I

Indian Horticulture Journal; 2(3-4): 54-59, July-Dec (2012) Research Review

H
J ©Indian Society of Advanced Horticulture

Application of Nutrigenomics in Food Industry: A Review

Tawheed Amin, Hemanta Mahapatra, Suman Vikas Bhat* and S P S Gulleria*
Amity Institute of Food Technology, Amity University, Sector-125, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201 303, India
*Department of Food Technology, Islamic University of Science and Technology, Awantipora - 192 122, Kashmir, India
e-mail: tawheed.amin@gmail.com

Received: 24 April 2012 Accepted: 29 July 2012

ABSTRACT
Nutrigenomics, the study of how naturally occurring chemicals in foods alter molecular expression of genetic
information in each individual has revolutionized the understanding of nutrition, particularly nutrition on the
individual level, and to help move the focus of medicine from treatment to prevention. It has long been known
that there is the existence of individual differences in gene sequences that result in differential response to
environmental factors, such as diet. Those genetic differences, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs,
pronounced snips), are the key genetic enabler of the emerging scientific discipline called nutrigenomics or
nutritional genomics. In this review, a brief introduction to nutrigenomics, its application to food industry and
limitations are discussed.

Key words: Nutrigenomics, Genomics, Single nucleotide polymorphism, epigenetics

Nutrigenomics is the study of molecular relationships genome, which are associated with an increased risk of that
between nutritional stimuli and the response of the genes. It disease and such studies are called whole-genome
helps to understand how nutrition influences metabolic association studies. Such studies are practically not possible.
pathways and homeostatic control and how this regulation is One of the reasons for its impossibility is high cost involved.
disturbed in the early phase of a diet-related disease, and to But the two factors have been found to come together
what extent individual sensitizing genotypes contribute to making the whole-genome association studies a reality
such disease (Kore 2008). It serves as a new tool for which are as:
nutritional research and helps in mitigating the health related HapMap Project: It is based on how DNA behaves during
problems of humans. Individuals differ from each other in meiosis and recombination. DNA breaks during meiosis
gene sequence due to which individuals respond differently only at some hot spots along the DNA. As a result long
to environmental factors (Kaput et al. 2003). These genetic stretches of DNA move from generation to generation
differences are the key enabler of the emerging scientific without ever being broken. These stretches are called
disciple, nutrigenomics or nutritional genetics. It has been haplotypes which generally contain many SNPs that travel
found that there exists only a little variation in genetic make- together in neighborhood. It is possible to predict the other
up. When the genetic sequences of two individuals are SNP’s that are residing on the stretch if just one SNP on a
aligned and compared, only about 1 of every 1000 base pairs haplotype is identified.
of nucleotide sequence of human DNA, which is about
0.1%, exhibits variance and many of these variations are
found in just a single base pair/letter in the DNA code, for
example, a cytosine (C) in place of guanine (G). This
variation involving a single base pair is called as single-
nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) (Fig 1).
Considering the size of human genome to be 3 billion
base pairs then even a difference of 0.1% between two
people adds up to a lot of genetic variation which is some 3
million base pairs. Most of the SNPs occurring in the
genome are not doing very much; therefore, don’t have a lot
of consequences (Collins 2007). But some of those
differences, probably a couple hundred thousand or so, do
have important phenotypic effects. To understand a
nutritional related complex disease, it is very important for
the researchers to identify the particular SNPs out of Fig 1 An SNP is a variant in the genetic code that consists of a
approximately 10 million common SNPs in the human single-letterdifference in the nucleotide sequence

