| Literature DB >> 30513976 |
Mattia Di Nunzio1, Alessandra Bordoni2, Federica Aureli3, Francesco Cubadda4, Andrea Gianotti5.
Abstract
Although selenium is of great importance for the human body, in several world regions the intake of this essential trace element does not meet the dietary reference values. To achieve optimal intake, fortification of bread by using selenium-enriched flour has been put forward. Less is known on the potential effect of sourdough fermentation, which might be worth exploring as the biological effects of selenium strongly depend on its chemical form and sourdough fermentation is known to cause transformations of nutrients and phytochemicals, including the conversion of inorganic selenium into organic selenocompounds. Here we investigated the bio transformation of selenium by sourdough fermentation in a typical Italian flatbread (piadina) made with standard (control) or selenium-enriched flour. The different piadina were submitted to in vitro digestion, and the biological activity of the resulting hydrolysates was tested by means of cultured human liver cells exposed to an exogenous oxidative stress. The use of selenium-enriched flour and sourdough fermentation increased the total content of bioaccessible selenium in organic form, compared to conventional fermentation, and led to protective effects counteracting oxidative damage in cultured cells. The present study suggests that selenium-rich, sourdough-fermented bakery products show promise for improving human selenium nutrition whenever necessary.Entities:
Keywords: HepG2 cells; in vitro digestion; selenium; sourdough fermentation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30513976 PMCID: PMC6316522 DOI: 10.3390/nu10121898
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Piadina recipes. CFCF: Control flour and conventional fermentation; SFCF: Se-enriched flour and conventional fermentation; CFSF: Control flour and sourdough fermentation; SFSF: Se-enriched flour and sourdough fermentation.
| Ingredients | CFCF | SFCF | CFSF | SFSF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flour (g) | 624.5 | 624.5 | 490.8 | 490.8 |
| Clarified pork fat (g) | 62.5 | 62.5 | 49 | 49 |
| Water (mL) | 281.7 | 281.7 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| NaCl (g) | 12.9 | 12.9 | 10.1 | 10.1 |
| Starch (g) | 18.4 | 18.4 | 14.4 | 14.4 |
| Na2SeO3 (mg) | - | 5.66 | - | 5.66 |
| Sourdough starter (g) | - | - | 431.2 | 431.2 |
Total Selenium (Se) content in gastro-intestinal (GI) hydrolysates.
| CFCF | SFCF | CFSF | SFSF | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TQ | L3 | TQ | L3 | TQ | L3 | TQ | L3 | |
| Total Se (µg/mL) | 0.022 ± 0.001 | 0.006 ± 0.000 | 0.264 ± 0.004 | 0.127 ± 0.003 | 0.012 ± 0.001 | 0.007 ± 0.000 | 0.265 ± 0.003 | 0.109 ± 0.004 |
Results are expressed as µg/mL and are means ± SD of three technical replicates. TQ: Talis qualis digested sample; L3: fraction containing molecules with molar mass <3 KDa.
Se speciation: percent distribution of the different Se species in GI hydrolysates.
| Void | MeSeCys (% Total Se) | SeMet (% Total Se) | SeIV (% Total Se) | SeVI (% Total Se) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TQ fraction | |||||
| CFCF—TQ | 17 | 5 | 56 | - | 21 |
| SFCF—TQ | 3 | - | 14 | 84 | - |
| CFSF—TQ | 13 | - | 66 | - | 20 |
| SFSF—TQ | 10 | 2 | 53 | 35 | - |
| L3 fraction | |||||
| CFCF—L3 | 10 | - | 63 | - | 27 |
| SFCF—L3 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 85 | - |
| CFSF—L3 | 8 | - | 59 | - | 33 |
| SFSF—L3 | 9 | 5 | 46 | 40 | - |
Results are expressed as % of the sum of the detected Se species and are means of three technical replicates. MeSeCys: Se-methylselenocysteine; SeMet: Se-methionine; Selenite: SeIV; Selenate: SeVI.
Figure 1Total antioxidant capacity (TAC) in L3 hydrolysates. Results are expressed as mM Trolox Equivalent (TE) and are means ± SD of triplicate determination. Statistical analysis was by one-way ANOVA (p < 0.001), using Tukey’s post-hoc test. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (at least p < 0.05).
Figure 2Cell viability (A) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release (B) in un-supplemented (US) and supplemented cells. Cell viability (panel A) is expressed as % of the viability of US, not stressed cells (assigned as 100%). LDH leakage (panel B) is expressed as mU/mL/mg protein. All data are means ± SD of at least six samples derived from three independent experiments. Statistical analysis was by one-way ANOVA (A and B: p < 0.001) using Dunnet’s post-hoc test to compare stressed to US, not stressed cells (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001), and supplemented stressed cells to US stressed ones (° p < 0.05; °° p < 0.01; °°° p < 0.001).
Figure 3Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) levels (A) and cytosolic TAC (B) in un-supplemented and supplemented cells. TBARS level (panel A) is expressed as % of the level in US, not stressed cells (assigned as 100%). TAC (panel B) is expressed as µmol TE/mg protein. All data are means ± SD of at least six samples derived from three independent experiments. Statistical analysis was by one-way ANOVA (A: p < 0.001; B: p < 0.01) using Dunnet’s post-hoc test to compare stressed cells to US, not stressed ones (** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001), and supplemented stressed cells to US stressed ones (° p < 0.05; °° p < 0.01; °°° p < 0.001).
Figure 4Glutathione peroxidase (A) and thioredoxine reductase (B) activity. GPx (panel A) and TrxR (panel B) activity is expressed as nmol/mL/mg protein. All data are means ± SD of at least six samples derived from three independent experiments. Statistical analysis was by one-way ANOVA (A: p < 0.001; B: p < 0.001) using Dunnet’s post-hoc test to compare stressed cells to US, not stressed ones (* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001), and supplemented stressed cells to US stressed ones (°° p < 0.01; °°° p < 0.001).