| Literature DB >> 27399765 |
Sydney Moser1, Jongbin Lim2, Mohammad Chegeni3, JoLynne D Wightman4, Bruce R Hamaker5,6, Mario G Ferruzzi5,6.
Abstract
While the potential of dietary phenolics to mitigate glycemic response has been proposed, the translation of these effects to phenolic rich foods such as 100% grape juice (GJ) remains unclear. Initial in vitro screening of GJ phenolic extracts from American grape varieties (V. labrusca; Niagara and Concord) suggested limited inhibitory capacity for amylase and α-glucosidase (6.2%-11.5% inhibition; p < 0.05). Separately, all GJ extracts (10-100 µM total phenolics) did reduce intestinal trans-epithelial transport of deuterated glucose (d7-glu) and fructose (d7-fru) by Caco-2 monolayers in a dose-dependent fashion, with 60 min d7-glu/d7-fru transport reduced 10%-38% by GJ extracts compared to control. To expand on these findings by assessing the ability of 100% GJ to modify starch digestion and glucose transport from a model starch-rich meal, 100% Niagara and Concord GJ samples were combined with a starch rich model meal (1:1 and 1:2 wt:wt) and glucose release and transport were assessed in a coupled in vitro digestion/Caco-2 cell model. Digestive release of glucose from the starch model meal was decreased when digested in the presence of GJs (5.9%-15% relative to sugar matched control). Furthermore, transport of d7-glu was reduced 10%-38% by digesta containing bioaccessible phenolics from Concord and Niagara GJ compared to control. These data suggest that phenolics present in 100% GJ may alter absorption of monosaccharides naturally present in 100% GJ and may potentially alter glycemic response if consumed with a starch rich meal.Entities:
Keywords: anthocyanins; carbohydrate digestion; glucose transport; grape juice
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27399765 PMCID: PMC4963890 DOI: 10.3390/nu8070414
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Description of 100% grape juice samples assessed 1.
| Grape Juice Description | Form of Juice | Sugar Content |
|---|---|---|
| Niagara, 2013 harvest | Reconstituted from concentrate | 16.0° Brix |
| SO2 Niagara, 2013 harvest | Reconstituted from concentrate | 16.0° Brix |
| Concord, 2013 harvest | Not from concentrate | 16.5° Brix |
| Niagara, 2014 harvest | Reconstituted from concentrate | 16.0° Brix |
| SO2 Niagara, 2014 harvest | Not from concentrate | 13.3° Brix |
| Concord, 2014 harvest | Not from concentrate | 15.9° Brix |
1 All samples received from Welch’s Foods Inc.
Content (µM) of individual non-anthocyanin phenolics and anthocyanins in three types of grape juices over two harvest years 1,2,3,4.
| Phenolic Content (mg/100 mL) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100% Juice: Grape, Harvest Year | Gallic Acid | Caffeic Acid | Caftaric Acid | Epicatechin | Quercetin 3- | Quercetin 3,4- | Quercetin-3- | Quercetin | Isorhamnetin | Piceid | Resveratrol | Sum |
| Niagara, 2013 | 5.0 ± 0.4 b | 3.4 ± 0.1 c | 4.2 ± 0.1 e | NC | NC | 2.2 ± 0.2 c | NC | 16.8 ± 0.2 d | 4.9 ± 0.1 b | 0.8 ± 0.01 f | 7.1 ± 0.2 d | 44.5 ± 1.2 e |
| SO2 Niagara, 2013 | 1.9 ± 0.04 d | 5.2 ± 0.5 b,c | 9.6 ± 0.2 d | 1.5 ± 0.1 c | NC | 2.0 ± 0.2 c | NC | 19.8 ± 1.1 c | 6.2 ± 0.4 b | 5.3 ± 0.3 a | 13.3 ± 0.7 a | 64.8 ± 3.2 d |
