4.4 Article

Determination of carotenoid and vitamin A concentrations in everted salmonid intestine following exposure to solutions of carotenoid in vitro

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1095-6433(03)00222-8

Keywords

astaxanthin; canthaxanthin; carotenoid; intestine; in vitro; salmon; trout; vitamin A

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carotenoid (astaxanthin and canthaxanthin) concentrations in everted intestine from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar, L.) exposed to micelle solubilised carotenoid, have been determined. Following exposure (I h) to astaxanthin solution (5 mg l(-1)), trout pyloric caeca and mid intestine had higher (P < 0.05) mean tissue astaxanthin concentrations (0.50 +/- 0.08 mug g(-1) and 0.54 +/- 0.09 mug g(-1), respectively) compared to hind intestine (0.04 +/- 0.01 mug g(-1); n = 11 +/- S.E.). Furthermore, the astaxanthin concentration in pyloric caeca (0.50 +/- 0.08 mug g(-1)) was greater (P < 0.05) than that of canthaxanthin (0.11 +/- 0.01 mu g g(-1); n = 11, +/- S.E.) when exposed to solutions of similar carotenoid concentration (5.11 +/- 0.16 mg l(-1) and 5.35 +/- 0.16 mg l(-1), respectively; n = 3 +/- S.E.). However, no differences (P > 0.05) were recorded between trout and salmon intestinal tissue in terms of astaxanthin concentration following exposure. Trout caeca exposed to astaxanthin solution had significantly (P < 0.05) more vitamin A (514.1 +/- 36.4 mu g g(-1)) compared to control tissues (316.5 +/- 61.7 mu g g(-1); n = 8 +/- S.E.). Vitamin A, concentrations in caeca (287.7 +/- 11.0 mu g g(-1)) exposed to astaxanthin solution were significantly higher (P < 0.05) compared to controls (174.9 +/- 26.9 mu g g(-1)). However, vitamin A(2) concentrations were not significantly (P > 0.05) different (226.3 +/- 28.2 mu g g(-1) and 141.6 +/- 35.2 mu g g(-1), respectively). (c) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available