Amylopectin structure and crystallinity explains variation in digestion kinetics of starches across botanic sources in an in vitro pig model

Martens, Bianca; Gerrits, W.J.J.; Bruininx, E.M.A.M.; Schols, Henk A.

doi:10.1186/s40104-018-0303-8

Cited by 121 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, legume seeds are known to be high in naturally occurring RS, partly because their starches are trapped inside the cotyledon cell parenchyma ( Würsch, 1986 ; Berg et al, 2012 ). Tuber starches like potato may also have some resistance to enzymatic digestion because its granules are large and smooth ( Dhital et al, 2017 ; Martens et al, 2018 ). However, all these reports have been conducted with starch ingredients alone, but pet foods are composed of other ingredients which are ground, mixed, and then cooked or processed in some manner.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Starch characterization of commercial extruded dry pet foods

Alvarenga

Aldrich

2020

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Starches provide an effective energy source for dogs and cats and can affect health according to its inclusion and extent of digestion. The starch fraction that escapes small intestine (SI) digestion is called resistant starch (RS) and is desirable due to its prebiotic function. Starch is not an essential nutrient for dogs and cats and thus is not reported on commercial pet food labels. Hence, the objective of this work was to characterize starches in commercial pet foods. The top five pet food companies by sales were selected to represent U.S. pet foods, which were divided into four strata with a sampling frame of 654 foods: dog grain based (372 foods), dog grain free (71 foods), cat grain based (175 foods), and cat grain free (38 foods). Five random foods within each stratum were purchased (20 total). Starch analyses (total starch, resistant starch, and starch cook), as well as nutrient analyses were conducted on all foods. Total starch, RS, and starch cook means were compared using a two-group Z-test on dog vs. cat and grain-based (GB) vs. grain-free (GF) diets, and differences were considered significant at a P < 0.05. Total starch was higher (P < 0.05) in dog than cat food, and starch cook was greater (P < 0.05) in GF diets. A regression analysis showed that nitrogen-free extract was a good predictor of total starch. Resistant starch was low and not different among groups. A post hoc test showed that a total sample size of at least 28 diets per group would be required to detect differences in RS between GF and GB diets, if one exists.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Starch characterization of commercial extruded dry pet foods

Alvarenga

Aldrich

2020

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The digestive enzyme α-amylase is responsible for the breakdown of the starch into dextrins (maltotriose, DP3) and maltose (DP2), which are in turn digested by epithelial maltase, resulting in glucose monomers. It is often suggested that the amylose content is the most important factor in determining the rate of digestion and absorption as well as the related glycemic response, but recent research shows that the picture is more complex (25). It appears that the interaction between the molecular and granular structure (helix formation, number of pores, size of the molecule, amylopectin sidechain length distribution and crystalline structure, the latter two being the most important) causes the variation in the rate of digestion across botanical sources (25).…”

Section: Same Degree Of Polymerization But Different Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The potential of starch to affect the blood glucose response, expressed as a glycemic index (GI) value, can therefore vary considerably depending on the content of amylopectin and amylose ( 26 – 28 ). Interestingly, despite only small differences in amylose content, in vitro cumulative starch hydrolysis shows that wheat starch is more rapidly digested than potato starch (being the most resistant starch), with corn, high-amylose corn, and pea starch having intermediate values ( 25 ).…”

Section: Chemical Classification Of Saccharides and Its Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saccharide Characteristics and Their Potential Health Effects in Perspective

Brouns

2020

Front. Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand the effects of saccharides on our metabolism and health, we need a clear understanding of what they are, how they differ, and why some types are deemed "less healthy" and others "better for health." There are various ways to look at this topic. Firstly, saccharides can be classified according to their degree of polymerization (DP). This classification is useful when qualitative or quantitative analysis and calculation of intakes are required or for food-labeling definitions. However, it does not account for the fact that saccharides with a similar DP can differ in molecular composition, which will influence digestion, absorption, and metabolism. Secondly, another approach widely used in the biomedical and nutritional sciences is therefore a physiological classification, which addresses the rate and degree of digestibility and absorption, the glycemic response, and the metabolic fate. The individual health status also plays a role in this respect. An active, lean person will have a metabolic response that differs from an inactive person with overweight and insulin resistance. However, this approach will not give a complete answer either because the characteristics of the matrix/meal in which these carbohydrates (CHOs) are present will also influence the responses of our body. Thirdly, one can also rank CHOs by comparing their functional/technological properties, such as relative sweetness, viscosity, and solubility. Understanding CHO characteristics and related physiological responses will help understand health and disease implications. Therefore, a brief outline of different carbohydrate classifications is presented. This outline will be placed in the context of potential overall effects after consumption. The answer to the question whether we should we eat less of certain sugars depends on the angle from which you look at this matter; for example, do you address this question from a single molecular characteristic point of view or from a meal quality perspective? Looking at one particular CHO characteristic will almost always lead to a different conclusion (e.g., the labeling of fructose as toxic) than evaluating from a "total perspective" (fructose has adverse effects in certain conditions). Examples are given to help understand this matter for the benefit of justified dietary/food-based recommendations.

