Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:39:57.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contribution of the digestive tract microflora to amylomaize starch degradation in the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Claude Andrieux ,
Emperatriz Delahaye Pacheco ,
Brigitte Bouchet ,
Daniel Gallant  and
Odette Szylit
Claude Andrieux
Affiliation:
INRA, CRJ 78350, Jouy en Josas, France
Emperatriz Delahaye Pacheco
Affiliation:
INRA, CRJ 78350, Jouy en Josas, France
Brigitte Bouchet
Affiliation:
INRA, CR 44072, Nantes, France
Daniel Gallant
Affiliation:
INRA, CR 44072, Nantes, France
Odette Szylit
Affiliation:
INRA, CRJ 78350, Jouy en Josas, France
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.

To study in vivo the contribution of the bacterial flora to amylomaize starch degradation in the rat, germ-free and conventional rats were fed on a diet containing either a normal maize starch or an amylomaize starch. In germ-free rats maize starch was almost totally digested in the small intestine, whereas 40% of the ingested amylomaize starch reached the caecum and 30% was excreted, despite the very high endogenous amylase activity. Study by transmission electron microscopy of germ-free caecal contents showed an endocorrosion of the starch granule. In conventional rats, as in germ-free rats, digestibility of maize starch reached 98% in the small intestine, whereas that of amylomaize starch was only 60%. In the caecum of these rats amylomaize starch was fermented, and this led to a decrease in caecal pH and to formation of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), especially propionate. Comparison between conventional rats fed on maize starch or amylomaize starch showed that caecal SCFA concentrations during a circadian cycle varied in the same way whereas total SCFA and lactic acid concentrations were much higher in rats fed on amylomaize starch. Amylase (EC 3.2.1.1) activity was similar in the caecal contents of conventional rats whatever the ingested starch. It was lower in conventional than in germ-free rats, but no starch granule remained in the caecum of conventional rats. These results showed that bacterial amylase was more efficient at degrading resistant amylomaize starch than endogenous amylase.

Keywords

Starch digestionAmylomaize starch degradationGut microfloraRats
Type
Effects of Complex Carbohydrates in the Large Bowel
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , May 1992 , pp. 489 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1992

