4.7 Article

Formation of reactive aldehydes (MDA, HHE, HNE) during the digestion of cod liver oil: comparison of human and porcine in vitro digestion models

期刊

FOOD & FUNCTION
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 1401-1412

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5fo01332a

关键词

-

资金

  1. FORMAS (The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Science and Spatial Planning) [222-2012-1331]
  2. FORMAS (The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Science and Spatial Planning) [222-2012-1331]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, we investigated lipid oxidation of cod liver oil during gastrointestinal (GI) digestion using two types of in vitro digestion models. In the first type of model, we used human GI juices, while we used digestive enzymes and bile from porcine origin in the second type of model. Human and porcine models were matched with respect to factors important for lipolysis, using a standardized digestion protocol. The digests were analysed for reactive oxidation products: malondialdehyde (MDA), 4-hydroxy-trans-2-nonenal (HNE), and 4-hydroxy-trans-2-hexenal (HHE) by liquid chromatography/atmospheric pressure chemical ionization-mass spectrometry (LC/APCI-MS), and for free fatty acids (FFA) obtained during the digestion by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The formation of the oxidation products MDA, HHE, and HNE was low during the gastric digestion, however, it increased during the duodenal digestion. The formation of the oxidation products reached higher levels when digestive juices of human origin were used (60 mu M of MDA, 0.96 mu M of HHE, and 1.6 mu M of HNE) compared to when using enzymes and bile of porcine origin (9.8, and 0.36 mu M of MDA; 0.16, and 0.026 mu M of HHE; 0.23, and 0.005 mu M of HNE, respectively, in porcine models I and II). In all models, FFA release was only detected during the intestinal step, and reached up to 31% of total fatty acids (FA). The findings in this work may be of importance when designing oxidation oriented lipid digestion studies.

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