Skip Navigation Links
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDC Home Search Health Topics A-Z

Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy

View Current Issue
Issue Archive
Archivo de números en español








Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal
MMWR


 Home 

Volume 6: No. 3, July 2009

SPECIAL TOPIC
 The Effect of Neurohormonal Factors, Epigenetic Factors, and Gut Microbiota on Risk of Obesity
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Translation available Este resumen en español
Print this article Print this article
E-mail this article E-mail this article:
Send feedback to editors Send feedback to editors
Download this article as a PDF Download this article as a PDF (386K)
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files.


Navigate This Article
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Neurohormonal Controls
• Epigenetics
• Gut Microbiota
• Conclusion
• Author Information
• References


Matthew A. Haemer, MD; Terry T. Huang, PhD, MPH; Stephen R. Daniels, MD, PhD

Suggested citation for this article: Haemer MA, Huang TT, Daniels SR. The effect of neurohormonal factors, epigenetic factors, and gut microbiota on risk of obesity. Prev Chronic Dis 2009;6(3):A96. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/
jul/09_0011.htm. Accessed [date].

PEER REVIEWED

Abstract

Molecular, cellular, and epidemiologic findings suggest that neurohormonal, epigenetic, and microbiologic mechanisms may influence risk for obesity by interacting with socioenvironmental factors. Homeostatic and nonhomeostatic neural controls of energy predispose people to obesity, and this predisposition may be exaggerated by the influence of media, marketing, and sleep patterns. Epigenetic gene regulation may account for the influence of modifiable early life or maternal exposures on obesity risk. Alterations in gut flora caused by infant feeding practices or later diet may influence the absorption and storage of energy. Further exploration of how these molecular-cellular mechanisms might increase obesity risk in response to modifiable socioeconomic factors requires the partnership of laboratory and public health researchers.

Back to top

Introduction

We describe components of a novel paradigm for obesity-related research and public health interventions that are designed to generate cross-disciplinary hypotheses that account for multiple levels of causation from molecular to societal. The goals of this approach are to understand the causal pathways leading to patterns of obesity in populations and to identify where interventions that can broadly affect the population can be implemented (1). Our focus is on the mechanisms that may be useful for understanding how socioenvironmental factors interact with biological processes to affect energy balance. We review neurohormonal controls, epigenetics, and microbiologic mechanisms in gut flora that may influence risk for obesity.

Back to top

Neurohormonal Controls

Homeostatic controls

The complex neurohormonal systems controlling weight and adiposity can be categorized as either homeostatic or nonhomeostatic (2). Parsimonious homeostatic mechanisms provided a survival advantage to people faced with periodic starvation. Organisms that could consume, store, and conserve energy efficiently were likely to survive and reproduce (3). Although evolution may have selected against extreme adiposity (4), the negative feedback signals against excess intake are insufficient to maintain normal body weight for most humans who have easy access to palatable, calorie-dense foods (5).

When provided a diet high in calories, animals prone to obesity rapidly increase fat stores (2). Furthermore, when obese rats lose weight or have their calorie intake restricted, they mount the same neurohormonal drive as do lean rats to increase intake and decrease energy expenditure, effectively defending obesity (6,7). After weight loss, the average resting energy expenditure of obese people is markedly and persistently reduced (8). These factors are blamed for the weight regain that occurs in approximately 80% to 90% of obese people who have lost weight (8,9).

A complex interplay of neurotransmitters, hormones, and metabolites regulates food intake in the brain. Metabolic sensing neurons of the hypothalamus and other brain areas respond to signals of energy intake, demand, or storage including circulating glucose, leptin from adipocytes, insulin, ghrelin from the stomach, adrenal steroids, polypeptide YY from the intestines, fatty acids, ketones, lactate, vagal nerve afferents, and intrinsic neurotransmitters (5). Hypothalamic neurons release neurotransmitters that activate either catabolic processes (eg, a-melanocyte-stimulating hormone [a-MSH], cocaine- and amphetamine-regulated transcript [CART], corticotropin-releasing hormone [CRH]) or anabolic processes (eg, neuropeptide Y [NPY], agouti-related protein [AGRP], orexins) (10). Hypothalamic neurons signal broadly to the pituitary, brainstem, midbrain, and forebrain. These pathways regulating energy intake and expenditure have been demonstrated experimentally in animal models and through functional neuroimaging in humans (11).

The interplay between the sympathetic nervous system and leptin signaling is an example of neurohormonal protection of adiposity. With calorie restriction, sympathetic activation releases glucose from glycogen stores and fatty acids from adipose tissue. Adipose tissue responds to sympathetic activity by markedly decreasing leptin production, which decreases resting energy expenditure and increases appetite to replenish fat stores (2). Some rare human obesity syndromes are associated with single gene defects within homeostatic pathways, including leptin deficiency, leptin receptor defect, pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) deficit leading to impaired a-MSH production, and a-MSH receptor defects (12).

Nonhomeostatic controls

Nonhomeostatic systems promote excess weight gain through responses to the reward properties of food and psychosocial factors associated with eating (5). When a palatable and calorically dense diet is provided, rats eat far beyond limits of homeostasis and develop extreme levels of obesity, even rats predisposed to leanness (13). The more palatable the diet, the higher the degree of obesity and the longer it is sustained (13).

The organization and function of the human brain is a reflection that throughout all but the most recent evolutionary history, obtaining food was a difficult task. Complex pathways record past context and the expectation of reward (14). Reward properties of foods (the stimuli that augment the drive to obtain foods) mediate “liking” by action at opioid receptors and “wanting” by action at dopaminergic receptors. Both of these receptors also mediate addiction (4). Metabolic signals modify the sensing thresholds for food-related stimuli, food-seeking behavior, and reward signals (4). Chronic stress enhances the reward value of foods (15). Although the subcortical areas contribute to subconscious drives for intake, the cortical areas integrate these underlying signals with learned motivational cues. These cues can drive intake well beyond subcortical demands of energy needs (16). Overall, the drive to eat is the result of complex, redundant systems that protect against starvation, but the systems are grossly mismatched to the food and activity environment of the developed world (17).

Implications of neurohormonal mechanisms for obesity and public health

The potency of homeostatic and nonhomeostatic forces that promote weight gain and prevent weight loss make clear the value of obesity prevention, especially considering the cost and difficulty of obesity treatment. Many socioenvironmental factors interact with the neurologic drivers of intake, so identifying and intervening on modifiable levels to prevent obesity is a challenging task.

Sleep may play a role in maintaining proper energy balance by influencing neurohormonal controls (18). A meta-analysis of 30 cross-sectional studies through early 2008 found an odds ratio for obesity of 1.89 in children with short duration of sleep and 1.55 in adults with short duration of sleep (19). More recently published longitudinal studies, one with 32 years of follow-up from birth, also found that shorter sleep times in childhood were significantly associated with increased body mass index (20,21). Experimental studies of sleep deprivation show increased hunger and appetite associated with neurohormonal mechanisms that promote intake: decreased levels of leptin, increased levels of ghrelin, increased sympathetic tone, and increased cortisol (22). Nonhormonal effects of short sleep, such as fatigue and decreased volitional energy expenditure, may also play a role in the association between sleep and obesity. Debate remains about the strength of the evidence that poor sleep causes obesity, and interventions to decrease obesity by increasing sleep have yet to be reported (23).

Media exposure and food marketing either overpower homeostatic negative feedback or strongly amplify nonhomeostatic drivers of intake. Distracting stimuli, such as television viewing while eating, strongly increase intake, possibly by interfering with neural signals of satiety (24). In a controlled experiment, viewing children’s food advertisements caused children to eat much larger portions of snack foods compared to children who watched nonfood advertisements, and the effect was significantly larger on obese children than on normal-weight children (25). Marketing often seeks to influence the emotional responses to food (26) and succeeds in altering the perceived reward value of foods (27). Most food advertisements targeting preschool children involve fast-food restaurants or sweetened cereals. These advertisements associate the products with fun and happiness in an attempt to create long-term customers through positive emotional associations with the product (28). The food industry targets children at stages of development critical to establishing future eating habits (28).

