| Literature DB >> 31242595 |
Susanne Naumann1, Ute Schweiggert-Weisz2, Julia Eglmeier3, Dirk Haller4,5, Peter Eisner6,7.
Abstract
Dietary fibres are reported to interact with bile acids, preventing their reabsorption and promoting their excretion into the colon. We used a method based on in vitro digestion, dialysis, and kinetic analysis to investigate how dietary fibre enriched food ingredients affect the release of primary and secondary bile acids as related to viscosity and adsorption. As the main bile acids abundant in humans interactions with glyco- and tauroconjugated cholic acid, chenodesoxycholic acid and desoxycholic acid were analysed. Viscous interactions were detected for apple, barley, citrus, lupin, pea, and potato derived ingredients, which slowed the bile acid release rate by up to 80%. Adsorptive interactions of up to 4.7 μmol/100 mg DM were significant in barley, oat, lupin, and maize preparations. As adsorption directly correlated to the hydrophobicity of the bile acids the hypothesis of a hydrophobic linkage between bile acids and dietary fibre is supported. Delayed diffusion in viscous fibre matrices was further associated with the micellar properties of the bile acids. As our results indicate changes in the bile acid pool size and composition due to interactions with dietary fibre rich ingredients, the presented method and results could add to recent fields of bile acid research.Entities:
Keywords: bile acid binding; bile acid excretion; cholesterol; colorectal cancer; critical micelle concentration; in vitro digestion
Year: 2019 PMID: 31242595 PMCID: PMC6628118 DOI: 10.3390/nu11061424
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Chemical structure of primary and secondary bile acids mainly abundant in human bile.
Dietary fibre composition (soluble dietary fibre (SDF), insoluble fibre (IDF), and total dietary fibre (TDF), n = 3) of dietary fibre enriched food ingredients derived from different sources.
| Source | SDF | IDF | TDF | SDF/TDF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [g/100 g DM] | [g/100 g DM] | [g/100 g DM] | [%] | |
| apple | 15.7 ± 1.6 | 73.0 ± 1.9 | 88.7 ± 2.5 | 17.6 ± 1.3 |
| barley 1 | 19.8 ± 1.5 | 9.5 ± 0.2 | 29.2 ± 1.5 | 67.3 ± 1.0 |
| citrus 1 | 14.9 ± 0.3 | 79.8 ± 1.2 | 94.7 ± 1.2 | 15.7 ± 0.3 |
| lupin 1 | 4.8 ± 0.6 | 78.6 ± 0.4 | 83.4 ± 0.7 | 5.8 ± 0.7 |
| maize | 1.3 ± 0.8 | 78.9 ± 0.8 | 80.2 ± 1.1 | 1.6 ± 1.0 |
| oat | 1.4 ± 1.1 | 92.6 ± 0.4 | 94.0 ± 1.2 | 1.5 ± 1.1 |
| pea | 2.0 ± 0.4 | 52.8 ± 0.1 | 54.8 ± 0.5 | 3.6 ± 0.8 |
| potato 1 | 11.2 ± 1.7 | 56.5 ± 0.8 | 67.8 ± 1.9 | 16.5 ± 2.2 |
| res. starch 2 | 84.7 ± 0.7 | - | - | - |
| wheat | 2.5 ± 0.2 | 96.0 ± 0.1 | 98.5 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.2 |
1 as published by Naumann et al. (2018) determined by AOAC 991.43 [17]; 2 as published by Lefranc-Millot et al. (2010) determined by AOAC 2001.03 [26]; - not detected.
Figure 2Comparison of viscosity at shear rate 15 s−1 (a) and viscosity as a function of the shear rate (b) of in vitro digested dietary fibre enriched food ingredients derived from different sources. Different letters indicate significant differences on a p ≤ 0.05 level basis (n = 3).
Figure 3Separation of primary and secondary bile acids using HPLC-DAD at 200 nm (glycocholic acid (GCA), taurocholic acid (TCA), glycochenodesoxycholic acid (GCDCA), taurochenodesoxycholic acid (TCDCA), glycodesoxycholic acid (GDCA), taurodesoxycholic acid (TDCA)).
Figure 4Diffusion kinetics of bile acid release (glycocholic acid (GCA), taurocholic acid (TCA), glycochenodesoxycholic acid (GCDCA), taurochenodesoxycholic acid (TCDCA), glycodesoxycholic acid (GDCA), taurodesoxycholic acid (TDCA)) of in vitro digested (a) maize fibre preparation, (b) apple fibre preparation and (c) blank digestion.
