The field of nutrigenomics helps you understand gene-nutrient interactions and personalize nutrition for better health, energy, and long-term wellness.

Millions of people struggle with generic nutrition advice that doesn’t match their bodies’ unique needs. While one person thrives on a Mediterranean diet rich in healthy fats, another gains weight following the exact same plan. The answer lies in nutritional genomics, the revolutionary science that reveals how individual genetic variations interact with nutrients to influence metabolism, health outcomes, and disease risk.

The field of nutrigenomics transforms our understanding of nutrition from population-based guidelines to precision approaches. With advances stemming from the Human Genome Project and ongoing research into gene-diet interactions, scientists can now explain why certain dietary patterns energize some individuals while leaving others sluggish, bloated, or struggling with chronic health issues. The global nutrigenomics market reflects this growing interest, projected to reach $3.17 billion by 2033 as consumers and healthcare providers seek more personalized approaches to wellness.​

Understanding Nutritional Genomics: The Science Behind Personalized Nutrition

Nutritional genomics encompasses two complementary but distinct areas of study: nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics. Together, these fields examine the bidirectional relationship between what we eat and our genetic makeup.​

Nutrigenomics studies how nutrients and bioactive food compounds influence gene expression, asking: “How does what I eat change the way my genome behaves?” This includes examining how dietary components can turn specific genes on or off, alter protein production, and affect metabolic pathways without changing the underlying DNA sequence.​

Nutrigenetics examines how inherited genetic variations influence individual responses to nutrients, asking: “How do my genetic differences determine how my body handles what I eat?” This involves identifying specific gene variants, known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), that affect nutrient metabolism, absorption, and utilization.​

The field of nutrigenomics emerged following the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, which provided the foundational map of human DNA and enabled researchers to connect specific genetic variations to metabolic differences. Before this landmark achievement, scientists knew that individuals responded differently to identical dietary patterns, but lacked the tools to understand why at the molecular level.​

The Genetic Foundation of Nutrition and Health

The human genome contains over 20,000 genes, with specific variants affecting how the body processes macronutrients, metabolizes vitamins, responds to different eating patterns, and regulates energy balance. These genetic differences help explain the substantial variation in nutritional needs across individuals and populations.​

Research published in Nature Genetics, and other leading journals, demonstrates that individuals with specific gene combinations can experience up to 300% difference in weight loss success depending on their chosen diet type. This finding validates what many people experience: identical nutrition plans produce vastly different results across individuals, not because of differences in willpower or compliance, but because of underlying genetic variation.​

How Nutritional Genomics Differs from Traditional Nutrition

Traditional nutrition provides valuable guidance for general health, establishing baseline recommendations that benefit most of the population. However, when individuals struggle with conventional advice or when preventing genetically influenced conditions becomes a priority, the field of nutrigenomics provides additional precision tools.​

Key Genetic Variants in Nutritional Genomics

Understanding which genetic variants affect nutrition helps explain why personalized approaches deliver superior results compared to generic dietary advice. The field has identified numerous gene-nutrient interactions supported by peer-reviewed research.​

Folate Metabolism: The MTHFR Gene

The MTHFR (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase) gene encodes an enzyme crucial for folate metabolism and methylation processes throughout the body. Common variants C677T and A1298C reduce enzyme function, affecting how efficiently the body converts dietary folate and synthetic folic acid into the active form 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-MTHF).​

Individuals carrying MTHFR variants may experience:​

• Reduced capacity to process synthetic folic acid from fortified grain products
• Altered DNA methylation patterns affecting gene expression
• Higher homocysteine levels, a marker associated with cardiovascular risk
• Different responses to folate-rich foods versus synthetic supplements

From a public health perspective, mandatory folic acid fortification of grain products has significantly reduced neural tube defects in newborns. However, individuals with certain MTHFR variants may benefit from choosing naturally folate-rich foods like leafy greens, legumes, and citrus fruits, or methylated supplement forms that bypass the reduced enzyme function.​