Analysis by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that eliminating fast-food restaurant advertising to children would reduce the prevalence of obesity by 18% (29). Some governments have restricted television advertising of food products to children, and some advertisers have voluntarily restricted advertisements (30). However, the recent proliferation of other digital media sources, including cell phones, mobile music devices, broadband video, instant messaging, videogames, and virtual worlds, has created a “marketing ecosystem” for advertisement of food (31,32), and the influence of marketing on intake may become more pervasive in the future.

Back to top

Epigenetics

Studies searching for determinants of risks for obesity and cardiovascular disease have found that genetics (33,34) and behavioral exposures (35) explain only part of the risk. Epigenetic mechanisms describe environment-gene interactions that may explain some residual risk. The term epigenetics refers to cellular mechanisms that affect gene expression without changing DNA sequence (36). Epigenetic markings can be inherited and modified throughout the lifespan (37). Epigenetic modifications during critical early periods, such as embryogenesis (38) have the most effect on phenotype. Fetal and early life exposures have been associated with numerous health outcomes later in life, including obesity (39,40). Changes to DNA marking and packaging may explain the influence of the environment on gene expression throughout a person’s life and even across generations (41). Evidence is mounting from experimental studies in animals and from human epidemiologic studies that epigenetic mechanisms may affect risk for chronic disease, especially when the environment predicted by fetal experience does not match the environment later in life (42,43).

Animal models of epigenetics related to obesity

Experimental studies have subjected animals to dietary, chemical, and stress exposures during prenatal or early life that lead to epigenetic changes in gene expression in adulthood. The epigenetic changes caused by some exposures are preventable by other agents. Some changes in gene expression persist across generations when epigenetic markings are incompletely erased during formation of the sperm and ova (38). Several animal studies illustrate epigenetic influences on obesity.

The Agouti (Avy/a) mouse is a well-described model of epigenetically controlled obesity. Among mice carrying 1 obese allele (Avy) and 1 nonobese allele (a), those with inadequate methylation of the Avy allele develop obesity and yellow fur (38). The Avy protein blocks satiety signals from insulin and leptin on the hypothalamus (37). Obesity is amplified through multiple generations of Avy/a mice, but supplementing the diet with methyl donors prevents this amplification (44). Maternal ingestion of bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, decreased methylation of the Avy allele in offspring (45). This decrease in methylation did not occur when the soy isoflavone genistein or a methyl donor, such as folic acid or vitamin B12, was added to the BPA-containing diet (45).

Rats whose mothers do not eat enough protein during pregnancy have decreased methylation and have increased expression of glucocorticoid receptors and peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor-a in the liver. These changes are associated with components of metabolic syndrome including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and insulin resistance. Giving mothers folic acid supplements prevented the hypomethylation and normalized the gene expression in offspring (46).

Elevated reactivity to psychological stress has been associated with obesity in humans (47). In a model of early life stress, rats who are poorly nurtured by their mothers develop exaggerated stress responses and poorly nurture their own offspring; the pattern is repeated through multiple generations (48). Poor nurturing increases stress reactivity through methylation and de-acetylation of the glucocorticoid receptor gene in the brain, decreasing receptor production (49). Infusion of histone deacetylase inhibitors or “adopting out” offspring to highly nurturing mothers prevented these changes (48). Epigenetic recording of early parenting interactions affects the phenotype throughout the lifespan in this model (50).

Human evidence supporting epigenetic mechanisms of obesity

Certain genes may be particularly vulnerable to epigenetic changes. Metastable epialleles like the Avy allele in mice are subject to dramatic interindividual differences in methylation (37). Imprinted genes, for which the allele from 1 parent is normally silenced by methylation, are at risk of causing functional problems if the remaining copy is inappropriately silenced. Two rare human obesity syndromes, Prader-Willi and Beckwith-Wiedemann, can result from inappropriate methylation of imprinted genes (38). The search for metastable epialleles and imprinted genes affecting obesity in humans is of great interest.

