日 本 食 物 繊 維 学 会 誌Vol.10No.1(2006)

総 説

Prebiotics, and resistant .

Ian L. Brown1*, Masaru Yotsuzuka2, Anne Birkett3 & Anders Henriksson4

1 Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Wollongong 2National Starch Food Innovation , Nippon NSC Ltd. 3 National Starch Food Innovation, National Starch and Chemical Company 4Research and Development Department , DSM Food Specialties

Abstract

Resistant (RS) have been shown to have a wide variety of physiological benefits. Many of these positive effects arise from the fermentation of the RS by the colonic microflora. It has been observed that RS acts as a prebiotic by promoting the growth and beneficial activity of specific species of colonic bacteria while reducing the numbers of pathogenic micro- organisms. The use of RS is effective in stimulating the indigenous microflora to assist in the treatment of conditions such as bacterially induced diarrhoea and .

Although have often been linked with improving the health of the host, experimental results concerning their efficacy have been inconsistent. It has been suggested that "synbiotics", a combination of prebiotic and , would be useful in improving the reproducibility of the beneficial results obtained from Probiotics. RS offers the opportunity of providing "targeted synbiotics". In this case the RS has multiple functionalities through assisting in the protection of the viability of the probiotic during its passage through the upper and then in helping to induce the desired specific physiological effect in the colon. The preparation of a targeted synbiotic, incorporating a Bifidobacteria lactis and a RS from high amylose maize that is specifically fermented by this bacterial strain, has been shown to significantly increase the apoptotic index (a positive biomarker) in a rat model. The diversity of forms and types of RS offer the opportunity to prepare targeted synbiotics using selected probiotics to improve colonic health and/or treat various diseases that occur in the large bowel.

Key words: , prebiotic, probiotic, synbiotic, health benefits

microflora and changes to this profile can occur as the Probiotics and prebiotics. result of a variety of challenges, such as stress and disease, that can impact on our lives. Historically a select number of The important contribution that our intestinal microflora colonic , including bifidobacteria and (250-750 g of wet digesta weight with a bacterial lactobacilli, have been attributed with health promoting concentration of 1010to 1011cfu/g)1) can make to our health properties. The concept arose that the consumption of these "b and well-being continues to be a focus of international eneficial" microorganisms in foods or supplements research activity. There appears to be significant differences might be a means of improving colonic health and through in the composition and activity of each individual's colonic this route our general health. Fuller (1989) defined these

* corresponding author : PO Box 405 , Gymea, NSW 2227 Australia 1 Building 39, Northfields Avenue, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia 2 3-5-10 Shimbashi , Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0004 Japan 3 10 Finderne Avenue , Bridgewater, NJ 08807 USA 4 9 Moorebank Avenue , Moorebank, NSW 2710 Australia

1 J. Jpn. Assoc. Res. Vol. 10 No.l (2006)

" probiotics" as a "live microbial feed supplement which Even greater diversity of RS ingredients potentially exists beneficially affects the host animal by improving its by using more of the possible and/or permitted physical, intestinal microbial balance2)". Dairy foods, such as chemical and enzymatic modifications. There may be a yoghurt, containing live cultures of lactobacilli and/or further category of RS (potentially RS5) which relies on the bifidobacteria, have traditionally been the main source of ability of starch polymers, particularly amylose, and polar probiotics for humans. The consumption of probiotics has lipids to form inclusion complexes. These so called V- been suggested to provide a broad range of physiological structures (as determined by x-ray crystallography) have benefits through the changes they affect on the indigenous been observed in high amylose starches10) and can also be microflora3) but there have been concerns about the formed as a result of starch gelatinisation in rice' 1 and consistency, predictability and magnitude of the effect4),5) extruded starch12). These V-structures may be useful in protecting the starch derived material during food Researchers have also focused on "prebiotics" which processing and transit through the upper gastrointestinal are "non-digestible food ingredients that beneficially affect tract. the host by selectively stimulating the growth and/or activity of one or a limited number of bacteria in the colon"6) Western diets have been reported to contain relatively and which can help to improve the health of the host. small quantities of RS, usually in the region of 5 grams per Prebiotics offer the opportunity to obtain the desired person per day13),14)from such foods as bread, breakfast physiological outcome through their fermentative cereals, bars, noodles and biscuits, but it has been suggested interaction with desirable indigenous colonic bacteria but that as much as 15 to 20 grams a day is required to provide without the reliance on the potency of any introduced good colonic health15). The supplementation of staple foods probiotic. Although initial studies in this area focused on with ingredients rich in RS, that have mainly been obtained fermentable substrates such as , from HAM, has occurred since 19948). The inclusion of (FOS) and there have now been a these ingredients has occurred for a wide range of number of other dietary components, such as RS, identified functional and/or nutritional reasons16),17).This practice first which can act as a prebiotic. began in Australia but the use of RS ingredients now occurs in foods in Asia, North America and Europe. Resistant starches as prebiotics Although some initial clinical studies focused on sources