Weight Management: The FTO Gene

The FTO (fat mass and obesity-associated) gene represents one of the most studied genetic variants related to body weight regulation. The common rs9939609 SNP has been associated with higher body mass index across diverse populations, though the mechanisms underlying this association continue to be investigated.​

Research on FTO demonstrates several important principles in nutritional genomics:​

• Genetic variants influence but don’t determine outcomes, lifestyle interventions remain effective across all FTO genotypes
• Some studies suggest individuals carrying FTO risk alleles may respond differently to macronutrient distribution, potentially benefiting from higher protein intake
• The gene appears to affect appetite regulation, satiety signaling, and energy expenditure

Physical activity may attenuate the obesogenic effects of FTO variants

A comprehensive meta-analysis found that individuals carrying the FTO risk allele respond equally well to dietary, physical activity, or pharmacological weight loss interventions, demonstrating that genetic predisposition can be counteracted through evidence-based lifestyle changes. Another meta-analysis suggested that carriers of the homozygous FTO obesity-predisposing allele may even lose more weight through diet and lifestyle interventions compared to non-carriers.​

Vitamin D Metabolism: The VDR Gene

The VDR (vitamin D receptor) gene influences how effectively the body utilizes vitamin D, affecting calcium absorption, bone health, immune function, and potentially metabolic outcomes. Several well-studied polymorphisms, including FokI, BsmI, TaqI, and ApaI, modulate vitamin D receptor activity.​

Research on VDR gene variants reveals:​

• The FokI and TaqI polymorphisms are associated with differential responses to vitamin D supplementation
• Vitamin D supplementation can increase VDR gene expression up to 60-fold, demonstrating nutrigenomic effects
• VDR variants may influence body composition, with some studies linking specific polymorphisms to adiposity
• The relationship between vitamin D status, VDR genetics, and metabolic syndrome components varies across populations

This example shows both nutrigenetic principles (how genetic variants affect vitamin D metabolism) and nutrigenomic principles (how vitamin D supplementation affects VDR gene expression).​

Caffeine Metabolism: The CYP1A2 Gene

The CYP1A2 gene determines caffeine metabolism speed, categorizing individuals as fast or slow metabolizers. This genetic difference has practical implications for cardiovascular health, athletic performance, sleep quality, and fertility outcomes.​

• Fast metabolizers (carrying certain CYP1A2 variants):​
• Clear caffeine from the system within 2-3 hours
• May experience performance benefits from pre-exercise caffeine
• Can typically consume moderate caffeine without sleep disruption
• Show no increased cardiovascular risk from moderate coffee consumption
• Slow metabolizers (carrying different CYP1A2 variants):​
• Require 6-8 hours or longer to metabolize caffeine
• May experience increased heart disease risk with high caffeine intake
• Are more likely to experience sleep disturbances from afternoon caffeine
• May need to limit intake during pregnancy to optimize fertility outcomes

Research published in JAMA showed that approximately half of the population carries the slow metabolizer variant, which increases heart disease risk if consuming more than 2 cups of coffee daily. This demonstrates how genetic testing can refine general population guidelines (the standard recommendation of up to 4 cups daily) for individual circumstances.​

Food Intolerance Genetics

Some food intolerances have clear genetic foundations that can be identified through DNA-based approaches, while others result from complex interactions between genetic background, gut microbiome composition, and environmental exposures.​

Lactose Intolerance: The LCT Gene

The LCT gene encodes lactase, the enzyme required to digest lactose (milk sugar). In most mammals and most human populations historically, lactase production declines after weaning. However, some human populations, particularly those with Northern European or certain African ancestries, carry variants conferring “lactase persistence,” allowing continued dairy digestion into adulthood.​

Genetic testing for LCT variants provides definitive information about lactose tolerance beyond symptom-based assessment. Individuals identified as genetically lactose intolerant can make informed decisions about dairy consumption, lactose-free alternatives, or enzyme supplements, while those with lactase persistence can confidently include dairy products without concern.​

