Purpose: Existing studies on laxatives, used by roughly 40% of the U.S. population experiencing constipation and colorectal cancer (CRC) have yielded inconsistent results, which may be due to a failure to account for differential risks by major laxative types: bulk (fiber-based), and nonbulk (or nonfiber-based).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe mechanisms by which obesity increases cancer risk are unclear, but some lines of evidence suggest that gut microbial communities (GMC) may contribute to chronic inflammation in obese individuals through raised systemic levels of lipopolysaccharides (LPS). We evaluated associations of the GMC in stool with plasma LPS-binding protein (LBP, a measure of LPS) and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations in 110 premenopausal women in the United States. Diet was assessed using 3-day food records and GMCs were evaluated using pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA gene.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), an endotoxin found on the outer cell wall of Gram-negative bacteria, increases inflammatory response signaling and may play a role in the pathogenesis of several adverse outcomes, including inflammatory bowel diseases, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. While LPS is hypothesized to be associated with colorectal carcinogenesis, there are relatively few human studies which have examined this association.
Methods: We examined the association between colorectal cancer (CRC) and plasma lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP), a marker of LPS, in 1,638 participants (819 CRC cases and 819 controls) matched on multiple factors, including age, sex, and race/ethnicity, from the Multiethnic Cohort study.
Plasma lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP), a measure of internal exposure to bacterial lipopolysaccharide, has been associated with several chronic conditions and may be a marker of chronic inflammation; however, no studies have examined the reliability of this biomarker in a healthy population. We examined the temporal reliability of LBP measured in archived samples from participants in two studies. In Study one, 60 healthy participants had blood drawn at two time points: baseline and follow-up (either three, six, or nine months).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF