Plasma lipidomic profiles after a low and high glycemic load dietary pattern in a randomized controlled crossover feeding study

Abstract

Background: Dietary patterns low in glycemic load are associated with reduced risk of cardiometabolic diseases. Improvements in serum lipid concentrations may play a role in these observed associations.

Objective: We investigated how dietary patterns differing in glycemic load affect clinical lipid panel measures and plasma lipidomics profiles.

Methods: In a crossover, controlled feeding study, 80 healthy participants (n = 40 men, n = 40 women), 18-45 y were randomized to receive low-glycemic load (LGL) or high glycemic load (HGL) diets for 28 days each with at least a 28-day washout period between controlled diets. Fasting plasma samples were collected at baseline and end of each diet period. Lipids on a clinical panel including total-, VLDL-, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides were measured using an auto-analyzer. Lipidomics analysis using mass-spectrometry provided the concentrations of 863 species. Linear mixed models and lipid ontology enrichment analysis were implemented.

Results: Lipids from the clinical panel were not significantly different between diets. Univariate analysis showed that 67 species on the lipidomics panel, predominantly in the triacylglycerol class, were higher after the LGL diet compared to the HGL (FDR < 0.05). Three species with FA 17:0 were lower after LGL diet with enrichment analysis (FDR < 0.05).

Conclusion: In the context of controlled eucaloric diets with similar macronutrient distribution, these results suggest that there are relative shifts in lipid species, but the overall pool does not change. Further studies are needed to better understand in which compartment the different lipid species are transported in blood, and how these shifts are related to health outcomes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00622661.

Keywords: Dietary pattern; High glycemic load; Low glycemic load; Randomized crossover feeding study; Targeted lipidomics.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: S. Dibay Moghadam, S. L. Navarro, A. Shojaie, T. W. Randolph, L. F. Bettcher, C. Le, M. A. Hullar, M. Kratz, M. L. Neuhouser, P. D. Lampe, D. Raftery, J. W. Lampe no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.

CONSORT Flow diagram of participants in the Carbohydrate and Related Biomarkers (CARB) dietary intervention study.

Fig. 2.

Top 12 lipid species that were significantly different between the two dietary patterns; high glycemic load (HGL) and low glycemic load (LGL). CER, ceremide ;CE, cholesterol ester CE; PC, phosphatidylcholines; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; TAG, triacylglycerol

Fig. 3.

Principal component analysis pairwise score plot of plasma lipid concentrations (log transformed) after 28-d consumption of low glycemic load (LGL; ▲) and high glycemic load (HGL; ○) diets in the Carbohydrates And Related Biomarkers (CARB) study, a randomized crossover controlled feeding study.

Fig. 4.

Lipid ontology (LION) enrichment analysis volcano plot of significant lipid species after low glycemic load (LGL) compared to high glycemic load diet (HGL)