Display options
Share it on

Food Sci Biotechnol. 2018 Dec 08;28(3):649-655. doi: 10.1007/s10068-018-0527-6. eCollection 2019 Jun.

Interactions between fecal bacteria, bile acids and components of tomato pomace.

Food science and biotechnology

Krzysztof Dziedzic, Danuta Górecka, Artur Szwengiel, Jan Michniewicz, Agnieszka Drożdżyńska, Jarosław Walkowiak

Affiliations

  1. 1Institute of Food Technology and Plant Origin, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 31, 60-624 Poznan, Poland.
  2. 2Department of Gastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Szpitalna 27/33, 60-572 Poznan, Poland.
  3. 3Department of Gastronomy Science and Functional Food, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 31, 60-624 Poznan, Poland.
  4. 4Department of Biotechnology and Food Microbiology, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 48, 60-627 Poznan, Poland.

PMID: 31093422 PMCID: PMC6484101 DOI: 10.1007/s10068-018-0527-6

Abstract

The tomato pomace obtained during processing as a residue of tomato processing from large industry. The interactions between tomato pomace and fecal bacteria, bile acids during in vitro digestion were studied. Digestion was carried out by using bioreactor in anaerobic conditions. Tomato pomace can significantly affect the count of fecal bacteria and the solubility of bile acids in in vitro digestion due to bonding ability of their proteins/peptides. The availability and use of bile acids does not only depend on the interactions between bile acids and bacteria, but also the interactions of bile acids with digested food components. Tomato pomace characterized high dietary fiber content and its fractions: 17.64-21.53% for cellulose and 13.48-18.63% for lignin. Given our results we supposed that fecal bacteria can use primary bile acids, as their source of energy in an environment where carbon availability is limited.

Keywords: Cholic acid; Deoxycholic acid; In vitro digestion; Lithocholic acid; Tomato waste

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with ethical standardsThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Nov;65(11):4949-56 - PubMed
  2. J Nutr. 2005 Apr;135(4):790-4 - PubMed
  3. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2005 Sep;29(4):625-51 - PubMed
  4. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2006 Apr;42(4):350-6 - PubMed
  5. J Med Microbiol. 2009 Dec;58(Pt 12):1533-41 - PubMed
  6. J Agric Food Chem. 2011 Nov 23;59(22):12047-53 - PubMed
  7. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2012 Feb;56(2):296-303 - PubMed
  8. Food Dig. 2011 Dec;2(1-3):52-61 - PubMed
  9. Food Chem. 2013 Aug 15;139(1-4):589-96 - PubMed
  10. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2013;59(3):213-23 - PubMed
  11. Front Microbiol. 2013 Dec 24;4:396 - PubMed
  12. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2014 May;30(3):332-8 - PubMed
  13. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014 Oct;80(20):6527-38 - PubMed
  14. J Sci Food Agric. 2015 Jul;95(9):1918-24 - PubMed
  15. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2015 Jun;38(6):1143-55 - PubMed
  16. Food Funct. 2015 Mar;6(3):1011-20 - PubMed
  17. J Sci Food Agric. 2016 Apr;96(6):1953-8 - PubMed
  18. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2016 Jun;71(2):151-7 - PubMed
  19. Anal Biochem. 2017 Jun 1;526:9-21 - PubMed

Publication Types