| Literature DB >> 30746586 |
Katarzyna Skrypnik1, Paweł Bogdański2, Marcin Schmidt3, Joanna Suliburska4.
Abstract
A range of interactions between gut microbiota and iron (Fe) metabolism is described. Oral probiotics ameliorate host's iron status. However, this has been proven for single-strain probiotic supplements. Dose-dependence of beneficial probiotic supplementation effect on iron turnover remains unexplored. Our study aimed to investigate the effects of oral multispecies probiotic supplementation in two doses on iron status in rats. Thirty rats were randomized into three groups receiving multispecies probiotic supplement at a daily dose of 2.5 × 109 CFU (PA group, n = 10) and 1 × 1010 CFU (PB group, n = 10) or placebo (KK group, n = 10). After 6 weeks, rats were sacrificed for analysis, blood samples, and organs (the liver, heart, kidneys, spleen, pancreas, femur, testicles, duodenum, and hair) were collected. The total fecal bacteria content was higher in the PB group vs. PA group. Unsaturated iron-binding capacity was higher in the PB group vs. KK group. Serum Fe was lower in both PA and PB vs. KK group. Iron content in the liver was higher in the PB group vs. KK group; in the pancreas, this was higher in the PB group vs. the KK and PA group, and in the duodenum, it was higher in both supplemented groups vs. the KK group. A range of alterations in zinc and copper status and correlations between analyzed parameters were found. Oral multispecies probiotic supplementation exerts dose-independent and beneficial effect on iron bioavailability and duodenal iron absorption in the rat model, induces a dose-independent iron shift from serum and intensifies dose-dependent pancreatic and liver iron uptake.Entities:
Keywords: Copper; Iron metabolism; Probiotic; Total iron binding capacity; Zinc
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30746586 PMCID: PMC6820595 DOI: 10.1007/s12011-019-1658-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biol Trace Elem Res ISSN: 0163-4984 Impact factor: 3.738
Masses of organs
| Group |
| Liver [g] | Heart [g] | Kidney [g] | Spleen [g] | Pancreas [g] | Femur [g] | Testicle [g] | Duodenum [g] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KK | 10 | 12.136 ± 1.267b | 1.094 ± 0.055 | 1.148 ± 0.004 | 0.575 ± 0.052 | 0.874 ± 0.095a | 0.936 ± 0.083 | 3.578 ± 0.247 | 0.332 ± 0.050 |
| PA | 10 | 10.456 ± 1.260a | 1.097 ± 0.082 | 1.096 ± 0.005 | 0.556 ± 0.070 | 0.978 ± 0.141a | 0.903 ± 0.066 | 3.629 ± 0.298 | 0.345 ± 0.065 |
| PB | 10 | 10.361 ± 1.560a | 1.113 ± 0.102 | 1.860 ± 0.013 | 0.517 ± 0.100 | 1.051 ± 0.126b | 0.934 ± 0.062 | 3.535 ± 0.270 | 0.350 ± 0.059 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD. KK, control group; PA, group with low dose of probiotic; PB, group with high dose of probiotic; SD, standard deviation
a,bsignificantly different (p < 0.05)
TIBC and UIBC values and Fe serum concentration
| Group |
| TIBC [μg/dl] | UIBC [μg/dl] | Fe serum concentration [μg/dl] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KK | 10 | 528.88 ± 35.88 | 349.28 ± 35.23a | 171.91 ± 27.68b |
| PA | 10 | 521.40 ± 24.70 | 388.99 ± 33.72ab | 132.44 ± 17.86a |
| PB | 10 | 520.22 ± 36.62 | 395.40 ± 45.29b | 134.56 ± 7.76a |
Data are presented as mean ± SD. KK, control group; PA, group with low dose of probiotic; PB, group with high dose of probiotic; TIBC, total iron binding capacity; UIBC, unsaturated iron-binding capacity; SD, standard deviation
a,bSignificantly different (p < 0.05)
Whole blood morphological analysis