show abstract

“…In vitro studies showed that these intrinsic properties of starch cause variation in starch digestion kinetics. Although many of the structural and molecular properties of starch are inter-related within a botanic source of starch, B-type crystalline structure and long amylopectin side chains generally reduce digestion rate across botanic sources (1,10,11) . Within starch of cereal origin, the number of pores Abbreviations: BW, body weight; DC, digestion coefficient; DP, degree of polymerisation; EB, barley starch in extruded form; GA, high-amylose maize starch in ground form; GB, barley starch in ground form; GIT, gastrointestinal tract; GM, maize starch in ground form; HA, high-amylose; IA, high-amylose maize starch in isolated form; IB, barley starch in isolated form; IM, maize starch in isolated form; MRT, mean retention time; RDS, rapidly digestible starch; RS, resistant starch; SDS, slowly digestible starch; SEM, scanning electron microscope; SI, small intestine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within starch of cereal origin, the number of pores Abbreviations: BW, body weight; DC, digestion coefficient; DP, degree of polymerisation; EB, barley starch in extruded form; GA, high-amylose maize starch in ground form; GB, barley starch in ground form; GIT, gastrointestinal tract; GM, maize starch in ground form; HA, high-amylose; IA, high-amylose maize starch in isolated form; IB, barley starch in isolated form; IM, maize starch in isolated form; MRT, mean retention time; RDS, rapidly digestible starch; RS, resistant starch; SDS, slowly digestible starch; SEM, scanning electron microscope; SI, small intestine. and the amylopectin:amylose ratio are positively correlated with in vitro digestion rate (9,11) . Several in vivo studies confirm these in vitro findings, as starch with a high-amylose (HA) content and B-type crystalline structure positively correlate with lower incremental plasma glucose concentrations in pigs (1,12) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Starch digestion kinetics and mechanisms of hydrolysing enzymes in growing pigs fed processed and native cereal-based diets

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to examine in vivo starch digestion kinetics and to unravel the mechanisms of starch hydrolysing enzymes. Ninety pigs (23 (sd 2·1) kg body weight) were assigned to one of nine treatments in a 3×3 factorial arrangement, with starch source (barley, maize, high-amylose (HA) maize) and form (isolated, within cereal matrix, extruded) as factors. We determined starch digestion coefficients (DC), starch breakdown products and digesta retention times in four small-intestinal segments (SI1–4). Starch digestion in SI2 of pigs fed barley and maize, exceeded starch digestion of pigs fed HA maize by 0·20–0·33 DC units (P<0·01). In SI3–4, barley starch were completely digested, whereas the cereal matrix of maize hampered digestion and generated 16 % resistant starch in the small intestine (P<0·001). Extrusion increased the DC of maize and HA maize starch throughout the small intestine but not that of barley (P<0·05). Up to 25 % of starch residuals in the proximal small intestine of pigs was present as glucose and soluble α(1–4) maltodextrins. The high abundance of glucose, maltose and maltotriose in the proximal small intestine indicates activity of brush-border enzymes in the intestinal lumen, which is exceeded by α-amylase activity. Furthermore, we found that in vivo starch digestion exceeded our in vitro predictions for rapidly digested starch, which indicates that the role of the stomach on starch digestion is currently underestimated. Consequently, in vivo glucose release of slowly digestible starch is less gradual than expected, which challenges the prediction quality of the in vitro assay.

show abstract

Amylopectin structure and crystallinity explains variation in digestion kinetics of starches across botanic sources in an in vitro pig model

Cited by 121 publications

References 43 publications

Starch characterization of commercial extruded dry pet foods

Starch characterization of commercial extruded dry pet foods

Saccharide Characteristics and Their Potential Health Effects in Perspective

Starch digestion kinetics and mechanisms of hydrolysing enzymes in growing pigs fed processed and native cereal-based diets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About