The portion of starch that resists digestion in the upper of RS obtained from raw potato and green the gastrointestinal tract has been classified into four general majority of experiments have utilised HAM starch and this

•ein vitro' categories, listed as RSI, RS2, RS3 and RS4, was utilised as the first source of RS in food reflecting the mechanism by which each achieves it supplementation8). HAM starch is particularly useful since resistance to digestive amylases7),8). A variety of RS its high gelatinisation temperature means that it can ingredients are now available, either commercially or maintain its granular form, which is the source of its experimentally, in flours prepared from high amylose resistance to digestive amylases, during many of the varieties of maize or corn (HAM), and wheat (RS 1), conditions commonly used in the preparation of foods. The extracted and/or hydrothermally prepared starches from impact of RS in the colon is generally associated with the amylomaize (RS2), recrystallised starch derived material beneficial stimulation of the colonic microflora (Table 1) from HAM and tapioca (RS3), and a chemically modified and its physiological action as a prebiotic (Table 2). It was starch (RS4) specifically prepared using diphosphate cross- observed that the inclusion of RS in the diet increased the linking from wheat, potato and maize9). The use of production of short chain fatty acids (SCFA), in particular a chemically modified starches is a potentially useful tendency to cause higher levels of fermentation, particularly innovation since it allows the preparation of RS from in terms of both amount and relative proportion, of the sources other than the traditional high amylose varieties. physiologically important butyrate'''' . RS represents a

2 日本 食 物 繊 維 学 会 誌Vol.10No.1(2006)

broad range of starch and starch derived materials, both bioavailability of micronutrients, such as calcium20) , native and modified, and individually these can be used to decreasing the symptoms of bacterially induced diarrhoea21), selectively stimulate the fermentative activity of beneficial improve insulin sensitivity22), being involved in microflora'9. The consumption of RS produces positive biotransformations such as the conversion of effects on a range of biomarkers of colonic health including phytoestrogenic materials into more bioactive forms23), decreases in transit time, pH and various toxic metabolites , increasing the immune response24) and potentially such as secondary bile acids, ammonia and phenols. The increasing lipid metabolism in the body25), 26). beneficial stimulation of the colonic microflora can also Previous studies have shown that the composition of the lead to advantageous consequences such as increasing the gastrointestinal microbiota can be influenced by diet27). It

Table 1 Prebiotic properties of resistant starches .

Table 2 Physiological benefits from the interaction of resistant starch and the colonic microflora (indigenous or added) J. Jpn. Assoc. Dietary Fiber Res. Vol. 10 No.1 (2006) has also been shown that RS obtained from retrograded TheAIN modified76 diet)) asdescribed by Wang etal31) potato starch can influence the fecal microbial profile by various , namely sucrose, waxy maize starch increasing the numbers of lactobacilli compared to those (WMS), high amylose maize starch (HAMS) or acetylated fed native granular potato starch28~. A recent experiment high amylose maize starch (AHAMS), under review using specific pathogen free mice (Balb/c, inbred, 2 months constituted 40% (w/w) of the diet. old) examined the impact of the consumption of resistant The HAMS had the effect of increasing the levels of starches, either from high amylose starch (80% amylose lactobacilli in the caecum and colon while decreasing the with 33.4% total dietary fibre) or this same starch number of enteric bacteria in the ileum, caecum and colon chemically modified by acetylation (4% acetyl value dry (Table 3). The other form of resistant starch used in the solids basis) on the composition of the microflora in the study, namely AHAMS, only increased number of stomach, ileum, caecum and colon29. The rats were fed a bifidobacteria in the caecum and colon. The RS sources in

