4.4 Article

Dietary inulin affects the expression of intestinal enterocyte iron transporters, receptors and storage protein and alters the microbiota in the pig intestine

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 99, 期 3, 页码 472-480

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114507825128

关键词

inulin; iron; intestinal gene expression; microbiota

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inulin, a linear P fructan, is present in a variety of plants including chicory root and wheat. It exhibits prebiotic properties and has been shown to enhance mineral absorption and increase beneficial bacteria in the colon. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of dietary inulin on the gene expression of selected intestinal Fe transporters and binding proteins. Anaemic piglets at age 5 weeks were allocated to a standard maize-soya diet (control) or the same diet supplemented with inulin at a level of 4 %. After 6 weeks, the animals were killed and caecum contents and sections of the duodenum and colon were removed. Segments of the genes encoding for the pig divalent metal transporter 1 (DMT 1) and duodenal cytochrome-b reductase (Dcytb) were isolated and sequenced. Semi-quantitative RT-PCR analyses were performed to evaluate the expression of DMT1, Dcytb, ferroportin, ferritin, transferrin receptor (TfR) and mucin genes. DMTI, Dcytb, ferroportin, ferritin and TfR mRNA levels in duodenal samples were significantly higher in the inulin group (P <= 0.05) compared with the control. In colon, DMT 1, TfR and ferritin mRNA levels significantly increased in the inulin group. Additionally, the caecal content microflora was examined using 16S rDNA targeted probes from bacterial DNA. The Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium populations were significantly increased in the inulin group (P <= 0-05) compared with the control group. These results indicate that dietary inulin might trigger an up regulation of genes encoding for Fe transporters in the enterocyte. The specific mechanism for this effect remains to be elucidated.

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

4.4
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