Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:22:31.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The in vivo use of the stable isotope-labelled biomarkers lactose-[15N]ureide and [2H4]tyrosine to assess the effects of pro- and prebiotics on the intestinal flora of healthy human volunteers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

V. De Preter ,
K. Geboes ,
K. Verbrugghe ,
L. De Vuyst ,
T. Vanhoutte ,
G. Huys ,
J. Swings ,
B. Pot  and
K. Verbeke
V. De Preter
Affiliation:
Department of Gastrointestinal Research, University Hospital Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
K. Geboes
Affiliation:
Department of Gastrointestinal Research, University Hospital Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
K. Verbrugghe
Affiliation:
Research Group of Industrial Microbiology, Fermentation Technology and Downstream Processing, Department of Applied Biological Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
L. De Vuyst
Affiliation:
Research Group of Industrial Microbiology, Fermentation Technology and Downstream Processing, Department of Applied Biological Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
T. Vanhoutte
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Microbiology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
G. Huys
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Microbiology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
J. Swings
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Microbiology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium BCCM(tm)/LMG Bacteria Collection, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
B. Pot
Affiliation:
Bacteriology of Ecosystems, Institut Pasteur de Lille, F-59019 Lille Cedex, France
K. Verbeke*
Affiliation:
Department of Gastrointestinal Research, University Hospital Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
*
*Corresponding author: fax +32 16 34 43 99, Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Amongst the various claimed beneficial effects of pro- and prebiotics for the human host, it has been hypothesised that functional foods are able to suppress the generation and accumulation of toxic fermentation metabolites (NH3, p-cresol). Direct evidence supporting this hypothesis is lacking mainly because of the unavailability of reliable biomarkers. Preliminary data indicate that lactose-[15N]ureide and [2H4]tyrosine may be potential biomarker candidates. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of pro- and prebiotics on the colonic fate of these biomarkers in a randomised, placebo-controlled, cross-over study with nineteen healthy volunteers. At the start of the study and at the end of each 2-week study period, during which they were administered either a probiotic (n 10; 6·5×109Lactobacillus casei Shirota cells twice daily) or a prebiotic (n 9; lactulose 10 g twice daily), the volunteers consumed a test meal containing the two biomarkers. Urine was collected during 48 h. Results were expressed as percentage of the administered dose. As compared with the placebo, the decrease in the percentage dose of p-[2H4]cresol in the 24–48 h urine fraction was significantly higher after probiotic intake (P=0·042). Similar changes were observed for the 15N tracer (P=0·016). After prebiotic intake, a significantly higher decrease in the percentage dose of p-[2H4]cresol (P=0·005) and 15N tracer (P=0·029) was found in the 0–24 h urine collection. The present results demonstrate that suppression of the generation and accumulation of potentially toxic fermentation metabolites by pro- and prebiotics can reliably be monitored in vivo by the use of stable isotope-labelled biomarkers.

Keywords

ProbioticsPrebioticsBiomarkersStable isotopes
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 439 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2004

References

Bone, E, Tamm, A & Hill, MThe production of urinary phenols by gut bacteria and their possible role in the causation of large bowel cancer. Am J Clin Nutr (1976) 29, 1448–1454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouhnik, Y, Attar, A, Joly, FA, Riottot, M, Dyard, F & Flourié, BLactulose ingestion increases faecal bifidobacterial counts: a randomised double-blind study in healthy humans. Eur J Clin Nutr (2004) 58, 462–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, MD & Gibson, GRProbiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: approaches for modulating the microbial ecology of the gut. Am J Clin Nutr (1999) 69, 1052S–1057S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummings, JHShort chain fatty acids in the human colon. Gut (1981) 22, 763–779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummings, JH & Bingham, SADietary fibre, fermentation and large bowel cancer. Cancer Surveys (1987) 6, 601–621.Google ScholarPubMed
Cummings, JH & Macfarlane, GTGastrointestinal effects of prebiotics. Br J Nutr (2002) 87, S145–S151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evenepoel, P, Claus, D, Geypens, B, Hiele, M, Geboes, K, Rutgeerts, P & Ghoos, YAmount and fate of egg protein escaping assimilation in the small intestine of humans. Am J Physiol (1999) 277, G935–G943.Google ScholarPubMed
Evenepoel, P, Hiele, M, Luypaerts, A, Geypens, B, Buyse, J, Decuypere, E, Rutgeerts, P & Ghoos, YProduction of egg proteins, enriched with l -leucine-13C1, for the study of protein assimilation in humans using the breath test technique. J Nutr (1997) 127, 327–331.Google Scholar
Fooks, LJ, Fuller, R & Gibson, GRPrebiotics, probiotics and human gut microbiology. Int Dairy J (1999) 9, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, RProbiotics in human medicine. Gut (1991) 32, 439–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geypens, B, Claus, D, Gorris, N, Evenepoel, P, Luypaerts, A, Rutgeerts, P & Ghoos, YDetermination of deuterated phenylalanine and tyrosine in egg protein by GCQ. J High Resol Chromatogr (1999) 22, 465–468.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, GR, Beatty, ER, Wang, X & Cummings, JHSelective stimulation of bifidobacteria in the human colon by oligofructose and inulin. Gastroenterology (1995) 108, 975–982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, GR & Roberfroid, MBDietary modulation of the colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J Nutr (1995) 125, 1401–1412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmann, EUeber den abbau von glucoseureid durch bakterien (About the dismantling of glucose ureide by bacteria). Biochem Z (1931) 243, 416–422.Google Scholar
Lupton, JR & Marchant, LJIndependent effects of fiber and protein on colonic luminal ammonia concentrations. J Nutr (1989) 119, 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, C, Heine, WE & Wutzke, KDClostridium innocuum: a glucoseureide-splitting inhabitant of the human intestinal tract. Biochim Biophys Acta (1999) 1472, 550–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, DJ, Dodson, B, Preston, T & Weaver, LTGastrointestinal handling of glycosyl [ 13 C] ureides. Eur J Clin Nutr (2003) 57, 1017–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, PBThe effect of oral-administered lactulose on colonic nitrogen metabolism and excretion. Hepatology (1992) 16, 1350–1356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberfroid, MB, Bornet, F, Bouley, C & Cummings, JHColonic microflora: nutrition and health. Nutr Rev (1995) 53, 127–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruemmele, FM, Heine, WE, Keller, KM & Lentze, MJMetabolism of glycosyl ureides by human intestinal brush border enzymes. Biochim Biophys Acta (1997) 1336, 275–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saavedra, JM & Tschernia, ARecent progress on research of non-digestible galacto-oligosaccharides. Int Dairy J (1999) 9, 69–80.Google Scholar
Salminen, S, Ouwehand, AC & Isolauri, EClinical applications of probiotic bacteria. Int Dairy J (1998) 8, 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheppach, W, Luehrs, H & Menzel, TBeneficial effects of low-digestible carbohydrate consumption. Br J Nutr (2001) 85, S23–S30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoorl, MNLes ureides (carbamides) des sucres (The ureides (carbamides) of sugars). Recl Trav Chim (1903) 22, 1.Google Scholar
Schumann, CMedical, nutritional and technological properties of lactulose. An update. Eur J Nutr (2002) 41, I17–I25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, EA & Macfarlane, GTEnumeration of human colonic bacteria producing phenolic and indolic compounds: effects of pH, carbohydrate availability and retention time on dissimilatory aromatic amino acid metabolism. J Appl Bacteriol (1996) 81, 288–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vince, AJ & Burridge, AJAmmonia production by intestinal bacteria: the effects of lactose, lactulose and glucose. J Med Microbiol (1980) 13, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vince, AJ, McNeil, NI, Wager, JD & Wrong, OMThe effect of lactulose, pectin, arabinogalactan and cellulose on the production of organic acids and metabolism of ammonia by intestinal bacteria in a faecal incubation system. Br J Nutr (1990) 63, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visek, WJDiet and cell growth modulation by ammonia. Am J Clin Nutr (1976) 31, S216–S220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, FLThe effect of lactulose on urea metabolism and nitrogen excretion in cirrhotic patients. Gastroenterology (1979) 77, 518–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
eber, FLLactulose and combination therapy of hepatic encephalopathy: the role of the intestinal microflora. Dig Dis (1996) 14, 53–63.Google Scholar
Weber, FLEffects of lactulose on nitrogen metabolism. Scand J Gastroenterol (1997) 32, 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, FL, Fresard, KM & Lally, BREffects of lactulose and neomycin on urea metabolism in cirrhotic subjects. Gastroenterology (1982) 82, 213–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziemer, CJ & Gibson, GRAn overview of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in the functional food concept: perspectives and future strategies. Int Dairy J (1998) 8, 473–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar