Jose F Garcia-Mazcorro1, David A Mills2, Kevin Murphy3, Giuliana Noratto4,5. 1. Research Group Medical Eco-Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, General Escobedo, Nuevo León, Mexico. 2. Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA. 3. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. 4. School of Food Science, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. gnoratto@tamu.edu. 5. Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. gnoratto@tamu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Barley is a low-glycemic index grain that can help diabetic and obese patients. The effect of barley intake depends on the host and the associated gut microbiota. This study investigated the effect of barley intake on the fecal microbiota, caecal biochemistry, and key biomarkers of obesity and inflammation. METHODS: Obese db/db mice were fed diets with and without barley during 8 weeks; lean mice were used as lean controls. Fecal microbiota was evaluated using 16S marker gene sequencing in a MiSeq instrument; several markers of caecal biochemistry, obesity, and inflammation were also evaluated using standard techniques. RESULTS: Bacterial richness (i.e., Operational Taxonomic Units) and Shannon diversity indexes were similar in all obese mice (with and without barley) and higher compared to lean controls. Barley intake was associated with increased abundances of Prevotella, Lactobacillus, and the fiber-degraders S24-7 (Candidatus Homeothermaceae) compared to both lean and obese controls. The analysis of unweighted UniFrac distances showed a separate clustering of samples for each experimental group, suggesting that consumption of barley contributed to a phylogenetically unique microbiota distinct from both obese and lean controls. Caecal butyrate concentrations were similar in all obese mice, while succinic acid was lower in the barley group compared to obese controls. Barley intake was also associated with lower plasma insulin and resistin levels compared to obese controls. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that barley intake is associated with a different fecal microbiota, caecal biochemistry, and obesity biomarkers in db/db mice that tend to be more similar to lean controls.
PURPOSE:Barley is a low-glycemic index grain that can help diabetic and obesepatients. The effect of barley intake depends on the host and the associated gut microbiota. This study investigated the effect of barley intake on the fecal microbiota, caecal biochemistry, and key biomarkers of obesity and inflammation. METHODS:Obese db/db mice were fed diets with and without barley during 8 weeks; lean mice were used as lean controls. Fecal microbiota was evaluated using 16S marker gene sequencing in a MiSeq instrument; several markers of caecal biochemistry, obesity, and inflammation were also evaluated using standard techniques. RESULTS: Bacterial richness (i.e., Operational Taxonomic Units) and Shannon diversity indexes were similar in all obesemice (with and without barley) and higher compared to lean controls. Barley intake was associated with increased abundances of Prevotella, Lactobacillus, and the fiber-degraders S24-7 (Candidatus Homeothermaceae) compared to both lean and obese controls. The analysis of unweighted UniFrac distances showed a separate clustering of samples for each experimental group, suggesting that consumption of barley contributed to a phylogenetically unique microbiota distinct from both obese and lean controls. Caecal butyrate concentrations were similar in all obesemice, while succinic acid was lower in the barley group compared to obese controls. Barley intake was also associated with lower plasma insulin and resistin levels compared to obese controls. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that barley intake is associated with a different fecal microbiota, caecal biochemistry, and obesity biomarkers in db/db mice that tend to be more similar to lean controls.
Authors: T Z DeSantis; P Hugenholtz; N Larsen; M Rojas; E L Brodie; K Keller; T Huber; D Dalevi; P Hu; G L Andersen Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Sai Wang Seto; Tsz Yan Lam; Penelope Mei Yu Or; Wayne Yuk Wai Lee; Alice Lai Shan Au; Christina Chui Wa Poon; Rachel Wai Sum Li; Shun Wan Chan; John Hok Keung Yeung; George Pak Heng Leung; Simon Ming Yuen Lee; Sai Ming Ngai; Yiu Wa Kwan Journal: J Nutr Biochem Date: 2009-10-31 Impact factor: 6.048
Authors: Gary D Wu; Jun Chen; Christian Hoffmann; Kyle Bittinger; Ying-Yu Chen; Sue A Keilbaugh; Meenakshi Bewtra; Dan Knights; William A Walters; Rob Knight; Rohini Sinha; Erin Gilroy; Kernika Gupta; Robert Baldassano; Lisa Nessel; Hongzhe Li; Frederic D Bushman; James D Lewis Journal: Science Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: José A Navas-Molina; Juan M Peralta-Sánchez; Antonio González; Paul J McMurdie; Yoshiki Vázquez-Baeza; Zhenjiang Xu; Luke K Ursell; Christian Lauber; Hongwei Zhou; Se Jin Song; James Huntley; Gail L Ackermann; Donna Berg-Lyons; Susan Holmes; J Gregory Caporaso; Rob Knight Journal: Methods Enzymol Date: 2013 Impact factor: 1.600
Authors: Thunyaporn Phungviwatnikul; Anne H Lee; Sara E Belchik; Jan S Suchodolski; Kelly S Swanson Journal: J Anim Sci Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.159
Authors: Jose F Garcia-Mazcorro; Nara N Lage; Susanne Mertens-Talcott; Stephen Talcott; Boon Chew; Scot E Dowd; Jorge R Kawas; Giuliana D Noratto Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Jose F Garcia-Mazcorro; Xaira Rivera-Gutierrez; Orestes De Jesus Cobos-Quevedo; Peter Grube-Pagola; Arturo Meixueiro-Daza; Karina Hernandez-Flores; Francisco J Cabrera-Jorge; Hector Vivanco-Cid; Scot E Dowd; Jose M Remes-Troche Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 5.717