Efficacy of i3.1 Probiotic on Improvement of Lactose Intolerance Symptoms: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial.

GOAL: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of probiotic i3.1 in improving lactose intolerance symptoms compared with placebo after 8 weeks of treatment. BACKGROUND: Probiotics are promising strategies to prevent and improve lactose intolerance symptoms, but previous studies have provided conflicting results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled study was conducted at the Hospital Juárez de México. We recruited adult patients with lactose intolerance confirmed by a lactose hydrogen breath test (LHBT) ≥20 parts per million (ppm) and a lactose intolerance symptom score ≥6 both upon lactose challenge. We compared the change from baseline in the scores of a validated symptom questionnaire and the LHBT after 8 weeks of probiotic or placebo treatment. RESULTS: We included 48 patients: 33 receiving the probiotic and 15 receiving placebo (2:1 randomization). Demographic characteristics were homogeneous between groups. The reduction in total symptom score after a lactose challenge was significantly higher in the probiotic group versus the placebo group (-5.11 vs. -1.00; P<0.001). All the subscores significantly decreased from baseline in the probiotic group, except for vomiting, with significant differences between the probiotic and placebo groups for abdominal pain (P=0.045) and flatulence (P=0.004). The area under the curve of the LHBT was significantly reduced from baseline in the probiotic group (P=0.019), but differences between groups were not significant (P=0.621). Adverse events were mild without differences between groups, and no serious adverse event was registered. CONCLUSION: The i3.1 probiotic was safe and efficacious in reducing lactose intolerance symptoms in patients with lactose intolerance, but did not change the LHBT.

Fermented foods and probiotics: An approach to lactose intolerance.

The aim of this review was to present various topics related to lactose intolerance with special attention given to the role of fermented foods and probiotics in alleviating gastrointestinal symptoms. Lactose intolerance is a common digestive problem in which the human body is unable to digest lactose, known as milk sugar. Lactose intolerance can either be hereditary or a consequence of intestinal diseases. Recent work has demonstrated that fermented dairy products and probiotics can modify the metabolic activities of colonic microbiota and may alleviate the symptoms of lactose intolerance. We suggest that, lactose free dairy products could be recommended as alternatives for the alleviation of lactose intolerance and for the promotion of human health and wellness.

Update on lactose malabsorption and intolerance: pathogenesis, diagnosis and clinical management.

Lactose is the main source of calories in milk, an essential nutriedigestion, patients with visceral hypersensitivity nt in infancy and a key part of the diet in populations that maintain the ability to digest this disaccharide in adulthood. Lactase deficiency (LD) is the failure to express the enzyme that hydrolyses lactose into galactose and glucose in the small intestine. The genetic mechanism of lactase persistence in adult Caucasians is mediated by a single C→T nucleotide polymorphism at the LCTbo -13'910 locus on chromosome-2. Lactose malabsorption (LM) refers to any cause of failure to digest and/or absorb lactose in the small intestine. This includes primary genetic and also secondary LD due to infection or other conditions that affect the mucosal integrity of the small bowel. Lactose intolerance (LI) is defined as the onset of abdominal symptoms such as abdominal pain, bloating and diarrhoea after lactose ingestion by an individual with LM. The likelihood of LI depends on the lactose dose, lactase expression and the intestinal microbiome. Independent of lactose digestion, patients with visceral hypersensitivity associated with anxiety or the Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) are at increased risk of the condition. Diagnostic investigations available to diagnose LM and LI include genetic, endoscopic and physiological tests. The association between self-reported LI, objective findings and clinical outcome of dietary intervention is variable. Treatment of LI can include low-lactose diet, lactase supplementation and, potentially, colonic adaptation by prebiotics. The clinical outcome of these treatments is modest, because lactose is just one of a number of poorly absorbed carbohydrates which can cause symptoms by similar mechanisms.

The effects of probiotics in lactose intolerance: A systematic review.

Over 60 percent of the human population has a reduced ability to digest lactose due to low levels of lactase enzyme activity. Probiotics are live bacteria or yeast that supplements the gastrointestinal flora. Studies have shown that probiotics exhibit various health beneficial properties such as improvement of intestinal health, enhancement of the immune responses, and reduction of serum cholesterol. Accumulating evidence has shown that probiotic bacteria in fermented and unfermented milk products can be used to alleviate the clinical symptoms of lactose intolerance (LI). In this systematic review, the effectiveness of probiotics in the treatment of LI was evaluated using 15 randomized double-blind studies. Eight probiotic strains with the greatest number of proven benefits were studied. Results showed varying degrees of efficacy but an overall positive relationship between probiotics and lactose intolerance.

Lactose Intolerance: Common Misunderstandings.

Lactose intolerance primarily refers to a syndrome having different symptoms upon the consumption of foods containing lactose. It is one of the most common form of food intolerance and occurs when lactase activity is reduced in the brush border of the small bowel mucosa. Individuals may be lactose intolerant to varying degrees, depending on the severity of these symptoms. When lactose is not digested, it can be fermented by gut microbiota leading to symptoms of lactose intolerance that include abdominal pain, bloating, flatulence, and diarrhea with a considerable intraindividual and interindividual variability in the severity of clinical manifestations. These gastrointestinal symptoms could be similar to cow's milk allergy and could be wrongly labeled as symptoms of "milk allergy." There are important differences between lactose intolerance and cow's milk allergy; therefore, a better knowledge of these differences could limit misunderstandings in the diagnostic approach and in the management of these conditions.

The effects of the DDS-1 strain of lactobacillus on symptomatic relief for lactose intolerance - a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Lactose intolerance is a form of lactose maldigestion where individuals experience symptoms such as diarrhea, abdominal cramping, flatulence, vomiting and bowel sounds following lactose consumption. Lactobacillus acidophilus is a species of bacteria known for its sugar fermenting properties. Preclinical studies have found that Lactobacillus acidophilus supplementation may assist in breaking down lactose; however, no human clinical trials exist evaluating its efficacy in alleviating symptoms related to lactose intolerance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study was to evaluate the effect of a proprietary strain of Lactobacillus acidophilus on relieving discomfort related to lactose intolerance. METHODS: The study enrolled healthy volunteers between 18 and 75 years of age who complained of lactose intolerance. Screening visits included a lactose challenge visit to confirm eligibility based on a score of 10 or higher on subjective assessment of the following symptoms after lactose challenge: diarrhea, abdominal cramping, vomiting, audible bowel sounds, flatulence, and overall symptoms. Qualified subjects participated in a 2-arm crossover design, with each arm consisting of 4 weeks of intervention of either active or placebo product, with a 2-week washout period during crossover. The study product consisted of the DDS-1 strain of Lactobacillus acidophilus (Nebraska Cultures, Walnut Creek, California). The placebo was formulated from maltodextrin. Study participants were instructed to take the product once daily for 4 weeks. Data collected included subjective symptom scores related to lactose intolerance. RESULTS: Longitudinal comparison between the DDS-1 group and placebo group demonstrated statistically significant reductions in abdominal symptom scores during the 6-h Lactose Challenge at week 4 for diarrhea (p = 0.033), abdominal cramping (p = 0.012), vomiting (p = 0.0002), and overall symptom score (p = 0.037). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The present study has found that this unique DDS-1 strain of Lactobacillus acidophilus, manufactured by Nebraska Cultures, is safe to consume and improves abdominal symptom scores compared to placebo with respect to diarrhea, cramping, and vomiting during an acute lactose challenge.

[Lactose intolerance]. / Intolerancia a la lactosa.

The most common problem limiting milk consumption worldwide is lactose intolerance (LI), which is defined as the experience of gastrointestinal symptoms due to the intake of lactose-containing food. When symptoms ensue the intake of milk, the condition is referred as milk intolerance, and it may or may not be due to LI. The most common cause of LI is primary lactase deficiency which occurs in 30% of Mexican adults when one glass of milk is consumed (12-18 g of lactose). LI occurs in less than 15% of adults after the intake of this dose of lactose. Another cause of lactose intolerance is due to secondary lactase deficiency, which occurs because lactase is reduced due to diseases that affect the intestinal mucosa. Lactose intolerance can be eliminated or significantly reduced by elimination or reduction of the intake of milk and milk containing products. Recent studies demonstrate that when ß-casein-A1 contained in milk is hydrolyzed it produces ß-casomorphine-7 which is an opioid associated with milk intolerance.

Diagnosis and clinical observation of lactose-free milk powder on treatment of neonatal diarrhea.

Neonatal lactose intolerance syndrome is a series of digestive system symptoms caused by the lack of lactase, and could not fully digest the lactose in breast milk or cow milk. Lactose is one of the disaccharides mainly existed in mammalian milk. Lactose content in breast milk is 7.2g/100ml, cow milk is 4.7g/100ml. Dairy products are the main energy sources for the newborn, and lactose provides 20% energy for infants. During the growth of the newborn, lactose not only play a significant role in energy supply, but also involve in the development of the brain growing. This study mainly studied the lactose development features, the reasons for lactose intolerance, and the measures to treat lactose deficiency.

The management of lactose intolerance among primary care physicians and its correlation with management by gastroenterologists: the SEPD-SEMG national survey.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The understanding of lactose intolerance (LI) is limited in some professional settings. Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD) and Sociedad Española de Medicina General (SEMG) have developed a survey in order to: a) Analyze primary care physicians (PCPs) knowledge and clinical management; and b) to compare results with those of a previous survey of Spanish gastroenterologists (GEs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to SEMG members with 27 items on various issues: Demographics, occupational characteristics, outlook on LI, diagnostic tests, treatment, and follow-up. Results were compared to those from a survey of GEs. RESULTS: A total of 456 PCPs responded, versus 477 GEs. PCPs had an older mean age and longer professional experience. Level of understanding of LI was similar, albeit a higher proportion of PCPs lacked epidemiological awareness (p < 0.01). GEs tended to consider LI a "minor" condition (71.3 vs. 40.1%; p > 0.001), and LI symptoms as overlapping those of irritable bowel syndrome (93.5 vs. 88.2%; p = 0.005), although symptoms perceived as suspicious of LI were similar in both groups. Dietary recommendations were recognized as the primary therapeutic approach. CONCLUSION: This study reveals the outlook of PCPs on LI, and allows comparison with that of GEs, as a basis for the development of strategies aimed at improving LI understanding, approach and management in our setting.

Nutrition, population growth and disease: a short history of lactose.

Food and nutrition have played a crucial role in biological evolution. Lactation in mammals was one key invention. A central role in milk is played by lactose, otherwise an exotic sugar in nature. Lactose digestion needs the induction of specialized gut enzymes. This enzyme is shut off in a precisely timed developmental step leading to lactose malabsorption promoting weaning in the young and ovulation in the mother. The lactose-lactase system could thus regulate optimal birth spacing in land mammals. The domestication of cattle promoted milk as a food item also for adult nutrition. This was only possible by two further key inventions: the concomitant domestication of lactic acid bacteria which ferment the non-digestible lactose to the easily absorbed lactic acid and the mutation to lactase persistence (LP) in adults from dairy societies. This mutation represents one of the strongest selected loci of the human genome. Since no crucial nutritional selective advantage is conferred by LP, its dominance might be the result of indirect effects like the spread of cattle pathogens into humans. Lactase is also temporarily lost in rotavirus and Escherichia coli childhood diarrhoea and persistent diarrhoea is consequently best treated with lactose-free diets.

Clinical implications of lactose malabsorption versus lactose intolerance.

The majority of the world's adult population and an estimated 80 million Americans are hypolactasic and hence malabsorb ingested lactose. Although lactose malabsorption is easily identified, less readily assessed is the clinically important question of how often does this malabsorption induce symptoms. This review summarizes: (1) knowledge concerning the etiology and diagnosis of hypolactasia and the pathophysiology of the symptoms of lactose malabsorption and (2) the results of well-controlled trials of the symptomatic response of lactose malabsorbers to varying dosages of lactose and the efficacy of therapeutic interventions to alleviate these symptoms. We conclude that the clinical significance of lactose malabsorption has been overestimated by both the lay public and physicians in that commonly ingested doses of lactose (ie, the quantity in a cup of milk) usually do not cause perceptible symptoms when ingested with a meal. Symptoms occur when the lactose dosage exceeds that in a cup of milk or when lactose is ingested without other nutrients. Simple dietary instruction, rather than the use of commercial products to reduce lactose intake, is recommended for the vast majority of lactose-malabsorbing subjects.

