Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T19:44:33.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Butyrylated starch is less susceptible to enzymic hydrolysis and increases large-bowel butyrate more than high-amylose maize starch in the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2007

Balázs H. Bajka ,
David L. Topping ,
Lynne Cobiac  and
Julie M. Clarke
Balázs H. Bajka
Affiliation:
CSIRO Human Nutrition, Kintore Avenue, PO Box 10041, Adelaide BC 5000, Australia Discipline of Physiology, School of Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, 5005, Adelaide, Australia Preventative Health National Research Flagship, Kintore Avenue, PO Box 10041, Adelaide BC 5000, Australia
David L. Topping*
Affiliation:
CSIRO Human Nutrition, Kintore Avenue, PO Box 10041, Adelaide BC 5000, Australia Preventative Health National Research Flagship, Kintore Avenue, PO Box 10041, Adelaide BC 5000, Australia
Lynne Cobiac
Affiliation:
Preventative Health National Research Flagship, Kintore Avenue, PO Box 10041, Adelaide BC 5000, Australia
Julie M. Clarke
Affiliation:
CSIRO Human Nutrition, Kintore Avenue, PO Box 10041, Adelaide BC 5000, Australia Preventative Health National Research Flagship, Kintore Avenue, PO Box 10041, Adelaide BC 5000, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Dr David Topping, fax +61 8 83038899, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Large-bowel fermentation of resistant starch produces SCFA that are believed to be important in maintaining visceral function. High-amylose maize starch (HAMS) and acylated starches are sources of resistant starch and are an effective means of increasing colonic SCFA. Cooking increases digestibility of starches but its effects on the capacity of these starches to raise large-bowel SCFA are unknown. We have examined the effects of cooking of HAMS and butyrylated HAMS (HAMSB) on amylolysis in vitro and their capacity to raise caeco-colonic SCFA in rats. The starches were boiled in excess water and microwaved, followed by drying at 100°C. Cooking increased in vitro glucose release for both starches but significantly less from HAMSB. Rat growth rates were unaffected when fed cooked resistant starch. Digesta pH was increased in the caecum and proximal colon of rats fed cooked HAMS. Distal colonic pH was highest in rats fed cooked HAMSB. Factorial analyses (2×2) of caecal SCFA pools showed significant differences between HAMS and HAMSB, and that cooking significantly lowered caecal butyrate pools. Portal venous butyrate concentrations were higher in both HAMSB groups than those fed HAMS. The data suggest that HAMSB is less susceptible to in vitro amylolysis than HAMS following cooking and delivers more butyrate to rat caecum than HAMS. This attribute may be useful in food applications for specific delivery of SCFA to the colon. Preparation of carbohydrates to simulate human food in animal experiments may be important to assess nutritional and physiological effects accurately.

Keywords

Resistant starchProcessingShort-chain fatty acidsLarge bowel
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 96 , Issue 2 , August 2006 , pp. 276 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2006

