| Literature DB >> 31635240 |
Marina Carcea1, Valeria Turfani2, Valentina Narducci3, Alessandra Durazzo4, Alberto Finamore5, Marianna Roselli6, Rita Rami7.
Abstract
A functional bread tailored for the needs of the aging population was baked by substituting 24% of wheat flour with red lentil flour and compared with wheat bread. Its nutritional profile was assessed by analysing proteins, amino acids, lipids, soluble and insoluble dietary fibre, resistant starch, total polyphenols, lignans and the antioxidant capacity (FRAP assay). The wheat-lentil bread had 30% more proteins than wheat bread (8.3%, as is), a more balanced amino acids composition, an almost double mineral (0.63%, as is) as well as total dietary fibre content (4.6%, as is), double the amount of polyphenols (939.1 mg GAE/100g on dry matter, d.m.), higher amounts and variety of lignans, and more than double the antioxidant capacity (71.6 µmoL/g d.m.). The in vivo effect of 60 days bread consumption on the immune response was studied by means of a murine model of elderly mice. Serum cytokines and intraepithelial lymphocyte immunophenotype from the mice intestine were analysed as markers of systemic and intestinal inflammatory status, respectively. Analysis of immune parameters in intraepithelial lymphocytes showed significant differences among the two types of bread indicating a positive effect of the wheat-lentil bread on the intestinal immune system, whereas both breads induced a reduction in serum IL-10.Entities:
Keywords: aged mice; bread composition; gut health; immune function; intraepithelial lymphocytes; lentil bread; wheat bread
Year: 2019 PMID: 31635240 PMCID: PMC6835359 DOI: 10.3390/foods8100510
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Proximate composition of wheat and wheat–lentil bread (76% wheat flour/24% red lentil) #.
| Bread | Moisture% | Protein% | Fat% | Ash% | IDF §% | SDF §% | TDF §% | Available Carbohydrates (by Difference)% | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ns | CV | Mean ** | CV | Mean ns | CV | Mean ** | CV | Mean * | CV | Mean ns | CV | Mean ns | CV | Mean ns | CV | |
| Wheat bread | 38.9 | 0.8% | 6.4 | 1.6% | 1.0 | 0% | 0.39 | 0% | 1.6 | 13% | 1.0 | 20% | 2.6 | 15% | 50.8 | 1.6% |
| Wheat–lentil bread | 40.0 | 0.8% | 8.3 | 1.2% | 0.9 | 3% | 0.63 | 0.02% | 3.1 | 16% | 1.5 | 60% | 4.6 | 28% | 45.5 | 4.0% |
# Values are the mean of three replicates, on wet basis; § IDF—insoluble dietary fibre; SDF—soluble dietary fibre; TDF—total dietary fibre; *, **, ns significance (t-test) of difference among the two samples: * significant at p < 0.05; significant ** at p < 0.01; ns not significant.
Amino acid composition of wheat and wheat–lentil bread (mg/100 g proteins) #, §.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wheat bread | 4.20 | 2.82 | 4.98 | 39.75 | 9.90 | 3.67 | 3.03 | 1.89 | 4.53 |
| Wheat–lentil bread | 6.05 | 3.01 | 5.04 | 34.36 | 8.39 | 3.79 | 3.27 | 1.60 | 4.84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wheat bread | 1.36 | 4.07 | 7.08 | 2.77 | 4.88 | 2.28 | 2.18 | 3.89 | 5.12 |
| Wheat–lentil bread | 1.13 | 4.27 | 7.21 | 2.76 | 4.92 | 2.41 | 3.30 | 4.91 | 4.42 |
# Amino acids were analysed as a single determination without replicates. § Tryptophan was not analysed.
Total polyphenols, lignans and FRAP of wheat and wheat–lentil bread #.
| Bread | TPC (mg GAE/100 g d.m.) | Lignans (µg/100 g d.m.) | FRAP (µmol/g d.m.) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueous–Organic Extract | Hydrolysable Residue | Isolariciresinol | Lariciresinol | Secoisolariciresinol | Pinoresinol | Aqueous–Organic Extract | Hydrolysable Residue | |||||||||
| Mean ** | CV | Mean ** | CV | Mean * | CV | Mean | CV | Mean ** | CV | Mean | CV | Mean ** | CV | Mean ** | CV | |
| Wheat bread | 59.4 | 1.5% | 411.8 | 0.3% | 2.4 | 8.3% | n.d. | 4.5 | 4.4% | n.d. | 6.4 | 3.1% | 21.1 | 12.3% | ||
| Wheat–lentil bread | 250.0 | 2.0% | 689.1 | 4.9% | 66.5 | 18.6% | 45.2 | 12.2% | 7.0 | 4.3% | 27.3 | 18% | 21.9 | 12.8% | 49.7 | 7.8% |
# Values are means of four to seven replicates; GAE—gallic acid equivalent; d.m.—dry matter; TPC—total phenols content; FRAP—ferric reducing antioxidant power; n.d.—not detectable. *, ** Significance (t-test) of differences among the two samples: Significant ** at p < 0.01 and * at p < 0.05.
Diets composition.
| Component | Control (g/kg) | Wheat Bread (g/kg) | Wheat–Lentil Bread (g/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bread | 465.7 | 465.7 | |
| Maize starch | 465.7 | 66.4 | 92.6 |
| Casein | 140.0 | 88.8 | 74.8 |
| Maltodextrins | 155.0 | 155.0 | 155.0 |
| Sucrose | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Soya oil | 40.0 | 35.6 | 35.4 |
| Cellulose | 50.0 | 39.2 | 27.2 |
| Saline mix | 35.0 | 35.0 | 35.0 |
| Vitamin mix | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| L-cystine | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Choline chloride | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| TBHQ # | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
# tert-Butylhydroquinone.
Body weight and daily food intake of control, wheat bread and wheat–lentil bread fed mice *.
| Diet | Initial Body Weight (g) | Final Body Weight (g) | Food Intake (g/day) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | CV | Mean | CV | Mean | CV | |
| Control | 24.0 | 8.3% | 25.0 | 9.6% | 3.6 | 22.2% |
| Wheat bread | 25.5 | 8.2% | 25.5 | 12.9% | 3.4 | 23.5% |
| Wheat–lentil bread | 24.0 | 15.0% | 25.7 | 5.8% | 3.7 | 24.3% |
* Data represent means and %CV of 6 mice per group.
Cytokine serum secretion #.
| Diet | Cytokine (pg/mL) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL-17 | IL-10 | GM-CSF | ||||
| Mean | CV | Mean | CV | Mean | CV | |
| Control | 25.79 | 4.96% | 13.49 | 55.75% | 3.02 | 10.26% |
| Wheat bread | 23.01 | 10.30% | 4.81 * | 64.66% | 2.50 | 22.40% |
| Wheat–lentil bread | 23.52 | 1.0% | 6.73 * | 26.60% | 2.65 | 3.77% |
# Data represent means and %CV of 6 mice per group; * p < 0.05 versus control.
Figure 1Intraepithelial lymphocyte (IEL) subpopulations in the jejunum (A) and colon (B) of mice fed a control, a wheat bread and a wheat–lentil diet measured by flow cytometry. (The percentage of B and T lymphocytes was calculated on leukocyte (CD45+) gate, whereas the CD4+, CD8+ and CD4+CD8+ subsets, as well as αβ and γδ lymphocytes, were calculated on T lymphocyte (CD3+) gate). Data represent the means ± SD of 6 mice. * p < 0.05 versus control.