| Literature DB >> 33808307 |
Antonio Pérez-Gálvez1, María Visitación Calvo2, Josefa Aguayo-Maldonado3, Javier Fontecha2.
Abstract
Several studies have been published regarding the effect of different factors on the digestion of milk lipids, considering their natural structural arrangement as milk fat globules and the efficiency of the digestive enzymes in the lipolysis of such complex structures. During digestion, the lipolytic products are dispersed in vesicles and micelles, which are the source for absorption of digested lipids. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the isolation of the micellar phase from the digesta to appropriately determine the amounts and classes of lipids which are bioaccessible. This study presents an integrative approach that included an isolation procedure to separate the micellar fraction from undigested and non-micellar parts, and the distribution of digested milk lipids in micelles determined directly through chromatographic techniques. Four groups of five full term mothers donated colostrum or mature milk. Two sets of samples were analyzed directly (raw), and two sets were pasteurized and then analyzed. Our data revealed that the profile of digested milk lipids is different depending on the lactation period and processing stage, while the carbon atom number distribution of the digested triacylglycerols in the micellar fraction provides a substantial information regarding the acylglycerols species that are less available for absorption.Entities:
Keywords: bioaccessibility; human colostrum; in vitro digestion; milk fat globule membrane; milk lipids
Year: 2021 PMID: 33808307 PMCID: PMC8037714 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26071935
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Distribution of lipid categories in human colostrum and mature milk samples used in the study. Data are expressed as percentage (median values, n = 5, including 25th and 75th percentiles), for human colostrum (HC) or mature milk (HM) both raw and pasteurized.
| Lipid Class | Raw HC | Raw HM | Pasteurized | Pasteurized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAGs | 97.2 (94.0; 97.8) | 96.2 (96.0; 96.7) 1 | 99.4 (98.1; 99.5) 1 | 99.1 (98.3; 99.2) |
| DAGs | 2.27 (1.72; 4.35) 1 | 2.77 (2.38; 2.89) 2 | 0.38 (0.37; 1.19) 1,2 | 0.67 (0.66; 1.51) |
| MAGs | 0.03 (0.02; 0.28) | 0.09 (0.07; 0.20) | - | - |
| FFAs | 0.34 (0.27; 1.06) 1 | 0.48 (0.32; 1.11) 2 | 0.10 (0.09; 0.14) | 0.09 (0.09; 0.12) 1,2 |
Data with significant differences are denoted with the same superscript number. Comparisons are made within each lipid class (Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0.05).
Figure 1Distribution of the milk acylglycerols in micelles after the application of the in vitro digestion protocol in (A) human colostrum and in (B) mature milk, (raw sample ■ and pasteurized sample ■). Bars represent median values and whiskers stand for standard deviation. Significant differences were observed for each lipid class, independently of the lactation stage and processing stage, and denoted with the same superscript letter.
p values for the comparison (Mann–Whitney U test) between raw and pasteurized HC and HM samples. Comparisons are made within each lipid category (triacylglycerols (TAGs), diacylglycerols (DAGs), free fatty acids (FFAs) and monoacylglycerols (MAGs)) value observed in the micellar content.
| TAGs | DAGs | FFAs | MAGs | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw | Past. | Raw | Past. | Raw | Past. | Raw | Past. | Raw | Past. | Raw | Past. | Raw | Past. | Raw | Past. | |
| Raw HC | - | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.42 | - | 0.22 | 0.55 | 0.42 | - | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | - | 0.02 | 0.70 | 0.03 |
| Past. HC | 0.15 | - | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.22 | - | 1.00 | 0.84 | 0.03 | - | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.02 | - | 0.42 | 0.15 |
| Raw HM | 0.10 | 0.03 | - | 0.01 | 0.55 | 1.00 | - | 0.84 | 0.02 | 0.22 | - | 0.31 | 0.70 | 0.42 | - | 0.04 |
| Past. HM | 0.42 | 0.06 | 0.01 | - | 0.42 | 0.84 | 0.84 | - | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.31 | - | 0.03 | 0.15 | 0.04 | - |
Figure 2Distribution of the acylglycerols molecular species (%), in HC samples, according to their carbon atom number (CN). (A) raw HC samples (undigested ■ and digested ■). (B) pasteurized HC samples (undigested ■ and digested ■). Significant differences were observed when each pair of CN value was compared except for the CN40 and CN52.
Figure 3Distribution of the acylglycerols molecular species (%) in HM samples, according to their CN. (A) raw HM samples (undigested ■ and digested ■). (B) pasteurized HM samples (undigested ■ and digested ■). Significant differences were observed when each pair of CN value was compared except for the CN40 and CN52.