Several studies have examined the effects of specific exposures on human fetuses or infants. A prospective study following 1,100 mother-child pairs from the prenatal period examined the effect of several perinatal exposures on obesity at age 3 years: prenatal smoking, excess weight gain during pregnancy, breast-feeding for fewer than 12 months, and poor infant sleep duration (51). This study found a progressive increase in risk of obesity with the addition of each risk factor (51). A meta-analysis of breast-feeding studies found a dose-response effect of breast-feeding duration on decreasing obesity prevalence. Each month of breast-feeding up to 9 months decreased the risk of obesity at 3 years by 4%, yielding an odds ratio of 0.68 for overweight in those breast-fed longer than 9 months compared with infants who were fed formula exclusively (52). These human studies did not include analysis of specific epigenetic markers for gene expression, but they suggest that early life exposures can have lasting effects on phenotype.

One study has demonstrated epigenetic changes in human growth-controlling genes associated with adverse perinatal events. The Dutch famine of 1944-1945 provides a unique opportunity to study humans exposed to well-defined undernutrition. Adults who were exposed to poor nutrition in utero had an increased prevalence of glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia, early coronary heart disease, and obesity (53,54). A recent study of adults who were exposed to the Dutch famine early in gestational development is reportedly the first to provide empiric support for the hypothesis that environmental exposures can cause epigenetic changes in humans. The insulin-like growth factor-2 (IGF-2) gene, which exerts control over fetal growth, is imprinted with the maternal allele normally silenced by methylation (55). Methylation of IGF-2 was decreased in adults who were exposed to famine early in utero compared with unaffected siblings and those exposed to famine only late in gestation. This was possibly an effect of decreased availability of methyl donors such as folate and the amino acid methionine during early development (43).

Implications of epigenetic mechanisms for obesity and public health

If epigenetic modifications that increase risk for obesity and chronic diseases occur widely in humans, the implications for public health interventions could be substantial. Epigenetic changes could underlie the increased risk of central obesity and cardiovascular disease among adults who experienced adverse in utero conditions, but at present direct evidence in humans is sparse. Epigenetic modifications have been proposed as contributors to variation in obesity across race, country, and immigrant status (35,56). Some prenatal and early life exposures such as smoking, inappropriate weight gain during pregnancy, gestational diabetes, and early feeding are known targets for intervention, but a modifiable biologic mechanism may provide an additional incentive to intervene early. Maternal stress or chemical exposures may be explored for epigenetic mechanisms affecting human disease. Research related to epigenetics draws on the expertise of multiple disciplines, including molecular biology/genetics, nutrition, environmental epidemiology, and life course epidemiology. An international scientific initiative, the Alliance for the Human Epigenome and Disease (AHEAD), has a goal to create a reference map of epigenetic modification sites (57). Prospective studies that collect biological samples early in life, such as the National Children’s Study, may provide insight into epigenetic mechanisms of obesity and chronic disease (58).

Back to top

Gut Microbiota

Differences in intestinal flora may explain some of the risk for obesity, yet like epigenetic mechanisms, evidence in humans is sparse. The gut microbiota consists of the microorganisms, predominantly bacteria, that inhabit the gastrointestinal tract. These microbes metabolize otherwise indigestible components of the diet, and the products of microbial metabolism affect the amount of energy absorbed (59). The combined gene pool of gut microorganisms enables absorption of simple sugars from complex polysaccharides and may influence fat storage by modifying lipoprotein lipase activity (60). RNA sequencing has been used to study bacterial species in stool samples (61). The species-level makeup of gut flora varies from person to person, but most analyses related to obesity have focused on how the relative proportion of 2 major bacterial divisions, Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, differ between obese and lean people (62).

