Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-fppsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T12:09:05.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Isomerisation of trans-10 cis-12 conjugated linoleic acid during acidic methylation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

M R F Lee  and
J K S Tweed
M R F Lee*
Affiliation:
Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom
J K S Tweed
Affiliation:
Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access

Extract

Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) has been associated with numerous health benefits in animal models including modulation of immune response and fat deposition (Lock & Bauman, 2004). The most predominant CLA in ruminant products (meat and milk) is cis-9 trans-11 with traces of other isomers such as trans-10 cis-12 which can be increased according to dietary regimes such as increasing the proportion of concentrate in the diet (Sackmann et al. 2003). More recent findings into the health benefits of CLA in humans have found the trans-10 cis-12 isomer to be more potent than cis-9 trans-11 (Tholstrup et al. 2008). Whilst it has been reported that acidic methylation during analysis of milk fat results in isomerisation of cis-9 trans-11 (Lee & Tweed, 2008) little information is available on the effect of different methylation regimes on the increasingly important trans-10 cis-12 isomer. This study investigated the isomerisation of esterified and un-esterified trans-10 cis-12 CLA during three methylation regimes.

Type
Theatre Presentations
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2009 , April 2009 , pp. 146
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2009

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

Kramer, J.K.G. and Zhou, J. 2001. Euro. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 103, 600–609.Google Scholar
Lee, M.R.F. and Tweed, J.K.S. 2008. J. Dairy Res. 75, 354–356.Google Scholar
Lock, A.L. and Bauman, D.E. 2004. Lipids 39, 1197–1206.Google Scholar
Payne, R.W., Murray, D.A., Harding, S.A., Baird, D.B and Soutar, D.M. 2002. Genstat®, Oxford, VSN International.Google Scholar
Sackmann, J.R., Duckett, S.K., Gillia, M.H., Realini, C.E., Parks, A.H. and Eggelston, R.B. 2003. J. Anim. Sci. 81, 3174–3181.Google Scholar
Sukhija, P.S. and Palmquist, D.L. 1988. J. Agric. Food Chem. 36, 1202–1206.Google Scholar
Tholstrup, T., Raff, M., Straarup, E.M., Lund, P., Basu, S., and Bruun, J.M. 2008. J. Nutr. 138, 1445–1451.Google Scholar