| Group | n | RBC [T/l] | HGB [g/l] | HCT [l/l] | MCV [f/l] | MCH [pg] | MCHC [g/l] | PLT [g/l] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KK | 10 | 8.58 ± 0.38 | 147.13 ± 6.64 | 0.50 ± 0.03 | 58.13 ± 1.15 | 17.19 ± 0.36 | 295.88 ± 5.54 | 862.71 ± 152.95a |
| PA | 10 | 8.63 ± 0.32 | 147.50 ± 2.95 | 0.50 ± 0.01 | 57.96 ± 1.33 | 17.12 ± 0.51 | 295.10 ± 4.58 | 930.20 ± 149.41ab |
| PB | 10 | 8.88 ± 0.47 | 152.00 ± 7.60 | 0.51 ± 0.02 | 57.69 ± 1.28 | 17.12 ± 0.36 | 296.60 ± 3.69 | 1077.00 ± 169.62b |
Data are presented as mean ± SD. KK, control group; PA, group with low dose of probiotic; PB, group with high dose of probiotic; RBC, red blood cells; HGB, hemoglobin serum concentration; HCT, hematocrit; MCV, mean corpuscular volume; MCH, mean corpuscular hemoglobin; MCHC, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration; PLT, platelets; SD, standard deviation
a,bSignificantly different (p < 0.05)
Fecal microbiological analysis
| Group |
| Total fecal bacteria content (T) | Lb/T | Lb/KK-Lb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KK | 10 | 9.658 ± 0.093ab | 9.479 ± 0.220 | 0.981 | 1.000 |
| PA | 10 | 9.60 ± 0.23a | 9.52 ± 0.33 | 0.99 | 1.004 |
| PB | 10 | 9.931 ± 0.133b | 9.697 ± 0.117 | 0.976 | 1.023 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD. KK, control group; PA, group with low dose of probiotic; PB, group with high dose of probiotic; bacterial content in feces (T, Lb) given in Log(CFU/g); KK-Lb, Lactobacillus fecal content in KK group; SD, standard deviation
a,bSignificantly different (p < 0.05)
Mineral concentration in tissues
| Group | Liver | Heart | Kidney | Spleen | Pancreas | Femur | Testicles | Duodenum | Hair | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fe [μg/g] | KK | 393.19 ± 72.43a | 605.70 ± 61.31 | 340.85 ± 52.69 | 2568.93 ± 357.76 | 67.00 ± 6.34a | 168.85 ± 25.83 | 101.46 ± 16.62 | 82.83 ± 18.25a | 12.28 ± 1.65 |
| PA | 438.77 ± 63.38ab | 657.28 ± 143.48 | 336.36 ± 22.48 | 2514.93 ± 222.39 | 70.65 ± 16.87a | 164.88 ± 18.04 | 122.75 ± 23.05 | 165.06 ± 41.56b | 11.97 ± 3.42 | |
| PB | 479.98 ± 75.38b | 619.35 ± 82.06 | 360.22 ± 45.55 | 2276.99 ± 371.80 | 79.97 ± 22.26b | 178.06 ± 23.77 | 119.95 ± 16.20 | 166.81 ± 169.61b | 9.56 ± 1.28 | |
| Zn [μg/g] | KK | 72.41 ± 7.61 | 52.97 ± 7.57a | 69.26 ± 12.25 | 56.45 ± 11.73 | 62.43 ± 16.93b | 981.13 ± 136.52 | 70.96 ± 26.73a | < LOD | 124.72 ± 31.84 |
| PA | 84.12 ± 16.22 | 64.97 ± 10.13b | 57.82 ± 28.01 | 63.60 ± 21.31 | 50.61 ± 11.34a | 1008.97 ± 220.13 | 99.07 ± 19.84b | < LOD | 116.60 ± 12.58 | |
| PB | 77.73 ± 14.62 | 59.77 ± 9.56ab | 65.94 ± 15.88 | 62.93 ± 15.10 | 54.96 ± 21.18a | 1040.94 ± 269.07 | 96.47 ± 25.02b | < LOD | 112.92 ± 9.96 | |
| Cu [μg/g] | KK | 8.30 ± 1.41a | 15.45 ± 1.96b | 19.12 ± 2.97 | < LOD | 2.61 ± 0.67 | 6.05 ± 0.33 | < LOD | < LOD | < LOD |
| PA | 10.32 ± 2.23b | 13.06 ± 2.83b | 18.93 ± 3.38 | < LOD | 3.58 ± 0.91 | 5.56 ± 0.79 | < LOD | < LOD | < LOD | |
| PB | 9.82 ± 1.60ab | 9.70 ± 0.97a | 19.55 ± 4.06 | < LOD | 3.50 ± 0.91 | 5.49 ± 0.83 | < LOD | < LOD | < LOD |
Data are presented as mean ± SD. KK, control group; PA, group with low dose of probiotic; PB, group with high dose of probiotic; SD, standard deviation; LOD, limit of detection. Mineral content are presented as Fe, Zn, and Cu content in μg per g of organ dry mass
a,bSignificantly different (p < 0.05)
Significant (p < 0.05) correlations registered in the study
| Correlated parameters |
|
|---|---|
| Fe pancreas and UIBC | 0.52 |
| Cu kidney and RBC | 0.53 |
| Cu pancreas and UIBC | 0.61 |
| Fe liver and Fe pancreas | 0.42 |
| PLT and Fe serum | − 0.50 |
RBC, red blood cells; PLT, platelets count; UIBC, unsaturated iron-binding capacity