Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:07:05.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plasma glucose response and glycemic indices in pigs fed diets differing in in vitro hydrolysis indices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

G. Giuberti ,
A. Gallo  and
F. Masoero
G. Giuberti
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, via Emilia Parmense 84, 29100 Piacenza, Italy
A. Gallo
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, via Emilia Parmense 84, 29100 Piacenza, Italy
F. Masoero*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, via Emilia Parmense 84, 29100 Piacenza, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Different dietary starch sources can have a great impact in determining starch digestion potential, thus influencing the postprandial blood glucose response. Our objectives were to define: (i) the incremental plasma glucose response in pigs fed diets containing various sources of starch differing in in vitro digestion patterns, (ii) the in vivo glycemic index (GI) values for the same diets, (iii) the possible relationship between in vitro and in vivo data. Diets, formulated with 70% of starch from five heterogeneous sources, were characterized in depth by using two distinct in vitro evaluations. The first one was based on the Englyst-assay for nutritional classification of starch fractions, whereas the second one was based on a time-course multi-enzymatic assay up to 180 min from which the hydrolysis indices (HIs) were calculated and used as a link between the physicochemical properties of starch from diets and the in vivo responses. For the in vivo study, five jugular-catheterized pigs (35.3 ± 1.1 kg body weight) were fed one of the five diets for 6-day periods in a 5 × 5 Latin square design. On day 5, blood was collected for 8 h postprandially for evaluating glucose appearance. On day 6, blood was collected for 3 h postprandially for the estimation of the GI. Starchy diets differed for rapidly digestible starch (from 8.6% to 79.8% of total starch (TS)) and resistant starch contents (from 72.5% to 4.5% of TS). Wide between-diets variations were recorded for all the kinetic parameters and for the HI calculated from the in vitro digestion curves (P < 0.05). On the basis of the obtained HI, diets contained starch with a very low to a very high in vitro digestion potential (ranging from 26.7% to 100.0%; P < 0.05). The glucose response differed among diets (P < 0.05), with marked differences between 15 and 120 min postprandial. Overall, the ranking of incremental glucose appearance among diets agreed with their in vitro HI classification: high HI diets increased plasma glucose response more (P < 0.05) than low HI diets. Lastly, different in vivo GIs were measured (ranging from 30.9% to 100.0%; P < 0.05). The relationship between HI and GI showed a high coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.95; root mean square error (RMSE) = 15.8; P < 0.05). In conclusion, diets formulated with starches with a wide range in HI potential can strongly affect the postprandial glucose response in pigs.

Keywords

glucosein vitro methodglycemic indexstarchpig
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 7 , 28 May 2012 , pp. 1068 - 1076
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Al-Rabadi, GJ, Torley, PJ, Williams, BA, Bryden, WL, Gidley, MJ 2011. Effect of extrusion temperature and pre-extrusion particle size on starch digestion kinetics in barley and sorghum grain extrudates. Animal Feed Science and Technology 168, 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers) 1985. Methods of determining and expressing fineness of feed materials by sieving. American society of agricultural engineers standard S 319. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Yearbook Standards, ASAE, St Joseph, MI, USA.Google Scholar
Anguita, M, Gasa, J, Martín-Orúe, SM, Pérez, JF 2006. Study of the effect of technological processes on starch hydrolysis, non-starch polysaccharides solubilization and physicochemical properties of different ingredients using a two-step in vitro system. Animal Feed Science and Technology 129, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annison, G, Topping, DL 1994. Nutritional role of resistant starch: chemical structure and physiological function. Annual Review of Nutrition 14, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Araya, H, Contreras, P, Alviña, M, Vera, G, Pak, N 2002. A comparison between an in vitro method to determine carbohydrate digestion rate and the glycemic response in young men. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 56, 735–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemistry) 2000. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, KE 2011. Triennial growth symposium: effect of polymeric carbohydrates on growth and development in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1965–1980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behall, KM, Scholfield, DJ, Hallfrisch, J 2002. Plasma glucose and insulin reduction after breads varying in amylose content. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 56, 913–920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Björck, I, Liljeberg, H, Ostman, E 2000. Low glycemic-index foods. British Journal of Nutrition 83, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasel, HM, Hoffman, PC, Shaver, RD 2006. Degree of starch access: an enzymatic method to determine starch degradation potential of corn grain and corn silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 128, 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buyse, J, Janssens, K, van der Geyten, S, vas As, P, Decuypere, E, Darras, VM 2002. Pre- and post-prandial changes in plasma hormone and metabolite levels and hepatic deiodinase activities in meal-fed broiler chicken. British Journal of Nutrition 88, 641–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, HJ, Shin, DH, Lim, ST 2008. In vitro starch digestibility and estimated glycemic index of chemically modified corn starches. Food Research International 41, 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, JH, Englyst, HN 1995. Gastrointestinal effects of food carbohydrate. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 61, S938–S945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deng, J, Wu, X, Bin, S, Li, TJ, Huang, R, Liu, Z, Liu, Y, Ruan, Z, Deng, Z, Hou, Y, Yin, YL 2010. Dietary amylose and amylopectin ratio and resistant starch content affect plasma glucose, lactic acid, hormone levels and protein synthesis in splanchnic tissues. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 94, 220–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dona, AC, Pages, G, Gilbert, RG, Kuchel, PW 2010. Digestion of starch: in vivo and in vitro kinetics models used to characterize oligosaccharide or glucose release. Carbohydrate Polymers 80, 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dona, AC, Pages, G, Gilbert, RG, Kuchel, PW 2011. Starch granule characterization by kinetic analysis of their stages during enzymic hydrolysis: 1H nuclear magnetic resonance studies. Carbohydrate Polymers 83, 1775–1786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englyst, HN, Kingman, SM, Cummings, JH 1992. Classification and measurement of nutritionally important starch fractions. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 46, S33–S50.Google ScholarPubMed
Englyst, HN, Veenstra, J, Hudson, GJ 1996. Measurement of rapidly available glucose (RAG) in plant foods: a potential in vitro predictor of the glycaemic response. British Journal of Nutrition 75, 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Community (EC) 1986. Council directive of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. 1986/609/European Community Official Journal L358, 1–28.Google Scholar
Gallant, DJ, Bouchet, B, Buleon, A, Perez, S 1992. Physical characteristic of starch granule and susceptibility to enzymatic degradation. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 46, S3–S13.Google ScholarPubMed
Garsetti, M, Vinoy, S, Lang, V, Holt, S, Loyer, S, Brand-Miller, JC 2005. The glycemic and insulinemic index of plain sweet biscuits: relationship to in vitro starch digestibility. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 24, 441–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Germaine, KA, Samman, S, Fryirs, CG, Griffiths, PJ, Johnson, SK, Quail, KJ 2008. Comparison of in vitro starch digestibility methods for predicting the glycaemic index of grain foods. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 88, 652–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goñi, I, Garcia-Alonso, A, Saura-Calixto, F 1997. A starch hydrolysis procedure to estimate glycemic index. Nutrition Research 17, 427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, Y, Drews, A, Björck, I 1994. Arepas made from high amylose corn flour produce favorable low glucose and insulin responses in healthy humans. Journal of Nutrition 125, 459–465.Google Scholar
Hasjim, J, Lavau, GC, Gidley, MJ, Gilbert, RG 2010. In vivo and in vitro starch digestion: are current in vitro techniques adequate? Biomacromolecules 11, 3600–3608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooda, S, Matte, JJ, Vasanthan, T, Zjilstra, RT 2010. Dietary oat beta-glucan reduces peak net glucose flux and insulin production and modulates plasma incretin in portal-vein catheterized grower pigs. Journal of Nutrition 140, 1564–1591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, DJA, Wolever, TMS, Taylor, RH, Barker, H, Fielden, H, Baldwin, JM 1981. Glycemic index of foods: a physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34, 362–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, PC, Brooks, SP, Kim, O, Heitlinger, LA, Lebenthal, E 1985. Digestibility of native and modified starches: in vitro studies with humans and rabbit pancreatic amylases and in vivo studies in rabbits. Journal of Nutrition 115, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, TT, Huang, YF, Chiang, CC, Chung, TK, Chiou, PWS, Yu, B 2011. Starch characteristics and their influences on in vitro and pig prececal starch digestion. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 59, 7353–7359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, TJ, Dai, QZ, Yin, YL, Zhang, J, Huang, RL, Ruan, Z, Deng, Z, Xie, M 2008. Dietary starch sources affect net portal appearance of amino acids and glucose in growing pigs. Animal 2, 723–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludwig, DS 2002. The glycemic index: physiological mechanisms relating to obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 2414–2423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahasukhonthachat, K, Sopade, PA, Gidley, MJ 2010. Kinetics of starch digestion in sorghum as affected by particle size. Journal of Food Engineering 96, 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masoero, F, Gallo, A, Zanfi, C, Giuberti, G, Spanghero, M 2010. Chemical composition and rumen degradability of three corn hybrids treated with insecticides against the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis). Animal Feed Science and Technology 155, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateos, GG, Martin, F, Latorre, MA, Vicente, B, Lázaro, R 2007. The effect of inclusion of oat hulls in pig diets based on raw or cooked rice and maize. Animal Feed Science and Technology 135, 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medel, P, Latorre, MA, de Blas, JC, Lázaro, R, Mateos, GG 2004. Heat processing of cereals in mash or pellet diets for young pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 113, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menoyo, D, Serrano, MP, Barrios, V, Valencia, DG, Lázaro, R, Argente, J, Mateos, GG 2011. Cereal type and heat processing of cereal affect nutrient digestibility and dynamics of serum insulin and ghrelin in weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2793–2800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monro, JA, Mishra, S 2010. Database values for food-based dietary control of glycaemia. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 23, 406–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morand, C, Rémésy, C, Levrat, MA, Demigé, C 1992. Replacement of digestible wheat starch by resistant corn starch alters splanchnic metabolism in rats. Journal of Nutrition 122, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, SM, Patil, AR, JrFahey, GC, Merchen, NR, Wolf, BW, Lai, CS, Garleb, KA 1998. Apparent digestibility of a debranched amylopectin-lipid complex and resistant starch incorporated into enteral formulas fed to ileal-cannulated dogs. Journal of Nutrition 128, 2032–2035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noah, L, Krempf, M, Lecannu, G, Maugére, P, Champ, M 2000. Bioavailability of starch and postprandial changes in splanchnic glucose metabolism in pigs. American Journal of Physiology, Endocrinology and Metabolism 278, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noblet, J, Bontems, V, Tran, G 2003. Estimation de la valeur énergétique des aliments pour le porc. INRA Productions Animales 16, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutrient requirements for swine (NRC) 1998. NRC, 10th edition. Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Parada, J, Aguilera, JM 2011. Review: starch matrices and the glycemic response. Food Science and Technology International 17, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reader, D, Johnson, ML, Hollander, P, Franz, M 1997. The Elycemic and Insulinemic response of resistant starch in a food bar vs. two commercially available bars in person with type II diabetes mellitus (abstract). Diabetes 46, 254A.Google Scholar
Regmi, PR, Matte, JJ, van Kempen, TATG, Zijlstra, RT 2010. Starch chemistry affects kinetics of glucose absorption and insulin response in swine. Livestock Science 134, 44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regmi, PR, van Kempen, TATG, Matte, JJ, Zijlstra, RT 2011. Starch with high amylose and low in vitro digestibility increases short-chain fatty acid adsorption, reduces peak insulin secretion, and modulates incretin secretion in pigs. Journal of Nutrition 19, 1–8.Google Scholar
SAS (Statistical Analytical System) 2003. SAS/SAT guide for personal computers, version 9.13. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sáyago-Ayerdi, SG, Tovar, J, Osorio-Dìaz, P, Paredes-López, O, Bello-Pérez, LA 2005. In vitro starch digestibility and predicted glycemic index of corn tortilla, black beans, and tortilla-bean mixture: effect of cold storage. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 53, 1281–1285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, J, Dartois, A, Kaur, L 2010. Starch digestibility in food matrix: a review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 21, 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sajilata, MG, Singhal, RS, Kulkarni, PS 2006. Resistant starch – a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 5, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevnebø, A, Sahlström, S, Svihus, B 2006. Starch structure and degree of starch hydrolysis of small and large starch granules from barley varieties with varying amylose content. Animal Feed Science and Technology 130, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, T, Lærke, HN, Jørgensen, H, Bach Knudsen, KE 2006. The effect of extrusion cooking of different starch sources on the in vitro and in vivo digestibility in growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 131, 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svihus, B, Uhlen, AK, Harstad, OM 2005. Effect of starch granule structure, associated components and processing on nutritive value of cereal starch: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 122, 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tester, RF, Qi, X, Karkalas, J 2006. Hydrolysis on native starches with amylases. Animal Feed Science and Technology 130, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, MJ, Thompson, LU, Jenkins, DJ 1983. Factors affecting starch digestibility and the glycemic response with special reference to legumes. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 38, 481–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Kempen, TATG, Pujol, S, Tibble, S, Balfagon, A 2007. In vitro characterization of starch digestion and its implications for pigs. In Paradigms in pig science (ed. J Wiseman, MA Varley, S McOrist and B Kemp), pp. 515–525. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
van Kempen, TATG, Regmi, PR, Matte, JJ, Zijlstra, RT 2010. In vitro starch digestion kinetics, corrected for estimated gastric emptying, predict portal glucose appearance in pigs. Journal of Nutrition 140, 1227–1233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vicente, B, Valencia, DG, Pérez-Serrano, M, Lázaro, R, Mateos, GG 2008. The effects of feeding rice in substitution of corn and the degree of starch gelatinization of rice on the digestibility of dietary components and productive performance of young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 86, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vicente, B, Valencia, DG, Serrano, PM, Lázaro, R, Mateos, GG 2009. Effect of feeding rice and the degree of starch gelatinization of rice on nutrient digestibility and ileal morphology of young pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 101, 1278–1281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weurding, RE, Veldman, A, Venn, WAG, van der Aar, PJ, Verstegen, MWA 2001. In vitro starch digestion correlates well with rate and extent of starch digestion in broiler chickens. Journal of Nutrition 131, 2336–2342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolever, TM, Jenkins, DJ, Jenkins, AL, Josse, RG 1991. The glycemic index: methodology and clinical implication. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 54, 846–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolever, TMS, Vorster, HH, Björck, I, Brand Miller, J, Brighenti, F, Mann, JI, Ramdath, DD, Granfeldt, Y, Holt, S, Perry, TL, Venter, C, Wu, X 2003. Determination of the glycemic index of foods: interlaboratory study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 57, 475–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed