| Literature DB >> 35681386 |
Bianca-Maria Tihăuan1,2, Mădălina Axinie Bucos2,3, Ioana-Cristina Marinaș1,2, Ionela Avram4, Anca-Cecilia Nicoară5, Grațiela Grădișteanu-Pîrcălăbioru1,2,6, Georgiana Dolete3,7, Ana-Maria Ivanof1,2, Tatiana Onisei8, Angela Cășărică9, Lucia Pîrvu9.
Abstract
Nutraceuticals are experiencing a high-rise use nowadays, which is incomparable to a few years ago, due to a shift in consumers' peculiarity tendencies regarding the selection of alternatives to Western medicine, potential immunity boosters, or gut-health promoters. Nutraceuticals' compositions and actual effects should be proportional to their sought-after status, as they are perceived to be the middle ground between pharma rigor and naturally occurring actives. Therefore, the health benefits via nutrition, safe use, and reduction of potential harm should be the main focus for manufacturers. In this light, this study assess the nutritional profile (proteins, fats, fibers, caloric value, minerals) of a novel formulated nutraceutical, its physico-chemical properties, FTIR spectra, antioxidant activity, anthocyanins content, and potential hazards (heavy metals and microbiological contaminants), as well as its cytotoxicity, adherence, and invasion of bacteria on HT-29 cells, as well as its evaluation of beneficial effect, potential prebiotic value, and duplicity effect on gut microbiota in correlation with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. The results obtained indicate the growth stimulation of Lb. rhamnosus and the inhibitory effects of E.coli, Ent. Faecalis and Lc. lactis. The interaction between active compounds suggested a modulator effect of the intestinal microbiota by reducing the number of bacteria that adhere to epithelial cells or by inhibiting their growth.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant; diet; gut health; nutraceuticals; prebiotics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35681386 PMCID: PMC9180833 DOI: 10.3390/foods11111636
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Nutritional status and physico-chemical properties of ingredients and final formulation.
| Samples | Total Proteins % | Total Lipids % | Ash Insoluble in HCl % | Moisture Content % | Dry Matter % | Fiber % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 90.30 | - | 0.28 | 7.74 | 92.26 | - |
|
| 82.05 | 0.37 | 0.54 | 9.85 | 90.15 | - |
|
| 24.75 | 5.16 | 0.20 | 7.24 | 92.76 | 13 * |
|
| 0.93 | 0.39 | 0.14 | 4.43 | 95.57 | 3 * |
|
| - | - | 0.02 | 6.80 | 93.20 | - |
|
| - | - | 0.08 | 0.80 | 99.20 | - |
|
| - | - | 0.02 | 0.42 | 99.58 | - |
|
| - | - | 0.01 | 0.80 | 99.20 | - |
|
| 80.97 | 0.87 | 0.27 | 7.37 | 92.63 | 2.1 ** |
* value provided by the producer; ** value calculated from the data provided by the producer.
Figure 1FT-IR spectra of the final product (NN sample).
Results obtained for selected elements reported as mean values ± SD, n = 3.
| Al | V | Mn | Fe | Cu | Zn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (µg/g) | (µg/g) | (µg/g) | (µg/g) | (µg/g) | (µg/g) |
| 16.69 ± 0.19 | 1.13 ± 0.02 | 17.17 ± 1.27 | 22.63 ± 0.37 | 1.88 ± 0.05 | 8.41 ± 0.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (µg/g) | (µg/g) | (µg/g) | (µg/g) | (µg/g) | (µg/g) |
| 0.0406 ± 0.0009 | 0.4744 ± 0.0063 | 5.96 ± 0.06 | 0.0266 ± 0.0010 | n.d | 0.0534 ± 0.0176 |
Chemical content of phenolics, flavonoids, and anthocyanins for ingredients and final product.
| Ingredients | Total Phenolic Content (mg GAE/g) | Total Flavonoid Content (mg QE/g) | Total Anthocyanins Content (µg ME/g) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1137.85 ± 0.91 | - | - |
|
| 0.03 ± 0.00 | - | - |
|
| 98.15 ± 2.70 | 33.88 ± 0.19 | - |
|
| 1.62 ± 0.10 | - | - |
|
| 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | - |
|
| 1.28 ± 0.11 | 0.51 ± 0.03 | 163.95 ± 2.75 |
|
| 0.56 ± 0.01 | 1.38 ± 0.12 | - |
|
| 3.03 ± 0.04 | 4.71 ± 0.09 | - |
|
| 44.14 ± 0.12 | 5.25 ± 0.00 | 8.10 ± 0.27 |
|
| 35.95 ± 0.91 | 4.52 ± 0.08 | 8.27 ± 0.18 |
|
| <0.001 | <0.0001 | >0.05 |
|
| 81.44 | 86.07 | 102.10 |
Antioxidant activity of ingredients and final product.
| Ingredients | TEAC (mg Trolox/g) | DPPH (mg Trolox/g) | FRAP (mg Trolox/g) | CUPRAC (mg Trolox/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3818.33 ± 5.88 | 3547.04 ± 14.84 | 3044.55 ± 104.51 | 3144.61 ± 36.78 |
|
| 0.02 ± 0.01 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
|
| 175.19 ± 16.74 | 122.76 ± 6.20 | 153.67 ± 3.72 | 147.90 ± 2.71 |
|
| 4.26 ± 0.75 | 1.91 ± 0.26 | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 1.06 ± 0.01 |
|
| 4.58 ± 0.44 | n.d. | 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.35 ± 0.02 |
|
| 22.25 ± 2.73 | 26.81 ± 1.62 | 36.52 ± 0.32 | 29.57 ± 1.34 |
|
| 2.07 ± 0.01 | 0.31 ± 0.04 | 1.31 ± 0.15 | 1.48 ± 0.03 |
|
| 3.45 ± 0.26 | n.d. | 8.35 ± 0.73 | n.d. |
|
| 126.17 ± 3.28 | 109.36 ± 2.04 | 101.74 ± 3.24 | 102.90 ± 1.99 |
|
| 147.40 ± 1.78 | 139.03 ± 16.22 | 130.69 ± 9.66 | 137.52 ± 7.71 |
|
| <0.001 | <0.05 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
|
| 116.83 | 127.13 | 128.46 | 133.65 |
Results for microbiological and stability indicators.
| Total Aerobic Count CFU/g | Yeast and Molds cfu/g | Water Activity Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| <10 | <10 | 0.345 |
|
| <10 | <10 | 0.404 |
|
| <10 | <10 | 0.353 |
Figure 2Bacterial cell viability in the presence of NN product; p value *, **** < 0.05; ns = p value > 0.05 (non-significant statistically).
Figure 3Graphical representation of MTT (a) and LDH (b) assays results for NN sample of 200 mg/mL, 100 mg/mL and 50 mg/mL concentrations. Control is represented by HT-29 cells in culture media with PBS (NN solvent). For MTT p value * = 0.0103 (highly significant statistically) and for LDH p value ** = 0.0042 (highly significant statistically).
The anti-adherence activity of NN sample at different concentrations.
| Strains | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| 92.12 | 82.03 | 98.03 | 96.44 | 95.57 |
|
| 97.22 | 99.10 | 100 | 99.17 | 99.01 |
|
| 98.75 | 99.02 | 99.55 | 98.41 | 100 |
|
| |||||
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
|
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
1 Adherence index to cellular substrate; 2 Adherence pattern (1—diffused; 2—diffused-aggregative; 3—aggregative).
Figure 4C jejuni NCTC 81-176 adhesion and invasion; p value ** = 0.0047; ns = p value > 0.05 (non-significant statistically).