Evolution of in vitro digestibility techniques: a systematic review
I. Chernukha,
A. Meliashchenia,
I. Kaltovich,
E. Vasilevskaya,
M. Aryzina,
T. Smaliak,
T. Senchenko,
L. Fedulova https://doi.org/10.21323/2414-438X-2021-6-4-300-310
Аннотация
The inability to reproduce certain digestive processes in vivo, high research costs and ethical aspects have led to the development of a large number of in vitro digestion models. These models allow us to take into account various factors of modeling complex multistage physiological processes occurring in the gastrointestinal tract, which makes them promising and widely used. A significant part of in vitro methods includes assessment by enzymatic digestion and are based on the calculation of nitrogen remaining after digestion in relation to the initial total nitrogen (according to the Dumas, Kjeldahl method, spectrophotometric or chromatographic method). There are also a number of titrometric methods (pH‑stat), which are mainly used to assess the digestibility of feed, most successfully for aquatic animals due to the simplicity of their digestive tract. Methods for assessing the digestibility of food products by enzymatic digestion have undergone various stages of evolution (since 1947) and have been widely modified by including various enzymes (pepsin, trypsin, pancreatin, erepsin, etc.) in model systems, indices for various products have been determined on their basis (pepsin-digest-residue (PDR) index, 1956; pepsin pancreatin digest (PPD) index, 1964; pepsin digest dialysate (PDD), 1989). As a result, a single protocol was formed to study the digestibility of food — INFOGEST (2014–2019), which includes three stages of digestion (oral, gastric and intestinal). It allows researchers to accurately reproduce the conditions of the human gastrointestinal tract and is widely used by scientists around the world.
Об авторах
I. Chernukha
V.M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems
Россия
Россия
A. Meliashchenia
The Scientific and Practical Center for Foodstuffs of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
Беларусь
Беларусь
I. Kaltovich
Institute for Meat and Dairy Industry
Беларусь
Беларусь
E. Vasilevskaya
V.M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems
Россия
Россия
M. Aryzina
V.M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems
Россия
Россия
T. Smaliak
Institute for Meat and Dairy Industry
Беларусь
Беларусь
T. Senchenko
Institute for Meat and Dairy Industry
Беларусь
Беларусь
L. Fedulova
V.M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems
Россия
Россия
Список литературы
1. Lucas-González, R., Viuda-Martos, M., Pérez-Alvarez, J. A., Fernández-López, J. (2018). In vitro digestion models suitable for foods: Opportunities for new fields of application and challenges. Food Research International, 107, 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.055
2. Bohn, T., Carriere, F., Day, L., Deglaire, A., Egger, L., Freitas, D. et al. (2018). Correlation between in vitro and in vivo data on food digestion. What can we predict with static in vitro digestion models? Critical Reviews in Food Science Nutrition, 58(13), 2239–2261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.1315362
3. Fedulova, L.V., Vasilevskaya, E.R., Kotenkova, E.A., Kalinova, E.A. (2018). Algorithm of in vitro assessment for products containing bioactive substances. Vsyo o myase, 6, 47–49. https://doi.org/10.21323/2071–2499–2018–6–47–49 (In Russian)
4. Shani-Levi, C., Alvito, P., Andrés, A., Assunçao, R., Barberá, R., Blanquet-Diot, S. et al. (2017). Extending in vitro digestion models to specific human populations: Perspectives, practical tools and bio-relevant information. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 60, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.10.017
5. Cottyn, B.G., De Boever, J.L., Vanacker, J.M. (1990). The estimation of nutritive value of dairy cattle feed. Archiv für Tierernaehrung, 40(10), 969–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450399009428448
6. Duskaev, G.K., Levakhin, G.I., Nurzhanov, B.S., Rysayev, A.F., Meshcheryakov, A.G. (2016). Results of researches on digestibility in vitro and in situ of developed feed additives. Herald of Beef Cattle Breeding, 4(96), 126–131. (In Russian)
7. Hristov, A.N., Bannink, A., Crompton, L.A., Huhtanen, P., Kreuzer, M., McGee, M. et al. (2019). Invited review: Nitrogen in ruminant nutrition: A review of measurement techniques. Journal of Dairy Science, 102(7), 5811–5852. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018–15829
8. Bryan, D.D.S.L., Classen, H.L. (2020). In vitro methods of assessing protein quality for poultry. Animals, 10(4), Article 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040551
9. Golovko, E.N., Omarov, M.O., Slesareva, O.A. (2012). Correction of digestibility of protein for pigs at level of terminal ileum. Processimg of the North Caucasus Scientific Research Institute of Animal Husbandry, 1(1), 75–80. (In Russian)
10. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A. et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemology, 62(10), e1-e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
11. Eckfeldt, G.A., Sheffner, A.L., Spector, H. (1956). The pepsin-digest-residue (PDR) amino acid index of net protein utilization. The Journal of Nutrition, 60(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/60.1.105
12. Raghunath, M., Rao, B.S.N. (1984). Relationship between relative protein value and somein vitro indices of protein quality. Journal of Biosciences, 6(5), 655–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02702707
13. Akeson, W.R., Stahmann, M.A. (1964). A Pepsin Pancreatin Digest index of protein quality evaluation. The Journal of Nutrition, 83(3), 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/83.3.257
14. Kennedy, J.F., Noy, R.J., Stead, J.A., White, C.A. (1989). A new rapid enzyme digestion method for predicting in vitro protein quality (PDD index). Food Chemistry, 32(4), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308–8146(89)90087–3
15. Owusu-Apenten, R. (2002). Food protein analysis: quantitative effects on processing (1st ed.). New York: CRC Press, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203910580
16. Gauthier, S.F., Vachon C., Savoie L. (1986). Enzymatic conditions of an in vitro method to study protein digestion. Journal of Food Science, 51(4), 960–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365–2621.1986.tb11208.x
17. Pokrovskiy, A.A., Erganov, I.D. (1965). The attackability of food proteins by proteolytic enzymes in vitro. Problems of Nutrition, 3, 38–44. (In Russian)
18. Vasilevskaya, E.R., Kotenkova, E.A., Lukinova, E.A., Kalinova, E.A. (2017) Research methodology of Sus scrofa tissue extracts protein-peptide components. Theory and practice of meat processing, 2(3), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.21323/2414–438X–2017–2–3–79–85
19. Slonimskii, G.L., Braudom E. E., Ertanov, I.D. et al. (1970). The atackability of proteins in the composition of new foods by proteolytic enzymes. Problems of Nutrition, 6, 25–31. (In Russian)
20. Volova, T.G., Barashkov, V.A. (2010). Characteristics of proteins synthesized by hydrogen-oxidizing microorganisms. Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology, 46(6), 574–579. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0003683810060037
21. Dorikhovich, A.N., Ostrik, A.S., Tsyrik, N.A. (1987). Exploded cereals are a new type of non-traditional raw materials in confectionery production. Food Industry, 2, 34–35. (In Russian)
22. Kovalev, N. I., Ivanov, E. L., Stepanov, V. N. (1974). The effect of culinary processing on the vitamin content and trace elements in seeds of leguminous plants. [Vliianie kulinarnoi obrabotki na soderzhanie vitaminov i mikroelementov v semenakh bobovykh]. Die Nahrung, 18(5), 511.
23. Tsyladze, E.A., Egiazaryan, S.A. (1975). Digestibility of meat proteins of herbivorous fish by proteolytic enzymes. Trudy VNIRO, 105, 128–130. (In Russian)
24. Krylova, V.B., Gustova, T.V. (2016). Aspects of the destructive changes in the main nutrients of canned meat in pieces «stewed beef of the top grade» under the non-normative temperature and humidity conditions of storage. Theory and practice of meat processing, 1(3), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.21323/2414–438X‑2016–1–3–21–34 (In Russian)
25. Rudakova, Т. (2017). Enzymetic method for determination of biological value of dairy products with grain ingredients for baby nutrition. Grain Products and Mixed Fodder’s. https://doi.org/10.15673/gpmf.v17i2.525 (In Ukrainian)
26. Antipova, L.V., Glotova, I.A., Rogov, I.A. (2004). Methods of research of meat and meat products. Moscow: Kolos, 376. (In Russian)
27. Lipatov, N.N., Yudina, S.B., Lisitsyn, A.B. (1994). Improved device and methodology for determining the digestibility of proteins “in vitro”. Problems of Nutrition, 4, 43–44. (In Russian)
28. Bologa, M.K., Sprinchan, E.G., Bologa, A.M. (2008). Isolation of lactulose product and protein-mineral concentrate. Electronic processing of materials, 5, 79–84. (In Russian)
29. Savich, N.M., Zholdaspaeva, G.M. (1993) Proteolysis of prolamine proteins in grain and its significance in biochemistry and biotechnology. Biotechnology in crop breeding. Almaty: Izd. Kazahskoj akad. sel’skohozyajstvennyh nauk. 133. (In Russian)
30. Maga, J.A., Lorenz, K., Onayemi, O.I. (1973). Digestive acceptability of proteins as measured by the initial rate of in vitro proteolysis. Journal of Food Science, 38(1), 173–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365–2621.1973.tb02806.x
31. Peiretti P. G. (2020). In Vitro Digestibility in Animal Nutritional Studies. MDPI: Basel, Switzerland. 378. https://doi.org/10.3390/books978–3–03936–460–2.