Table 3 Impact of various dietary carbohydrates on the gastrointestinal microflora (Mean •} SD)

# Significantly different from animals fed AHAMS (p < 0.05) •˜•˜Significantly different from animals fed HAMS (p <0.01)

## Significantly different from animals fed AHAMS (p < 0.01)* Significantly different from animals fed HAMS (p < 0.05)

•˜ Significantly different from animals fed HAMS (p < 0.05)** Significantly different from animals fed HAMS (p < 0.01)

4 日本 食 物 繊 維 学 会 誌Vo1.10No.1(2006)

this trial, both unmodified and modified, demonstrated the appeared to attach to their surface41). A number of HAM ability to increase the numbers of beneficial microflora, based RS starches, varying only in the absence or presence bifidobacteria and lactobacilli, and decrease potentially of a specific chemical modification, were placed in aqueous pathogenic enteric bacteria, throughout the gastrointestinal suspension individually with different types of probiotic tract. However there appeared to be differences in the bacteria. The degree of adhesion exhibited by each interaction between each form of RS and the probioticstrain varied significantly37). Individual probiotics gastrointestinal microflora. The WMS is normally readily displayed a selective preference for particular RS40).There digestible but in the absence of cooking there is the has been some investigation of the mechanism of adhesion possibility that some starch may enter the large bowel. of the probiotic bacteria to the HAM starch granule and the However it has been shown that HAMS, with or without initial study indicated that a protein linkage was involved42). cooking, will enter the colon32)33).This trial supports earlier While attached the probiotic bacteria exist in a micro- studies demonstrating the prebiotic effects of unmodified environment that confers a degree of some protection31),40) and modified RS 19). The adhesion of the bacteria to the RS granules confers a The numerous potential types of RS, due to differences in measure of protection to the probiotic both during food the source, form, structure and chemistry of the starch and preparation and storage40),43),44)and after ingestion during starch derived materials, provide many opportunities to passage through the upper GI tract, particularly in relation tailor the RS as a versatile prebiotic to deliver the specific to survival in low pH conditions in the stomach and in the functional34) and physiological effects required35),36).It may presence of bile salts31),40).The term "Culture Protagonist" also be advantageous under certain circumstances to use a has been proposed to refer to a material that displays this combination of prebiotics, such as RS and FOS, to property45). Iyer and Kailasapathy44) found that RS in the stimulate a broader range of beneficial effects in the colon form of HAM starch (1% w/v) gave better protection to through the simulation of the microflora or by varying the acidophilus compared to FOS or inulin when rate or site of fermentation5), 37). incubated at 3 hours at pH2.0. However further increases in the amount of HAMS present did not improve upon the Culture Protagonist observed effect. After protecting the viability of the probiotic bacteria through to the colon the culture RS has demonstrated the ability to have a positive protagonist is then available to act as a prebiotic to influence on the viability of probiotics. A major issue for stimulate the growth and/or activity of beneficial probiotics being incorporated into and then being delivered microflora. in foods has been finding mechanisms of maintaining their viability. A variety of methods have been used to address Synbiotics and RS this situation including the selection of more robust probiotic strains, the manipulation of processing conditions Recently scientific attention has been given to the and the micro-encapsulation of the probiotics using a concept of "combining the effects of probiotics and variety of materials including, fats, proteins and various prebiotics to produce health-enhancing functional food hydrocolloids38). ingredients"4). The possibility of providing both the beneficial bacteria and a fermentable substrate is attractive Bacteria that are adhering to a surface are more resistant because it increases the potential of ensuring the desired to environmentall stresses39). In both laboratory and food physiological outcome or health related benefit (Table 4). processing experiments it was observed that the viability of A number of animal studies have examined the effects of probiotic strains was improved when granular HAM starch symbiotic combinations of RS and probiotics19),31)46). was included in the formulations40). The probiotic bacteria However rather than combining just any probiotic and were attracted to the surface of the starch granules and prebiotic the concept of using a "targeted symbiotic" offers