Gluten Sensitivity: HLA-DQ Genes

HLA-DQ genes (specifically HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8) are strongly associated with celiac disease, an autoimmune condition triggered by gluten ingestion. Approximately 95% of people with celiac disease carry one of these variants, though the variants are also present in 30-40% of the general population who never develop the condition.​

Genetic testing for HLA-DQ variants serves as a negative predictive tool: individuals without these variants have an extremely low risk of developing celiac disease and can confidently consume gluten-containing grains. However, presence of the variants indicates only susceptibility, not diagnosis, which requires clinical evaluation including serology and intestinal biopsy.​

For more information about the relationship between genetic variants and adverse food reactions, see evo-dna.com/nutrition.

Nutritional Genomics in Public Health

From a public health perspective, the field of nutrigenomics investigates how population-wide dietary recommendations might be refined for genetic subgroups at higher risk of diet-related disease. Examples include:​

1. Salt-Sensitive Hypertension: Genetic variants in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system affect blood pressure responses to sodium intake. While general population guidelines recommend sodium reduction, individuals with salt-sensitive genetics may benefit most from aggressive sodium restriction, while others show minimal blood pressure changes regardless of intake.​
2. Folate Requirements: The high frequency of MTHFR 677T alleles in certain populations (including Hispanic/Latino and some Asian populations) has implications for folate fortification policies and prenatal nutrition counseling. Understanding population genetics helps tailor public health interventions.​
3. Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Genetic variants in fatty acid desaturase genes (FADS1/FADS2) affect conversion of plant-based omega-3 precursors to EPA and DHA. This has implications for dietary guidance, particularly for populations following plant-based dietary patterns.​
4. Vitamin D Status: VDR gene polymorphism frequencies vary across populations, potentially contributing to differential vitamin D requirements and responses to supplementation strategies. This information could inform population-specific vitamin D recommendations.​

The potential public health applications of nutritional genomics are substantial, though challenges remain in translating research findings into equitable, accessible interventions. Concerns about exacerbating health disparities, the complexity of gene-environment interactions, and the need for healthcare infrastructure capable of supporting genetic-informed nutrition counseling all require careful consideration.​

DNA-Based Nutrition Testing: What Genetic Tests Reveal

Direct-to-consumer genetic tests analyze selected SNPs in genes related to nutrient metabolism, appetite regulation, detoxification pathways, and other nutrition-relevant biological processes. Typical reports discuss macronutrient balance, vitamin needs, potential sensitivities, and sometimes athletic performance or injury risk based on genetic predispositions.​

What DNA Nutrition Testing Can Provide

Well-designed genetic tests supported by qualified practitioners can offer:​

• Insights into how genetic variants may affect macronutrient metabolism (carbohydrate, fat, protein)
• Information about potential differences in micronutrient absorption, conversion, or utilization (B-vitamins, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids)
• Genetic markers associated with food sensitivities (lactose, gluten susceptibility)
• Variants affecting eating behaviors (appetite, satiety, taste preferences)
• Information about caffeine metabolism and optimal timing
• Genetic factors relevant to physical activity responses and recovery

Limitations and Considerations

Experts emphasize that DNA-based nutrition tests provide probabilistic insights rather than diagnostic conclusions. Important limitations include:​

• Incomplete knowledge of all gene-diet interactions, with many relationships still being researched
• Modest effect sizes for many variants; genetics is one factor among many affecting nutrition needs
• Risk of over-interpreting small genetic differences without considering lifestyle, microbiome, medications, and socio-environmental factors
• Variable quality among commercial testing companies in terms of scientific rigor and evidence standards
• Need for qualified interpretation by healthcare professionals who understand both nutritional genomics and clinical nutrition

