting and postprandial states. Am J Clin Nutr 86, 16111620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Kris-Etherton, PM, Pearson, TA, Wan, Y et al. (1999) High-monounsaturated fatty acid diets lower both plasma cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations. Am J Clin Nutr 70, 10091015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Roche, HM, Phillips, C & Gibney, MJ (2005) The metabolic syndrome: The crossroads of diet and genetics. Proc Nutr Soc 64, 371377.Google Scholar
12. Lehrke, M & Lazar, MA (2005) The many faces of PPARgamma. Cell 123, 993999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Costa, V, Gallo, MA, Letizia, F et al. (2010) PPARG: Gene expression regulation and next-generation sequencing for unsolved issues. PPAR Res 2010, pii: 409168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Xu, HE, Lambert, MH, Montana, VG et al. (1999) Molecular recognition of fatty acids by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors. Mol Cell 3, 397403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Semple, RK, Chatterjee, VK & O'Rahilly, S (2006) PPARγ and human metabolic disease. J Clin Invest 116, 581589.Google Scholar
16. Hua, X, Yokoyama, C, Wu, J et al. (1993) SREBP-2, a second basic-helix-loop-helix-leucine zipper protein that stimulates transcription by binding to a sterol regulatory element. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90, 1160311607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Kast-Woelbern, HR, Dana, SL, Cesario, RM et al. (2004) Rosiglitazone induction of Insig-1 in white adipose tissue reveals a novel interplay of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and sterol regulatory element-binding protein in the regulation of adipogenesis. J Biol Chem 279, 2390823915.Google Scholar
18. Goldberg, RB (2006) Impact of thiazolidenediones on serum lipoprotein levels. Curr Atheroscler Rep 8, 397404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Klopotek, A, Hirche, F & Eder, K (2006) PPAR gamma ligand troglitazone lowers cholesterol synthesis in HepG2 and Caco-2 cells via a reduced concentration of nuclear SREBP-2. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 231, 13651372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Ovalle, F & Bell, DS (2002) Lipoprotein effects of different thiazolidinediones in clinical practice. Endocr Pract 8, 406410.Google Scholar
21. Harris, WS, Lu, G, Rambjor, GS et al. (1997) Influence of n-3 fatty acid supplementation on the endogenous activities of plasma lipases. Am J Clin Nutr 66, 254260.Google Scholar
22. Shah, A, Rader, DJ & Millar, JS (2010) The effect of PPAR-alpha agonism on apolipoprotein metabolism in humans. Atherosclerosis 210, 3540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Tontonoz, P, Nagy, L, Alvarez, JG et al. (1998) PPARgamma promotes monocyte/macrophage differentiation and uptake of oxidized LDL. Cell 93, 241252.Google Scholar
24. Martin, G, Schoonjans, K, Lefebvre, AM et al. (1997) Coordinate regulation of the expression of the fatty acid transport protein and acyl-CoA synthetase genes by PPARalpha and PPARgamma activators. J Biol Chem 272, 2821028217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Schoonjans, K, Peinado-Onsurbe, J, Lefebvre, AM et al. (1996) PPARα and PPARγ activators direct a distinct tissue-specific transcriptional response via a PPRE in the lipoprotein lipase gene. EMBO J 15, 53365348.Google Scholar
26. Zieleniak, A, Wojcik, M & Wozniak, LA (2008) Structure and physiological functions of the human peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 56, 331345.Google Scholar
27. Tellechea, ML, Aranguren, F, Perez, MS et al. (2009) Pro12Ala polymorphism of the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-gamma gene is associated with metabolic syndrome and surrogate measures of insulin resistance in healthy men: Interaction with smoking status. Circ J 73, 21182124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. NCBI database (2010) Build 132. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp (accessed 11 November 2010).Google Scholar
