Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:12:13.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In vitro production of short-chain fatty acids from resistant starch by pig faecal inoculum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2013

G. Giuberti ,
A. Gallo ,
M. Moschini  and
F. Masoero
G. Giuberti
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29100 Piacenza, Italy
A. Gallo
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29100 Piacenza, Italy
M. Moschini
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29100 Piacenza, Italy
F. Masoero*
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29100 Piacenza, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The need to improve the knowledge of fermentation processes within the digestive tract in pigs is growing, particularly for ingredients that may act as potential prebiotic sources, such as resistant starch (RS). A study (based on enzymatic digestion followed by in vitro fermentation) was conducted to investigate whether various sources of RS, obtained from eight native starches characterized by inherent heterogeneous starch chemistry and structure, can influence short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentrations and relative production kinetics. Total and individual SCFA productions were evaluated over time and up to 72 h of incubation. The in vitro hydrolysis of native starches allowed a classification from very high [⩾650 g/kg dry matter (DM)] to low (<50 g/kg DM) RS amount. The total SCFA production was similar between ingredients, whereas acetate and butyrate molar ratios in the SCFA profile differed (from 0.48 to 0.56 and from 0.17 to 0.25, respectively; P < 0.05). Differences in fermentation kinetic parameters for total and individual SCFA productions were observed (P < 0.05). Considering the total SCFA production after 72 h of incubation, the time at which half of the maximum production has been reached (T1/2), the maximum rate of production (Rmax) and its time of occurrence (Tmax) differed between ingredients (P < 0.05), with values ranging from 6.1 to 11.9 h, from 0.459 to 1.300 mmol/g DM incubated per hour and from 5.1 to 9.8 h, respectively. Overall, a similar trend was observed considering individual SCFA productions. In particular, T1/2 ranged from 6.4 to 12.5 h, from 5.5 to 12.5 h and from 6.7 to 11.3 h for acetate, propionate and butyrate, respectively (P < 0.05). For Rmax, differences were obtained for propionate and butyrate productions (P < 0.05), whereas no difference was recorded for acetate. In summary, our findings indicated that both quantitative and qualitative production of SCFA and related kinetics were influenced by fermentation of RS obtained from native starches characterized by heterogeneous starch characteristics. Current findings are based on an in vitro approach, and thus require further in vivo validations.

