The Role of Nutrition in Immune Function

Student Name:

Student ID:

Investigators:

Abstract

Nutrition is crucial for robust immune function, yet a comprehensive understanding of specific dietary strategies is still evolving. This systematic review protocol outlines the methodological approach to rigorously evaluate and synthesize existing evidence on this topic. The review aims to critically assess evidence on the impact of various nutritional interventions, including specific nutrients and dietary patterns, on immune function markers and immunity-related clinical outcomes in adult populations. Following PRISMA-P guidelines, major electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) will be systematically searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extract data using a standardized form, and assess methodological quality and risk of bias using appropriate tools (for example: RoB2, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). A comprehensive narrative synthesis, employing thematic analysis of qualitative data derived from these secondary sources, will be conducted manually to integrate and interpret the findings, without the use of analytical software. This review is anticipated to consolidate current evidence, identify effective nutritional strategies for immune support, highlight existing knowledge gaps to guide future research, and contribute to informing evidence-based recommendations for dietary practices aimed at optimizing immune health in adults.

Background & Justification of Research Topic

Introduction to Immune Function

The immune system is a complex network of cells, tissues, and organs that work in concert to protect the body against disease. It comprises two main arms: the innate immune system, which provides immediate, non-specific defense, and the adaptive immune system, which mounts a highly specific response and generates immunological memory (Abbas et al., 2023). This intricate system is critical not only for defending against invading pathogens like bacteria, viruses, and fungi but also for maintaining overall physiological homeostasis, including surveillance against cancerous cells. Impairment of immune function can lead to severe consequences, such as increased susceptibility to infections, prolonged illness, and the development or exacerbation of chronic inflammatory conditions (Duan & Mukherjee, 2016).

The Established Role of Nutrition in Immunity

Proper nutrition is fundamental to the development, maintenance, and function of the immune system from birth through maturity. Immunonutrition is a field which focuses on the complex interactions between nutrients and the immune response (Calder, 2021). Proteins, fats and carbohydrates from both macronutrients and vitamins and minerals from micro-ones all have important functions. Proteins are important to the synthesis of antibodies and cytokines, while certain fatty acids can influence inflammation and carbohydrates are necessary to fuel immune cell activity (Childs et al., 2019). Micronutrients, such as vitamin C, serve as antioxidants that provide a defense against the oxidative damage to immune cells, while minerals, such as Zinc are essential for immune cell development and function of a range of immune cells, including T-lymphocytes and Natural killer (NK) cells (Gombart et al., 2020).

Current Understanding and Gaps

A large and increasing number of studies are available to date on the crosstalk between nutrition and immunity. However, despite significant progress, knowledge in multiple field is still in progress and some evidence is conflicting. Specific knowledge gaps in the field are the level of nutrient intake required to achieve strong immune support in different population groups (for example: contrasts in the comparative effectiveness of whole dietary patterns as compared to supplementation with a single nutrient) and the heterogeneity of response to a nutritional intervention in terms of health status or genetic background (Maggini et al., 2018).

Rationale for This Systematic Review

There is a need for such a systematic review to synthesise the extant and frequently disparate evidence concerning nutritional factors that can modulate immune function in the adult. By systematically reviewing the literature, the objective of this review is to provide a summary of efficacious nutrition interventions and identify disparities or holes in the existing literature that necessitate additional primary research on nutritional intervention to enhance immune health and, in turn, for generating evidence based dietary recommendations supporting immune health.

Relevant Theoretical Framework/Model

The link between nutrition and immunity is underpinned by several theoretical frameworks and biological models. One key framework involves the direct mechanisms of nutrient action, whereby specific nutrients serve as cofactors for enzymes involved in immune cell proliferation and differentiation, regulate gene expression for cytokine production, or act as antioxidants to protect cells from damage during inflammatory responses (Calder, 2020). Another critical model is the gut-immune axis, which posits that dietary components significantly influence the composition and metabolic activity of the gut microbiome; these microbial communities, in turn, play a profound role in educating and modulating both local gut-associated lymphoid tissue and systemic immune responses (Wu & Wu, 2012; Round & Mazmanian, 2009). Furthermore, dietary patterns and specific nutrients can influence inflammation, a core component of the immune response, either promoting pro-inflammatory states or supporting resolution and a return to homeostasis (Galland, 2010).

Aim of Review

The primary aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate and synthesize current evidence on the impact of various nutritional factors on immune function markers and immunity-related clinical outcomes in adult populations.

Review Question

Primary Question: “In adults (P), what is the effect of nutritional interventions (I) compared to no intervention/standard diet/placebo (C) on immune function parameters and health outcomes related to immunity (O)?”
PICO Breakdown:

P (Population): Adults (18-65 years).
I (Intervention): Specific nutrients (Vitamin D, Zinc), food groups, dietary patterns (Mediterranean diet), or supplements.
C (Comparison): Placebo, no intervention, standard dietary advice, or alternative nutritional intervention.
O (Outcome): Primary: Changes in immune cell counts/activity, cytokine profiles, antibody responses. Secondary: Incidence/duration/severity of infections, inflammatory markers.

