| Literature DB >> 26689795 |
Adam Jurgoński1, Jerzy Juśkiewicz2, Bartosz Fotschki2, Krzysztof Kołodziejczyk3, Joanna Milala3, Monika Kosmala3, Katarzyna Grzelak-Błaszczyk3, Lidia Markiewicz2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the effects of dietary supplementation with strawberry extracts rich in ETs and fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) on the intestinal microbiota and the formation of bacterial metabolites in the distal intestine, as well as the absorption of ET metabolites and antioxidant status in rats.Entities:
Keywords: Bifidobacteria; Fructans; Hydrolysable tannins; Lactic acid bacteria; Nasutins; Urolithins
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26689795 PMCID: PMC5334382 DOI: 10.1007/s00394-015-1133-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nutr ISSN: 1436-6207 Impact factor: 5.614
Chemical composition of strawberry ET extracts
| Monomeric ET-rich extract (g/100 g) | Dimeric ET-rich extract (g/100 g) | |
|---|---|---|
| Dry matter | 94.31 ± 0.25 | 91.31 ± 0.05 |
| Ash | 0.34 ± 0.02 | 0.03 ± 0.04 |
| Fat | – | – |
| Protein | 5.62 ± 0.05 | 1.83 ± 0.03 |
| Other componentsa | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 7.17 ± 0.01 |
| Total polyphenols | 88.0 ± 0.1 | 82.3 ± 0.1 |
| Ellagic acid | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 0.2 ± 0.0 |
| ETs | 80.0 ± 0.1 | 57.3 ± 0.1 |
| Monomers | 77.1 ± 0.1 | 23.3 ± 0.1 |
| Dimers | 2.9 ± 0.0 | 34.0 ± 0.1 |
| Proanthocyanidins | 8.1 ± 0.3 | 23.9 ± 0.2 |
| Flavonols | – | 0.9 ± 0.0 |
The results are expressed as the mean ± SD, n = 2
ETs ellagitannins
aLow molecular carbohydrates and structural components of plant cell walls, including dietary fibre
Composition of the group-specific diets
| Group (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | C + FOS | ME | ME + FOS | DE | DE + FOS | |
| Casein | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.8 |
| DL-methionine | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Rapeseed oil | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Cellulose | 6 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Fructo-oligosaccharidesa | – | 3 | – | 3 | – | 3 |
| Corn starch | 66.3 | 66.3 | 66.07 | 66.07 | 66.06 | 66.06 |
| Monomeric ET-rich extract2 | – | – | 0.23 | 0.23 | – | – |
| Dimeric ET-rich extractb | – | – | – | – | 0.24 | 0.24 |
| Vitamin mixc | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Mineral mixc | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
| Choline chloride | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Calculated dietary contents | ||||||
| Total polyphenols | – | – | 0.203 | 0.203 | 0.197 | 0.197 |
| Ellagitannins | – | – | 0.184 | 0.184 | 0.138 | 0.138 |
ET ellagitannins
aRaftilose P95 with a degree of polymerization 2-7 (Beneo-Orafti, Oreye, Belgium)
bChemical composition in Table 1
cRecommended for the AIN-93 M diet [19]
Mass, pH value, dry matter, ammonia and SCFA concentrations in the intestinal digesta of rats fed diets containing monomeric ET- or dimeric ET-rich extract without or with FOS for 4 weeks
| Group1 | 2 Factor ANOVA | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | C + FOS | ME | ME + FOS | DE | DE + FOS | Extract | FOS | Extract × FOS | |
| Small intestine | |||||||||
| Mass with contents2 | 1.87 ± 0.047 | 1.97 ± 0.045 | 1.84 ± 0.032 | 1.97 ± 0.043 | 1.88 ± 0.040 | 1.98 ± 0.041 | NS | <0.005 | NS |
| pH of ileal digesta | 7.51 ± 0.135 | 6.64 ± 0.107 | 7.30 ± 0.106 | 6.85 ± 0.069 | 7.32 ± 0.142 | 6.79 ± 0.100 | NS | <0.001 | NS |
| Caecum | |||||||||
| Tissue mass2 | 0.170b ± 0.006 | 0.218a ± 0.006 | 0.164b ± 0.005 | 0.218a ± 0.005 | 0.180b ± 0.006 | 0.205a ± 0.008 | NS | <0.001 | =0.05 |
| Digesta mass3 | 3.04 ± 0.219 | 3.96 ± 0.137 | 3.41 ± 0.284 | 3.56 ± 0.274 | 3.03 ± 0.063 | 3.51 ± 0.296 | NS | <0.01 | NS |