Indian Horticulture Journal 2(3-4) 54 https:// www.advancedhorticulture.info

 Amin et al.
Genes and environment initiative
This initiative was started in the United States with the
objective of increasing the understanding of the complex
interplay of genes and the environment (diet is one of the
factor) in the development of common diseases. It was
strongly promoted by the U.S. department of health and
human services. Now-a-days, use of food and food
components to improve the genetic potential of humans, the
overall performance of humans and in reducing the risk of
diseases has a great possibility (Milner 2006). It is the field
of nutrigenomics which can help in understanding the
genetic variability and in identifying individuals who will or
will not respond to a specific dietary change. The data
obtained from the research on bioactive food components is
very important in understanding the effect of individual
variability on the response to dietary change. Nutrigenomics
is the field of research that has the potential to serve as the
bridge in understanding the individual variability in the
responses to bioactive foods that are consumed and the
expression of nutrient-responsiveness genes. All living
beings differ from each other in food digestion, nutrient
absorption, metabolism and excretion and genetic diseases
in these processes have been reported. The metabolic signals
that the nucleus receives from internal factors (hormones)
and external factors (nutrients) are responsible for
maintaining the functional integrity of genes, with the later
being more influential of environmental stimuli. In response
to many types of environmental stimuli including nutrition,
the human genomes evolve. Therefore, the expression of
genetic information can be highly regulated by nutrients,
micronutrients, and phytochemicals found in food (Van
2004). New tools are now available that have allowed
increasingly detailed molecular studies of nutrition have also
helped to change the focus of the field. It is now possible to
measure the subtle changes in gene expression by the help of
quantitative techniques e.g. real-time PCR and high-density
microarray analysis (Chuaqui et al. 2002, Slonim 2002,
Quackenbush 2002, Churchill 2002, Stoeckert 2002). High-
density microarray analysis allows the entire nutrition-
relevant transcriptome to be studied simultaneously and
such studies are one important focus of the new field of
nutritional genomics or nutrigenomics (Roberts et al. 2001,
Peregrin 2001, Elliott 2002, Daniel 2002). Comparable
progress in the analysis of the nutrition-relevant metabolome
(metabolomics) (Watkins 2002) and the nutrition- relevant
proteome (proteomics) (MacBeath 2002) should soon allow
the analysis of the response of whole systems to nutrients,
from genes to organisms. In future, studying organismal
responses to particular dietary components at the
metabolome, proteome and transcriptome levels will
hopefully show valuable organ-specific patterns. An
ambitious challenge for the next decade is to translate this
type of nutrigenomics data into an accurateprediction of the
beneficial or adversary health effects of dietary components.
Nutrigenomics differs from nutrigenetics in that the former
treats everyone as genetically different whereas the latter as
genetically identical, even while realizing that some
individuals require more or less of specific nutrients. In
molecular nutrition research, genomic tools can be used in
two different strategies which are complementary to each
other.

Table 1 Transcription-factor pathways mediating nutrient gene interactions

Nutrient Compound Transcription factor
Macronutrients Fatty acids
Fats Cholesterol PPARs, SREBPs, LXR, HNF4, ChREBP, SREBPs, LXRs, FXR
Carbohydrates Glucose USFs, SREBPs, ChREBP
Proteins Amino acids C/EBPs
Micronutrients
Vitamins Vitamin A RAR, RXR
Vitamin D VDR
Vitamin K PXR
Minerals Calcium Calcineurin/NF-ATs
Iron IRP1, IRP2
Zinc MTF1
Other food components Flavonoids ER, NFκB, AP1
Xenobiotics CAR, PXR
AP1, activating protein1; CAR, constitutively active receptor; C/EBP, CAAT/enhancer binding protein;
ChREBP, carbohydrate responsive element binding protein; ER, oestrogen receptor; FXR, farnesoid X receptor; HNF, hepatocyte
nuclear factor; IRP, iron regulatory protein; LXR, liver X receptor; MTF1, metalresponsivetranscription factors; NFκB, nuclear factor
κB; NF-AT, nuclear factor of activated T cells; PPAR, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor; PXR, pregnane X receptor; RAR,
retinoic acid receptor; RXR, retinoid X receptor; SREBP, sterol-responsive-element binding protein; USF, upstream stimulatory factor;
VDR, vitamin D receptor.

Strategy I: It includes the traditional hypothesis-driven
approach i e specific genes and proteins. The expression of
these specific genes and proteins is influenced by nutrients
(Table 1). These are identified by using genomic tools such
as transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics which
subsequently allows the regulatory pathways through which
diet influences homeostasis to be identified.
Strategy II: It is the system biology approach (gene, protein
and metabolite signatures).They are associated with specific
nutrients, or nutritional regimes, and might provide ‘early