32. Hsu, H.W., Vavak, D.L., Satterlee, L.D., Miller, G.A. (1977). A multienzyme technique for estimating protein digestibility. Journal of Food Science, 42(5), 1269–1273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365–2621.1977.tb14476.x
33. Satterlee, L.D., Kendrick, J.G., Marshall, H.F., Jewell, D.K., Ali, R.A., Heckman, M.M. et al. (1982). In vitro assay for predicting protein efficiency ratio as measured by rat bioassay: collaborative study. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 65(4), 798–809. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/65.4.798
34. Pedersen, B., Eggum, B.O. (1983). Prediction of protein digestibility by an in vitro enzymatic pH‑stat procedure. Zeitschrift Für Tierphysiologie Tierernährung Und Futtermittelkunde, 49 (1–5), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439–0396.1983.tb00808.x
35. Clunies, M., Leeson, S. (1984). In vitro estimation of dry matter and crude protein digestibility. Poultry Science, 63(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0630089
36. Tibbetts, S.M., Milley, J.E., Ross, N.W., Verreth, J.A.J., Lall, S.P. (2011). In vitro pH-Stat protein hydrolysis of feed ingredients for Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua. 1. Development of the method. Aquaculture, 319(3–4), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.07.013
37. Mirzakhani, M. K., Kenari, A.A., Motamedzadegan, A. (2018). Prediction of apparent protein digestibility by in vitro pH‑stat degree of protein hydrolysis with species-specific enzymes for Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baeri, Brandt 1869). Aquaculture, 496, 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.07.014
38. Wang, R., Mohammadi, M., Mahboubi, A., Taherzadeh, M.J. (2021). In-vitro digestion models: a critical review for human and fish and a protocol for in-vitro digestion in fish. Bioengineered, 12(1), 3040–3064. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2021.1940769
39. Brodkorb, A., Egger, L., Alminger, M., Alvito, P., Assunção, R., Balance, S. et al. (2019) INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food digestion. Nature Protocols, 14(4), 991–1014. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596–018–0119–1
40. Colombo, R., Ferron, L., Frosi, I., Papetti, A. (2021). Advances in static in vitro digestion models after COST action Infogest consensus protocol. Food and Function. 12(17), 7619–7636. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1FO01089A
41. Ariëns, R.M.C., Bastiaan-Net, S., van de Berg-Somhorst D.B.P.M., El Bachrioui, K., Boudewijn, A., van den Dool R. T.M. et al. (2021). Comparing nutritional and digestibility aspects of sustainable proteins using the INFOGEST digestion protocol. Journal of Functional Foods, 87, Article 104748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2021.104748
42. Mansilla, W.D., Marinangeli, C.P.F., Cargo-Froom, C., Franczyk, A., House, J.D., Elango, R. et al. (2020). Comparison of methodologies used to define the protein quality of human foods and support regulatory claims. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 45(9), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm‑2019–0757
43. Vasilevskaya, E.R., Akhremko, A.G., Gryzlova, A.S., Ivanova, E.A. (2019). In vitro methodology for digestion and absorption of food proteins study. Vsyo o myase, 6, 42–44. https://doi.org/10.21323/2071–2499–2019–6–42–44 (In Russian)
44. Giang, T.M., Gaucel, S., Brestaz, P., Anton, M., Meynier, A., Trelea I. C. et al. (2016). Dynamic modeling of in vitro lipid digestion: Individual fatty acid release and bioaccessibility kinetics. Food Chemistry, 194, 1180–1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.08.125
45. Elia, M, Cummings, J.H. (2007). Physiological aspects of energy metabolism and gastrointestinal effects of carbohydrates. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, S40-S74. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602938
46. Astwood, J.D., Leach, J.N., Fuchs, R.L. (1996). Stability of food allergens to digestion in vitro. Nature Biotechnology, 14(10), 1269–1273. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1096–1269