Keywords

resistant starchin vitro fermentationSCFA productionfaecespig
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 9 , September 2013 , pp. 1446 - 1453
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC) 2000. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Awati, A, Williams, BA, Bosch, MW, Li, YC, Verstegen, MWA 2006. Use of the in vitro cumulative gas production technique for pigs: an examination of alterations in fermentation products and substrate losses at various time points. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1110–1118.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, KE, Jensen, BB, Hansen, I 1993. Digestion of polysaccharides and other major components in the small and large intestine of pigs fed on diets consisting of oat fractions rich in β-d-glucan. British Journal Nutrition 70, 537–556.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, KE, Hedemann, MS, Lærke, HN 2012. The role of carbohydrates in intestinal health of pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 173, 41–53.Google Scholar
Bauer, E, Williams, BA, Voigt, C, Mosenthin, R, Verstegen, MWA 2001. Microbial activities of faeces from unweaned and adult pigs, in relation to selected fermentable carbohydrates. Animal Science 73, 313–322.Google Scholar
Biliaderis, CG 1991. The structure and interactions of starch with food constituents. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 69, 60–78.Google Scholar
Bindelle, J, Buldgen, A, Boudry, C, Leterme, P 2007. Effect of inoculum and pepsin–pancreatin hydrolysis on fibre fermentation measured by the gas production technique in pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 132, 111–122.Google Scholar
Blasek, J, Gilbert, EP 2010. Effect of enzymatic hydrolysis on native starch granule structure. Biomacromolecules 11, 3275–3289.Google Scholar
Boisen, S, Fernàndez, JA 1997. Prediction of the total tract digestibility of energy in feedstuffs and pig diets by in vitro analyses. Animal Feed Science and Technology 68, 277–286.Google Scholar
Brouns, F, Kettlizt, B, Arrigoni, E 2002. Resistant starch and ‘the butyrate revolution’. Trends in Food Science and Technology 13, 251–261.Google Scholar
Claus, R, Lösel, D, Lacorn, M, Mentshel, J, Schenkel, H 2003. Effects of butyrate on apoptosis in the pig colon and its consequence for skatole formation and tissue accumulation. Journal of Animal Science 81, 239–248.Google Scholar
Coles, LT, Moughan, PJ, Daragh, AJ 2005. In vitro digestion and fermentation methods, including gas production techniques, as applied to nutritive evaluation of foods in the hindgut of humans and other simple-stomached animals. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123–124, 421–444.Google Scholar
Englyst, HN, Kingman, SM, Hudson, GJ, Cummings, JH 1996. Measurement of resistant starch in vitro and in vivo. British Journal of Nutrition 75, 749–755.Google Scholar
Gerrits, WJJ, Bosch, MW, Van den Borne, JJGC 2012. Quantifying resistant starch using novel, in vivo methodology and the energetic utilization of fermented starch in pigs. Journal of Nutrition 142, 238–244.Google Scholar
Giuberti, G, Gallo, A, Cerioli, C, Masoero, F 2012. In vitro starch digestion and predicted glycemic index of cereal grains commonly utilized in pig nutrition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 174, 163–173.Google Scholar
Groot, JCJ, Cone, JW, Williams, BA, Debersaques, FMA, Lantinga, EA 1996. Multiphasic analysis of gas production kinetics for in vitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 64, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedemann, MS, Bach Knudsen, KE 2007. Resistant starch for weaning pigs – effect on concentration of short chain fatty acids in digesta and intestinal morphology. Livestock Science 108, 175–177.Google Scholar
Jensen, BB 2001. Possible ways to modifying type and amount of products from microbial fermentation in the gut. In Gut environment of pigs (ed. A Piva, KE Bach Knudsen and JE Lindberg), pp. 181–200. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Jha, R, Bindelle, J, Rossnagel, B, Van Kessel, A, Laterne, P 2011a. In vitro evaluation of the fermentation characteristics of the carbohydrate fractions of hulless barley and other cereals in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 163, 185–193.Google Scholar
Jha, R, Bindelle, J, Van Kessel, A, Laterne, P 2011b. In vitro fibre fermentation of feed ingredients with varying fermentable carbohydrate and protein levels and protein synthesis by colonic bacteria isolated from pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 165, 191–200.Google Scholar
Jonathan, MC, Van Den Borne, JJGC, Van Wiechen, P, Souza de Silva, C, Schols, HA, Gruppen, H 2012. In vitro fermentation of 12 dietary fibres by faecal inoculum from pigs and humans. Food Chemistry 133, 889–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, GT, MacFarlane, S 1993. Factors affecting fermentation reactions in the large bowel. Proceeding of the Nutrition Society 52, 367–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacFarlane, S, MacFarlane, GT 2003. Regulation of short-chain fatty acid production. Proceeding of the Nutrition Society 62, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, LJM, Dumon, HJW, Lecannu, G, Champ, MMJ 2000. Potato and high-amylose maize starches are not equivalent producers of butyrate for the colonic mucosa. British Journal of Nutrition 84, 689–696.Google Scholar
Martinez-Puig, D, Perez, JF, Castillo, M, Andaluz, A, Anguita, M, Morales, J, Gasa, J 2003. Consumption of raw potato starch increases colon length and fecal excretion of purine basis in growing pigs. Journal of Nutrition 133, 134–139.Google Scholar
Masoero, F, Gallo, A, Zanfi, C, Giuberti, G, Spanghero, M 2010. Chemical composition and rumen degradability of three corn hybrids treated with insecticides against the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis). Animal Feed Science and Technology 155, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, KH, Steingass, H 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 7–55.Google Scholar
Nofrarías, M, Martínez-Puig, D, Pujols, J, Majó, N, Pérez, JF 2007. Long-term intake of resistant starch improves colonic mucosal integrity and reduces gut apoptosis and blood immune cells. Nutrition 23, 861–870.Google Scholar
Pieper, R, Jha, R, Rossnagel, B, Van Kessel, AG, Souffrant, WB, Leterme, P 2008. Effect of barley and oat cultivars with different carbohydrate compositions on the intestinal bacterial communities in weaned piglets. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 66, 556–566.Google Scholar
Regmi, PR, van Kempen, TATG, Matte, JJ, Zijlstra, RT 2011. Starch with high amylose and low in vitro digestibility increases short-chain fatty acid adsorption, reduces peak insulin secretion, and modulates incretin secretion in pigs. Journal of Nutrition 19, 1–8.Google Scholar
Ring, SG, Gee, JM, Whittam, M, Orford, P, Johnson, IT 1988. Resistant starch: its chemical form in foodstuffs and effect on digestibility in vitro. Food Chemistry 28, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analytical System (SAS) 2003. SAS/SAT guide for personal computers, version 9.13. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Soral-Śmietana, M, Wronkowska, M 2004. Resistant starch: nutritional and biological activity. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 13, 51–64.Google Scholar
Svihus, B, Uhlen, AK, Harstad, OM 2005. Effect of starch granule structure, associated components and processing on nutritive value of cereal starch: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 122, 303–320.Google Scholar
Tester, RF, Qi, X, Karkalas, J 2006. Hydrolysis on native starches with amylases. Animal Feed Science and Technology 130, 39–54.Google Scholar
van der Meulen, J, Bakker, GC, Bakker, JG, de Visser, H, Jongbloed, AW, Everts, H 1997. Effect of resistant starch on net portal-drained viscera flux of glucose, volatile fatty acids, urea, and ammonia in growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2697–2704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, JF, Zhu, YH, Li, DF, Wang, Z, Jensen, BB 2004. In vitro fermentation of various fiber and starch sources by pig fecal inocula. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2615–2622.Google Scholar
Wang, X, Brown, IL, Khaled, D, Mahoney, MC, Evans, AJ, Conway, PL 2002. Manipulation of colonic bacteria and volatile fatty acid production by dietary high amylose maize (amylomaize) starch granules. Journal of Applied Microbiology 93, 390–397.Google Scholar
Williams, BA, Verstegen, MWA, Tamminga, S 2001. Fermentation in the large intestine of single-stomached animals and its relationship to animal health. Nutrition Research Review 14, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, BA, Bosch, MW, Boer, H, Verstegen, MWA, Tamminga, S 2005. An in vitro batch culture method to assess potential fermentability of feed ingredients for monogastric diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123–124, 445–462.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Giuberti Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Giuberti Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 328.2 KB