4.5 Article

Does the biomarker 15N-lactose ureide allow to estimate the site of fermentation of resistant starch?

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 217-223

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-008-0716-9

关键词

stable isotope; prebiotic; wheat bran; resistant starch; site of fermentation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated the effect of resistant starch (RS) and resistant starch with wheat bran (RS+WB) on the colonic ammonia metabolism in healthy volunteers using the biomarker N-15-lactose ureide (N-15-LU). Particularly, it was investigated whether this biomarker allowed to estimate differences in the site of fermentation. Ten volunteers were included in a placebo-controlled crossover study. They consumed in random order 2 x 15 g RS/day for 2 weeks and placebo for 2 weeks separated by 2 weeks wash-out. At baseline, on the first day of each intake period and after each intake period, they consumed a N-15-labelled test meal and collected all urine in different fractions for 48 h. In ten other volunteers, the effect of 2 x 15 g RS/day and of 2 x 15 g RS + 2 x 6 g WB was compared. These volunteers collected urine and feces for 72 h. N-15-content of urine and feces was measured using combustion-isotope ratio mass spectrometry. RS exerted a significant decrease in cumulative urinary N-15-excretion which was different from placebo. The effect was most pronounced in the 6-24 h urine fraction which suggest fermentation in the proximal colon. The effect of RS+WB on cumulative urinary N-15-excretion was not significantly different from the effect of RS. A less pronounced decrease in the 6-24 h fraction was observed suggesting less fermentation in the proximal colon whereas no indications for more distal fermentation were observed. Since about 80% of the cumulative urinary N-15 was recovered within 24 h, it was concluded that the biomarker N-15-LU was useful to monitor processes in the proximal colon rather than in the distal colon.

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