Proposed Methods

Eligibility Criteria (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria)

Studies will be selected based on predefined eligibility criteria structured around the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) framework (Higgins et al., 2022). The Population will comprise adult human participants, aged 18 years and older, from any geographical location; studies focusing exclusively on pediatric, neonatal, or specific elderly populations, or animal models, will be excluded unless animal data directly supports mechanistic understanding relevant to human outcomes and is presented alongside human data. Participants may be healthy or possess common non-communicable diseases, but studies exclusively on critically ill patients or those with severe primary immunodeficiencies may be excluded unless directly relevant to general immune modulation. The Intervention will include any form of nutritional modification, such as supplementation with specific micronutrients, macronutrients, prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics, or adherence to defined dietary patterns. Eligible Comparators will include placebo, no intervention, standard dietary advice, or an alternative nutritional intervention. Primary Outcomes will include validated biomarkers of immune function, such as changes in immune cell populations, specific immune cell activity, levels of cytokines, and antibody responses. Secondary outcomes will include clinically relevant immunity-related outcomes like the incidence, duration, or severity of infections, and markers of systemic inflammation. Regarding Study Designs, Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be the primary focus for evaluating intervention efficacy, while high-quality prospective cohort studies and case-control studies may be included for assessing associations, particularly where RCTs are scarce. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be used for background and reference checking but not for data extraction themselves. Case reports, narrative reviews, editorials, and conference abstracts without sufficient data will be excluded. Studies must be published in English, with no initial publication date restriction, though a focus will be given to more recent studies during synthesis.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

A comprehensive manual search strategy will be developed and executed. Electronic bibliographic Databases to be searched include Google Scholar, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy will combine keywords and database-specific subject headings related to three core concepts: Nutrition, Immune Function, and Population/Study Type, using Boolean operators (AND, OR) to combine terms appropriately. An example of a conceptual search string block for the "nutrition" concept will be developed and adapted for each database. The full search strategy for at least one major database will be provided in an appendix of the final review, following PRISMA-S guidelines (Rethlefsen et al., 2021). In addition to database searching, Other Sources such as reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews will be manually screened (snowballing). Trial registries like ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP will be searched for ongoing or unpublished trials.

Screening and Selection of Studies

The study selection process will be conducted systematically and transparently using manual methods. All retrieved citations will be compiled, and duplicates will be removed manually. Two reviewers (K.S. and a second reviewer) will independently screen titles and abstracts against the predefined eligibility criteria. Full texts of potentially relevant articles will then be retrieved and independently assessed for eligibility by the same two reviewers. Any disagreements at either stage will be resolved through discussion and consensus; if consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer will arbitrate. Reasons for excluding studies at the full-text screening stage will be documented. A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram will be generated to illustrate the entire study selection process (Page et al., 2021a).

Data Extraction

A standardized data extraction form will be developed manually, piloted on a small sample of included studies, and refined as necessary. One reviewer (K.S.) will extract data from the included studies, and a second reviewer will independently verify the extracted data for accuracy and completeness (Jonnalagadda et al., 2015). Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer if necessary. The data items to be extracted will include study characteristics (author, year, design, country), participant details (sample size, age, sex, health status), intervention specifics (type, dose, duration), comparator details, outcome measures (definitions, measurement methods, time points), key qualitative findings and quantitative results (effect estimates where reported), funding sources, and elements relevant to the risk of bias assessment.

Assessment of Risk of Bias (Critical Appraisal)

The methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies will be independently assessed by two reviewers (K.S. and a second reviewer) using appropriate, validated tools, applied manually. For RCTs, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool will be used (Sterne et al., 2019). Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. The results of the risk of bias assessment will be presented in tables and/or narrative summaries. This assessment will be crucial for informing the interpretation of the review findings and will be considered in the qualitative synthesis, particularly when discussing the strength and limitations of the evidence from individual studies.

Data Synthesis

Secondary qualitative methods will be the primary focus and there will be no analysis software, and therefore, an extensive Narrative Synthesis will be conducted to bring together the findings across the included studies (Popay et al., 2006). Preliminary synthesis of extracted data will first be carried out to establish themes across studies. The study findings will be thematically analysed and organized based on type of nutritional intervention, outcomes, population profile and study quality. This will involve inductive analysis to identify patterns, concepts and relationships within and across the included studies. The synthesis will report on the extent and type of effects that have been reported; patterns in the relationship between effects and data sources; and the extent to which findings are consistent. The conversation will surround the interpretation of the aggregate meaning of the qualitative evidence, explanation for any variation in results across studies, and qualitative evaluation of the confidence in the body of evidence. Discussion of the certainty of the evidence for important themes or outcomes will be presented in narrative form and will be informed by principles similar to GRADE that take into account limitations of the study design, consistency of findings, and directness of the evidence, although formal GRADE ratings will not be developed because the synthesis is qualitative in nature and lacks quantitative pooling (Guyatt et al., 2008).

