Table of Contents

    Topic review

    Dietary Fiber Sources

    Subjects: Zoology
    View times: 147
    Submitted by: Mohammed Hamdy Farouk


    Feed fiber composition is usually considered as one of the factors that have an impact on digestive tract microbiota composition. The investigations on the level of fermentation and in-vitro digestibility of different fibers are not well understood. The aim of the current entry is to determine the effect of different fiber sources on intestinal nutrient digestibility, hindgut fermentation, and microbial community composition under in vitro or in vivo conditions. For example, cornstalk treatment displayed higher digestibility compared to alfalfa hay and rice straw. Similar results were observed with in-vitro digestibility using intestinal digesta. Firmicutes were the most abundant phyla, and Lactobacillus were the prominent genera in response to alfalfa compared to rice straw and cornstalk treatments. In simulated in-vitro digestion, corn stalk fiber improved dry matter digestibility, while rice straw fiber improved volatile fatty acid content and fermentation efficiency. Alfalfa fiber improved the thickness of deposited Firmicutes and Lactobacillus.

    1. Introduction

    Dietary fibers are heterogeneous and consequently have different effects on both the gut microbial community and the host animal [1][2]. The main end products of bacterial fermentation of dietary fiber are short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) [3], vitamins [4], H2 and CO2 [5]. Moreover, the intestinal microbiota can control various biological processes such as nutrient absorption, lipid and glucose homeostasis, and systemic inflammation [6]. SCFAs can improve the well-being of the host animal. For instance, butyrate is the preferred energy source for colonic epithelium cells [7]. Such an energy source can decrease the rate of formation of secondary bile acids from primary bile acids, and protect the host against colorectal cancer. Additionally, higher concentrations of primary bile acids have been observed in non-atherosclerosis patients than in atherosclerosis patients [8][9]. Moreover, propionate reduces the biosynthesis of cholesterol [10], providing protection against cardiovascular disease (CVD) [11]. Most acetate molecules are absorbed from the circulatory system by the liver, and used as an energy source. They are also used as a substrate to form cholesterol and long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs) [12][13].

    2. Specifics

    The determination of fiber digestibility by in-vitro fermentation of feedstuff is applied in research and commercially to evaluate the nutritional value of fibrous feeds for livestock [14][15]. Although in-vivo determination fiber digestibility is regarded as standard for digestibility evaluation, it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive [16]. Therefore, in-vitro techniques are highly used and are often correlated with in-vivo estimates [17]. In-vitro digestion models are mostly used to investigate structural changes, digestibility, and liberation of feed components under stimulated gastrointestinal conditions.

    According to Williams et al. [18], dietary fiber contains non-digestible constituents, which physiologically influence digestion by rearranging digesta, modulating digestion processes, and acting as the main substrate for microbial fermentation. Feed fiber composition is usually considered as one of the factors that have an impact on digestive tract microbiota composition and the movement of dietary fiber constituents, leading to changes in the composition of microbiota [19]. However, the current known role of fiber constituents during digestion remains controversial, while the impact of high fiber feeds on digestion depends on the type, form, and the level of inclusion of fiber in diet [20]. Previous research has been performed on the digestibility of dietary fiber using in-vivo and in-vitro techniques. Recently, Zhao et al. [21] have studied the effect of wheat bran, corn bran, sugar beet pulp, oat bran, soybean hulls, or rice bran on ileal digestibility and the levels of volatile fatty acids in growing pigs; however, investigations on the level of fermentation, in-vitro digestibility and the microbiome composition of different fiber types are not well understood [3][4]. Therefore, the herein entry aims to illustrate the effects of different fiber sources on intestinal nutrient digestibility, hind gut fermentation, and gut microbial composition.