29. Gouda, HN, Sagoo, GS, Harding, AH et al. (2010) The association between the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma2 (PPARG2) Pro12Ala gene variant and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A HuGE review and meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 171, 645655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Huguenin, GV & Rosa, G (2010) The Ala allele in the PPAR-gamma2 gene is associated with reduced risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Caucasians and improved insulin sensitivity in overweight subjects. Br J Nutr 104, 488497.Google Scholar
31. Deeb, SS, Fajas, L, Nemoto, M et al. (1998) A Pro12Ala substitution in PPARgamma2 associated with decreased receptor activity, lower body mass index and improved insulin sensitivity. Nat Genet 20, 284287.Google Scholar
32. Altshuler, D, Hirschhorn, JN, Klannemark, M et al. (2000) The common PPARgamma Pro12Ala polymorphism is associated with decreased risk of type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet 26, 7680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Masud, S, Ye, S & SAS Group (2003) Effect of the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-gamma gene Pro12Ala variant on body mass index: A meta-analysis. J Med Genet 40, 773780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Robitaille, J, Despres, JP, Perusse, L et al. (2003) The PPAR-gamma P12A polymorphism modulates the relationship between dietary fat intake and components of the metabolic syndrome: Results from the Quebec Family Study. Clin Genet 63, 109116.Google Scholar
35. Tonjes, A, Scholz, M, Loeffler, M et al. (2006) Association of Pro12Ala polymorphism in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma with Prediabetic phenotypes: Meta-analysis of 57 studies on nondiabetic individuals. Diabetes Care 29, 24892497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Huang, X, Zhao, J & Zhao, T (2011) Effects of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-gamma 2 gene Pro12Ala polymorphism on fasting blood lipids: A meta-analysis. Atherosclerosis 215, 136144.Google Scholar
37. Mori, Y, Ikegami, H, Kawaguchi, Y et al. (2001) The Pro12Ala substitution in PPAR-gamma is associated with resistance to development of diabetes in the general population: possible involvement in impairment of insulin secretion in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 50, 891894.Google Scholar
38. Ringel, J, Engeli, S, Distler, A et al. (1999) Pro12Ala missense mutation of the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma and diabetes mellitus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 254, 450453.Google Scholar
39. Meshkani, R, Taghikhani, M, Larijani, B et al. (2007) Pro12Ala polymorphism of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma2 (PPARgamma-2) gene is associated with greater insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of type 2 diabetes in an Iranian population. Clin Chem Lab Med 45, 477482.Google Scholar
40. Vidal-Puig, A, Jimenez-Linan, M, Lowell, BB et al. (1996) Regulation of PPAR gamma gene expression by nutrition and obesity in rodents. J Clin Invest 97, 25532561.Google Scholar
41. Masugi, J, Tamori, Y, Mori, H et al. (2000) Inhibitory effect of a proline-to-alanine substitution at codon 12 of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma 2 on thiazolidinedione-induced adipogenesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 268, 178182.Google Scholar
42. Memisoglu, A, Hu, FB, Hankinson, SE et al. (2003) Prospective study of the association between the proline to alanine codon 12 polymorphism in the PPARgamma gene and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 26, 29152917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Luan, J, Browne, PO, Harding, AH et al. (2001) Evidence for gene-nutrient interaction at the PPARgamma locus. Diabetes 50, 686689.Google Scholar
44. Jebb, SA, Lovegrove, JA, Griffin, BA et al. (2010) Effect of changing the amount and type of fat and carbohydrate on insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular risk: The RISCK (Reading, Imperial, Surrey, Cambridge, and Kings) trial. Am J Clin Nutr 92, 748758.Google Scholar