Bile acid adsorption of dietary fibre enriched food ingredients (given as sum of glyco- and tauroconjugated cholic acids (CA), chenodesoxycholic acids (CDCA), desoxycholic acids (DCA)).
| Source | bile acid adsorption [μmol/100 mg DM] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CA | CDCA | DCA | |
| apple | 0.11 ± 0.05 a | 0.56 ± 0.18 a | 0.29 ± 0.97 a |
| barley | 1.19 ± 0.13 b | 3.20 ± 0.32 c | 4.65 ± 0.17 d |
| citrus | 0.38 ± 0.48 a | 0.37 ± 0.42 a | 0.25 ± 0.14 a |
| lupin | 0.44 ± 0.15 a | 1.74 ± 0.26 b | 2.18 ± 0.11 c |
| maize | 0.38 ± 0.13 a | 1.87 ± 0.10 b | 2.88 ± 0.24 c |
| oat | 1.07 ± 0.11 b | 2.57 ± 0.06 c | 2.01 ± 0.57 c |
| pea | −0.04 ± 0.21 a | 0.65 ± 0.28 a | 0.87 ± 0.16 b |
| potato | −0.10 ± 0.29 a | 0.29 ± 0.29 a | 0.72 ± 0.28 a |
| res. starch | 0.03 ± 0.05 a | 0.21 ± 0.08 a | 0.19 ± 0.07 a |
| wheat | 0.09 ± 0.11 a | 0.18 ± 0.12 a | −0.03 ± 0.28 a |
| blank | 0.09 ± 0.01 a | 0.02 ± 0.11 a | 0.01 ± 0.19 a |
Along the column, different letters indicate significant differences on a p ≤ 0.05 level basis.
Apparent permeability rate constants (k) of kinetic bile acids release analysis (glycocholic acid (GCA), taurocholic acid (TCA), glycochenodesoxycholic acid (GCDCA), taurochenodesoxycholic acid (TCDCA), glycodesoxycholic acid (GDCA), taurodesoxycholic acid (TDCA)) of dietary fibre enriched food ingredients derived from different sources.
| Apparent Permeability Rate k (h−1) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | GCA | TCA | GCDCA | TCDCA | GDCA | TDCA |
| apple | 0.26 ± 0.01 a | 0.27 ± 0.01 a | 0.18 ± 0.01 a | 0.17 ± 0.01 a | 0.12 ± 0.02 a | 0.12 ± 0.02 a |
| barley | 0.35 ± 0.04 a,b | 0.31 ± 0.04 a | 0.25 ± 0.01 a | 0.24 ± 0.01 a,b | 0.30 ± 0.05 b,c | 0.28 ± 0.02 b,c |
| citrus | 0.26 ± 0.06 a | 0.27 ± 0.04 a | 0.17 ± 0.04 a,b | 0.17 ± 0.04 a | 0.15 ± 0.01 a,b | 0.15 ± 0.01 a,b |
| lupin | 0.26 ± 0.06 a | 0.46 ± 0.04 a | 0.39 ± 0.01 b,c | 0.34 ± 0.02 b,c | 0.36 ± 0.07 c,d | 0.34 ± 0.04 c,d |
| maize | 0.54 ± 0.05 b | 0.86 ± 0.10 b | 0.46 ± 0.05 c,d | 0.45 ± 0.05 c,d | 0.33 ± 0.04 c,d | 0.33 ± 0.03 c |
| oat | 0.85 ± 0.12 c | 0.74 ± 0.12 b | 0.55 ± 0.11 d,e,f | 0.52 ± 0.11 d,e,f | 0.54 ± 0.04 e,f | 0.53 ± 0.04 f,g |
| pea | 0.79 ± 0.17 c | 0.77 ± 0.03 b | 0.51 ± 0.04 c,d,e | 0.55 ± 0.08 d,e,f | 0.39 ± 0.07 c,d,e | 0.37 ± 0.05 c,d,e |
| potato | 0.88 ± 0.06 c | 0.89 ± 0.07 b | 0.55 ± 0.04 d,e,f | 0.52 ± 0.07 d,e | 0.39 ± 0.11 c,d,e | 0.38 ± 0.10 c,d,e,f |
| res. starch | 0.92 ± 0.07 c | 0.85 ± 0.08 b | 0.63 ± 0.04 e,f,g | 0.60 ± 0.04 d,e,f | 0.50 ± 0.05 d,e,,f | 0.48 ± 0.04 d,e,f |
| wheat | 0.92 ± 0.10 c | 0.80 ± 0.09 b | 0.68 ± 0.08 f,g | 0.63 ± 0.07 e,f | 0.53 ± 0.03 e,f | 0.51 ± 0.04 e,f,g |
| blank | 1.02 ± 0.07 c | 0.90 ± 0.15 b | 0.74 ± 0.05 g | 0.68 ± 0.04 f | 0.61 ± 0.09 f | 0.58 ± 0.08 g |
Along the column, different letters indicate significant differences on a p ≤ 0.05 level basis.
Critical micelle concentration (CMC) and aggregation number (Nagg) of main bile acids as summarized by Parker et al. taken from Madenci and Egelhaaf [37,38].
| Bile Acid | Abbreviation | CMC [mM] | Nagg |
|---|---|---|---|
| taurocholic acid | TCA | 3–18 | 3–7 |
| glycocholic acid | GCA | 4 | 9 |
| taurochenodesoxycholic acid | TCDCA | 0.9–7 | 5–26 |
| glycochenodesoxycholic acid | GCDCA | 1–2 | 15 |
| taurodesxycholic acid | TDCA | 2–3 | 12–19 |
| glycodesoxycholic acid | GDCA | 1–2 | 13–16 |