| pH of digesta | 7.57 ± 0.097 | 6.82 ± 0.070 | 7.47 ± 0.104 | 6.45 ± 0.120 | 7.41 ± 0.093 | 6.82 ± 0.083 | NS | <0.001 | NS |
| Dry matter, % | 23.9b ± 0.815 | 23.8b ± 0.660 | 25.2ab ± 0.221 | 26.5a ± 0.696 | 26.4a ± 0.470 | 24.4b ± 0.790 | <0.01 | NS | <0.05 |
| NH3, mg/g | 0.259 ± 0.010 | 0.209 ± 0.009 | 0.222 ± 0.007 | 0.225 ± 0.013 | 0.238 ± 0.012 | 0.198 ± 0.018 | NS | <0.005 | NS |
| SCFAs, μmol/g | 97.3b ± 2.98 | 127a ± 5.07 | 106b ± 5.18 | 122a ± 6.3 | 99.2b ± 5.00 | 103b ± 3.87 | <0.05 | <0.001 | <0.05 |
| Acetate | 65.2b ± 1.79 | 90.5a ± 4.29 | 74.7b ± 3.22 | 91.1a ± 7.24 | 70.7b ± 3.85 | 71.7b ± 4.44 | <0.05 | <0.001 | <0.05 |
| Propionate | 16.8ab ± 0.763 | 19.1a ± 1.02 | 15.1bc ± 0.856 | 14.7bc ± 1.25 | 14.1bc ± 1.04 | 12.7c ± 0.404 | <0.001 | NS | NS |
| Butyrate | 9.55 ± 0.90 | 13.27 ± 1.72 | 11.29 ± 1.64 | 13.83 ± 2.39 | 9.39 ± 1.00 | 14.56 ± 1.30 | NS | <0.005 | NS |
| Putrefactive SCFAs4 | 5.75a ± 0.321 | 3.91b ± 0.470 | 4.60ab ± 0.233 | 2.55c ± 0.267 | 4.96ab ± 0.603 | 4.05b ± 0.549 | <0.05 | <0.001 | NS |
Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8. Means within a column without a common letter differ, P ≤ 0.05 (Duncan’s post hoc test). CEL cellulose, ETs ellagitannins, FOS fructo-oligosaccharides, NS non-significant data, P > 0.05
1C, control fed a diet with CEL as a sole source of dietary fibre; C + FOS, control fed a diet with FOS added at the expense of CEL; ME, fed a diet supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; ME + FOS, fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; DE, fed a diet supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract; DE + FOS, fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract
2g/100 g body weight
3g/g caecal or colonic tissue
4Calculated as the sum of isobutyrate, isovalerate and valerate
Total and selected bacterial counts quantified by real-time PCR in the caecal digesta of rats fed diets containing monomeric ET- or dimeric ET-rich extract without or with FOS for 4 weeks
| Group1 (log cells/g) | 2 Factor ANOVA | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | C + FOS | ME | ME + FOS | DE | DE + FOS | Extract | FOS | Extract × FOS | |
| Total bacteria | 10.5ab ± 0.079 | 10.6a ± 0.084 | 10.4ab ± 0.055 | 8.52c ± 0.104 | 10.3b ± 0.071 | 10.5ab ± 0.050 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Genus | |||||||||
| | 9.36ab ± 0.182 | 9.56a ± 0.109 | 8.99b ± 0.059 | 8.23c ± 0.088 | 9.11ab ± 0.057 | 9.54a ± 0.305 | <0.001 | NS | <0.005 |
| | 8.05c ± 0.503 | 10.3a ± 0.369 | 6.83d ± 0.210 | 6.40d ± 0.399 | 7.35 cd ± 0.299 | 9.18b ± 0.400 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.005 |
| | 6.80a ± 0.359 | 6.06ab ± 0.233 | 6.10ab ± 0.158 | 4.46c ± 0.100 | 6.50ab ± 0.314 | 5.90b ± 0.153 | <0.001 | <0.001 | NS |
| | 5.45bc ± 0.354 | 6.92a ± 0.408 | 4.96c ± 0.262 | 5.41bc ± 0.398 | 4.68c ± 0.358 | 6.11ab ± 0.174 | <0.05 | <0.001 | NS |
| Group | |||||||||
| | 9.62a ± 0.139 | 9.75a ± 0.123 | 9.64a ± 0.068 | 7.73b ± 0.080 | 9.54a ± 0.109 | 9.40a ± 0.172 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| | 7.83a ± 0.082 | 7.70a ± 0.308 | 8.07a ± 0.149 | 6.10b ± 0.283 | 7.74a ± 0.068 | 7.78a ± 0.277 | <0.005 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Values are mean ± SEM, n = 6. Means within a column without a common letter differ, P ≤ 0.05 (Duncan’s post hoc test). CEL, cellulose; ETs, ellagitannins; FOS, fructo-oligosaccharides; NS, non-significant data, P > 0.05; PCR, polymerase chain reaction
1C, control fed a diet with CEL as a sole source of dietary fibre; C + FOS, control fed a diet with FOS added at the expense of CEL; ME, fed a diet supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; ME + FOS, fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; DE, fed a diet supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract; DE + FOS, fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract
Concentration of ellagic acid in hydrolysed caecal digesta and ET metabolites in the caecal digesta and plasma of rats fed diets containing monomeric ET- or dimeric ET-rich extract without or with FOS for 4 weeks
| Group1 | Kruskal–Wallis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME | ME + FOS | DE | DE + FOS | ||
| Caecal digesta | |||||
| Ellagic acid, mg/g | 1.95ab ± 0.058 | 2.41a ± 0.016 | 1.61b ± 0.024 | 2.04a ± 0.065 | <0.001 |
| Total metabolites, µg/g | 67.8ab ± 10.7 | 89.5a ± 15.0 | 13.0c ± 0.98 | 18.0bc ± 3.33 | <0.001 |
| Nasutin-A2, µg/g | 62.7a ± 19.5 | 79.2a ± 15.3 | 6.28b ± 1.37 | 10.3b ± 3.82 | <0.001 |
| Isonasutin-A-glucuronide3, µg/g | 5.12b ± 0.363 | 9.19a ± 1.09 | 6.68ab ± 0.568 | 7.76ab ± 0.860 | <0.05 |
| Urolithin-A4, µg/g | ND | 1.10 ± 0.384 | ND | ND | – |
| Plasma | |||||
| Total metabolites, ng/mL | 8.13b ± 2.12 | 248a ± 43.8 | 146ab ± 19.2 | 281a ± 47.5 | <0.001 |
| Urolithin-A4, ng/mL | ND | 235ab ± 44.0 | 136b ± 19.1 | 271a ± 47.9 | <0.01 |
| Isonasutin-A-glucuronide3, ng/mL | ND | 10.1 ± 1.25 | 10.1 ± 0.834 | 10.8 ± 1.50 | NS |
| Nasutin-A-glucuronide5, ng/mL | 8.13a ± 2.12 | 2.65ab ± 1.75 | 0.283b ± 0.283 | ND | <0.005 |
Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8. Means within a column without a common letter differ, P ≤ 0.05 (Dunn’s post hoc test). ETs ellagitannins, FOS fructo-oligosaccharides, ND not detected, NS non-significant data, P > 0.05
1ME, fed a diet supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; ME + FOS, fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; DE, fed a diet supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract; DE + FOS, fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract
2HPLC retention time (min) 10.08; MS [M–H]− 269; MS/MS fragments 113, 85.03; UV spectra (nm) 227, 245, 284, 323, 389
3HPLC retention time (min) 8.08; MS [M–H]− 445; MS/MS fragments 269.01, 113, 85.03; UV spectra (nm) 218, 264, 332
4HPLC retention time (min) 9.54; MS [M–H]− 227; MS/MS fragments 113.02, 85.03; UV spectra (nm) 197, 218, 280, 307, 355
5HPLC retention time (min) 6.99; MS [M–H]− 445; MS/MS fragments 269.01, 113, 85.03; UV spectra (nm) 222, 279, 315, 367, 379
Fig. 1Plasma ACW and ACL in rats fed diets containing monomeric ET- or dimeric ET-rich extract without or with FOS for 4 weeks. Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8. Means without a common letter differ, P ≤ 0.05 (Duncan’s post hoc test). ACL antioxidant capacity of lipid-soluble substances, ACW antioxidant capacity of water-soluble substances, CEL cellulose, ETs ellagitannins, FOS fructo-oligosaccharides. C control fed a diet with CEL as a sole source of dietary fibre; C + FOS control fed a diet with FOS added at the expense of CEL; ME fed a diet supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; ME + FOS fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; DE fed a diet supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract; DE + FOS fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract
Fig. 2TBARS in the liver, heart and kidney of rats fed diets containing monomeric ET- or dimeric ET-rich extract without or with FOS for 4 weeks. Values are mean ± SEM, n = 8. Means without a common letter differ, P ≤ 0.05 (Duncan’s post hoc test). CEL cellulose, ETs ellagitannins, FOS fructo-oligosaccharides, NS non-significant data, P > 0.05; TBARS thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances. C control fed a diet with CEL as a sole source of dietary fibre, C + FOS control fed a diet with FOS added at the expense of CEL, ME fed a diet supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; ME + FOS fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a monomeric ET-rich extract; DE fed a diet supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract; DE + FOS fed a diet containing FOS and supplemented with a dimeric ET-rich extract