| Literature DB >> 31618992 |
Ramadass Balamurugan1, Srinivasan Pugazhendhi2, Gowri M Balachander3, Tamilselvan Dharmalingam4, Elissa K Mortimer5, Geetha L Gopalsamy6, Richard J Woodman7, Rosie Meng8, David H Alpers9, Mark Manary10, Henry J Binder11, Ian L Brown12, Graeme P Young13, Balakrishnan S Ramakrishna14.
Abstract
The health benefits of dietary amylase resistant starch (RS) arise from intestinal microbial fermentation and generation of short chain fatty acids (SCFA). We compared the intestinal fermentative capability of stunted and nonstunted ('healthy') children in southern India using two types of RS: high amylose maize starch (HAMS) and acetylated HAMS (HAMSA). Twenty children (10 stunted and 10 healthy) aged 2 to 5 years were fed biscuits containing HAMS (10 g/day) for two weeks followed by a 2-week washout and then HAMSA biscuits (10 g/day) for 2 weeks. Fecal samples were collected at 3-4 day intervals and pH and SCFA analyzed. At entry, stunted children had lower SCFA concentrations compared to healthy children. Both types of RS led to a significant decrease in fecal pH and increase in fecal acetate and propionate in both healthy and stunted children. However, while HAMS increased fecal butyrate in both groups of children, HAMSA increased butyrate in healthy but not stunted children. Furthermore, healthy children showed a significantly greater increase than stunted children in both acetate and butyrate when fed either RS. No adverse effects were reported with either RS. Stunted children have impaired capacity to ferment certain types of RS which has implications for choice of RS in formulations aimed at improving microbial function in stunted children.Entities:
Keywords: colonic microbiota; dysbiosis; gut microbiota; human health; prebiotic; resistant starch; therapeutic strategies
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31618992 PMCID: PMC6843365 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16203922
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Participant flow diagram.
Participant characteristics and high amylose maize starch (HAMS) and acetylated HAMS (HAMSA) consumption.
| Healthy | Stunted | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in month, mean (SD) | 40.0 (7.6) | 41.9 (13.3) | 0.93 |
| Male (%) | 40% | 60% | 0.37 |
| HAMS intake in g/day, mean (SD) | 8.78 (1.88) | 9.44 (0.86) | 0.33 |
| HAMSA intake in g/day, mean (SD) | 8.88 (1.81) | 10.14 (1.65) | 0.09 |
| Fecal parameters | |||
| Day 0 pH | 6.6 (0.7) | 6.5 (0.7) | 0.78 |
| Day 0 acetate (mmol/Kg) | 70.0 (15.9) | 51.4 (9.8) | 0.007 |
| Day 0 propionate (mmol/Kg) | 19.3 (6.5) | 13.2 (5.7) | 0.02 |
| Day 0 butyrate (mmol/Kg) | 11.8 (5.1) | 6.5 (2.0) | 0.004 |
1 Using t-test or chi-squared test as appropriate. 2 From 6 randomly selected participants (n = 3 healthy & n = 3 stunted).
Parameters of fecal fermentation (pH and short chain fatty acids (SCFA) concentrations, mmol/Kg feces) according to growth status at baseline and at the end of specific resistant starch (RS) interventions, together with differences between HAMS and HAMSA.
| Day 0(Commencement) | Day 7–15 | Days 22–29 | Days 36–44 | Difference 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SE) | ||
| Overall (n = 20) | ||||||
| Fecal pH | 6.5 (0.7) | 6.0 (0.8)b | 6.7 (0.9) | 6.1 (0.9)a | 0.11 (0.14) | 0.41 |
| Acetate | 61.2 (16.1) | 79.1 (27.5)b | 68.5 (21.2) | 81.9 (32.5)b | 2.84 (4.46) | 0.52 |
| Propionate | 16.4 (6.7) | 28.1 (16.4)c | 18.5 (8.8) | 23.9 (15.5)a | −3.98 (2.34) | 0.09 |
| Butyrate | 9.3 (4.7) | 18.4 (13.3)c | 12.3 (6.9) | 16.2 (10.2)a | −1.97 (1.70) | 0.24 |
| Healthy (n = 10) | ||||||
| Fecal pH | 6.6 (0.7) | 5.8 (0.7)b | 6.3 (0.8) | 5.8 (0.8)b | 0.11 (0.20) | 0.58 |
| Acetate | 70.0 (15.9) | 81.7 (30.7) | 75.3 (23.6) | 95.1 (32.4)c | 13.3 (6.4) | 0.04 |
| Propionate | 19.3 (6.5) | 27.3 (18.5) | 19.2 (8.5) | 26.7 (16.4)a | −0.54 (3.28) | 0.87 |
| Butyrate | 11.8 (5.1) | 18.5 (15.4)a | 13.0 (6.7) | 21.8 (11.6)b | 2.91 (2.37) | 0.22 |
| Stunted (n = 10) | ||||||
| Fecal pH | 6.5 (0.7) | 6.1 (0.9) | 7.0 (0.8)b | 6.3 (1.0)c | 0.12 (0.20) | 0.54 |
| Acetate | 51.4 (9.8) | 76.4 (24.3)b | 62.2 (16.8) | 70.1 (28.2) | −6.24 (6.21) | 0.32 |
| Propionate | 13.2 (5.7) | 28.9 (14.1)b | 17.9 (9.2)a | 21.5 (14.5) | −7.51 (3.35) | 0.025 |
| Butyrate | 6.5 (2.0) | 18.3 (10.9)b | 11.6 (7.0)a | 11.2 (5.1) | −6.82 (2.43) | 0.005 |
1 Baseline adjusted mean differences (SE) and p-value using mixed models comparing HAMS with HAMSA. Comparisons in levels between specific time points, when significant, are shown as follows: a p < 0.05; bp < 0.01; cp < 0.001 (when comparing days 7–15 with day 0, days 22–29 with day 0, and days 36–44 with day 29.).
Figure 2Fecal parameters of RS fermentation (pH and SCFA) in all participants over the study period (n = 20). Values are mean and 95% CI. * Significantly higher versus day 0: p < 0.05. ** Significantly higher versus day 29: p < 0.05.
Differences in fecal parameters of fermentation between treatments in healthy and stunted children.
| Healthy versus Stunted | Healthy versus Stunted | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Day 7–15 | Days 36–44 | ||
| Fecal pH | −0.24 ± 0.20 | 0.23 | −0.25 ± 0.20 | 0.21 |
| Acetate | 5.42 ± 6.58 | 0.41 | 24.95 ± 6.75 | <0.001 |
| Propionate | −1.69 ± 3.77 | 0.65 | 5.27 ± 3.85 | 0.17 |
| Butyrate | 0.52 ± 2.80 | 0.85 | 10.25 ± 2.86) | <0.001 |
Effects were calculated using a linear mixed model with fixed effect terms for period, baseline values, and group (healthy (n = 10) versus stunted (n = 10)). There is 1 p-value for difference between stunted and normal growth children.
Figure 3Baseline adjusted fecal pH and SCFA showing differences between healthy and stunted children (n = 20). Values are adjusted mean. + p < 0.05 versus day 0. * p < 0.05 versus day 29.