The field continues to evolve rapidly, with new research constantly refining our understanding of gene-nutrient interactions. Findings that appear promising in initial studies sometimes fail to replicate in larger, more diverse populations, underscoring the importance of evidence standards and ongoing research.​

Integrating Nutritional Genomics into Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice

Rather than replacing existing dietary guidelines, the field of nutrigenomics is best viewed as an additional layer of precision that can refine otherwise sound nutrition practices. Core recommendations,  such as emphasizing whole foods, adequate vegetables and fiber, diverse protein sources, and limited ultra-processed products,  remain broadly applicable regardless of genotype.​

Genetic information guides finer decisions within these evidence-based frameworks:​

• How aggressively to modify saturated fat intake based on APOE and other lipid metabolism genes
• Whether to monitor homocysteine and emphasize methylated B-vitamin forms for MTHFR variants
• How closely to track blood glucose responses to carbohydrate-rich foods based on TCF7L2 and related variants
• Optimal vitamin D supplementation doses considering VDR polymorphisms
• Personalized approaches to sodium, calcium, iron, and other mineral intake

Practical Steps for Individuals Considering Genetic Testing

If considering DNA-based nutrition or food intolerance testing:​

• Evaluate the testing company: Look for laboratories using validated methods with clear explanations of which genes are tested and why
• Seek qualified interpretation: Discuss results with a registered dietitian, physician, or genetic counselor who understands both nutritional genomics and general clinical nutrition
• Maintain realistic expectations: Understand that genetic information complements but does not replace careful dietary assessment, medical history review, and ongoing monitoring
• Consider privacy carefully: Review privacy policies to understand how genetic data will be stored, used, and protected
• Monitor personal responses: Pay attention to energy, digestion, and laboratory markers, since nutrigenomics complements but does not override empirical observation

The Role of Healthcare Professionals

Healthcare providers interested in incorporating nutritional genomics into practice require specialized training beyond standard nutrition education. This includes understanding:​

• How to interpret genetic test reports accurately
• Which gene-nutrient interactions have strong evidence versus preliminary associations
• How to integrate genetic information with comprehensive nutrition assessment
• Ethical considerations around genetic information disclosure
• Appropriate limitations and caveats when discussing genetic predispositions

Professional organizations including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the International Society of Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics, and others have developed position statements and educational resources to support practitioners in this emerging field.​

Nutrigenomics and Chronic Disease Prevention

One of the most promising applications of the field of nutrigenomics involves targeted prevention of diet-related chronic diseases. By identifying genetic predispositions early, nutrition interventions can be implemented before disease manifestation.​

Type 2 Diabetes Prevention

Multiple genetic variants affect glucose metabolism, insulin sensitivity, and diabetes risk, including TCF7L2, PPARG, KCNJ11, and others. Individuals carrying high-risk combinations of these variants may benefit from:​

• Earlier implementation of glucose monitoring
• More aggressive dietary modification emphasizing low-glycemic foods
• Targeted physical activity recommendations
• Regular assessment of pre-diabetic markers

Research demonstrates that lifestyle interventions remain highly effective in preventing type 2 diabetes even in genetically susceptible individuals, though the intensity or specific approach may need adjustment.​

Cardiovascular Disease Risk

Genetic variants in lipid metabolism genes (APOE, APOA2, LPL), blood pressure regulation, and inflammatory pathways influence cardiovascular disease risk. Nutrigenomic approaches may identify individuals who:​

• Show pronounced increases in LDL cholesterol in response to saturated fat
• Have enhanced responses to omega-3 fatty acids
• Require stricter sodium restriction for blood pressure management
• Benefit most from anti-inflammatory dietary patterns like the Mediterranean diet

Cognitive Health and Aging

The APOE gene has well-established associations with Alzheimer’s disease risk, with the APOE4 variant significantly increasing risk while APOE2 provides some protection. Emerging research examines whether specific dietary patterns can modify APOE-related risk, with some evidence suggesting that:​

• APOE4 carriers may benefit more from omega-3 rich fish consumption
• Anti-inflammatory dietary patterns appear particularly important for APOE4 carriers
• Dietary patterns supporting cardiovascular health likely benefit brain health, especially in genetic risk carriers

Nutrigenomics, Epigenetics, and Gene Expression

One of the most exciting frontiers in nutritional genomics involves epigenetics; changes in gene expression that occur without alterations to the underlying DNA sequence. Unlike DNA sequence, which remains constant throughout life, epigenetic marks can be modified by diet, lifestyle, and environmental exposures.​

How Nutrients Influence Gene Expression

Bioactive dietary compounds can affect gene expression through several mechanisms:​

• DNA methylation: Nutrients like folate, choline, betaine, and methionine serve as methyl donors, affecting whether specific genes are silenced or activated
• Histone modifications: Dietary components influence how tightly DNA is packaged, affecting accessibility for transcription
• MicroRNA regulation: Certain dietary compounds alter microRNA expression, which in turn regulates translation of messenger RNA into proteins

This represents true nutrigenomic effects: diet doesn’t change the genome sequence but dramatically influences which genes are expressed and to what degree.​

Developmental Programming and Early Nutrition

Epigenetic mechanisms are particularly important during critical developmental windows,  in utero, infancy, and early childhood. Nutritional exposures during these periods can establish epigenetic patterns that persist into adulthood, influencing lifelong disease risk.​

Research on developmental programming has shown:​

• Maternal folate status during pregnancy affects DNA methylation patterns in offspring at obesity-related genes like FTO, NRF1, and LEPR
• Early-life nutrition may influence epigenetic regulation of metabolic genes, affecting obesity and diabetes risk decades later
• Interventions during developmental windows may have multigenerational effects through inherited epigenetic marks

This research underscores the importance of nutrition during pregnancy and early childhood, with implications extending far beyond immediate growth and development.​

The Future of Nutritional Genomics

The field of nutrigenomics continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising research directions:​

1. Multi-Omic Integration: Future approaches will integrate genomic data with information from the transcriptome (gene expression patterns), proteome (protein levels), metabolome (metabolite profiles), and metagenome (gut microbiota), providing comprehensive pictures of individual physiology.​
2. Polygenic Risk Scores: Rather than examining single variants in isolation, researchers are developing polygenic scores that aggregate information from many genetic variants to predict nutritional needs and disease risks more accurately.​
3. Microbiome-Genome Interactions: The gut microbiome represents a “second genome” that interacts dynamically with human genetics and dietary intake. Understanding these three-way interactions will refine personalized nutrition approaches.​
4. Artificial Intelligence: Machine learning algorithms can identify complex patterns in genomic and phenotypic data that human analysis might miss, potentially revealing novel gene-nutrient interactions.​
5. Clinical Validation: Ongoing randomized controlled trials are testing whether genotype-matched dietary interventions produce superior health outcomes compared to conventional approaches, providing the evidence base needed for wider clinical adoption.​

Ethical and Societal Considerations

As the field of nutrigenomics advances, several ethical and societal considerations require ongoing attention.

Equity and Access

Genetic testing and specialized nutrition counseling remain expensive, potentially widening health disparities between those who can afford these services and those who cannot. Ensuring equitable access as the field matures represents an important challenge.​

Privacy and Data Security

Genetic information is inherently sensitive and permanent. Protections under laws, such as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, provide some safeguards against misuse, but concerns about data breaches, insurance discrimination, and commercialization of genetic data persist.​

Risk of Genetic Determinism

Overemphasis on genetic factors may lead individuals to feel that health outcomes are predetermined by DNA, potentially undermining motivation for lifestyle modifications. In reality, genetics typically represents just one factor among many, and lifestyle interventions remain effective across genetic backgrounds.​

Regulation and Quality Control

The direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry remains relatively lightly regulated, with variability in scientific rigor, evidence standards, and interpretation quality among companies. Ensuring consumer protection while supporting innovation represents an ongoing regulatory challenge.​

The Promise and Pragmatism of Nutritional Genomics

The field of nutrigenomics represents a fundamental shift in how we understand nutrition; moving from population averages toward precision approaches that account for genetic diversity. The completion of the Human Genome Project, advances in genomic technologies, and accumulating research on gene-nutrient interactions have established nutritional genomics as a legitimate and promising field.