5 J. Jpn. Assoc. Dietary Fiber Res. Vol. 10 No.1 (2006) the opportunity of improving the outcome by matching the washout period of 14 days between each diet. The fecal probiotic to a specific prebiotic. This is important since the level of bifidobacteria for the subjects on the control diet desired outcome may be influenced by the impact of the was 7.41 log10 CFU/g. When only the probiotic was added targeted synbiotic on the number and/or activity of the to the diet there was a non significant reduction of 0.7 logo colonic microflora. CFU/g in the number of fecal bifidobacteria. However when the prebiotic HAMS was added to the diet, either RS (HAMS) acting as a prebiotic and alone or as part of the targeted synbiotic combination there as part of a symbiotic preparation was an increase in fecal bifidobacteria numbers of 1.72 log,, CFU/g and 1.62 log,0 CFU/g respectively (Table 5). A human cross-over study was conducted in Australia47) During this study it was also noted that the presence of where each subject consuming a control diet or a probiotic HAM starch either as a prebiotic or when provided as part diet ( lactis (5 x 109 log10 CFU/day) of a synbiotic also showed improved absorption of ingested in a capsule) or prebiotic (HAM starch (40g/day) magnesium (15% compared to the control; P < 0.05), consumed as a powder) or as a targeted synbiotic although the levels of absorption of other minerals such as combination of both the B. lactis and HAM starch. The and iron appeared to remain stable. HAM starch was a preferred substrate for this probiotic . Each diet was consumed over a 14 day period with a

Table 4 Some suggested potential benefits of synbiotics

Table 5 Impact of synbiotic combination of Bifidobacterium lactis and high amylose maize starch in humans.

p < 0.002 (Control compared to Prebiotic) p < 0.013 (Control compared to Synbiotic) p < 0.0004 (probiotic compared to Prebiotic) p < 0.003 (Probiotic compared to Synbiotic)

6 日本 食 物 繊 維 学 会 誌Vol.10No.1(2006)

opportunity also exists to achieve this end through the

Use of targeted synbiotics containing beneficial stimulation of our own indigenous microflora

resistant starch and bifidobacteria. through the consumption of prebiotics. The use of RS as a

culture protagonist offers a versatile range of substrates to

In a recent experiment two synbiotic preparations were help maintain the viability of probiotics in a wide range of

tested for their ability to enhance the effectiveness of foods during processing and after consumption during their

prebiotic RS (HAM starch) to increase the amount of transit through the upper gastrointestinal tract. In order to

apoptosis caused in the colonic tissue of rats after they had improve their efficacy synbiotic combinations of pro- and been exposed to the carcinogen azoxymethane48). It had prebiotics are a promising area for investigation. A already been shown that RS, in the form of HAM starch, synbiotic can achieve improved benefits through the

could increase the amount of apoptosis in this model in a manipulation of the colonic microflora, stimulating the dose responsive manner49). Two probiotics were included in production of beneficial metabolites such as SCFA's, the experiment, a Lactobacillus acidophilus and a facilitating the reduction in the numbers and activity of

Bifidobacterium lactis, but only the bifidobacteria could pathogenic bacteria, and through the prevention or

utilise the HAM starch directly. In this study neither of the treatment of the symptoms of various diseases. However, probiotics in the absence of the prebiotic increased the the best outcomes from mixtures of probiotics and

apoptotic response compared to the control diet. However prebiotics may arise from carefully matched rather than as the effect of the bifidobacteria on the apoptotic response random combinations. Targeted synbiotics offer a new

increased significantly when it was consumed with the means of promoting colonic health. This is particularly

dietary prebiotic HAM starch. The lactobacillus did not relevant given that the health status of the gastrointestinal

increase the apoptotic response when it was ingested alone or tract can also influence physiological activity elsewhere in

with HAM starch. The presence of a synbiotic combination , the body including lipid metabolism, immune response and

where the probiotic had been selected because of its ability to insulin sensitivity. In this regard targeted synbiotics offer a interact with the prebiotic in a specific manner, increased the potential new means of preventing or treating many socially magnitude of the apoptotic response by approximately 50% important health concerns, including obesity. when compared to the use of HAM starch alone. References