Diagnosing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease or lactose intolerance in babies who cry a lot in the first few months overlooks feeding problems.

This paper explores two areas in which the translation of research into practice may be improved in the management of cry-fuss behaviours in the first few months of life. Firstly, babies who cry excessively are often prescribed proton pump inhibitors, despite evidence that gastro-oesophageal reflux disease is very rarely a cause. The inaccuracy of commonly used explanatory mechanisms, the side-effects of acid-suppressive medications, and the failure to identify treatable problems, including feeding difficulty when the diagnosis of 'reflux' is applied, are discussed. Secondly, crying breastfed babies are still prescribed lactase or lactose-free formula, despite evidence that the problem of functional lactose overload is one of breastfeeding management. The mechanisms and management of functional lactose overload are discussed. These two problems of research translation need to be addressed because failure to identify and manage other causes of cry-fuss problems, including feeding difficulty, may have adverse outcomes for a small but significant minority of families.

A Narrative Review of Human Clinical Trials to Improve Lactose Digestion and Tolerance by Feeding Bifidobacteria or Galacto-Oligosacharides.

Supplementation with the probiotic Bifidobacterium and prebiotic galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) could improve gut health and benefit lactose intolerant individuals. A narrative review was conducted to identify human clinical trials that evaluated lactose digestion and/or tolerance in response to consumption of Bifidobacterium, GOS, or both. A total of 152 studies on Bifidobacterium and GOS or both were published between 1983 and 2022. Out of the 152 studies, 20 were human clinical trials conducted in lactose intolerant subjects; 8 studies were conducted with Bifidobacterium supplementation and 3 studies involved GOS supplementation. Five studies reported favorable outcomes of Bifidobacterium supplementation in managing lactose intolerance (LI). Similarly, three studies reported favorable outcomes with GOS supplementation. The other three studies reported neutral outcomes. In conclusion, most studies reported a favorable effect of Bifidobacterium and GOS on managing the symptoms of LI. No study has examined the effects of combined supplementation with Bifidobacterium and GOS in lactose intolerant subjects. Future research could examine if co-supplementation with Bifidobacterium and GOS is a more effective strategy to reduce the dairy discomfort in LI individuals.

Lactococcus lactis expressing food-grade ß-galactosidase alleviates lactose intolerance symptoms in post-weaning Balb/c mice.

The endogenous ß-galactosidase expressed in intestinal microbes is demonstrated to help humans in lactose usage, and treatment associated with the promotion of beneficial microorganism in the gut is correlated with lactose tolerance. From this point, a kind of recombinant live ß-galactosidase delivery system using food-grade protein expression techniques and selected probiotics as vehicle was promoted by us for the purpose of application in lactose intolerance subjects. Previously, a recombinant Lactococcus lactis MG1363 strain expressing food-grade ß-galactosidase, the L. lactis MG1363/FGZW, was successfully constructed and evaluated in vitro. This study was conducted to in vivo evaluate its efficacy on alleviating lactose intolerance symptoms in post-weaning Balb/c mice, which were orally administered with 1 × 106 CFU or 1 × 108 CFU of L. lactis MG1363/FGZW daily for 4 weeks before lactose challenge. In comparison with naïve mice, the mice administered with L. lactis MG1363/FGZW showed significant alleviation of diarrhea symptoms in less total feces weight within 6 h post-challenge and suppressed intestinal motility after lactose challenge, although there was no significant increase of ß-galactosidase activity in small intestine. The alleviation also correlated with higher species abundance, more Bifidobacterium colonization, and stronger colonization resistance in mice intestinal microflora. Therefore, this recombinant L. lactis strain effectively alleviated diarrhea symptom induced by lactose uptake in lactose intolerance model mice with the probable mechanism of promotion of lactic acid bacteria to differentiate and predominantly colonize in gut microbial community, thus making it a promising probiotic for lactose intolerance subjects.

