4.6 Article

Beyond purified dietary fibre supplements: Compositional variation between cell wall fibre from different plants influences human faecal microbiota activity and growth in vitro

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 1484-1504

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.16368

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the impact of different dietary fibre sources on gut microbiota growth and metabolite production. The results showed that complex fibres led to greater variation in microbiota compared to pectins. The composition of the plants, such as the levels of arabinan and galactan, were major predictors of bacterial enrichment.
Dietary fibre is a major energy source for the human gut microbiota, but it is unclear to what extent the fibre source and complexity affect microbial growth and metabolite production. Cell wall material and pectin were extracted from five different dicotyledon plant sources, apples, beet leaves, beetroots, carrots and kale, and compositional analysis revealed differences in the monosaccharide composition. Human faecal batch incubations were conducted with 14 different substrates, including the plant extracts, wheat bran and commercially available carbohydrates. Microbial activity was determined for up to 72 h by measuring gas and fermentation acid production, total bacteria (by qPCR) and microbial community composition by 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. The more complex substrates gave rise to more microbiota variation compared with the pectins. The comparison of different plant organs showed that the leaves (beet leaf and kale) and roots (carrot and beetroot) did not give rise to similar bacterial communities. Rather, the compositional features of the plants, such as high arabinan levels in beet and high galactan levels in carrot, appear to be major predictors of bacterial enrichment on the substrates. Thus, in-depth knowledge on dietary fibre composition should aid the design of diets focused on optimizing the microbiota.

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

4.6
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