| Concord, 2013 | 8.1 ± 0.4 a | 11.1 ± 0.2 a | 20.8 ± 0.7 b | 7.9 ± 0.7 b | 5.9 ± 0.4 b | 4.2 ± 0.2 a | 4.9 ± 0.3 a | 30.0 ± 0.5 b | 12.6 ± 0.4 a | 2.2 ± 0.02 d | 3.5 ± 0.1 f | 111.1 ± 3.8 b |
| Niagara, 2014 | 4.0 ± 0.2 b,c | 4.2 ± 0.2 c | 2.9 ± 0.1 e | 2.4 ± 0.3 c | NC | 2.5 ± 0.2 c | NC | 20.6 ± 0.1 c | 5.0 ± 0.1 b | 1.4 ± 0.03 e | 10.3 ± 0.1 c | 53.4 ± 1.3 e |
| SO2 Niagara, 2014 | 2.9 ± 0.6 c,d | 7.6 ± 1.7 b | 16.9 ± 0.9 c | 11.6 ± 0.9 a | NC | 3.3 ± 0.4 b | NC | 31.1 ± 0.6 b | 10.3 ± 1.3 a | 4.9 ± 0.06 b | 11.7 ± 0.01 b | 100.4 ± 6.7 c |
| Concord, 2014 | 8.9 ± 0.4 a | 12.8 ± 0.6 a | 25.1 ± 0.7 a | 12.6 ± 1.2 a | 7.8 ± 0.5 a | 4.3 ± 0.3 a | 3.8 ± 0.2 b | 34.3 ± 0.3 a | 13.1 ± 0.5 a | 4.3 ± 0.2 c | 5.1 ± 0.2 e | 131.9 ± 4.9 a |
| Concord, 2013 | 623.5 ± 38.7 a | 74.8 ± 7.9 b | 87.5 ± 15.8 a | 144.7 ± 13.5 a | 13.6 ± 2.6 b | 10.7 ± 2.4 a | 620.5 ± 45.0 b | 113.2 ± 13.0 b | ||||
| Concord, 2014 | 710.0 ± 60.5 a | 106.9 ± 13.4 a | 40.8 ± 17.4 a | 150.4 ± 11.5 a | 19.2 ± 2.0 a | 15.9 ± 3.3 a | 877.4 ± 66.0 a | 210.3 ± 27.7 a | ||||
| Concord, 2013 | 122.3 ± 20.6 b | 199.8 ± 6.0 a | 191.1 ± 17.2 a | 35.0 ± 3.5 b | 35.3 ± 7.4 a | 133.4 ± 8.0 b | 22.3 ± 3.3 b | 2427.5 ± 205.0 b | ||||
| Concord, 2014 | 212.1 ± 40.8 a | 211.7 ± 9.1 a | 210.1 ± 20.2 a | 61.9 ± 10.1 a | 58.2 ± 11.7 a | 168.4 ± 14.5 a | 38.8 ± 6.4 a | 3092.0 ± 314.6 a | ||||
1 Values represent mean ± standard error of mean from a triplicate analysis; 2 NC = Non Detected; 3 Presence of different letter (a, b) between values indicates significant differences in concentration of phenolic class between grape juices (p < 0.05); 4 Cyanidin-3-O-p-coumaroyl-5-O-diglucoside and delphinidin-3-O-p-coumaroyl glucoside were present in Niagara juices at 0.9 ± 0.01 to 1.9 ± 0.1 and 3.7 ± 0.1 to 4.1 ± 0.1 µM, respectively.
Inhibition (%) of α-amylase and glucosidase activity by grape juice phenolic extracts.
| Inhibitor | Inhibitor Concentration (μM GAE) 1 | Percent (%) Inhibition | |
|---|---|---|---|
| α-Amylase | α-Glucosidase | ||
| Negative Control | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Acarbose (Positive Control) | 500 | 103.2 ± 5.1 | 92.4 ± 1.2 |
| 300 | 102.0 ± 6.1 | 88.9 ± 0.9 | |
| 5 | 30.5 ± 2.9 | 6.2 ± 0.8 | |
| 3 | 17.6 ± 5.1 | 2.3 ± 0.5 | |
| Niagara, 2013 | 500 | 7.9 ± 4.5 a,b,* | 10.0 ± 4.2 a,b,* |
| 300 | 4.5 ± 2.2 b,c,* | 6.6 ± 2.9 a,b,* | |
| SO2 Niagara, 2013 | 500 | 9.4 ± 3.3 a,* | 11.5 ± 3.1 a,* |
| 300 | −3.9 ± 2.0 f | 7.1 ± 2.6 a,b,* | |
| Concord 2013 | 500 | 8.7 ± 4.3 a,* | 9.2 ± 0.8 a,b,* |
| 300 | −3.4 ± 2.0 f | 5.4 ± 2.1 b,* | |
| Niagara, 2014 | 500 | 0.7 ± 1.7 d,e | 6.2 ± 3.4 a,b,* |
| 300 | −1.9 ± 2.6 e,f | 3.8 ± 2.0 b | |
| SO2 Niagara, 2014 | 500 | 9.2 ± 3.9 a,* | 7.1 ± 2.7 a,b,* |
| 300 | 0.5 ± 1.0 d,e | 4.2 ± 2.1 b | |
| Concord 2014 | 500 | 3.4 ± 1.4 c,d,* | 9.3 ± 3.2 a,b,* |
| 300 | −1.2 ± 2.1 e,f | 4.9 ± 1.2 b | |
Experiments represent average of n = 3 replicates; Preliminary dose finding experiments conducted with range of 10–1000 μM of phenolic extracts; Presence of different letter between values indicates significant differences in percentage inhibition between GJ extracts (p < 0.05); * indicates significant differences in percent inhibition by inhibitor compared to negative control (p < 0.05); 1 Total phenolics in digesta determined using Folin-Ciocalteu Assay and expressed as gallic acid equivalents (GAE); HPAEC-ECD and inhibition of α-glucosidase by glucose oxidase-peroxidase assay.
Figure 1Impact of 2013 and 2014 harvest grape juice extracts on d7-fructose (A,B) or d7-glucose (C,D) transport across Caco-2 human intestinal cell monolayer. Data is represented as concentration of deuterated sugar in basolateral compartment at 60 min. Data represent mean ± SEM for n = 4 replicate wells at each time point. Presence of different letters between values indicates significant differences in glucose transport between treatments within each concentration (p < 0.05).
Relative (%) and absolute (µM or nM) bioaccessibility of non-anthocyanin phenolics and anthocyanins for three types of grape juices over two harvest years 1,2,3,4,5.
| Non-Anthocyanin Phenolic Relative Bioaccessibility (%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100% Juice: Grape, Harvest Year | Gallic Acid | Caffeic Acid | Caftaric Acid | Epicatechin | Quercetin 3,4-diglucoside | Quercetin | Isorhamnetin | Piceid | Resveratrol |
| Niagara, 2013 | 32.0 ± 9.2 a | 24.8 ± 2.6 b | 39.5 ± 0.6 a,b | NC e | 16.9 ± 6.8 a | 8.4 ± 0.8 a | 20.9 ± 0.8 a | 22.1 ± 1.2 a | 18.7 ± 1.9 b |
| SO2 Niagara, 2013 | 31.7 ± 4.4 a | 36.1 ± 4.2 a,b | 32.7 ± 1.7 b | 27.4 ± 3.0 a | 21.7 ± 8.5 a | 7.6 ± 0.5 a | 18.5 ± 1.9 a | 10.3 ± 0.3 c,d | 17.5 ± 1.6 b |
| Concord, 2013 | 29.6 ± 6.6 a | 29.1 ± 3.6 b | 32.2 ± 1.6 b | 18.5 ± 1.4 c | 15.7 ± 7.4 a | 2.6 ± 0.5 b | 7.6 ± 0.4 b | 14.8 ± 2.0 b | 26.6 ± 1.7 a |
| Niagara, 2014 | 29.7 ± 5.8 a | 27.5 ± 2.0 b | 56.0 ± 15.0 a | 11.8 ± 2.0 d | 13.8 ± 4.6 a | 2.1 ± 0.2 b | 7.6 ± 0.2 b | 12.6 ± 0.1 b,c | 14.6 ± 1.4 b |
| SO2 Niagara, 2014 | 22.0 ± 1.5 a | 44.7 ± 8.0 a | 31.6 ± 3.2 b | 24.3 ± 2.1 a,b | 16.7 ± 8.8 a | 1.7 ± 0.3 b | 4.1 ± 0.4 c | 8.9 ± 1.3 c,d | 16.8 ± 2.3 b |
| Concord, 2014 | 29.2 ± 2.5 a | 28.7 ± 5.7 b | 30.3 ± 5.2 b | 21.3 ± 1.3 b,c | 12.2 ± 5.0 a | 1.8 ± 0.5 b | 3.3 ± 0.3 c | 8.1 ± 1.2 d | 17.6 ± 3.8 b |
| Concord, 2013 | 18.0 ± 0.9 a | 25.7 ± 1.5 a | 12.0 ± 1.1 a | 6.3 ± 1.8 a | 10.1 ± 0.8 a | 23.0 ± 1.9 a | 37.2 ± 1.7 a | ||
| Concord, 2014 | 13.1 ± 1.2 b | 18.7 ± 1.1 b | 8.1 ± 1.3 b | 3.7 ± 0.9 b | 6.3 ± 0.6 b | 19.9 ± 2.9 a | 30.0 ± 4.8 b | ||
| Niagara, 2013 | 91.0 ± 20.0 b | 47.5 ± 6.2 b | 53.4 ± 0.6 e | NC | 8.2 ± 3.4 a | 46.5 ± 3.7 a | 21.2 ± 0.7 b | 8.2 ± 0.4 c | 57.8 ± 4.6 c,d |
| SO2 Niagara, 2013 | 36.3 ± 5.6 c | 103.6 ± 8.8 b | 100.9 ± 5.2 d | 13.7 ± 1.3 c | 9.2 ± 3.7 a | 50.3 ± 5.6 a | 23.7 ± 1.1 a | 24.2 ± 1.6 a | 102.7 ± 14.0 a |
| Concord, 2013 | 139.0 ± 25.9 a | 179.1 ± 22.3 a | 214.3 ± 8.8 b | 50.7 ± 7.1 b | 14.3 ± 6.9 a | 25.9 ± 4.7 b | 19.9 ± 0.7 b | 14.1 ± 1.9 b | 40.4 ± 1.8 c,d |
| Niagara, 2014 | 68.7 ± 10.6 b,c | 64.8 ± 6.3 b | 53.3 ± 15.2 e | 9.5 ± 0.9 c | 7.8 ± 3.4 a | 14.0 ± 1.2 b | 8.0 ± 0.1 c | 7.8 ± 0.2 c | 66.1 ± 6.9 b,c |
| SO2 Niagara, 2014 | 37.0 ± 6.2 c | 177.6 ± 37.1 a | 169.2 ± 7.2 c | 96.8 ± 10.5 a | 10.5 ± 4.4 a | 17.8 ± 2.6 b | 8.7 ± 0.2 c | 19.2 ± 2.6 a,b | 86.1 ± 11.6 a,b |
| Concord, 2014 | 152.4 ± 14.2 a | 202.5 ± 37.4 a | 241.1 ± 35.8 a | 91.5 ± 3.7 a | 11.5 ± 4.6 a | 20.3 ± 5.1 b | 8.9 ± 0.5 c | 15.3 ± 2.2 b | 38.6 ± 7.7 d |
| Concord, 2013 | 16.2 ± 1.0 a | 5.1 ± 0.4 a | 10.1 ± 0.4 a | 0.9 ± 0.2 a | 2.8 ± 0.2 a | 5.7 ± 0.2 a | 6.2 ± 0.3 a | ||
| Concord, 2014 | 13.4 ± 1.5 b | 3.9 ± 0.2 b | 9.8 ± 1.7 a | 1.0 ± 0.2 a | 1.8 ± 0.3 b | 5.6 ± 1.4 a | 6.4 ± 1.4 a | ||
1 Values represent mean ± standard error of mean from a triplicate analysis; 2 NC = Non Detected; 3Presence of different letter between values indicates significant differences in concentration of phenolic class between grape juices (p < 0.05); 4 Quercetin-3-O-glucoside bioaccessibility from Concord grape juices was between 7.2% ± 2.7% to 8.1% ± 3.5%. Delphinidin-3-O-p-coumaroyl glucoside bioaccessibility from Niagara juices and Concord juices was between 8.4% ± 0.5% to 24.3% ± 1.0% and 6.3% ± 0.6% to 10.1% ± 0.8%, respectively; 5 Phenolics in GJs and digesta determined using LC-MS.
Figure 2Impact of 2013 and 2014 100% grape juice aqueous digesta (AQ) on d7-glucose transport across Caco-2 human intestinal cell monolayers over 60 min. Data represent mean ± SEM for n = 4 replicate wells. * indicates significant difference in basolateral glucose concentration (mM) compared to control (p < 0.05).