The use of probiotics and prebiotics can enable the ingestion of dairy products by lactose intolerant individuals.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate, through a systematic review, the efficiency of the clinical application of probiotic and prebiotic supplements in reducing the symptoms of lactose intolerance (LI). METHODS: This systematic review was conducted without limits for publication time and followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The study was registered at the PROSPERO platform (CRD42022295691). The inclusion criteria were: studies addressing the issue of LI associated with the use of probiotics and prebiotics of any nature; studies performed with adults; randomized, placebo-controlled trials; and open access scientific articles, theses, or dissertations. The studies were retrieved from the following databases: SciELO, PubMed, LILACS, ScienceDirect, and gray literature, with no restrictions imposed regarding the years of publication of the investigations. To document the risk of bias, the RoB 2.0 tool was adopted, and to assess the certainty of the evidence, the GRADE tool was used. RESULTS: A total of 830 studies were found; however, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, only five studies remained. Two studies used the prebiotic GOS (RP-G28) for the treatment of LI and, together, included 462 subjects. The results of these studies showed improvement of LI symptoms during treatment phase and up to 30 days after cessation of GOS use (RP-G28). Three studies used the probiotics Bifidobacterium bifidum 900791, Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 (Lactobacillus reuteri), and Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 to evaluate their effects on LI and comprised 117 subjects. The results showed that B. bifidum 900791 did not significantly improve LI symptoms, and only Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 showed significant improvement in symptoms and in reduction of expired hydrogen, while Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 showed significant improvement for LI symptoms. The risk of bias for studies on probiotics suggested concerns in all studies, whereas the risk of bias was low in investigations evaluating prebiotics, with only one study classified as concerning. The certainty of evidence was high for the studies using the GOS (RP-G28) prebiotic and low for the probiotics. Pooling for meta-analysis could not be performed due to the lack of similar probiotic strains or lack of common outcomes. CONCLUSION: In summary, the probiotics Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 and Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 showed the best results in the management of LI symptoms. The prebiotic GOS (RP-G28) appeared to be more efficient in reducing post-treatment symptoms. However, it is noteworthy that evidence regarding the use of probiotics for the management of LI is considerably scarce; as for prebiotics, data are limited. Studies adopting robust methodologies, especially regarding the complete reporting of data, are therefore warranted.

Peroral gene therapy of lactose intolerance using an adeno-associated virus vector.

Gene therapy is usually reserved for severe and medically refractory disorders because of the toxicity, potential long-term risks and invasiveness of most gene transfer protocols. Here we show that an orally administered adeno-associated viral vector leads to persistent expression of a beta-galactosidase transgene in both gut epithelial and lamina propria cells, and that this approach results in long-term phenotypic recovery in an animal model of lactose intolerance. A gene 'pill' associated with highly efficient and stable gene expression might be a practical and cost-effective strategy for even relatively mild disorders, such as lactase deficiency.

Systematic review: effective management strategies for lactose intolerance.

BACKGROUND: Lactose intolerance resulting in gastrointestinal symptoms is a common health concern. Diagnosis and management of this condition remain unclear. PURPOSE: To assess the maximum tolerable dose of lactose and interventions for reducing symptoms of lactose intolerance among persons with lactose intolerance and malabsorption. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, for trials published in English from 1967 through November 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of individuals with lactose intolerance or malabsorption. DATA EXTRACTION: Three investigators independently reviewed articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: 36 unique randomized studies (26 on lactase- or lactose-hydrolyzed milk supplements, lactose-reduced milk, or tolerable doses of lactose; 7 on probiotics; 2 on incremental lactose administration for colonic adaptation; and 1 on another agent) met inclusion criteria. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that 12 to 15 g of lactose (approximately 1 cup of milk) is well tolerated by most adults. Evidence was insufficient that lactose-reduced solution or milk with a lactose content of 0 to 2 g, compared with greater than 12 g, is effective in reducing symptoms of lactose intolerance. Evidence for probiotics, colonic adaptation, and other agents was also insufficient. LIMITATIONS: Most studies evaluated persons with lactose malabsorption rather than lactose intolerance. Variation in enrollment criteria, outcome reporting, and the composition and dosing of studied agents precluded pooling of results and limited interpretation. CONCLUSION: Most individuals with presumed lactose intolerance or malabsorption can tolerate 12 to 15 g of lactose. Additional studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of lactose intolerance treatment.