The mechanism by which the apoptotic response is 1) Topping, DL & Clifton, PM. (2001). Physiological increased appears to involve more than the production and Reviews. 81(3): 1031-1064.

presence of butyrate in the colonic lumen. Bifidobacteria has 2) Fuller, R. (1989). J. Appl. Bacteriol. 66: 365-378. not been reported to produce butyrate in the colon, however 3) Tannock, GW. (1999). Probiotics: a critical review. these bacteria do ferment the HAM starch directly and this Ed: GW Tannock. Horizon Scientific Press. l-4. may provide , either from the HAM starch directly 4) Reid, G. (1999). Probiotics: a critical review. Ed: GW or through the products of bacterial fermentation, to enhance Tannock. Horizon Scientific Press. 129-140. the growth and/or activity of other bacterial species that may 5) Topping, DL, Fukushima, M & Bird, AR. (2003). play a role in stimulating the apoptotic activity. Studies are Proceedings Nutr Soc. 62: 171-176. now underway to explore the long term effects of this 6) Gibson GR & Roberfroid MB. (1995). J Nutr. 125: targeted synbiotic combination in both animals and humans. 1401-1412. 7) Englyst, HN, Kingman, SM & Cummings JH. (1992). Conclusion European J Clinical Nutr. 46(2): S33-50. 8) Brown IL, McNaught, K & Moloney E. (1995). Food The use of probiotics has continued to increase globally Australia. 47(6): 272-275. based on the promise that they can improve our health as 9) Gelski J. (2006). Food Business News (7 March 2006). the pace of life and our level of stress increases. The 50-52.

7 J. Jpn. Assoc. Dietary Fiber Res. Vol. 10 No.1 (2006)

10) Zobel HF. (1992). Developments in 1:8.

Chemistry. RJ Alexander & HF Zobel eds. AACC, St. 27) Finegold, SM, Attebery, HR & Sutter, VL. (1974).

Paul, Minnesota. 1-36. Amer. J Clin Nutr. 27:1456-1469.

11) Priestly RJ. (1976). Food Chem. 1:5. 28) Kleessen, B, Stoof, G, Proll, J, Schmiedl, D, Noack, J

12) Mercier, C, Charbonniere, R, Gallant D & Guilbot, A. & Blaut, M. (1997). J Animal Sci. 75: 2453-2462. (1979). Polysaccharides in food. J.M.V. Blanshard, 29) Henriksson, A, Wang, ‡], Conway, PL & Brown, IL.

and J.R. Mitchell, eds. Butterworths, London. :153. (2006). The effect of chemically modified and

13) Dysseler, P & Hoffem, D. (1994). Proceedings of the unmodified high amylose maize (amylomaize) starch

concluding plenary meeting of EURESTA. N-G Asp, on the gastrointestinal microbiota of mice.

JMM van Amelsvoort & JGAJ Hautvast eds. Unpublished

EURESTA. 84-86. .30) Rickard, KL, Folino, M, McIntyre, A, Albert, ‡X, Muir,

14) Roberts, J, Jones, GP, Rutishauser, IHE, Birkett A & J & Young, GP. (1994). Proceedings of Nutrition

Gibbons, C. (2004). Nutrition & Dietetics. 61(2):98- Society of Australia.18: 57.

104. 31) Wang, X, Brown, IL, Evans, AJ & Conway, PL.

15) Baghurst PA, Baghurst KI & Record SJ. (1996). Food (1999a). J Applied Micro. 87: 631-639.

Australia. 48(3): S1-S35. 32) Muir, JG, Birkett, A, Brown, IL, Jones, G & O'Dea, K.

16) Brown, IL. (2004). J AOAC International. 87(3): 727- (1995). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 61: 82-89.

32. 33) Bird, AR, Brown, IL & Topping, DL. (2000). Current

17) Brown IL. (2004). J Jpn Assoc Dietary Fiber Res. 8(2): Issues in Intestinal . 1: 25-37.