At the same time, realistic appraisal of current limitations remains essential. While certain gene-nutrient relationships are well-established (like LCT and lactose intolerance or MTHFR and folate metabolism), many interactions require further research before translation into confident clinical recommendations. Genetic variants typically exert modest effects compared to overall dietary quality, physical activity, sleep, stress management, and other lifestyle factors.

The most promising path forward integrates genetic insights with comprehensive nutrition assessment, evidence-based dietary guidelines, and careful monitoring of individual responses. Genetics provides one piece of the puzzle; valuable but not sufficient on its own. For individuals struggling with chronic health issues that haven’t responded to conventional approaches, those with strong family histories of diet-related diseases, or those seeking to optimize athletic performance or longevity, nutritional genomics offers tools that may enhance outcomes.

As research continues, evidence standards strengthen, costs decline, and healthcare provider education improves, the field of nutrigenomics will likely become an increasingly routine component of nutrition and preventive medicine. The future of nutrition is personalized, but personalization extends beyond genetics to encompass the whole person; their genetic background, microbiome, environment, preferences, values, and goals.

Reference List

1. Kaput, J. (2010). Connecting the Human Variome Project to nutrigenomics. PLoS Genetics, 6(10), e1001138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2989367/
2. Raghubeer, S., & Pillay, S. (2021). Methylenetetrahydrofolate (MTHFR), the one-carbon cycle, and hypertension. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(24), 13124. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8703276/
3. Kaput, J., & Rodriguez, R. L. (2004). Nutritional genomics: The next frontier in the postgenomic era. Physiological Genomics, 16(2), 166-177.
4. Simopoulos, A. P. (2006). Evolutionary aspects of diet, the omega-6/omega-3 ratio and genetic variation: Nutritional implications for chronic diseases. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 60(9), 502-507.
5. DeBusk, R. M., Fogarty, C. P., Ordovas, J. M., & Kornman, K. S. (2005). Nutritional genomics in practice: Where do we stand? Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(4), 589-598.
6. Human Genome Project Fact Sheet. (2024, June). National Human Genome Research Institute. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/fact-sheets/human-genome-project
7. The Human Genome Project: Inside the ‘most important biomedical research undertaking’. (2024, August). Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2024/08/20/the-human-genome-project-inside-the-most-important-biomedical-research-undertaking/
9. Green, E. D., Watson, J. D., & Collins, F. S. (2013). Human Genome Project: Twenty-five years of big biology. Nature, 526(7571), 29-35.
10. Leclerc, D., Campeau, E., Goyette, P., et al. (2013). Molecular biology of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) and overview of mutations. In: Molecular and Metabolic Bases of Inherited Disease. McGraw-Hill.
11. Frosst, P., Blom, H. J., Milos, R., et al. (1995). A candidate genetic risk factor for vascular disease: A common mutation in methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase. Nature Genetics, 10(1), 111-113.
12. Anderson, O. S., Sant, K. E., & Dolinoy, D. C. (2012). Nutrition and epigenetics: An interplay of dietary methyl donors, one-carbon metabolism and DNA methylation. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 23(8), 853-859. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3405985/
13. Crider, K. S., Yang, T. P., Berry, R. J., & Bailey, L. B. (2012). Folate and DNA methylation: A review of molecular mechanisms and the evidence for folate’s role. Advances in Nutrition, 3(1), 21-38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3262611/
14. Sadigurschi, N., & Avissar-Whiting, M. (2023). Genetic impairment of folate metabolism regulates cortical development. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17, 1203262. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2023.1203262/full
