4.7 Article

Dietary Fiber from Oat and Rye Brans Ameliorate Western Diet-Induced Body Weight Gain and Hepatic Inflammation by the Modulation of Short-Chain Fatty Acids, Bile Acids, and Tryptophan Metabolism

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.201900580

关键词

dietary fiber; gut metabolism; microbial metabolites; obesity; prebiotics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates the differences in metabolites produced by gut microbiota in response to supplementation with oat or rye bran, showing that both types of bran can improve metabolic disturbances induced by a western diet through altering gut microbiota composition and modulating produced metabolites.
Scope Dietary fiber (DF) induces changes in gut microbiota function and thus modulates the gut environment. How this modulation is associated with metabolic pathways related to the gut is largely unclear. This study aims to investigate differences in metabolites produced by the gut microbiota and their interactions with host metabolism in response to supplementation with two bran fibers. Methods and Results Male C57BL/6N mice are fed a western diet (WD) for 17 weeks. Two groups of mice received a diet enriched with 10% w/w of either oat or rye bran, with each bran containing 50% DF. Microbial metabolites are assessed by measuring cecal short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), ileal and fecal bile acids (BAs), and the expression of genes related to tryptophan (TRP) metabolism. Both brans lowered body weight gain and ameliorated WD-induced impaired glucose responses, hepatic inflammation, liver enzymes, and gut integrity markers associated with SCFA production, altered BA metabolism, and TRP diversion from the serotonin synthesis pathway to microbial indole production. Conclusions Both brans develop a favorable environment in the gut by altering the composition of microbes and modulating produced metabolites. Changes induced in the gut environment by a fiber-enriched diet may explain the amelioration of metabolic disturbances related to WD.

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

4.7
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