Animal studies of microbiota and obesity

The effect of microbiota on energy absorption and obesity has been demonstrated in mice. Germ-free mice have significantly less body fat than do mice with standard microbiota, and rapidly gain weight after inoculation (60). Obesity-prone mice, in contrast to their nonobese siblings, carry microbiota with an enhanced proportion of genes to break down polysaccharides, and their stools show increased fermentation products and decreased residual calories (59). When gut flora from obese or lean mice were transplanted to germ-free mice eating a high-fat, high-sugar diet, those receiving microbiota from obese mice gained significantly more fat than did those receiving lean mouse flora (59).

Human studies of microbiota and obesity

Thus far, human studies regarding the effect of intestinal flora have been observational and have had small sample sizes. A recent case-control study found gut flora in infancy predicted overweight later in childhood (63). Among children who were enrolled as newborns, 25 overweight 7-year-olds were matched with normal-weight controls for multiple factors including probiotics supplementation, antibiotic use, and breast-feeding duration (63). On average, overweight children had lower numbers of the genus Bifidobacterium spp. and higher numbers of Staphylococcus aureus in their stools during infancy (63). Bifidobacteria are the predominant flora of breast-fed infants and are hypothesized to affect weight gain through mucosal host-microbe crosstalk, immune regulation, and inflammation (64).

Other studies have examined the flora of obese adults. Studies of lean and obese twin pairs found a large variability among species of bacteria present, but a core group of functional genes was present across participants regardless of species type (65). In addition to this “core microbiome,” the microbiomes of obese twins contained more genes involved in carbohydrate, lipid, and amino acid metabolism (65). A small study followed stool microbiota in 12 obese people randomized to low-fat or low-carbohydrate diets for a year. Obese participants had a smaller proportion of Bacteroidetes and a higher proportion of Firmicutes at baseline. During the study, the proportion of Bacteroidetes steadily increased as weight decreased on both diets, especially on the low-carbohydrate diet (66).

Potential implications of gut microbiota for obesity and public health

Other reviewers have suggested that from a public health perspective, it might be wise to avoid shifting too much focus from the known modifiable causes of obesity to gut flora (62). With that reasonable caveat, a small constant source of increased energy absorption could have a substantial effect on obesity in populations.

Throughout history, many cultures have used beneficial microorganisms to create fermented foods containing live microorganisms capable of modifying the makeup of intestinal flora, such as yogurt, curd, and kefir (62). Wide-ranging health claims have been made of commercially available probiotics (live nonpathogenic organisms) and prebiotics (fermentable substrates that enrich the gut for potentially beneficial organisms). Larger prospective studies are required to validate these health claims and to evaluate whether experimental changes to gut flora can affect obesity (67). The genetic sequencing techniques necessary to carry out this type of research are rapidly evolving (68). The National Institutes of Health has devoted substantial resources to the Human Microbiome Project to study the association of microbiota from the gut and other body sites with disease processes (69).

Back to top

Conclusion

A systems approach to the obesity problem necessitates research that connects socioenvironmental factors with biological processes related to energy metabolism. By understanding how obesity results from the interaction of cellular factors with social factors, we can develop interventions that include molecular medicine and broad social policy. The potential biological drivers of obesity include evolutionarily conserved neurobiological mechanisms, epigenetic gene-environment interactions, and gut microbiota. These examples show the need for partnership among investigators across the spectrum of science. Research questions and hypotheses that are cross-disciplinary can aid development of interventions to prevent or control obesity at multiple levels.

Back to top

Author Information

Corresponding Author: Matthew A. Haemer, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Pediatrics Section of Nutrition, The Children’s Hospital, 13123 E 16th Ave, B270, Aurora, CO 80045. Telephone: 720-777-7474. E-mail: Haemer.matthew@tchden.org.

Author Affiliations: Terry T. Huang, Obesity Research Strategic Core, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Stephen R. Daniels, University of Colorado School of Medicine and The Children’s Hospital, Denver, Colorado.