References

Ahmad, MS, Krishnan, S, Ramakrishna, BS, Mathan, M, Pulimood, AB & Murthy, SNButyrate and glucose metabolism by colonocytes in experimental colitis in mice. Gut (2000) 46 493–499CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmed, R, Segal, I & Hassan, HFermentation of dietary starch in humans. Am J Gastroenterol (2000) 95 1017–1020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andoh, A, Tsujikawa, T & Fujiyama, YRole of dietary fiber and short-chain fatty acids in the colon. Curr Pharm Des (2003) 9 347–358CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Annison, G, Illman, RJ & Topping, DLAcetylated, propionylated or butyrylated starches raise large bowel short-chain fatty acids preferentially when fed to rats. J Nutr (2003) 133 3523–3528CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Annison, G, Topping, DL & Illman, RJ (1995) Fatty acid delivery system comprising a hydrolyzable bond Australia, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, patent no.WO9513801 http://ep.espacenet.comGoogle Scholar
Asp, N-GResistant starch – Proceedings from the second plenary meeting of EURESTA: European FLAIR Concerted Action, 11 on physiological implications of the consumption of resistant starch in man. Preface. Eur J Clin Nutr (1992) 46 S1Google Scholar
Birkett, A, Muir, J, Phillips, J, Jones, G & O'Dea, KResistant starch lowers fecal concentrations of ammonia and phenols in humans. Am J Clin Nutr (1996) 63 766–772CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, IL, McNaught, KJ & Moloney, EHi-Maize(Tm) – new directions in starch technology and nutrition. Food Aust (1995) 47 272–275Google Scholar
Brown, MA, Storlien, LH, Brown, IL & Higgins, JACooking attenuates the ability of high-amylose meals to reduce plasma insulin concentrations in rats. Br J Nutr (2003) 90 823–827CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Champ, M, Langkilde, A-M, Brouns, F, Kettlitz, B & Le Bail-Collet, YAdvances in dietary fibre characterisation. 2. Consumption, chemistry, physiology and measurement of resistant starch; implications for health and food labelling. Nutr Res Rev (2003) 16 143–161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christl, SU, Bartram, HP, Paul, A, Kelber, E, Scheppach, W & Kasper, HBile acid metabolism by colonic bacteria in continuous culture:effects of starch and pH. Ann Nutr Metab (1997) 41 45–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehghan-Kooshkghazi, M & Mathers, JCStarch digestion, large-bowel fermentation and intestinal mucosal cell proliferation in rats treated with the a-glucosidase inhibitor acarbose. Br J Nutr (2004) 91 357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dongowski, G, Huth, M, Gebhardt, E & Flamme, WDietary fiber-rich barley products beneficially affect the intestinal tract of rats. J Nutr (2002) 132 3704–3714CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henningsson, AM, Margareta, E, Nyman, GL & Bjorck, IMInfluences of dietary adaptation and source of resistant starch on shortchain fatty acids in the hindgut of rats. Br J Nutr (2003) 89 319–328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inatomi, O, Andoh, A, Kitamura, K, Yasui, H, Zhang, Z & Fujiyama, YButyrate blocks interferon-gamma-inducible protein-10 release in human intestinal subepithelial myofibroblasts. J Gastroenterol (2005) 40 483–489CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleessen, B, Stoof, G, Proll, J, Schmiedl, D, Noack, J & Blaut, MFeeding resistant starch affects fecal and cecal microflora and short-chain fatty acids in rats. J Anim Sci (1997) 75 2453–2462CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Blay, GM, Michel, CD, Blottiere, HM & Cherbut, CJRaw potato starch and short-chain fructo-oligosaccharides affect the composition and metabolic activity of rat intestinal microbiota differently depending on the caecocolonic segment involved. J Appl Microbiol (2003) 94 312–320CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, YT & Chang, HGThe effect of heat treatments on in vitro starch digestibility and resistant starch of selected cereals. Food Sci Biotechnol (2004) 13 810–813Google Scholar
Mansbach, CM II & Dowell, RFPortal transport of long acyl chain lipids: effect of phosphatidylcholine and low infusion rates. Am J Physiol (1993) 264 G1082–G1089Google ScholarPubMed
Mansbach, CM II, Dowell, RF & Pritchett, DPortal transport of absorbed lipids in rats. Am J Physiol (1991) 261 G530–G538Google Scholar
Morita, T, Kasaoka, S, Kiriyama, S, Brown, IL & Topping, DLComparative effects of acetylated and unmodified high-amylose maize starch in rats. Starch. Starch (2005) 57 246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murase, M, Kimura, Y & Nagata, YDetermination of portal short-chain fatty acids in rats fed various dietary fibers by capillary gas chromatography. J Chromatogr (1995) 664B 415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council (2004) Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, 7th ed. Accessed 29 April 2006. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/ea16syn.htmGoogle Scholar
Ozcan, S & Jackson, DSFunctionality behavior of raw and extruded corn maize starch mixtures. Cereal Chem (2005) 82 223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pizzoferrato, L, Rotilio, G & Paci, MModification of structure and digestibility of chestnut starch upon cooking: a solid state (13)C CP MAS NMR and enzymatic degradation study. J Agric Food Chem (1999) 47 4060–4063CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeves, PG, Nielsen, FH & Fahey, GC JrAIN-93 purified diets for laboratory rodents: final report of the American Institute of Nutrition ad hoc writing committee on the reformulation of the AIN-76A rodent diet. J Nutr (1993) 123 1939–1951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritzhaupt, A, Ellis, A, Hosie, KB & Shirazi-Beechey, SPThe characterization of butyrate transport across pig and human colonic luminal membrane. J Physiol (1998) 507 819–830CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rondeau, MP, Meltzer, K, Michel, KE, McManus, CM & Washabau, RJShort chain fatty acids stimulate feline colonic smooth muscle contraction. J Feline Med Surg (2003) 5 167–173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheppach, W & Weiler, FThe butyrate story: old wine in new bottles?. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care (2004) 7 563–567CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symonds, EL, Kritas, S, Omari, TI & Butler, RNA combined 13CO2/H2 breath test can be used to assess starch digestion and fermentation in humans. J Nutr (2004) 134 1193–1196CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Topping, DL & Clifton, PMShort-chain fatty acids and human colonic function: roles of resistant starch and nonstarch polysaccharides. Physiol Rev (2001) 81 1031–1064CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Topping, DL, Fukushima, M & Bird, ARResistant starch as a prebiotic and synbiotic: state of the art. Proc Nutr Soc (2003) 62 171–176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Topping, DL, Gooden, JM, Brown, IL, Biebrick, DA, McGrath, L, Trimble, RP, Choct, M & Illman, RJA high amylose (amylomaize) starch raises proximal large bowel starch and increases colon length in pigs. J Nutr (1997) 127 615–622CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, GP, Hu, Y, Le Leu, RK & Nyskohus, LDietary fibre and colorectal cancer: a model for environment-gene interactions. Mol Nutr Food Res (2005) 49 571–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar