4.5 Article

Hydrolysis of milk gangliosides by infant-gut associated bifidobacteria determined by microfluidic chips and high-resolution mass spectrometry

期刊

ELECTROPHORESIS
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 1742-1750

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/elps.201300653

关键词

Bifidobacteria; Gangliosides; Mass spectrometry; Nano liquid chromatography

资金

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01HD061923, R01AT007079]
  3. Fulbright-Conicyt Chile scholarship
  4. National Milk Producers Federation scholarship
  5. Peter J. Shields Endowed Chair in Dairy Food Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gangliosides are receiving considerable attention because they participate in diverse biological processes. Milk gangliosides appear to block pathogen adhesion and modify the intestinal ecology of newborns. However, the interaction of milk gangliosides with gut bifidobacteria has been little investigated. The digestion products of a mixture of gangliosides isolated from milk following incubation with six strains of bifidobacteria were studied using nanoHPLC Chip Q-TOF MS. To understand ganglioside catabolism in vitro, the two major milk gangliosidesGM3 and GD3remaining in the media after incubation with bifidobacteria were quantified. Individual gangliosides were identified through postprocessing precursor ion scans, and quantitated with the find by molecular feature algorithm of MassHunter Qualitative Analysis software. Bifidobacterium infantis and B. bifidum substantially degraded the GM3 and GD3, whereas B. longum subsp. longum and B. animalis subsp. lactis only showed moderate degradation. MALDI FTICR MS analysis enabled a deeper investigation of the degradation and identified ganglioside degradation specifically at the outer portions of the glycan molecules. These results indicate that certain infant gut-associated bifidobacteria have the ability to degrade milk gangliosides releasing sialic acid, and that these glycolipids could play a prebiotic role in the infant gut.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据