Back to top

References

  1. Huang TT, Glass TA. Transforming research strategies for understanding and preventing obesity. JAMA 2008;300(15):1811-3.
  2. Levin BE. Why some of us get fat and what we can do about it. J Physiol 2007;583(Pt 2):425-30.
  3. Levin BE. Central regulation of energy homeostasis intelligent design: how to build the perfect survivor. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2006;14(Suppl 5):192S-6S.
  4. Zheng H, Berthoud HR. Neural systems controlling the drive to eat: mind versus metabolism. Physiology (Bethesda) 2008;23:75-83.
  5. Berthoud HR, Morrison C. The brain, appetite, and obesity. Annu Rev Psychol 2008;59:55-92.
  6. Levin BE, Dunn-Meynell AA. Defense of body weight against chronic caloric restriction in obesity-prone and -resistant rats. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2000;278(1):R231-7.
  7. Levin BE, Keesey RE. Defense of differing body weight set points in diet-induced obese and resistant rats. Am J Physiol 1998;274(2 Pt 2):R412-9.
  8. Astrup A, Gøtzsche PC, van de Werken K, Ranneries C, Toubro S, Raben A, et al. Meta-analysis of resting metabolic rate in formerly obese subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69(6):1117-22.
  9. Wing RR, Hill JO. Successful weight loss maintenance. Annu Rev Nutr 2001;21:323-41.
  10. Leibowitz SF, Hoebel BG. Behavioral neuroscience and obesity. In: Bray GA, Bouchard C, editors. Handbook of obesity: etiology and pathophysiology. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Informa Healthcare USA;2007.
  11. Pliquett RU, Führer D, Falk S, Zysset S, von Cramon DY, Stumvoll M. The effects of insulin on the central nervous system — focus on appetite regulation. Horm Metab Res 2006;38(7):442-6.
  12. Kleinman RE, editor. Pediatric nutrition handbook. 6th ed. Elk Grove Village (IL): American Academy of Pediatrics; 2008.
  13. Levin BE, Dunn-Meynell AA. Defense of body weight depends on dietary composition and palatability in rats with diet-induced obesity. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2002;282(1):R46-54.
  14. Verhagen JV. The neurocognitive bases of human multimodal food perception: consciousness. Brain Res Rev 2007;53(2):271-86.
  15. Adam TC, Epel ES. Stress, eating and the reward system. Physiol Behav 2007;91(4):449-58.
  16. Berthoud HR. Multiple neural systems controlling food intake and body weight. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2002;26(4):393-428.
  17. James WP. The epidemiology of obesity: the size of the problem. J Intern Med 2008;263(4):336-52.
  18. Taheri S. The link between short sleep duration and obesity: we should recommend more sleep to prevent obesity. Arch Dis Child 2006;91(11):881-4.
  19. Cappuccio FP, Taggart FM, Kandala NB, Currie A, Peile E, Stranges S, et al. Meta-analysis of short sleep duration and obesity in children and adults. Sleep 2008;31(5):619-26.
  20. Taveras EM, Rifas-Shiman SL, Oken E, Gunderson EP, Gillman MW. Short sleep duration in infancy and risk of childhood overweight. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162(4):305-11.
  21. Landhuis CE, Poulton R, Welch D, Hancox RJ. Childhood sleep time and long-term risk for obesity: a 32-year prospective birth cohort study. Pediatrics 2008;122(5):955-60.
  22. Van Cauter E, Knutson KL. Sleep and the epidemic of obesity in children and adults. Eur J Endocrinol 2008;159(Suppl 1):S59-66.
  23. Marshall NS, Glozier N, Grunstein RR. Is sleep duration related to obesity? A critical review of the epidemiological evidence. Sleep Med Rev 2008;12(4):289-98.
  24. Blass EM, Anderson DR, Kirkorian HL, Pempek TA, Price I, Koleini MF. On the road to obesity: television viewing increases intake of high-density foods. Physiol Behav 2006;88(4-5):597-604.
  25. Halford JC, Boyland EJ, Hughes GM, Stacey L, McKean S, Dovey TM. Beyond-brand effect of television food advertisements on food choice in children: the effects of weight status. Public Health Nutr 2008;11(9):897-904.