45. Lindi, V, Schwab, U, Louheranta, A et al. (2003) Impact of the Pro12Ala polymorphism of the PPAR-gamma2 gene on serum triacylglycerol response to n-3 fatty acid supplementation. Mol Genet Metab 79, 5260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Auboeuf, D, Rieusset, J, Fajas, L et al. (1997) Tissue distribution and quantification of the expression of mRNAs of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors and liver X receptor-alpha in humans: No alteration in adipose tissue of obese and NIDDM patients. Diabetes 46, 13191327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Aoyama, T, Peters, JM, Iritani, N, et al. (1998) Altered constitutive expression of fatty acid-metabolizing enzymes in mice lacking the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARalpha). J Biol Chem 273, 56785684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Yoon, M (2009) The role of PPARalpha in lipid metabolism and obesity: Focusing on the effects of estrogen on PPARalpha actions. Pharmacol Res 60, 151159.Google Scholar
49. Corton, JC, Anderson, SP & Stauber, A (2000) Central role of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in the actions of peroxisome proliferators. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 40, 491518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Chu, R, Lin, Y, Rao, MS et al. (1995) Cooperative formation of higher order peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor and retinoid X receptor complexes on the peroxisome proliferator responsive element of the rat hydratase–dehydrogenase gene. J Biol Chem 270, 2963629639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Pyper, SR, Viswakarma, N, Yu, S et al. (2010) PPARalpha: Energy combustion, hypolipidemia, inflammation and cancer. Nucl Recept Signal 8, e002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52. Lee, WJ, Kim, M, Park, HS et al. (2006) AMPK activation increases fatty acid oxidation in skeletal muscle by activating PPARalpha and PGC-1. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 340, 291295.Google Scholar
53. Pineda, Torra I, Jamshidi, Y, Flavell, DM et al. (2002) Characterization of the human PPARalpha promoter: Identification of a functional nuclear receptor response element. Mol Endocrinol 16, 10131028.Google Scholar
54. Staels, B, Vu-Dac, N, Kosykh, VA et al. (1995) Fibrates downregulate apolipoprotein C-III expression independent of induction of peroxisomal acyl coenzyme A oxidase. A potential mechanism for the hypolipidemic action of fibrates. J Clin Invest 95, 705712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55. Coleman, RA, Lewin, TM, Van Horn, CG et al. (2002) Do long-chain acyl-CoA synthetases regulate fatty acid entry into synthetic versus degradative pathways? J Nutr 132, 21232126.Google Scholar
56. Jia, Y, Qi, C, Zhang, Z et al. (2003) Overexpression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-alpha (PPARalpha)-regulated genes in liver in the absence of peroxisome proliferation in mice deficient in both L- and D-forms of enoyl-CoA hydratase/dehydrogenase enzymes of peroxisomal beta-oxidation system. J Biol Chem 278, 4723247239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Reddy, JK (2001) Nonalcoholic steatosis and steatohepatitis. III. Peroxisomal beta-oxidation, PPAR alpha, and steatohepatitis. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 281, G1333G1339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58. König, B, Koch, A, Spielmann, J et al. (2007) Activation of PPARalpha lowers synthesis and concentration of cholesterol by reduction of nuclear SREBP-2. Biochem Pharmacol 73, 574585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59. Lemieux, I, Salomon, H & Despres, JP (2003) Contribution of apo CIII reduction to the greater effect of 12-week micronized fenofibrate than atorvastatin therapy on triglyceride levels and LDL size in dyslipidemic patients. Ann Med 35, 442448.Google Scholar
60. Staels, B, Dallongeville, J, Auwerx, J et al. (1998) Mechanism of action of fibrates on lipid and lipoprotein metabolism. Circulation 98, 20882093.Google Scholar
61. Golembesky, AK, Gammon, MD, North, KE et al. (2008) Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-alpha (PPARA) genetic polymorphisms and breast cancer risk: A Long Island ancillary study. Carcinogenesis 29, 19441949.Google Scholar
62. Tai, ES, Demissie, S, Cupples, LA et al. (2002) Association between the PPARA L162V polymorphism and plasma lipid levels: The Framingham Offspring Study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 22, 805810.Google Scholar
63. Robitaille, J, Brouillette, C, Houde, A et al. (2004) Association between the PPARalpha-L162V polymorphism and components of the metabolic syndrome. J Hum Genet 49, 482489.Google Scholar