Indian Horticulture Journal 2(3-4) 55 https:// www.advancedhorticulture.info

 Application of Nutrigenomics in Food Industry: A Review
warning’ molecular biomarkers for nutrient-induced changes
to homeostasis. The first strategy will provide us with
detailed molecular data on the interaction between nutrition
and the genome, whereas the second strategy might be more
important for human nutrition, given the difficulty of
collecting tissue samples from ‘healthy’ individuals. Taking
into consideration these two broad strategies, the following
goals of nutrigenomics research can be defined:
(i) the identification of transcription factors that function as
nutrient sensors (Table 1) and the genes they target;
(ii) the elucidation of the signaling pathways involved, and
characterization of the main dietary signals;
(iii) the measurement and validation of cell and organ-
specific gene expression signatures of the metabolic
consequences of specific micronutrients and macronutrients;
(iv) the elucidation of the interactions between nutrient-
related regulatory pathways and pro-inflammatory stress
pathways, to understand the process of metabolic
dysregulation that leads to diet-related diseases;
(v) the identification of genotypes that are risk-factors for
the development of diet related human diseases (such as
diabetes, hypertension or atherosclerosis) and quantification
of their impact; and
(vi) the use of nutritional systems biology to develop
biomarkers of early metabolic dysregulation and
susceptibility (stress signatures) that are influenced by diet.
Nutrigenomics is based on the understanding of the role
of metabolites in activating different pathways of expression
of mt-DNA and n-DNA. Hence to examine the changes and
the modulation in gene expression that occur in the human
respiratory chain based on mitochondrial activity, future
nutrigenomics endeavours will be focused on the defects of
interactive communication between “n-DNA and mt-DNA”,
aiming to understand the role of the interaction and/or signal
communication, as they are necessary to control in
simultaneity the complex transcription of many genes , this
in order to better counseling diets and improving health
through developing new therapeutic approaches enabling
people to avoid mitochondrial diseases. The understanding
of these interactive communications between n-DNA and
mt-DNA may be the focus of the nutrigenetics and
nutrigenomics future trans-disciplinary research perspectives
for getting an effective knowledge how nucleic acid
information work to guide functional metabolism.
Dietary signals
The gene and protein expression and metabolism is
influenced by both micro and macronutrients. It is the
molecular structure of a nutrient that determines which
specific signaling pathway it will activate. Therefore, a
small change in the structure of a nutrient can have a
profound influence on which sensor pathways are activated.
This fine-tuned molecular specificity explains why closely
related nutrients can have different effects on cellular
function. This can be better understood by the help of an
example: how the nutritional effects of fatty acids vary
depending on their level of saturation. The ω-3
polyunsaturated fatty acids have a positive effect on cardiac
Indian Horticulture Journal 2(3-4)
arrhythmia (Brouwer 2002), whereas saturated C16–18 fatty
acids (stearic acid and palmitic acid) do not. Furthermore,
ω-6 unsaturated C18 fatty acids (oleic acid and linoleic acid)
decrease plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL)
cholesterol (Sacks and Katan 2002). From a nutrigenomic
perspective, bioactive food components are dietary signals
that are detected by the cellular sensor systems (PPARy and
RXR receptors) that influence gene expression, protein
synthesis, and metabolite production. From this perspective
genes are dietary targets. The patterns of gene expression,
protein synthesis and metabolite production in response to
particular nutrients can be considered as dietary signatures.
Nutrigenomics seek examine these dietary signatures in
specific cells, tissues and organisms and to understand how
nutrition influences homeostasis. It also aims to identify
genes that influence the risk of diet-related diseases on a
genome-wide scale and to understand the mechanisms that
underlie these genetic predispositions (Koziołkiewicz 2011).
Nutrient-gene interaction
Genes are turned on and off according to the metabolic
signals the nucleus receives from internal factors
(hormones) and external factors (nutrients, which are among
the environmental stimuli). In the evolutionary development,
the nutrients that the organisms ingested functioned as
primitive signals that turned on and off pathways of
synthesis or storgae during periods of starvation or excess.
As the evolution of simple organisms into complex forms of
life took place, they retained the ability to respond to
nutrient or nutrient/hormonal signals that govern the
expression of genes encoding the proteins of energy
metabolism, cell differentiation and cell growth. Genomes
evolve in response to many type of environmental stimuli,
including nutrtion. Therefore, the expression of genetic
information can be highly dependent on, and regulated by,
nutrients, micronutrients, and phytochemicals found in food
(Kaput et al. 2005). Therefore, it is clear that unbalanced
diets alter nutrient-gene intercations, thereby increasing the
risk of developing chronic diseases. The shifting balance
between health and disease states involves the complex
interplay between genes and diet. In addition to the essential
nutrients, such as carbohydrates, amino acids, fatty acids,
calcium, zinc, selenium, folate and vitamin A, C and E,
there is a variety of nonessential bioactive components that
seem to significantly influence health (Corthésy 2005). Both
esential as well as nonessential bioactive food components
modify a number of cellular proceses associated with health
and disease prevention (carcinogen metabolism, hormonal
balance, cell signalling, cell cycle control, apoptosis and
angiogenesis).
Nutrient-gene interaction can occur in three ways: (1)
direct interactions: nutrients, sometimes after interacting
with a receptor, behave as transcription factors that can bind
to DNA and acutely induce gene expression; for example
vitamin A or rather retinoid derivatives of vitamin A interact
with retinoic acid receptor proteins, and these complexes
activate or repress transcription when they bind to motifs e g
retinoic acid response elements) in gene promoter regions
56 https:// www.advancedhorticulture.info
 Amin et al.
(Lane 2005); (2) epigenetic interactions: nutrients can alter
the structure of DNA (or of histone proteins in chromatin) so
that gene expression is chronically altered. The sustained
effects of epigenetic mechanisms are mediated by
methylation of DNA or by methylation, acetylation, or
biotinylation of histones, or by both functions (Fuks 2005).
The resulted epigenetic modifications can result in changes
in gene expression that can last througout a person’s life and
can even persist across generations and (3) genetic
variations: common genetic variations (single-nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs)) can alter the expression or
functionality of genes. All the three mechanisms can result
in altered mechanism of and altered dietary requirements for
nutrients. Although humans share the same genes, there are
many individual variations in the codon sequences for these
genes; in total, >10 million SNP sexist that occur in>1% of
the population (McVean et al. 2005). Some common SNPs
occur in 5% to >50% of the population. Most humans are
heterozygous for >50 000 SNPs across their genes (Hinds
2005). Some fraction of these SNPs results either in
alteration of gene expression or in changes in the gene
product such that protein structure and function are altered.
Mastering the ways in which millions of SNPs may
influence nutrient requirements is daunting, but recent
advances make this effort more practical. Even though the
costs of genotyping have dropped markedly, the number of
markers now available per gene makes the genotyping of all