[Celiacia and hypolactasia in adults: etiology, pathogenesis, diagnostics and treatment].

A review of current data on the most widespread clinical forms of intestinal enzymopathies is presented with emphasis on celiacia and hypolactasia in adult patients. An alternative definition of these diseases is proposed, their prevalence in different countries and ethnic groups is discussed. Their etiology, pathogenesis, and clinical variants in different age groups are analysed. The clinical classification of celiacia, informative value of different diagnostic methods, their specificity and sensitivity, potential for dietetic and medicamental therapy are considered.

Lactose intolerance: An update on its pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment.

Lactose intolerance has a high prevalence worldwide, ranging between 57% and 65%. It is caused by a reduction or loss of the activity of the intestinal enzyme lactase-phlorizin hydrolase, responsible for the digestion of lactose. This alteration determines an increased osmotic load in the small intestine and the fermentation of lactose by the bacterial flora, which leads to a high production of short-chain fatty acids and gas. This is followed by the onset of abdominal pain, diarrhea, and flatulence. In addition to these problems, it was found that subjects with lactose intolerance have an increased risk of developing various extra-intestinal diseases, including cancers. The diagnosis is essential to undertake an adequate treatment and, for this purpose, different methods have been tested. These include genetic test, hydrogen breath test (HBT), quick lactase test, and lactose tolerance test. HBT is the most used method because it is non-invasive, inexpensive, and highly sensitive and specific, as well as easy to perform. In clinical practice, the other methods are mainly used as HBT integration tests. There are also many therapeutic options. An appropriate intervention concerns the dietetic style, such as the consumption of lactose-free foods, but with nutritional characteristics comparable to dairy products. Other valid choices are represented by the use of exogenous enzymes, probiotics, prebiotics, the selection of milk containing specific types of beta-caseins. This review is intended to illustrate the diagnostic methods currently available and the possible therapeutic options for lactose intolerance.

Differential impact of lactose/lactase phenotype on colonic microflora.

BACKGROUND: The ability to digest lactose divides the world's population into two phenotypes that may be risk variability markers for several diseases. Prebiotic effects likely favour lactose maldigesters who experience lactose spilling into their colon. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of fixed-dose lactose solutions on fecal bifidobacteria and lactobacilli in digesters and maldigesters, and to determine whether the concept of a difference in ability to digest lactose is supported. METHODS: A four-week study was performed in 23 lactose maldigesters and 18 digesters. Following two weeks of dairy food withdrawal, subjects ingested 25 g of lactose twice a day for two weeks. Stool bifidobacteria and lactobacilli counts pre- and postintervention were measured as the primary outcome. For secondary outcomes, total anaerobes, Enterobacteriaceae, beta-galactosidase and N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase activity in stool, as well as breath hydrogen and symptoms following lactose challenge tests, were measured. RESULTS: Lactose maldigesters had a mean change difference (0.72 log10 colony forming unitsg stool; P=0.04) in bifidobacteria counts compared with lactose digesters. Lactobacilli counts were increased, but not significantly. Nevertheless, reduced breath hydrogen after lactose ingestion correlated with lactobacilli (r=-0.5; P<0.001). Reduced total breath hydrogen and symptom scorestogether, with a rise in fecal enzymes after intervention, were appropriate, but not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite failure to achieve full colonic adaptation, the present study provided evidence for a differential impact of lactose on microflora depending on genetic lactase status. A prebiotic effect was evident in lactose maldigesters but not in lactose digesters. This may play a role in modifying the mechanisms of certain disease risks related to dairy food consumption between the two phenotypes.