| Literature DB >> 30609750 |
Ali M Almajwal1, Mahmoud M A Abulmeaty2,3, Hao Feng4, Nawaf W Alruwaili5, Astrid Dominguez-Uscanga6, Juan E Andrade7, Suhail Razak8, Mohamed F ElSadek9.
Abstract
Micronutrient delivery formulations based on nanoemulsions can enhance the absorption of nutrients and bioactives, and thus, are of great potential for food fortification and supplementation strategies. The aim was to evaluate the bioefficacy of vitamin D (VitD) encapsulated in nanoemulsions developed by sonication and pH-shifting of pea protein isolate (PPI) in restoring VitD status in VitD-deficient rats. Weaned male albino rats (n = 35) were fed either normal diet AIN-93G (VitD 1000 IU/kg) (control group; n = 7) or a VitD-deficient diet (<50 IU/kg) for six weeks (VitD-deficient group; n = 28). VitD-deficient rats were divided into four subgroups (n = 7/group). Nano-VitD and Oil-VitD groups received a dose of VitD (81 µg) dispersed in either PPI-nanoemulsions or in canola oil, respectively, every other day for one week. Their control groups, Nano-control and Oil-control, received the respective delivery vehicles without VitD. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)VitD], parathyroid hormone (PTH), Ca, P, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity were measured. After one week of treatment, the VitD-deficient rats consuming Nano-VitD recovered from Vitamin D deficiency (VDD) as compared against baseline and had serum 25(OH)VitD higher than the Nano-control. Enhancement in VitD status was followed with expected changes in serum PTH, Ca, P, and ALP levels, as compared against the controls. Stabilization of VitD within PPI-based nanoemulsions enhances its absorption and restores its status and biomarkers of bone resorption in VitD-deficient rats.Entities:
Keywords: bioefficacy; fortification; nanoemulsion; rat; vitamin D; vitamin D deficiency
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30609750 PMCID: PMC6356569 DOI: 10.3390/nu11010075
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Rat body weights and levels of 25(OH)VitD in serum before and after one week of treatment.
| Body Weight Changes (g) | 25 (OH)VitD (nmol/L) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groups 1 | Dietary VitD Intake (IU/kg/day) 1 | Before | After | Before | After |
| Control | 57.78 ± 6.49 a | 247.76 ± 29.47 | 262.28 ± 36.98 * | 31.68 ± 10.40 a | 36.84 ± 9.16 a |
| Nano-control | 1.32 ± 0.11 b | 258.12 ± 21.90 | 270.45 ± 31.72 | 15.38 ± 5.51 b | 15.88 ± 5.77 b |
| Oil-control | 1.30 ± 0.35 b | 225.86 ± 21.56 | 249.48 ± 26.96 | 18.26 ± 6.38 b | 15.59 ± 2.45 b |
| Nano-VitD | 1.46 ± 0.18 b | 239.06 ± 26.10 | 253.11 ± 26.64 | 14.65 ± 1.29 b | 34.37 ± 7.00 b,* |
| Oil-VitD | 1.46 ± 0.12 b | 256.24 ± 25.09 | 266.13 ± 27.53 | 14.33 ± 3.43 b | 14.05 ± 3.08 a |
1 Animal groups receiving: Control (VitD normal diet), VitD dispersed in nanoemulsion (Nano-VitD), VitD mixed in oil (OilVitD), nanoemulsion without VitD (Nano-control), and canola oil without VitD (Oil-control). Results are presented as Means ± SD. The asterisk (*) indicates significant differences (p < 0.05) after paired t-test evaluating before and after effects (within rows). When present, different superscripts within each column represent statistical differences after One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Study experimental design.
Concentration of several blood biomarkers of VitD deficiency in rats after one week of dietary treatments.
| Groups 1 | PTH 2 | Ca | P | ALP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 23.36 ± 12.00 a | 10.24 ± 0.92 a | 3.67 ± 1.13 a | 58.5 ± 11.5 a |
| Nano-control | 37.54 ± 6.61 a | 7.12 ± 1.16 b | 1.38 ± 0.57 b | 196.2 ± 57.7 b |
| Oil-control | 78.93 ± 8.31 b | 6.68 ± 1.92 b | 1.17 ± 0.62 b | 171.0 ± 17.6 b |
| Nano-VitD | 25.22 ± 14.26 a | 9.64 ± 0.60 a | 3.65 ± 0.71 a | 72.4 ± 31.0 a |
| Oil-VitD | 86.05 ± 9.67 b | 5.32 ± 1.28 b | 1.33 ± 0.32 b | 182.6 ± 61.8 b |
1 Animal groups receiving: Control (VitD normal diet), VitD dispersed in nanoemulsion (Nano-VitD), VitD mixed in oil (Oil-VitD), nanoemulsion without VitD (Nano-control), and canola oil without VitD (Oil-control). 2 PTH: parathyroid hormone; ALP: alkaline phosphatase. Results are presented as Means ± SD. When present, different superscripts (a,b) within each column represent statistical differences after One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Comparison of histological sections of rat’s femur from control group (A) vs. Oil-control group (B) at the end of the study. Red arrows are plotting the osteoid area and the blue ones referring to the trabecular separation.
Histomorphometric parameters among study groups. When present, different superscripts within each column represent statistical differences after One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).
| Groups 1 | Osteoid Area (mm2) | Trabecular Separation (mm2) |
|---|---|---|
| Control | 7.67 ± 0.91 a | 1.18 ± 0.51a |
| Nano-control | 4.42 ± 1.49 b | 2.31 ± 1.11 b |
| Oil-control | 4.13 ± 1.06 b | 0.74 ± 0.48 a |
| Nano-VitD | 6.36 ± 1.16 a | 2.55 ± 1.39 b |
| Oil-VitD | 4.41 ± 1.09 b | 2.13 ± 1.18 b |
1 Animal groups receiving: Control (VitD normal diet), VitD dispersed in nanoemulsion (Nano-VitD), VitD mixed in oil (Oil-VitD), nanoemulsion without VitD (Nano-control), and canola oil without VitD (Oil-control).When present, different superscripts (a,b) within each column represent statistical differences after One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Histopathological changes in femur of rats receiving Nano-VitD vs. Nano-control after one week of treatment. Red arrows are plotting the osteoid area and the blue ones referring to the trabecular separation.
Figure 4Histopathological changes in femur of rats receiving Oil-VitD vs. Oil-control after one week of treatment. Red arrows are plotting the osteoid area and the blue ones referring to the trabecular separation.