References

REFERENCES

Andrieux, C., Gadelle, D., Leprince, C. & Sacquet, E. (1989) Effects of some poorly digestible carbohydrates on bile acid bacteria transformations in the rat. British Journal of Nutrition 62, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrieux, C. & Sacquet, E. (1986) Effect of amylomaize starch on mineral metabolism in the adult rat: role of the microflora. Journal of Nutrition 116, 991–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asp, N. G., Bjorck, I., Holm, J., Nyman, M. & Siljestrom, M. (1986). Enzyme resistant starch rations and dietary fibre. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 129, Suppl.29–35.Google Scholar
Ayano, Y., Furuhashi, T, Watanabe, Y., Suzuki, T. & Takai, Y. (1977) On the in vitro digestion of raw amylomaize VII starch and on the growth of weaning rats fed the starch as a sole carbohydrate source. Journal of the Japanese Society of Food and Nutrition 30, 123–130.Google Scholar
Behall, K. M., Sholfield, D. J., Yuhaniak, I. & Canary, J. (1989) Diets containing high amylose vs amylopectin starch: Effects on metabolic variables in human subjects. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 49, 337–344.Google Scholar
Berry, C. S. (1986) Resistant starch formation and measurement of starch that survives exhaustive digestion with amylolytic enzymes during the determination of dietary fibre. Journal of Cereal Science 4, 301–314.Google Scholar
Bjorck, I., Nyman, M., Pederson, B., Siljestrom, M., Asp, N. G. & Eggum, B. O. (1986) On the digestibility of starch in wheat bread studies in vitro and in vivo. Journal of Cereal Science 4, 1–11.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. H. & Englyst, H. N. (1987) Fermentation in the human large intestine and the available substrates. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 45, 1243–1255.Google Scholar
Englyst, H. N. & Cummings, J. H. (1985) Digestion of the polysaccharides of some cereal foods in the human small intestine. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 42, 778–787.Google Scholar
Englyst, H. N. & Macfarlane, G. T. (1986) Breakdown of resistant and readily digestible starch by human gut bacteria. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 37, 699–706.Google Scholar
Flourié, B., Florent, C., Jouany, J. P., Thivend, P., Etanchaud, F. & Rambaud, J. C. (1986) Colonic metabolism of wheat starch in healthy humans: effects of fecal outputs and clinical symptoms. Gastroenterology 90, 111–119.Google Scholar
Gallant, D. J., Derrien, A., Aumaitre, A. & Guilbot, A. (1973) Dégradation in vitro de l'amidon par le suc pancréatic. Etude par microscopie électronique à transmission et à balayage. (In vitro degradation of starch by pancreatic juice. Studies by transmission and scanning electron microscopy.) Starch-Starke 2, 56–64.Google Scholar
Goddard, M. S., Young, G. & Marcus, R. (1984) The effect of amylose content on insulin and glucose responses to ingested rice. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 39, 388–392.Google ScholarPubMed
Macfarlane, G. T. & Englyst, H. N. (1986) Starch utilization by the human large intestinal microflora. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 60, 195–201.Google Scholar
Mallet, A. K., Bearne, P. J., Young, P. J., Rowland, D. & Berry, C. (1988) Influence of starches of low digestibility on the rat caecal microflora. British Journal of Nutrition 60, 597–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, N. (1944) A photometric adaptation of the Somogyi method for the determination of glucose. Journal of Biological Chemistry 153, 375–380.Google Scholar
Prins, R. A. (1977). Biochemical activities of gut microorganisms. In The Normal Flora of the Gut, pp. 73–183 [Clark, R. T. J., Bauchop, T., editors]. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reddy, B. S., Pleasants, J. R. & Wostman, B. S. (1969) Pancreatic enzymes in germ free and conventional rats fed chemically defined, water soluble diet free from natural substrates. Journal of Nutrition 97, 327–334.Google Scholar
Ring, S. G., Colonna, P., Miles, M. J., Morris, V. J. & Turner, R. (1987) Spherulitic crystallization of short chain amylose. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 9, 158–160.Google Scholar
Ring, S. G., Gee, J. M., Whitman, M., Orford, P. & Johnson, I. T. (1988) Resistant starch: Its chemical form in foodstuffs and effect on digestibility in vitro. Food Chemistry 28, 97–109.Google Scholar
Riottot, M. (1987). Métabolisme des acides biliaires chez le rat. Influence de la flore microbienne du tractus digestif et des glucides alimentaires. (Bile acid metabolism in the rat. Effect of intestinal microflora and dietary carbohydrates.) Thèse de Doctorat d'état, Orsay.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, J., Irwin, E. & Alpers, D. (1988) The role of salivary amylase protection in digestion. Gastroenterology 95, 1422–1431.Google Scholar
Sacquet, E., Leprince, C. & Riottot, M. (1983) Effects of amylomaize starch on cholesterol and bile acid metabolisms in germ-free (axenic) and conventional (holoxenic) rats. Reproduction, Nutrition, Développement 23, 783–792.Google Scholar
Sievert, D. & Pomeranz, Y. (1989) Enzyme-resistant starch I. Characterization and evaluation by enzymatic, thermoanalytical and microscopic methods. Cereal Chemistry 66, 342–347.Google Scholar
Somogyi, M. (1945) A new reagent for the determination of sugars. Journal of Biological Chemistry 160, 61–73.Google Scholar
Stephen, A. M., Haddad, A. C. & Phillip, S. F. (1983) Passage of carbohydrate into the colon. Direct measurements of humans. Gastroenterology 85, 589–595.Google Scholar
Szylit, O., Delort-Laval, J. & Borgida, L. P. (1974) Dégradation dans le jabot du coq et efficacité d'amidons de mais à différents taux d'amylose sur la croissance du poulet. (sDegradation in the chicken crop and the effect of starches of different amylose contents on chicken growth.) Annales de Zootechnie 23, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, M. J., Thompson, L. U. & Jenkins, D. J. A. (1983) Factors affecting starch digestibility and the glycemic response with special reference to legumes. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 38, 481–488.Google Scholar
Weber, M., Darzens, D., Coulombel, C., Foglietti, M. J. & Chararas, C. (1985) Purification and some properties of two amylases from Phoracanta semipuncta larvae. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 80B, 57–60.Google Scholar