15. Livingstone, K. M., Celis-Morales, C., & Macgregor, A. (2016). FTO genotype and weight loss: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 9,563 individual participant data from eight randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 354, i4707. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6168036/
16. Peng, S., Zhu, Y., Xu, F., Ren, X., Li, X., & Lai, M. (2011). FTO gene polymorphisms and obesity risk: A meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 9(1), 71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3118373/
17. Frayling, T. M., Timpson, N. J., Weedon, M. N., et al. (2007). A common variant in the FTO gene is associated with body mass index and predisposes to childhood and adult obesity. Science, 316(5829), 889-894.
18. Qi, L., Kraft, P., Hunter, D. J., & Hu, F. B. (2008). The common obesity variant near MC4R gene is associated with higher intakes of total and saturated fats. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 118(7), 2390-2400.
19. Usategui-Martín, R., García-García, G., Zapata-Linares, N., et al. (2022). Vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene polymorphisms modify the response to vitamin D supplementation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients, 11(1), 60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8780067/
20. Triantos, C., Kalafateli, M., Nikolopoulou, V., et al. (2018). Prognostic significance of vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene polymorphisms in patients with liver cirrhosis. Scientific Reports, 8, 13059. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32482-3
21. Mukhtar, M., Azam, S., Ullah, O., et al. (2019). Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism: An important predictor of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis susceptibility and severity. BioMed Research International, 2019, 8326246.
22. Chen, X., Cao, B., Wang, S., et al. (2019). Vitamin D receptor polymorphisms associated with obesity. Medicine, 98(46), e17874. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6854884/
23. Cornelis, M. C., El-Sohemy, A., Kabagambe, E. K., & Campos, H. (2006). Coffee, CYP1A2 genotype, and risk of myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(10), 1135-1141. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202502
24. Loftfield, E., Shiels, M. S., Cornelis, M. C., et al. (2018). Association of coffee drinking with mortality by genetic variation in caffeine metabolism: Findings from the UK Biobank. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(8), 1086-1097. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2686145
25. Mahdavi, S., Bakhtiari, A., Ravanipour, M., et al. (2023). CYP1A2 genetic variation, coffee intake, and kidney dysfunction in the HARVEST study. JAMA Network Open, 6(1), e2251419. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800839
26. Rogers, P. J., Hohoff, C., Heatherley, S. V., et al. (2010). Association of the anxiogenic and alerting effects of caffeine with ADORA2A and BDNF polymorphisms and habitual level of caffeine consumption. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35(9), 1973-1983.
27. Anguita-Ruiz, A., Aguilera, C. M., & Gil, Á. (2020). Genetics of lactose intolerance: An updated review and meta-analysis of its prevalence worldwide. Nutrients, 9(8), 844. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7551416/
28. MedlinePlus Genetics. (2016). Lactose intolerance – Genetics. U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/lactose-intolerance/
29. Ma, X., Sticca, A., Zeng, Y., et al. (2025). Neanderthal adaptive introgression shaped lactase evolution in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(11), e2404393122. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404393122
30. Lebwohl, B., Sanders, D. S., & Green, P. H. (2018). Celiac disease. The Lancet, 391(10115), 70-81.
31. Gaskins, H. R., & Combs, G. F. (2011). Interaction of nutrient status and gut microbiota on the development of intestinal disease. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology, 27(6), 510-516.
32. Aboulaghras, S., Essaidi, I., Alqahtani, L., et al. (2023). Meta-analysis and systematic review of HLA DQ2/DQ8 in celiac disease. Nutrients, 12(1), 21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9863503/
33. Gastroenterology Advisor. (2024). Guidelines when performing HLA testing for celiac disease. https://www.gastroenterologyadvisor.com/features/guidelines-when-performing-hla-testing-for-celiac-disease/