148-150. 34) Crittenden, RG, Morris, LF, Harvey, ML, Tran, LT,

18) Nakanishi, S, Kataoka, K, Kuwahara, T & Ohnishi, Y. Mitchell, HL & Playne, MJ. (2005). J. Food Science.

(2003). Microbiol. Immunol. 47(12): 951-958. 70(1): M18-M23.

19) Wang, X, Brown, IL, Khaled, D, Mahoney, MC, 35) Nugent, AP. (2005). Nutrition Bulletin British

Evans, AJ & Conway, PL. (2002). J Applied Nutrition Foundation. 30(1): 27-54.

Microbiology. 93(3): 390-397. 36) Wang, X, Conway, PL, Brown, IL & Evans, AL

20) Lopez HW, Levrat-Verney M-A, Coudray C, Besson (1999b). J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65(11): 4848-

C, Krespine V, Messager A, Demigne C & Remesy C. 4854.

(2001). J Nutr.131: 1283-1289. 37) Topping, DL, Warhurst, M, Illman, RJ, Brown, IL,

21) Ramakrishna, BS, Venkataraman, S, Srinivasan, P, Playne, MJ & Bird, AR. (1997). Proc. Nutr. Soc. Aust.

Dash, P, Young, GP & Binder, HJ. (2000). New 21:134.

England Journal of Medicine. 342:308-313. 38) Suita-Cruce, P & Goulet, J. (2001). Food Technology

22) Robertson, MD, Bickerton, AS, Dennis, AL, Vidal, H 55(10): 36-42.

& Frayn, KN. (2005). Am J Clin Nutr. 82: 559-567. 36) Kirchman, D & Mitchell, R. (1982). Applied

23) Larkin T, Astheimer L, Price W & Brown IL. (2001). & Environmental Microbiology. 43: 200-209.

EUROFOODCHEM XI Biologically-active 40) Brown IL, Wang X, Topping DL, Playne MJ and

Phytochemicals in Foods: Analysis, metabolism, Conway PL. (1 998). Food Australia. 50(12):603-610.

bioavailability and Function (UK). 41) Brown IL, Wang X and Conway PL. (1999).

24) Morita T, Tanabe H, Takahashi K & Sugiyama K. Microbiology Australia. 20(4):18-19.

(2004). J Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 19: 303- 42) O' Riordan K, Muljadi N and Conway P. (2001). J.

313. Appl. Microbiology. 90:1-6.

25) Higgins JA. (2004). J AOAC International. 87(3): 761- 43) Brown, IL, Conway PL & Topping DL. (2000).

768. Scandinavian JNutr. 44(2): 53-58.

26) Higgins JA, Higbee DR, Donahoo WT, Brown IL, Bell 44) Iyer C and Kailasapathy K. (2005). J Food Sci.

ML & Bessesen DH. (2004). Nutrition & Metabolism, 70(1):M18-M23.

8 日本 食 物 繊 維 学 会 誌Vo1.10No.1(2006)

