| Literature DB >> 26544724 |
Cynthia Blanton1, Zhengcheng He2, Katherine T Gottschall-Pass3, Marva I Sweeney2.
Abstract
Previously we showed that feeding polyphenol-rich wild blueberries to hypertensive rats lowered systolic blood pressure. Since probiotic bacteria produce bioactive metabolites from berry polyphenols that enhance the health benefits of berry consumption, we hypothesized that adding probiotics to a blueberry-enriched diet would augment the anti-hypertensive effects of blueberry consumption. Groups (n = 8) of male spontaneously hypertensive rats were fed one of four AIN '93G-based diets for 8 weeks: Control (CON); 3% freeze-dried wild blueberry (BB); 1% probiotic bacteria (PRO); or 3% BB + 1% PRO (BB+PRO). Blood pressure was measured at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 by the tail-cuff method, and urine was collected at weeks 4 and 8 to determine markers of oxidative stress (F2-isoprostanes), nitric oxide synthesis (nitrites), and polyphenol metabolism (hippuric acid). Data were analyzed using mixed models ANOVA with repeated measures. Diet had a significant main effect on diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.046), with significantly lower measurements in the BB- vs. CON-fed rats (p = 0.035). Systolic blood pressure showed a similar but less pronounced response to diet (p = 0.220), again with the largest difference between the BB and CON groups. Absolute increase in blood pressure between weeks 0 and 8 tended to be smaller in the BB and PRO vs. CON and BB+PRO groups (systolic increase, p = 0.074; diastolic increase, p = 0.185). Diet had a significant main effect on hippuric acid excretion (p<0.0001), with 2- and ~1.5-fold higher levels at weeks 4 and 8, respectively, in the BB and BB+PRO vs. PRO and CON groups. Diet did not have a significant main effect on F2-isoprostane (p = 0.159) or nitrite excretion (p = 0.670). Our findings show that adding probiotics to a blueberry-enriched diet does not enhance and actually may impair the anti-hypertensive effect of blueberry consumption. However, probiotic bacteria are not interfering with blueberry polyphenol metabolism into hippuric acid.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26544724 PMCID: PMC4636313 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Composition of AIN’93G diets.
| Ingredient | Amount in diet (g/kg) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Blueberry | Probiotic | Blueberry + Probiotic | |
| Casein, high nitrogen, 80-mesh | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| Cornstarch | 377.5 | 347.5 | 367.5 | 337.5 |
| Dyetrose | 132 | 132 | 132 | 132 |
| Sucrose | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Cellulose | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| 3% blueberry powder | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 |
| 1% probiotic | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| 2% NaCl | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Soybean oil + Tertiary Butyl Hydroquinone (0.056 g) | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 |
| Mineral mix | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Vitamin mix | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| L-Cystine | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Choline bitartrate | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
aIngredients purchased from Dyets, Inc. (Bethlehem, PA) except for blueberry powder (donated by the Wild Blueberry Association of North America) and probiotic (VSL#3® purchased from www.vsl3.com).
bNinety percent tetrasaccharides and higher.
cComposition (g/kg mineral mix): CaCO3, 357.0; KH2PO4, 196.0; K Citrate•H2O, 70.78; NaCl, 74.0; K2SO4, 46.6; MgO, 24.3; Fe citrate, 6.06; ZnCO3, 1.65; MnCO3, 0.63; CuCO3, 0.31; KIO3, 0.01; Na2SeO4, 0.01025; (NH4) 6 Mo7O24•4H2O, 0.00795; Na2SiO3•9H2O, 1.45; CrK(SO4) 2•12H2O, 0.275; LiCl, 0.0174; H3BO3, 0.0815; NaF, 0.0635; 2NiCO3•3Ni(OH) 2•4H2O, 0.0318; NH4VO3, 0.0066.
d Composition (g/kg vitamin mix): thiamin HCl, 0.6; riboflavin, 0.6; pyridoxine HCl, 0.7; nicotinic acid, 3.0; Ca pantothenate, 1.6; folic acid, 0.2; D-biotin, 0.02; vitamin B12 (0.1% in mannitol), 2.5; vitamin A palmitate (500 000 IU/g), 0.8; DL-α-tocopheryl acetate (500 IU/g), 15; vitamin D3 (400 000 IU/g), 0.25; vitamin K/dextrose 10 mg/g (phylloquinone), 7.5.
*Nutritional analysis of blueberry powder: 397 kcalories/100 g, 77.2% by weight available carbohydrate, 3.15% protein, 2.3% fat, 13.8% insoluble fiber, 3.6% soluble fiber.
Body weight and food consumption.
| Diet Group | Baseline Body Weight (g) | Endpoint Body Weight (g) | Body Weight gain (g) | Food consumption (g)consumption (g) | Feed efficiency (g Body Weight gain/g food consumption) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | 199.1 ± 4.1 | 338.2 ± 5.5 | 139.1 ± 4.1 | 1030.6 ± 29.8 | 0.136 ± 0.007 |
| BB | 195.3 ± 2.1 | 332.9 ± 5.2 | 137.6 ± 5.4 | 1026.9 ± 52.9 | 0.136 ± 0.008 |
| PRO | 196.1 ± 2.9 | 331.8 ± 6.3 | 135.8 ± 6.8 | 1001.9 ± 42.7 | 0.138 ± 0.012 |
| BB+PRO | 197.6 ± 2.4 | 333.7 ± 5.2 | 136.0 ± 6.0 | 996.9 ± 33.0 | 0.137 ± 0.007 |
|
| 0.806 | 0.842 | 0.977 | 0.910 | 0.996 |
Baseline and endpoint (week 8) body weight, total body weight gain, total food consumption, and feed efficiency (body weight gain/food consumption) of rats fed control (CON), 3% blueberry (BB), 1% probiotic (PRO), or 3% blueberry + 1% probiotic (BB+PRO) diet for 8 weeks; n = 8 per diet group. Data are presented as means ± SEM, with statistical analysis performed using mixed models ANOVA. There was no statistically significant main effect of diet on any parameter (.
Increase in blood pressure.
| Diet Group | Increase in systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | Increase in diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) |
|---|---|---|
| CON | 36.5 ± 9.9 | 33.6 ± 12.5 |
| BB | 9.3 ± 7.9 | 11.2 ± 6.5 |
| PRO | 11.9 ± 6.5 | 10.7 ± 6.8 |
| BB+PRO | 20.0 ± 5.3 | 22.0 ± 5.3 |
| P value effect of diet | 0.074 | 0.185 |
Absolute increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in mmHg from baseline to week 8 in spontaneously hypertensive rats fed control (CON), 3% blueberry (BB), 1% probiotic (PRO), or 3% blueberry + 1% probiotic (BB+PRO) diet; n = 8 per diet group. Data are presented as means ± SEM, with statistical analysis performed using mixed models ANOVA with post-hoc comparisons using Tukey’s adjustment. The main effect of diet on increase in SBP and DBP was not statistically significant.
Asterisk (*) indicates difference compared to CON for increase in SBP at p = 0.079 when using Tukey’s adjustment for multiple comparisons (unadjusted p = 0.018) (.