47. Fu, T.-J. (2002). Digestion stability as a criterion for protein allergenicity assessment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 964(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749–6632.2002.tb04135.x
48. Ladics, G.S., Selgrade, M.K. (2009). Identifying food proteins with allergenic potential: evolution of approaches to safety assessment and research to provide additional tools. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 54(3SUPPL), S2-S6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.10.010
49. Fernandez, A., Mills, E.N.C., Koning, F., Moreno, F.J. (2019). Safety assessment of immune-mediated adverse reactions to novel food proteins. Trends in Biotechnology, 37(8), 796–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.03.010
50. Norton, J.E., Espinosa, Gonzalez Espinosa, Y., Watson, R.L., Spyropoulos, F., Norton, I.T. (2015). Functional food microstructures for macronutrient release and delivery. Food and Function, 6(3), 663–678. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4fo00965g
51. Silva, V., Jayasinghe, M.A., Senadheera, S.A., Ranaweera, K.K.D.S. (2020). Determination of macronutrient compositions in selected, frequently consumed cereals, cereal based foods, legumes and pulses prepared according to common culinary methods in Sri Lanka. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 57(3), 816–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197–019–04085-x
52. Capriotti, A.L., Cavaliere, C., Piovesana, S., Samperi, R., Laganà, A. (2016). Recent trends in the analysis of bioactive peptides in milk and dairy products. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 408(11), 2677–2685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216–016–9303–8
53. Bechaux, J., Gatellier, P., Le Page, J.-F., Drillet, Y., Sante-Lhoutellier, V. (2019). A comprehensive review of bioactive peptides obtained from animal byproducts and their applications. Food and Function, 10(10), 6244–6266. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9FO01546A
54. Wojtunik-Kulesza, K., Oniszczuk, A., Oniszczuk, T., Combrzyński, M., Nowakowska, D., Matwijczuk, A. (2020). Influence of in vitro digestion on composition, bioaccessibility and antioxidant activity of food polyphenols — A non-systematic review. Nutrients, 12(5), Article 1401. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12051401
55. Tarascou, I., Souquet, J.M., Mazauric, J.P., Carrillo, S., Coq, S., Canon, F. et al. (2010). The hidden face of food phenolic composition. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 501(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abb.2010.03.018
56. Delimont, N.M., Rosenkranz, S.K., Haub, M.D., Lindshield, B.L. (2017). Salivary proline-rich protein may reduce tannin-iron chelation: a systematic narrative review. Nutrition and Metabolism, 14(1), Article 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986–017–0197-z
57. Cui, X.-Y., Xiang, P., He, R.-W., Juhasz, A., Ma, L.Q. (2016). Advances in in vitro methods to evaluate oral bioaccessibility of PAHs and PBDEs in environmental matrices. Chemosphere, 150, 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.02.041
58. Audisio, M.C. (2017) Gram-positive bacteria with probiotic potential for the Apis mellifera L. honey bee: the experience in the northwest of Argentina. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 9(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602–016–9231–0
Рецензия
Для цитирования:
, , , , , , , . Теория и практика переработки мяса. 2021;6(4):300-310. https://doi.org/10.21323/2414-438X-2021-6-4-300-310
For citation:
Chernukha I.M., Meliashchenia A.V., Kaltovich I.V., Vasilevskaya E.R., Aryzina M.A., Smaliak T.M., Senchenko T.V., Fedulova L.V. Evolution of in vitro digestibility techniques: a systematic review. Theory and practice of meat processing. 2021;6(4):300-310. https://doi.org/10.21323/2414-438X-2021-6-4-300-310
Просмотров:
721
Послать статью по эл. почте 