64. Sparsø, T, Hussain, MS, Andersen, G et al. (2007) Relationships between the functional PPARalpha Leu162Val polymorphism and obesity, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidaemia, and related quantitative traits in studies of 5799 middle-aged white people. Mol Genet Metab 90, 205209.Google Scholar
65. Uthurralt, J, Gordish-Dressman, H, Bradbury, M et al. (2007) PPARα L162V underlies variation in serum triglycerides and subcutaneous fat volume in young males. BMC Med Genet 8, 55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66. Shin, MJ, Kanaya, AM & Krauss, RM (2008) Polmorphisms in the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha gene are associated with levels of apolipoprotein CIII and triglyceride in African-Americans but not Caucasians. Atherosclerosis 198, 313319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67. Nielsen, EM, Hansen, L, Echwald, SM et al. (2003) Evidence for an association between the Leu162Val polymorphism of the PPARalpha gene and decreased fasting serum triglyceride levels in glucose tolerant subjects. Pharmacogenetics 13, 417423.Google Scholar
68. Flavell, DM, Pineda Torra, I, Jamshidi, Y et al. (2000) Variation in the PPARalpha gene is associated with altered function in vitro and plasma lipid concentrations in Type II diabetic subjects. Diabetologia 43, 673680.Google Scholar
69. Tai, ES, Collins, D, Robins, SJ et al. (2006) The L162V polymorphism at the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha locus modulates the risk of cardiovascular events associated with insulin resistance and diabetes mellitus: The Veterans Affairs HDL Intervention Trial (VA-HIT). Atherosclerosis 187, 153160.Google Scholar
70. Vohl, MC, Lepage, P, Gaudet, D et al. (2000) Molecular scanning of the human PPARa gene: Association of the L162V mutation with hyperapolipoprotein betalipoproteinemia. J Lipid Res 41, 945952.Google Scholar
71. Silbernagel, G, Stefan, N, Hoffmann, MM et al. (2009) The L162V polymorphism of the peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha gene (PPARA) is not associated with type 2 diabetes, BMI or body fat composition. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 117, 113318.Google ScholarPubMed
72. Skogsberg, J, Kannisto, K, Cassel, TN et al. (2003) Evidence that peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta influences cholesterol metabolism in men. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 23, 637643.Google Scholar
73. Aberle, J, Hopfer, I, Beil, FU et al. (2006) Association of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta +294T/C with body mass index and interaction with peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha L162V. Int J Obes Metab Disord 30, 17091713.Google Scholar
74. Sapone, A, Peters, JM, Sakai, S et al. (2000) The human peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha gene: Identification and functional characterization of two natural allelic variants. Pharmacogenetics 10, 321333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
75. Rudkowska, I, Caron-Dorval, D, Verreault, M et al. (2010) PPARalpha L162V polymorphism alters the potential of n-3 fatty acids to increase lipoprotein lipase activity. Mol Nutr Food Res 54, 543550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
76. Rudkowska, I, Verreault, M, Barbier, O et al. (2009) Differences in transcriptional activation by the two allelic (L162V polymorphic) variants of PPARalpha after omega-3 fatty acids treatment. PPAR Res 2009, 369602.Google ScholarPubMed
77. Tai, ES, Corella, D, Demissie, S et al. (2005) Polyunsaturated fatty acids interact with the PPARA-L162V polymorphism to affect plasma triglyceride and apolipoprotein C-III concentrations in the Framingham Heart Study. J Nutr 135, 397403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78. Paradis, AM, Fontaine-Bisson, B, Bossé, Y et al. (2005) The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha Leu162Val polymorphism influences the metabolic response to a dietary intervention altering fatty acid proportions in healthy men. Am J Clin Nutr 81, 523530.Google Scholar
79. Aldhoon, B, Zamrazilova, H, Aldhoon Hainerová, I et al. (2010) Role of the PPARα Leu162Val and PPARγ2 Pro12Ala gene polymorphisms in weight change after 2·5-year follow-up in Czech obese women. Folia Biologica (Praha) 56, 116123.Google Scholar
80. Goldberg, RB, Kendall, DM, Deeg, MA et al. (2005) A comparison of lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia. Diabetes Care 28, 15471554.Google Scholar
