4.5 Article

Unhydrolyzed and hydrolyzed konjac glucomannans modulated cecal and fecal microflora in Balb/c mice

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 21, 期 10, 页码 1059-1064

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2005.02.008

关键词

glucomannan; hydrolysate; anaerobes; bifidobacteria; Clostridium perfringens; short-chain fatty acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The prebiotic role of intact konjac glucomannan (KGM) is contradictory. Short-chain glucomannan may cause a greater or faster effect on colonic microflora compared with KGM. Therefore, time-course and dose-dependent studies were conducted to examine and compare effects of unhydrolyzed KGM with those of acid-hydrolyzed glucomannan (KH) on cecal and fecal microflora. Short-chain fatty acid concentrations in cecal content were also determined. Methods: Seven-week-old male Balb/c mice were fed 5% (w/w) cellulose and KGM or KH diets for 2 or 4 wk in a time-course study. Cecal total anaerobes, bifidobacteria, Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli counts, and short-chain fatty acid concentrations were determined. In a subsequent dose-dependent study, Balb/c mice were fed AIN-93 fiber-free diets supplemented with 2.5%, 5%, or 7.5% of KGM or KH for 4 wk. Anaerobes, bifidobacteria, C. perfringens, and E. coli were enumerated in the cecal content and feces. Results: KGM and KH significantly increased cecal anaerobes and bifidobacteria counts at weeks 2 and 4, respectively, compared with cellulose. In contrast, KGM and KH significantly decreased cecal C. perfringens counts only at week 4. Acetate and propionate concentrations in cecal contents were increased by KGM and KH diets at weeks 2 and 4, respectively. In the dose-dependent study, KH increased cecal bifidobacteria counts only at the 2.5% level but increased fecal bifidobacteria count and suppressed C. perfringens counts at each dose level as compared with KGM. Conclusion: Hydrolyzed glucomannan exerts a greater prebiotic effect than does KGM in Balb/c mice. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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