markers expensive. Because of this, scientists need to select
for genotyping a set of markers that would eliminate the
necessity of measuring all SNPs. Within short regions (i e
≤500 kb) of a gene, it is possible to find combinations of
linked SNPs that are found in multiple unrelated persons
(haplotype blocks). These SNPs stay linked to one another
and are inherited over many generations (Zeisel 2007).
Translation to the market
To bring the benefits of nutrigenomics to the market, it
will require multiple disciplines, market channels, and
points of consumer contact. Market segmentation based on
the dietary choices already exists according to dietary
composition and health effects. Examples include
cardiovascular health and oats, stanols/sterols, and fat
amount and type. At the consumer level, nutrigenomics will
first be encounteredas diagnostic testing for genetic patterns
of SNPs, coupled with food products or supplements, and
diagnostic monitoring of biomarkers that will track genetic
response to diet. Consumer counseling will be essential to
translate the meaning and recommended actions suggested
by one’s genetic profile. The successful incorporation of any
food into an individual’s diet will depend completely on
whether the food fits an existing dietary pattern and has
excellent sensory properties. So it is clear that nutrigenomics
will thrive and deliver the benefits only if the products
deliver consumer benefits and satisfy consumer preferences
(Kaput 2003).
Nutrigenomics in food industry
The practical applications of nutrigenomics involve the
use of genetic predisposition to diseases that can be
Indian Horticulture Journal 2(3-4)
mitigated or modulated with dietary interventions in a
clinical or direct-to-consumer (DTC) context (Simopoulos
2002). The potential of nutrigenomics for the food industry
is to provide good tasting products formulated to the
scientific targets. Consumers have and will continue to
expect sensory satisfaction from foods even foods for health.
Potential for novel foods
Already there are products available that are enriched
with various nutrients and non-nutrients: ‘functional’ foods
to prevent or treat disease. A major area recently reviewed is
the enrichment of products with omega-3 fatty acids
(Simopoulos 1999). One can visualize the development of
beverages and foods either as preventive agents or for the
treatment for individuals, families or subgroups predisposed
to a particular disease. There is already precedent for this in
pediatrics, where ketogenic diets are used for the treatment
of patients with intractable epilepsy. Diets balanced in the
essential fatty acids are paramount as the background diet
for patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, such as
arthritis, asthma, ulcerative colitis, lupus etc, as well as in
patients with coronary artery disease and hypertension.
Specific foods and diets are already used for patients with
celiac disease, PKU, and other single gene diseases. From
the marketing standpoint the flow of information from the
identification of the individual based on genetic screening to
the marketing of the product (Simopoulos 2002).
Ethical issues
Some ethical issues are associated with nutrigenomics
in relation to genetic testing which includes the control of
the information obtained from genetic testing and its use i e
who has access to the information and what interests need to
be protected and the potential implications for understanding
relationship between individuals and their food (Chadwick
2004). As it is known that the nutrition research has the
potential to benefit human health in important ways (Healy
2006). With the help of DNA microarrays, the human
genome has been sequenced and thousands of genes have
been scanned quickly to see which ones are being expressed
and at what levels. This helped to pinpoint genetic variations
that differ from one person to the next. Nutrigenomics along
with other “omics” disciplines (proteomics and
metabolomics), offer a variety of powerful ways to
understand what is going on inside the cell in response to
nutrients and to see how those responses differ from person
to person. Nutrigenomics offer a tremendous opportunity for
biomedical scientists. The new tools are now available to do
the kind of cutting-edge research that can push the field in
an entirely new direction, one full of novel scientific insights
and valuable applications. Furthermore, public opinion is
now favorable to the approach to medical embodied by
nutrigenomics.
Limitations
No doubt nutrigenomics has a great potential in serving
the mankind but it has its downsides too. Some of the major
drawbacks of this technology are:
57 https:// www.advancedhorticulture.info
 Application of Nutrigenomics in Food Industry: A Review
i. People are less reluctant towards the genetic testing
because they fear about the misuse of the information
generated form genetic testing. The privacy of the
information is also a major concern due to which people
lag behind in accepting this technology. The question
arises how this data is going to be used and who else can
use it?
ii. The response of the insurers towards the policy holders as
insurers already have the right to demand disclosure of
particular factors affecting health which can have a direct
effect on life insurance. If a person chooses not to disclose
these factors, this invalidates the policy. Genetic tests
create a further set of information that insurers may
require. If a person, for example, is told that he has a
genetic susceptibility to diabetes, how it is going to affect
his/her life insurance?
iii. The employers can refuse someone a job on the basis of
the results of the genetic tests. Currently, no law is
prevailing to curb this menace. While there is a voluntary
code, this has not proven sufficient to put minds at rest. If
the results of the genetic testing show a high susceptibility
to any diet-related disorder and how might pensions be
affected by such predictions of future illness? The
question is still to be answered.
iv. Another problem is how one deals with one's own
genetic information. If, for example, someone discovers
that (s) he is at high risk, say, suffering from a stroke?
(s)he might become fatalistic - if it is going to happen
anyway (s)he can enjoy smoking, drinking and eating
whatever (s)he wants. Or perhaps the news really would
scare her/him into changing her/his lifestyle. But the fear
generated by this revelation might not only decrease
her/his quality of life, but could increase her/his blood
pressure, increasing the risk of stroke.
Thus it can be inferred that the public interests are very
important and should be taken into account while investing
in nutrigenomics. Public trust can be earned by
implementing the clear system of regulations. People can
select the healthier products through well based health
claims but only these claims should be trusted by the public.
It is very important to emphasize here that the product
having “health claim” should not only provide health
benefits but also should not cause harm.
Nutrigenomics is a rapidly developing new body of
knowledge that will change future research and practice in
human nutrition. The human genome is an average
representation of genes in humans; however, there is a
significant variation from the average in genome in any
given individual. Nutrigenomic profiling will help identify
mechanisms that underlie individual variations in dietary
requirements as well as in the capacity to respond food-
based interventions. Nutrigenomic approach will yield short
and long term benefits to human health by revealing novel
nutrientgene interactions, developing new diagnostic tests
for adverse responses to diets, and by identifying specific
populations with special nutrient needs. Nutrigenomics is
expected to deliver biomarkers for health, deliver early
biomarkers for disease predisposition, differentiate dietary
responders from non-responders and discover bioactive food
components. No doubt, nutrigenomics research is still in its
infancy and much research need to be carried out to fully
understand the mechanism and overcome the limitations or
hurdles coming in the way.

REFERENCES
Brouwer I A. 2002. Association between n-3 fatty acid status in blood and electrocardiographic predictors of arrhythmia risk
in healthy volunteers. American Journall of Cardiology 89: 629-631.
Chadwick R. 2004. Nutrigenomics, individualism and public health. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 63: 161-166.
Chuaqui R F. 2002. Post-analysis follow-up and validation of microarray experiment. Nature Genetics 32: 509-514.
Churchill G A. 2002. Fundamentals of experimental design for cDNA microarrays. Nature Genetics 32: 490-495.
Corthésy T I D. 2005. Nutrigenomics: the impact of biomics technology on nutrition research. Annuals of Nutritional
Metabolism. pp 355-265.
Daniel H. 2002. Genomics and proteomics: importance for thefuture of nutrition research. British Journal of Nutrition. pp
305-311.
Elliott R. 2002. Nutritional genomics. British Medical Journal 324: 1438-1442.
Fuks F. 2005. DNA methylation and histone modifications: teaming up to silence genes. Current Opinion Genetic
Development 15: 490-495.
Healy B. 2006. The promise of nutrigenomics. Washington: The NAtional Academic Press. Nutrigenomics and Beyond. pp 3-
6.
Hinds S L. 2005. Whole-genome patterns of common DNA variation in three human populations. Science 307: 1072-1079.
Kaput J, Ordovas J M, Fergluson L. 2005. The case for strategic international alliances to harness nutritional genomics for
public and personal health. British Journal of Nutrition 94: 623-632.
Kore A P. 2008. Nutrigenomics: Emerging face of molecular nutrition to improve animal health and production. Veterinary
World 1(9): 285-286.
Koziołkiewicz M. 2011. Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics are they the keys for healthy nutrition. Food and Nutrition in 21st
Century, Warsaw.
Lane M A, Bailey S J. 2005. Role of retinoid signalling in the adult brain. Progressive Neurobiology 75: 275-293.
MacBeath G. 2002. Protein microarrays and proteomics. Nature Genetics 32: 526-532 .

Indian Horticulture Journal 2(3-4) 58 https:// www.advancedhorticulture.info

 Amin et al.
McVean G, Spancer C C and Chaix R. 2005. Perspectives on human genetic variation from the HapMap Project. PLoS
Genetics 1: 54.
Milner J. 2006. The promise of Nutrigenomics. Nutrigenomics and Beyond. Washington: The National Academic Press. pp
3-6.
Peregrin T. 2001. The new frontier of nutrition science: nutrigenomics. Journal of American Diet Assocation 101: 1306.
Quackenbush J. 2002. Microarray data normalization and transformation. Nature Genetics 32: 496-501.
Roberts M A, Mutch D M, German J B. 2001. Genomics: food and nutrition. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 12: 516-522.
Sacks F M and Katan M. 2002. Randomized clinical trials on the effects of dietary fat and carbohydrate on
plasmalipoproteins and cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Medicine 113: 13-24.
Simopoulos A P. 1999. New products from the agri-food industry. The return of n-3 fatty acids into the food supply lipids 34:
297-301.
Simopoulos A P. 2002. Genetic variation and dietary response: nutrigenutrigenetics/nutrigenomics. Asia Pacific Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 11: 117-128.
Slonim D. 2002. From patterns to pathways: gene expression data analysis comes of age. Nature Genetics 32: 502-508.
Stoeckert C J. 2002. Micrarray databases: standards and ontologies. Nature Genetics 32: 469-473.
Van O. 2002. Nutrigenomics: exploiting systems biology in the nutrition and health arena. Current Opinion in Biotechnology
13: 517-521.
Watkins S M. 2002. Lipid metabolome-wide effects of thePPAR-γ agonist rosiglitazone. Journal of Lipid Research 43:1809-
1817.
Zeisel S H. 2007. Nutrigenomics and metabolomics will change clinical nutrition andpublic health practice: insights from
studies on dietary requirementsfor choline. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 82: 542-548.

Indian Horticulture Journal 2(3-4) 59 https:// www.advancedhorticulture.info