81. Hamada, T, Kotani, K, Tsuzaki, K et al. (2007) Association of Pro12Ala polymorphism in the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma2 gene with small dense low-density lipoprotein in the general population. Metabolism 56, 13451349.Google Scholar
82. Krauss, RM & Dreon, DM. (1995) Low-density-lipoprotein subclasses and response to a low-fat diet in healthy men. Am J Clin Nutr 62, 478S487S.Google Scholar
83. Bouchard-Mercier, A, Godin, G, Lamarche, B et al. (2011) Effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors, dietary fat intakes and gene-diet interactions on peak particle diameters of low-density lipoproteins. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 4, 3648.Google Scholar
84. Caslake, MJ, Packard, CJ, Gaw, A et al. (1993) Fenofibrate and LDL metabolic heterogeneity in hypercholesterolemia. Arterioscler Thromb 13, 702711.Google Scholar
85. Berneis, KK & Krauss, RM (2001) Metabolic origins and clinical significance of LDL heterogeneity. J Lipid Res 43, 13631379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
86. Oh, KW, Lee, WY, Rhee, EJ et al. (2005) The relationship between serum resistin, leptin, adiponectin, ghrelin levels and bone mineral density in middle-aged men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 63, 131138.Google Scholar
87. Isobe, T, Saitoh, S, Takagi, S et al. (2005) Influence of gender, age and renal function on plasma adiponectin level: The Tanno and Sobetsu study. Eur J Endocrinol 153, 9198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
88. Brochu-Gaudreau, K, Rehfeldt, C, Blouin, R et al. (2010) Adiponectin action from head to toe. Endocrine 37, 1132.Google Scholar
89. Tsao, TS, Tomas, E, Murrey, HE et al. (2003) Role of disulfide bonds in Acrp30/adiponectin structure and signaling specificity. Different oligomers activate different signal transduction pathways . J Biol Chem 278, 5081050817.Google Scholar
90. Wang, Y, Lam, KS, Yau, MH et al. (2008) Post-translational modifications of adiponectin: Mechanisms and functional implications. Biochem J 409, 623633.Google Scholar
91. Marques-Vidal, P, Bochud, M, Paccaud, F et al. (2010) Distribution of plasma concentrations of adiponectin and leptin in an adult Caucasian population. Clin Endocrinol 72, 3846.Google Scholar
92. Nishizawa, H, Shimomura, I, Kishida, K et al. (2002) Androgens decrease plasma adiponectin, an insulin-sensitizing adipocyte-derived protein. Diabetes 51, 27342741.Google Scholar
93. Adamczak, M, Rzepka, E, Chudek, J et al. (2005) Ageing and plasma adiponectin concentration in apparently healthy males and females. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 62, 114118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94. Cohen, SS, Gammon, MD, Signorello, LB et al. (2011) Serum adiponectin in relation to body mass index and other correlates in black and white women. Ann Epidemiol 21, 8694.Google Scholar
95. Kadowaki, T & Yamauchi, T (2005) Adiponectin and adiponectin receptors. Endocr Rev 26, 439451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
96. Hotta, K, Funahashi, T, Arita, Y et al. (2000) Plasma concentrations of a novel, adipose-specific protein, adiponectin, in type 2 diabetic patients. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 20, 15951599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
97. Matsubara, M, Maruoka, S & Katayose, S (2002). Decreased plasma adiponectin concentrations in women with dyslipidemia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87, 27642769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
98. Nellemann, B, Gormsen, LC, Christiansen, JS et al. (2010) Postabsorptive VLDL-TG fatty acid storage in adipose tissue in lean and obese women. Obesity (Silver Spring) 18, 13041311.Google Scholar
99. Schittmayer, M & Birner-Gruenberger, R (2009) Functional proteomics in lipid research: Lipases, lipid droplets and lipoproteins. Journal of Proteomics 72, 10061018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
100. Ganguly, R, Schram, K, Fang, X et al. (2011) Adiponectin increases LPL activity via RhoA/ROCK-mediated actin remodelling in adult rat cardiomyocytes. Endocrinology 152, 247254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