34. Celiac Canada. (2023). Gluten challenge. https://www.celiac.ca/healthcare-professionals/diagnosis/gluten-challenge/
35. Barberger-Gateau, P., Raffaitin, C., Letenneur, L., et al. (2011). Dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and Alzheimer’s disease: Interaction with apolipoprotein E genotype. Current Alzheimer Research, 4(3), 179-186. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3518784/
36. Wei, B. Z., Rong, H., Zhang, S., et al. (2023). The relationship of omega-3 fatty acids with dementia and cognitive decline: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 118(1), 25-38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523463204
37. Balakrishnan, J., Kaur, N., Patel, R., et al. (2022). Omega-3 supplementation increases omega-3 fatty acid levels in APOE4 carriers: Implications for cognitive health. Nutrients & Metabolism, 19(4), 169. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3233/NHA-220169
38. Corder, E. H., Saunders, A. M., Strittmatter, W. J., et al. (1993). Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in late onset families. Science, 261(5123), 921-923.
39.  Anderson, O. S., Sant, K. E., & Dolinoy, D. C. (2012). Nutrition and epigenetics: An interplay of dietary methyl donors, one-carbon metabolism and DNA methylation. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 23(8), 853-859. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3405985/
40.  Crider, K. S., Yang, T. P., Berry, R. J., & Bailey, L. B. (2012). Folate and DNA methylation: A review of molecular mechanisms and the evidence for folate’s role. Advances in Nutrition, 3(1), 21-38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3262611/
41. Choi, S. W., & Friso, S. (2010). Epigenetics: A new bridge between nutrition and health. Advances in Nutrition, 1(1), 8-16.
42. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2007). Chapter 2: Scientific Session II: Epigenetics. Dietary Reference Intakes: Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/11845/chapter/5
43.  Brennan, L. (2021). Nutrigenomics: Lessons learned and future perspectives. Advances in Nutrition, 12(6), 2522-2539.
44.  Zhang, Q., Li, X., & Zhao, Z. (2014). Association of folate metabolism genes MTHFR and MTRR polymorphisms with birth defects in a Chinese population. Journal of Prenatal Medicine, 8(1), 1-8.
45.  Translation of Nutritional Genomics into Nutrition Practice. (2017). Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 117(4), 466-480. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5409705/
46. Personalized nutrition: The end of the one-diet-fits-all era. (2024). Frontiers in Nutrition, 11, 1370595. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1370595/full
47. Current insights into genome-based personalized nutrition. (2024). Nutrients, 13(2), 294. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1346144/full
48. Advancing personalized nutrition through genetic literacy and data science. (2025). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 121(6), 1401-1412.
49. Nutritional Genomics and Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing. (2018). Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 118(4), 526-540.
50. Informing Evidence-based Practice in Nutritional Genomics. (2024). Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 85(2), 85-92. https://dcjournal.ca/doi/10.3148/cjdpr-2024-010
51. Nutrigenomics and You: How do health care providers feel about using your genetics? (2025, March). University of Guelph. https://www.uoguelph.ca/cbs/news/2025/03/nutrigenomics-and-you-how-do-health-care-providers-feel-about-using-your-genetics
52. Cleveland Clinic. (2022). How nutrigenomics may impact the way you eat. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-does-nutrigenomics-work
53. GoodRx. (2025). Nutritional genomics (nutrigenomics): What to know. https://www.goodrx.com/well-being/diet-nutrition/nutrigenomics
54. Nutrigenomics Institute. (2022). What is nutrigenomics? The science of how food affects genes explained. https://nutrigenomicsinstitute.com/nutrigenomics-news/what-is-nutrigenomics-the-science-of-how-food-affects-genes-explained/
55. National Cancer Institute. (2011). Definition of nutrigenomics. NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/nutrigenomics
56. Wellcome Trust. (2025). Genomics: How unlocking our genes is transforming healthcare. https://wellcome.org/insights/articles/genomics-how-unlocking-our-genes-transforming-healthcare