45) Brown, IL, Warhurst, M, Arcot, J, Playne, M, Illman, 53) Hylla, S, Gostner, A, Dusel, G, Anger, H, et al. (1998). RJ & Topping, DL. (1997). J. Nutr. 127: 1822-1827. Am J Clin Nutr. 67(1):136-42. 46) Conway PL. (2001). Scandinavian Journal of 54) Grubben, MJ, van den Braak, CC, Essenberg, M, Nutrition. 45:13-21. Olthof, M, et al. (2001). Dig Dis Sci. 46(4): 750-6. 47) Henriksson, A. (2001). Effect of oral administration 55) Phillips, J, Muir, JG, Birkett, A, Lu, ZX, et al. (1.995). of probiotics and prebiotics on gut health. UNSW & Am J Clin Nutr. 62(1): 121-30. CRC for Food Industry Innovation. Unpublished. 56) Heijnen, ML, van Amelsvoort, JM, Deurenberg, P & 48) Le Leu RK, Brown IL, Hu Y, Bird AR, Jackson M, Beynen, AC (1998). Am J Clin Nutr. 67(2): 322-31. Esterman A & Young GP. (2005). J Nutr. 135: 996- 57) Jenkins, DJ, Vuksan, V, Kendall, CW, Wursch, P, et 1001. al. (1998). J Am Coll Nutr.17(6): 609-16. 49) Le Leu RK, Brown IL, Hu Y & Young GP. (2003). 58) Silvester, KR, Bingham, SA, Pollock, JR, Cummings, Carcinogenesis.24(8): 1347-1352. JH, et al. (1997). Nutr Cancer. 29(1):13-23. 50) Birkett, A, Muir, J, Phillips, J, Jones, G, et al. (1996). 59) Heijnen, M L, van Amelsvoort, JM, Deurenberg, P & Am J Clin Nutr. 63(5): 766-72. Beynen, AC. (1996). Am J Clin Nutr. 64(3): 312-8. 51) Muir, JG, Yeow, EG, Keogh, J, Pizzey, C, et al. 60) Robertson, MD, Currie, JM, Morgan, LM, Jewell, DP (2004). Am J Clin Nutr. 79(6):1020-8. & Frayn, KN. (2003). Diabetologia.46(5): 659-665. 52) Noakes, M, Clifton, PM, Nestel, PJ, Le Leu, R, et al. (1996). Am J Clin Nutr. 64(6): 944-51. (平成18年7月5日 受 理) J. Jpn. Assoc. Dietary Fiber Res. Vol. 10 No.1 (2006)

プ レバ イオ テイクス 、シ ンバ イオ テイクス 及 び レ ジス タ ン トス ター チ

Ian L. Brown1, Masaru Yotsuzuka2, Anne Birkett3 & Anders Henriksson4

1 Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Wollongong 2National Starch Food Innovation , Nippon NSC Ltd. 3 National Starch Food Innovation, National Starch and Chemical Company 4Research and Development Department , DSM Food Specialties

和文要 旨

レジス タ ン トス ター チ(RS)は 多彩 な生理 学 的機 能 を発 揮 す るが,そ の効 果 の 多 くはRSの 大 腸 内菌 叢 に よる 醗 酵 に 由来す る・RSは 特 定の 腸 内益性 菌 の増殖 を促 進 す る と と もに多 くの病原 性細 菌 を抑 制す るこ とに よ りフ・ レバ イ オテ ィクス と して機能 す る こ とが 観察 されて い る。RSは 腸 内常 在 菌叢 を活 性化 す るの で細 菌性 の 下痢 や炎 症 性大 腸 炎 な どの治癒 を助 け る。

プ ロバ イオ テ ィクスは宿 主 の健 康 を改 善す る と考 え られ て きたが ,そ の 有効 性 に関 す る検証 結 果 は必ず しも 一 貫 性 の あ る もの で は なか っ た。 この よ うな中 で,プ ロバ イオ テ ィクス とプ レバ イオ テ ィクス を組 み 合 わせ た

『シ ンバ イオ テ ィクス』 が プ ロバ イオ テ ィ クスの有 益 な効 果 の 再現 性 を改善 す る もの と して提案 され て い る。 ま た・RSは 特 定 の プ ロバ イオ テ ィクス を狙 った標 的 シ ンバ イオ テ ィ クス開発 の可 能性 を提 供 す る。 この場 合,RS は上部 消 化 管内 通過 に際 して プ ロバ イオテ ィクス を保 護 す る とと もに大 腸 内 で好 ま しい特 定 の生 理機 能 を誘 発す る な ど,多 面 的 な機 能 を発 揮 す る。Bifidobacterialactisと そ れが好 んで醗 酵 す るハ イア ミロー一スコ ー ン起 源 のRS とを配 合 した 『シ ンバ イオテ ィ クス』 は,大 ・直 腸 が んのモ デ ルラ ッ トで ア ポ トー シス係 数 を顕 著 に高 め る こ と が 示 され て い る。RSは,そ の 多様 性 の た め,目 的 に応 じて適 切 な プロバ イ オテ ィク ス を用 い て標 的 特 異 的 な

『シ ンバ イオテ ィクス』 を開発 し,大 腸 の健 康 の改善 や疾 患 の治療 に寄与 す る機 会 を提 供 す る。

10