101. Mohamadkhani, A, Sayemiri, K, Ghanbari, R et al. (2010) The inverse association of serum HBV DNA level with HDL and adiponectin in chronic hepatitis B infection. Virol J 7, 228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
102. Heid, IM, Wagner, SA, Gohlke, H et al. (2006) Genetic architecture of the APM1 gene and its influence on adiponectin plasma concentrations and parameters of the metabolic syndrome in 1,727 healthy Caucasians. Diabetes 55, 375384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
103. Yang, WS & Chuang, LM (2006) Human genetics of adiponectin in the metabolic syndrome. J Mol Med 84, 112121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
104. Kyriakou, T, Collins, LJ, Spencer-Jones, NJ et al. (2008) Adiponectin gene ADIPOQ SNP associations with serum adiponectin in two female populations and effects of SNPs on promoter activity. J Hum Genet 53, 718727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
105. Vasseur, F, Helbecque, N, Dina, C et al. (2002) Single-nucleotide polymorphism haplotypes in the both proximal promoter and exon 3 of the APM1 gene modulate adipocyte-secreted adiponectin hormone concentrations and contribute to the genetic risk for type 2 diabetes in French Caucasians. Hum Mol Genet 11, 26072614.Google Scholar
106. Mousavinasab, F, Tahtinen, T, Jokelainen, J et al. (2006). Common polymorphisms (single-nucleotide polymorphisms SNP+45 and SNP+276) of the adiponectin gene regulate serum adiponectin concentrations and blood pressure in young Finnish men. Mol Genet Metab 87, 147151.Google Scholar
107. Woo, JG, Dolan, LM, Deka, R et al. (2006) Interactions between noncontiguous haplotypes in the adiponectin gene ACDC are associated with plasma adiponectin. Diabetes 55, 523529.Google Scholar
108. Bouatia-Naji, N, Meyre, D, Lobbens, S et al. (2006) ACDC/adiponectin polymorphisms are associated with severe childhood and adult obesity. Diabetes 55, 545550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
109. Petrone, A, Zavarella, S, Caiazzo, A et al. (2006) The promoter region of the adiponectin gene is a determinant in modulating insulin sensitivity in childhood obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring) 14, 14981504.Google Scholar
110. Gonzalez-Sanchez, JL, Zabena, CA, Martinez-Larrad, MT et al. (2005) An SNP in the adiponectin gene is associated with decreased serum adiponectin levels and risk for impaired glucose tolerance. Obes Res 13, 807812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
111. Mackevics, V, Heid, IM, Wagner, SA, et al. (2006) The adiponectin gene is associated with adiponectin levels but not with characteristics of the insulin resistance syndrome in healthy Caucasians. Eur J Hum Genet 14, 349356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
112. Jang, Y, Lee, JH, Chae, JS et al. (2005) Association of the 276G->T polymorphism of the adiponectin gene with cardiovascular disease risk factors in nondiabetic Koreans. Am J Clin Nutr 82, 760767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
113. Hara, K, Boutin, P, Mori, Y et al. (2002) Genetic variation in the gene encoding adiponectin is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes in the Japanese population. Diabetes 51, 536540.Google Scholar
114. Filippi, E, Sentinelli, F, Trischitta, V et al. (2004) Association of the human adiponectin gene and insulin resistance. Eur J Hum Genet 12, 199205.Google Scholar
115. Chiodini, BD, Specchia, C, Gori, F et al. (2010) Adiponectin gene polymorphisms and their effect on the risk of myocardial infarction and type 2 diabetes: An association study in an Italian population. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis 4, 223230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
116. Menzaghi, C, Ercolino, T, Di Paola, R et al. (2002) A haplotype at the adiponectin locus is associated with obesity and other features of the insulin resistance syndrome. Diabetes 51, 23062312.Google Scholar
117. Menzaghi, C, Ercolino, T, Salvemini, L et al. (2005) Lack of evidence for interaction between APM1 and PPARgamma2 genes in modulating insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic Caucasians from Italy. J Intern Med 257, 315331.Google Scholar
118. Melistas, L, Mantzoros, CS, Kontogianni, M et al. (2009) Association of the +45T>G and +276G>T polymorphisms in the adiponectin gene with insulin resistance in nondiabetic Greek women. Eur J Endocrinol 161, 845852.Google Scholar
119. Berthier, MT, Houde, A, Cote, M et al. (2005) Impact of adiponectin gene polymorphisms on plasma lipoprotein and adiponectin concentrations of viscerally obese men. J Lipid Res 46, 237244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
120. Ukkola, O, Ravussin, E, Jacobson, P et al. (2003) Mutations in the adiponectin gene in lean and obese subjects from the Swedish obese subjects cohort. Metabolism 52, 881884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
121. Beebe-Dimmer, JL, Zuhlke, KA, Ray, AM et al. (2010) Genetic variation in adiponectin (ADIPOQ) and the type 1 receptor (ADIPOR1), obesity and prostate cancer in African Americans. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13, 362368.Google Scholar
122. Dolley, G, Bertrais, S, Frochot, V et al. (2008) Promoter adiponectin polymorphisms and waist/hip ratio variation in a prospective French adults study. Int J Obes (Lond) 32, 669675.Google Scholar
123. Warodomwichit, D, Shen, J, Arnett, DK et al. (2009) ADIPOQ polymorphisms, monounsaturated fatty acids, and obesity risk: The GOLDN study. Obesity (Silver Spring) 17, 510517.Google Scholar
124. Pérez-Martínez, P, López-Miranda, J, Cruz-Teno, C et al. (2008) Adiponectin gene variants are associated with insulin sensitivity in response to dietary fat consumption in Caucasian men. J Nutr 138, 16091614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
125. Ferguson, JF, Phillips, CM, Tierney, AC et al. (2010) Gene-nutrient interactions in the metabolic syndrome: Single nucleotide polymorphisms in ADIPOQ and ADIPOR1 interact with plasma saturated fatty acids to modulate insulin resistance. Am J Clin Nutr 91, 794801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
126. Kim, B, Jang, Y, Paik, JK et al. (2010). Adiponectin gene polymorphisms are associated with long-chain omega3-polyunsaturated fatty acids in serum phospholipids in nondiabetic Koreans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95, E347E351.Google Scholar
127. Iwaki, M, Matsuda, M, Maeda, N et al. (2003) Induction of adiponectin, a fat-derived antidiabetic and antiatherogenic factor, by nuclear receptors. Diabetes 52, 16551663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
128. Maeda, N, Takahashi, M, Funahashi, T et al. (2001) PPAR{gamma} ligands increase expression and plasma concentrations of adiponectin, an adipose-derived protein. Diabetes 50, 20942099.Google Scholar
129. Pischon, T, Girman, CJ, Rifai, N et al. (2005). Association between dietary factors and plasma adiponectin concentrations in men. Am J Clin Nutr 81, 780786.Google Scholar
130. Esposito, K, Pontillo, A, Di Palo, C et al. (2003) Effect of weight loss and lifestyle changes on vascular inflammatory markers in obese women: A randomized trial. JAMA 289, 17991804.Google Scholar
131. Yannakoulia, M, Yiannakouris, N, Bluher, S et al. (2003) Body fat mass and macronutrient intake in relation to circulating soluble leptin receptor, free leptin index, adiponectin, and resistin concentrations in healthy humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88, 17301736.Google Scholar
132. Arvidsson, E, Viguerie, N, Andersson, I et al. (2004) Effects of different hypocaloric diets on protein secretion from adipose tissue of obese women. Diabetes 53, 19661971.Google Scholar
133. Peake, PW, Kriketos, AD, Denyer, GS et al. (2003) The postprandial response of adiponectin to a high-fat meal in normal and insulin-resistant subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 27, 657662.Google Scholar
134. Mantzoros, CS, Williams, CJ, Manson, JE et al. (2006) Adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern is positively associated with plasma adiponectin concentrations in diabetic women. Am J Clin Nutr 84, 328335.Google Scholar
135. AlSaleh, A, O'Dell, SD, Frost, GS et al. (2011) Single nucleotide polymorphisms at the ADIPOQ gene locus interact with age and dietary intake of fat to determine serum adiponectin in subjects at risk of the metabolic syndrome. Am J Clin Nutr 94, 18.Google Scholar
136. Sanderson, LM, de Groot, PJ, Hooiveld, GJ et al. (2008) Effect of synthetic dietary triglycerides: A novel research paradigm for nutrigenomics. PLoS ONE 3, e1681, 111.Google Scholar