  26. Lewis MK, Hill AJ. Food advertising on British children’s television: a content analysis and experimental study with nine-year olds. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998;22(3):206-14.
  27. McClure SM, Li J, Tomlin D, Cypert KS, Montague LM, Montague PR. Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron 2004;44(2):379-87.
  28. Connor SM. Food-related advertising on preschool television: building brand recognition in young viewers. Pediatrics 2006;118(4):1478-85.
  29. Chou S-Y, Rashad I, Grossman M. Fast-food restaurant advertising on television and its influence on childhood obesity. J Law Econ 2008;51(4):599-618.
  30. Hawkes C. Regulating and litigating in the public interest: regulating food marketing to young people worldwide: trends and policy drivers. Am J Public Health 2007;97(11):1962-73.
  31. Singer JG. Marketing ecosystems: framing brand management for business ecosystems. San Diego (CA): CRM Systems Inc. http://www.crm2day.com/library/50216.php. Accessed January 15, 2009.
  32. Chester J, Montgomery K. Interactive food and beverage marketing: targeting children and youth in the digital age. Berkeley (CA): Berkeley Media Studios Group. http://digitalads.org/documents/digiMarketingFull.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2009.
  33. Loos RJ, Lindgren CM, Li S, Wheeler E, Zhao JH, Prokopenko I, et al. Common variants near MC4R are associated with fat mass, weight and risk of obesity. Nat Genet 2008;40(6):768-75.
  34. Frayling TM, Timpson NJ, Weedon MN, Zeggini E, Freathy RM, Lindgren CM, et al. A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science 2007;316(5826):889-94.
  35. Kuzawa CW, Sweet E. Epigenetics and the embodiment of race: developmental origins of US racial disparities in cardiovascular health. Am J Hum Biol 2009;21(1):2-15.
  36. Ubeda F, Wilkins JF. Imprinted genes and human disease: an evolutionary perspective. Adv Exp Med Biol 2008;626:101-15.
  37. Waterland RA, Michels KB. Epigenetic epidemiology of the developmental origins hypothesis. Annu Rev Nutr 2007;27:363-88.
  38. Jirtle RL, Skinner MK. Environmental epigenomics and disease susceptibility. Nat Rev Genet 2007;8(4):253-62.
  39. Barker DJ, Eriksson JG, Forsén T, Osmond C. Fetal origins of adult disease: strength of effects and biological basis. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31(6):1235-9.
  40. Gluckman PD, Hanson MA, Cooper C, Thornburg KL. Effect of in utero and early-life conditions on adult health and disease. N Engl J Med 2008;359(1):61-73.
  41. Allis CD, Jenuwein T, Reinberg D, editors. Epigenetics. Cold Spring Harbor (NY): Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2007. p. 2-3.
  42. Godfrey KM, Lillycrop KA, Burdge GC, Gluckman PD, Hanson MA. Epigenetic mechanisms and the mismatch concept of the developmental origins of health and disease. Pediatr Res 2007;61(5 Pt 2):5R-10R.
  43. Heijmans BT, Tobi EW, Stein AD, Putter H, Blauw GJ, Susser ES, et al. Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105(44):17046-9.
  44. Waterland RA, Travisano M, Tahiliani KG, Rached MT, Mirza S. Methyl donor supplementation prevents transgenerational amplification of obesity. Int J Obes (Lond) 2008;32(9):1373-9.
  45. Dolinoy DC, Huang D, Jirtle RL. Maternal nutrient supplementation counteracts bisphenol A-induced DNA hypomethylation in early development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007;104(32):13056-61.
  46. Lillycrop KA, Phillips ES, Jackson AA, Hanson MA, Burdge GC. Dietary protein restriction of pregnant rats induces and folic acid supplementation prevents epigenetic modification of hepatic gene expression in the offspring. J Nutr 2005;135(6):1382-6.
  47. Roemmich JN, Smith JR, Epstein LH, Lambiase M. Stress reactivity and adiposity of youth. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007;15(9):2303-10.
  48. Meaney MJ, Szyf M, Seckl JR. Epigenetic mechanisms of perinatal programming of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function and health. Trends Mol Med 2007;13(7):269-77.
  49. Champagne FA. Epigenetic mechanisms and the transgenerational effects of maternal care. Front Neuroendocrinol 2008;29(3):386-97.