Ethical Considerations of Your Proposed Review

This systematic review will exclusively synthesize data from publicly available, published research articles and documents. As such, it does not involve direct interaction with human participants or the collection of primary data. Therefore, formal ethical approval from an institutional review board or ethics committee is not required for this type of secondary research methodology (Davies, 2020). The review will strictly adhere to principles of academic integrity. All sources utilized in the review will be meticulously acknowledged and appropriately cited according to established academic conventions, ensuring proper attribution and transparency in the research process. The conduct of this review will uphold the ethical standards expected in scholarly research, focusing on an unbiased and accurate representation of the existing literature.

Timeline

The Gantt chart provides a summary of the projected timeline for the key phases of this review. The systematic review is anticipated to be completed within approximately 7 to 8 months from the commencement date.

Research Outcomes

The principal outcome of this systematic review will be the production of a comprehensive manuscript, meticulously detailing the methodology, findings, and conclusions, suitable for submission to a high-impact, peer-reviewed scientific journal specializing in nutrition, immunology, or public health. Beyond the manuscript itself, this review is anticipated to yield several significant subsidiary outcomes. It will clearly identify and synthesize evidence on key nutritional factors, including specific micronutrients, macronutrients, and dietary patterns, that demonstrably influence various aspects of immune function and immunity-related clinical endpoints in adult populations. In addition, an important product will be a clear articulation of areas of evidence gaps and limitations in methodology in the extant literature. This will in turn help to inform and direct further primary research priorities, guiding researchers towards topics that need further scrutiny.

Dissemination of Findings

Results of this systematic review will be disseminated widely through a range of channels to a variety of end-users, such as key stakeholders, academic researchers, healthcare workers, and the general population. The primary way in which the results will be disseminated will be through the publication of the completed systematic review manuscript in a high quality, peer-reviewed scientific journal in the areas of nutrition, immunology, or public health with open-access publication sought where possible to increase accessibility. Also, summary results and presentations will be developed and submitted for oral or poster presentation to national and/or international scientific meetings for discussion and interaction with key opinion leaders in the field. To broaden the impact beyond the academic community, consideration will be given to developing concise summaries of the review’s main findings.

References

Abbas, A. K., Lichtman, A. H., & Pillai, S. (2023). Cellular and molecular immunology. https://diglib.mazums.ac.ir/UserFiles/Files/Accounts/diglib/files/Cellular%20and%20Molecular%20Immunology%20(10th%20Edition)%20Abul%20K_%20Abbas%2C%202021.pdf

Calder, P. C. (2020). Nutrition, immunity and COVID-19. BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 3(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000085

Calder, P. C. (2021). Nutrition and immunity: lessons for COVID-19. Nutrition & Diabetes, 11(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41387-021-00165-0

Childs, C. E., Calder, P. C., & Miles, E. A. (2019). Diet and immune function. Nutrients, 11(8), 1933. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081933

Davies, S. E. (2020). The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: Review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee. Research Ethics, 16(1-2), 1-26. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1747016119898408

Duan, L., & Mukherjee, E. (2016). Janeway’s immunobiology. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 89(3), 424. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5045153/pdf/nihpp-rs4169007v1.pdf

Galland, L. (2010). Diet and inflammation. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 25(6), 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884533610385703

Gombart, A. F., Pierre, A., & Maggini, S. (2020). A review of micronutrients and the immune system–working in harmony to reduce the risk of infection. Nutrients, 12(1), 236. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010236

Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., Schünemann, H. J., & GRADE Working Group. (2008). GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 336(7650), 924–926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD

Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2022). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.3). Cochrane. https://dariososafoula.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-2019-1.pdf

Jonnalagadda, S. R., Goyal, P., & Huffman, M. D. (2015). Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Systematic reviews, 4, 1-16. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s13643-015-0066-7.pdf

Maggini, S., Pierre, A., & Calder, P. C. (2018). Immune function and micronutrient requirements change over the life course. Nutrients, 10(10), 1531. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10101531

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., ... & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version, 1(1), b92. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=ed8b23836338f6fdea0cc55e161b0fc5805f9e27

Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group. (2021). PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z

Round, J. L., & Mazmanian, S. K. (2009). The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease. Nature Reviews Immunology, 9(5), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri2515

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647

Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H. Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., Emberson, J. R., Hernán, M. A., Hopewell, S., Hróbjartsson, A., Junqueira, D. R., Jüni, P., Kirkham, J. J., Lasserson, T., Li, T., … Higgins, J. P. T. (2019). RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 366, l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898

Wu, H. J., & Wu, E. (2012). The role of gut microbiota in immune homeostasis and autoimmunity. Gut Microbes, 3(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmic.19320