137. Yeung, EH, Appel, LJ, Miller, ER III et al. (2010) The effects of macronutrient intake on total and high-molecular weight adiponectin: Results from the OMNI-Heart trial. Obesity (Silver Spring) 18, 1632–1163.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (Colour online) PPAR mechanism of action. The major natural ligands of PPAR-γ and PPAR-α are PUFA, as well as prostanoids. Upon ligand-dependent activation, both PPAR heterodimerise with retinoid-X receptor-α (RXR-α) and bind to a peroxisome proliferator response element (PPRE) in the promoter region of the target genes to initiate transcription.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Mean TAG concentration with respect to quartiles of habitual dietary PUFA:SFA (P:S) ratio and PPARG Pro12Ala genotype in White subjects. The numbers of genotyped subjects with measurements in each quartile of P:S ratio ⩽0·33, 0·34–0·47, 0·48–0·65 and >0·65, were as follows: PP: 64, 76, 59, 49; PA+AA:16, 8, 19 and 17. The geometric mean concentrations of TAG are shown. Bars represent 95% CI. Dietary P:S ratio×genotype interaction determined by univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) significantly influenced plasma TAG (P=0·02), after adjustment for BMI, gender and age. There was a significant trend in reduction of plasma TAG concentration between P:S ratio 0·34 to >0·65 (P=0·002) in Ala12 allele carriers.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Interaction between PPARG Pro12Ala and PPARA Leu162Val genotype groups after dietary treatments influences plasma LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration and small dense LDL (sdLDL) as proportion of LDL. Interaction between PPARG Pro12Ala and PPARA Leu162Val genotypes was a significant determinant of change in plasma concentrations of (a) LDL-C (P=0·003) and (b) sdLDL as proportion of LDL (P=0·012) after high MUFA (HM) and low fat (LF) diets, after adjustment for baseline values, change in BMI, age, gender and ethnicity using three-way ANOVA. PP represents subjects homozygous for the PPARG Pro12 allele and PA+AA carriers of the Ala12 allele. LL represents subjects homozygous for the PPARA Leu162 allele and LV+VV carriers of the Val162 allele. Mean follow-up concentrations of LDL-C (mmol/l) and sdLDL as proportion of LDL (%) adjusted for baseline values after 24 weeks on HM or LF diets are shown. Bars indicate 95% CI. The figure is based on subjects with genotypes for both SNP and measurements of plasma lipids after HM and LF diets. The numbers of subjects in each genotype group LL/PP, LL/PP+PA, LV+VV/PP and LV+VV/PP+PA were as follows: HM diet: 121, 24, 17, 4; LF diet: 126, 34, 9 and 4.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Adiponectin mechanism of action. Adiponectin activates AMP kinase (AMPK) and PPAR-α in liver and skeletal muscle. In muscle, globular and full-length adiponectin activate AMPK, stimulating inhibitory phosphorylation of acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC), promoting fatty-acid oxidation, and GLUT4 translocation promoting glucose uptake. Activation of PPAR-α also leads to stimulation of fatty-acid oxidation and decreased TAG. In the liver, full-length adiponectin activates AMPK, thereby reducing enzymes involved in gluconeogenesis, also increasing phosphorylation of ACC and stimulating fatty-acid oxidation. Activation of PPAR-α decreases TAG as in muscle. All actions increase insulin sensitivity. PEPCK, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase; G6Pase, glucose-6-phosphatase. (Adapted from Kadowaki and Yamauchi(95)).

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Effect of high-MUFA (HM) and low-fat (LF) diets on adiponectin concentration with respect to −10066 G/A genotype and age in White subjects. % changes (95% CI) in geometric mean adiponectin concentration adjusted for change in BMI and gender are shown in each age group, after subjects consumed HM (n 151) or LF (n 152) diets. (a) −10066 GG subjects (n 111) and (b) −10066 GA+AA subjects (n 192). The number of genotyped subjects in each age group 35–40, 41–50, 51–60 and 61–70 years were as follows: HM diet: GG 6, 18, 13, 20; GA+AA 13, 22, 30 and 29; LF diet: GG 9, 8, 21, 16; GA+AA 13, 27, 36 and 22. Interaction between gene×age×diet in determination of change in serum adiponectin concentration found by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was NS after adjustment for change in BMI (n 303; P=0·07). *Denotes significant difference in % change in serum adiponectin between GG subjects on HM and LF diets (P=0·003). (From AlSaleh A et al.(135).)