  50. Ogren MP, Lombroso PJ. Epigenetics: behavioral influences on gene function, part I. Maternal behavior permanently affects adult behavior in offspring. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008;47(3):240-4.
  51. Gillman MW, Rifas-Shiman SL, Kleinman K, Oken E, Rich-Edwards JW, Taveras EM. Developmental origins of childhood overweight: potential public health impact. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008;16(7):1651-6.
  52. Harder T, Bergmann R, Kallischnigg G, Plagemann A. Duration of breastfeeding and risk of overweight: a meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 2005;162(5):397-403.
  53. Roseboom T, de Rooij S, Painter R. The Dutch famine and its long-term consequences for adult health. Early Hum Dev 2006;82(8):485-91.
  54. Ravelli GP, Stein ZA, Susser MW. Obesity in young men after famine exposure in utero and early infancy. N Engl J Med 1976;295(7):349-53.
  55. Heude B, Ong KK, Luben R, Wareham NJ, Sandhu MS. Study of association between common variation in the insulin-like growth factor 2 gene and indices of obesity and body size in middle-aged men and women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92(7):2734-8.
  56. López-Jaramillo P, Silva SY, Rodríguez-Salamanca N, Duràn A, Mosquera W, Castillo V. Are nutrition-induced epigenetic changes the link between socioeconomic pathology and cardiovascular diseases? Am J Ther 2008;15(4):362-72.
  57. American Association for Cancer Research Human Epigenome Task Force; European Union, Network of Excellence, Scientific Advisory Board. Moving AHEAD with an international human epigenome project. Nature 2008;454(7205):711-5.
  58. Landrigan PJ, Trasande L, Thorpe LE, Gwynn C, Lioy PJ, D’Alton ME, et al. The National Children’s Study: a 21-year prospective study of 100,000 American children. Pediatrics 2006;118(5):2173-86.
  59. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 2006;444(7122):1027-31.
  60. Bäckhed F, Ding H, Wang T, Hooper LV, Koh GY, Nagy A, et al. The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101(44):15718-23.
  61. DiBaise JK, Zhang H, Crowell MD, Krajmalnik-Brown R, Decker GA, Rittmann BE. Gut microbiota and its possible relationship with obesity. Mayo Clin Proc 2008;83(4):460-9.
  62. Mai V, Draganov PV. Recent advances and remaining gaps in our knowledge of associations between gut microbiota and human health. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15(1):81-5.
  63. Kalliomäki M, Collado MC, Salminen S, Isolauri E. Early differences in fecal microbiota composition in children may predict overweight. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87(3):534-8.
  64. LeBouder E, Rey-Nores JE, Raby AC, Affolter M, Vidal K, Thornton CA, et al. Modulation of neonatal microbial recognition: TLR-mediated innate immune responses are specifically and differentially modulated by human milk. J Immunol 2006;176(6):3742-52.
  65. Turnbaugh PJ, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, Cantarel BL, Duncan A, Ley RE, et al. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 2009;457(7228):480-4.
  66. Ley RE, Turnbaugh PJ, Klein S, Gordon JI. Microbial ecology: human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature 2006;444(7122):1022-3.
  67. Tennyson CA, Friedman G. Microecology, obesity, and probiotics. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2008;15(5):422-7.
  68. Frank DN, Pace NR. Gastrointestinal microbiology enters the metagenomics era. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2008;24(1):4-10.
  69. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Hamady M, Fraser-Liggett CM, Knight R, Gordon JI. The human microbiome project. Nature 2007;449(7164):804-10.

Back to top

  




 


The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


 Home 

Privacy Policy | Accessibility

CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z

This page last reviewed March 30, 2012

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion		 HHS logoUnited States Department of
Health and Human Services