Glucose transport by Caco-2 small intestinal epithelial cells co-treated with d7-Glu (6 mM) and aqueous digesta (AQ) or matched phenolic-free control 1,2,3,4.
| Treatment | Phenolic Concentration (μM) 5 | Percent d7-Glu Transport 6 | Percent (%) d7-Glu Transported over 60 min Relative to Control 7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Without Model Test Meal | |||
| Control (24 mM glucose/fructose) | 0 | 2.4 ± 0.1 a | 100 a |
| Niagara, 2013 AQ | 27.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 b | 54.8 ± 5.4 b |
| SO2 Niagara, 2013 AQ | 37.8 | 1.4 ± 0.3 b | 58.6 ± 13.0 b |
| Concord, 2013 AQ | 56.3 | 1.4 ± 0.2 b | 59.2 ± 7.3 b |
| Niagara, 2014 AQ | 20.8 | 1.4 ± 0.3 b | 58.2 ± 10.4 b |
| SO2 Niagara, 2014 AQ | 39.4 | 1.4 ± 0.2 b | 60.1 ± 9.0 b |
| Concord 2014 AQ | 53.7 | 1.6 ± 0.2 b | 65.7 ± 6.5 b |
| With Model Test Meal | |||
| 1:1 Control (12 mM glu/fru) | 0 | 1.5 ± 0.1 a | 100 a |
| 1:2 Control (6 mM glu/fru) | 0 | 1.3 ± 0.1 a | 100 a |
| 1:1 Concord 2013 | 16.4 | 1.1 ± 0.2 b | 78.6 ± 7.7 b |
| 1:1 SO2 Niagara 2013 | 7.1 | 1.3 ± 0.2 a,b | 90.6 ± 7.6 a,b |
| 1:2 Concord, 2013 | 10.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 a | 89.5 ± 9.5 a,b |
| 1:2 SO2 Niagara 2013 | 4.6 | 1.4 ± 0.1 a | 95.2 ± 10.2 a |
1 Treatments included aqueous digesta (AQ) diluted 2:7 prior to introduction to apical compartment of three-compartment Caco-2 cell model; 2 d7-Glucose (6 mM) was used as a marker for glucose transport; Diluted Concord, Niagara, and blank digesta AQ contained 15, 12, and 12 mM glucose, respectively and 12, 17, and 12 mM fructose, respectively; 3 Data represent an average of n = 4 wells per experiment; 4 Presence of different letter between values indicates significant differences in glucose transport between treatment and control, within experiment comparing AQ digesta from different juices or experiment comparing AQ digesta with and without model test meal (p < 0.05); 5 Total phenolics and sugars in digesta determined using LC-MS; 6 Percent of d7-glucose transported from apical media to basolateral compartment; 7 Amount of d7-glucose transported basolaterally over 60 min relative to daily control matched for glucose/fructose and d7-glucose.
Percentage decrease in release of glucose from starch-rich model meal co-digested with grape juice compared with a sugar-matched control 1.
| Formulation 2 | Concentration of Phenolics in Aqueous Digesta (AQ) Fraction Following Digestion (µM) 3 | Percent Decrease in Glucose Release from Corn Starch by GJ Phenolics Compared to Phenolic-Free Control 4 |
|---|---|---|
| 1:1 Concord:Model meal | 73.7 | 15.0 |
| 1:2 Concord: Model meal | 35.4 | 5.9 |
| 1:1 SO2 Niagara: Model meal | 25.9 | 12.1 |
| 1:2 SO2 Niagara: Model meal | 17.2 | 6.6 |
1 Experiments represent average of n = 3 replicates; 2 High and low 100% Concord 2013 GJ contained 473 and 236 µmol/240 mL serving total phenolics, respectively; High and low Niagara 2013 GJ contained 289 and 144 µmol/240 mL serving total phenolics, respectively; Concord and Niagara 2013 juices contained 447 and 596 mM fructose, respectively, and 531 and 427 mM glucose, respectively (determined using LC-MS); 3 Total phenolics and sugars in SM and AQ digesta determined using LC-MS; 4 Phenolic-free control was distilled water with matching glucose and fructose content.
Figure 3d7-Glucose transport across Caco-2 human intestinal cell monolayers from AQ digesta of co-digested GJ and starch rich test meal. Data is represented as a concentration of deuterated glucose in basolateral compartment at 60 min by treatment compared to control over 60 min. Data represent mean ± SEM for n = 4 replicate wells at each time point. Presence of different letter between values indicates significant differences in d7-glucose transport between treatments within the same ratio of beverage to meal.