    The entry is from 10.3390/ani10040674


    1. J H Cummings; E W Pomare; W J Branch; C P Naylor; G T Macfarlane; Short chain fatty acids in human large intestine, portal, hepatic and venous blood.. Gut 1987, 28, 1221-1227, 10.1136/gut.28.10.1221.
    2. Nathalie M. Delzenne; Audrey M Neyrinck; Fredrik Bäckhed; Patrice D Cani; Targeting gut microbiota in obesity: effects of prebiotics and probiotics. Nature Reviews Endocrinology 2011, 7, 639-646, 10.1038/nrendo.2011.126.
    3. Hannah D. Holscher; Dietary fiber and prebiotics and the gastrointestinal microbiota.. Gut Microbes 2017, 8, 172-184, 10.1080/19490976.2017.1290756.
    4. Hailong Jiang; Dongsheng Che; Guixin Qin; Xiangjie Kong; Mohammed Hamdy Farouk; Effects of dietary non-fiber carbohydrates on composition and function of gut microbiome in monogastrics: a review. Protein & Peptide Letters 2017, 24, 432-441, 10.2174/0929866524666170223142452.
    5. A Csordas; Butyrate, aspirin and colorectal cancer. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 1996, 5, 221-231, 10.1097/00008469-199608000-00002.
    6. Andrea Zampa; Stefania Silvi; Roberto Fabiani; Guido Morozzi; Carla Orpianesi; Alberto Cresci; Effects of different digestible carbohydrates on bile acid metabolism and SCFA production by human gut micro-flora grown in an in vitro semi-continuous culture. Anaerobe 2004, 10, 19-26, 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2003.12.002.
    7. Gideon Charach; Itamar Grosskopf; Alexander Rabinovich; Michael Shochat; Moshe Weintraub; Pavel Rabinovich; The association of bile acid excretion and atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 2010, 4, 95-101, 10.1177/1756283X10388682.
    8. T M Wolever; P J Spadafora; S C Cunnane; P B Pencharz; Propionate inhibits incorporation of colonic [1,2-13C]acetate into plasma lipids in humans. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1995, 61, 1241-1247, 10.1093/ajcn/61.6.1241.
    9. Karen P. Scott; S. H. Duncan; H. J. Flint; Dietary fibre and the gut microbiota. Nutrition Bulletin 2008, 33, 201-211, 10.1111/j.1467-3010.2008.00706.x.
    10. Johanne G. Bloemen; Koen Venema; Marcel C. Van De Poll; Steven W. Olde Damink; Wim A. Buurman; Cornelis H. DeJong; Short chain fatty acids exchange across the gut and liver in humans measured at surgery. Clinical Nutrition 2009, 28, 657-661, 10.1016/j.clnu.2009.05.011.
    11. Gijs Den Besten; Karen Van Eunen; Albert K. Groen; Koen Venema; Dirk-Jan Reijngoud; Barbara M. Bakker; The role of short-chain fatty acids in the interplay between diet, gut microbiota, and host energy metabolism. Journal of Lipid Research 2013, 54, 2325-2340, 10.1194/jlr.R036012.
    12. Li Pan; Mohammed Hamdy Farouk; Guixin Qin; Yuan Zhao; Nan Bao; The Influences of Soybean Agglutinin and Functional Oligosaccharides on the Intestinal Tract of Monogastric Animals. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2018, 19, 554, 10.3390/ijms19020554.
    13. M.B. Hall; Comparisons of in vitro fermentation and high moisture forage processing methods for determination of neutral detergent fiber digestibility. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2015, 199, 127-136, 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.11.012.
    14. M. Alende; G.J. Lascano; T.C. Jenkins; L.E. Koch; G. Volpi-Lagreca; J.G. Andrae; Technical Note: Comparison of 4 methods for determining in vitro ruminal digestibility of annual ryegrass. The Professional Animal Scientist 2018, 34, 306-309, 10.15232/pas.2017-01688.
    15. T. Bohn; F. Carriere; Li Day; A. Deglaire; Lotti Egger; D. Freitas; Matt Golding; S. Le Feunteun; Adam Macierzanka; O. Menard; et al. 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 and Nutrition 2017, 58, 1-23, 10.1080/10408398.2017.1315362.
    16. Barbara Williams; Lucas J. Grant; Michael J. Gidley; Deirdre Mikkelsen; Gut Fermentation of Dietary Fibres: Physico-Chemistry of Plant Cell Walls and Implications for Health. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2017, 18, 2203, 10.3390/ijms18102203.
    17. Y. Luo; H. Chen; B. Yu; J. He; P. Zheng; X. Mao; J. Yu; J. Luo; Z. Huang; Daiwen Chen; et al. Dietary pea fibre alters the microbial community and fermentation with increase in fibre degradation-associated bacterial groups in the colon of pigs. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2017, 102, e254-e261, 10.1111/jpn.12736.
    18. Hurrell; Linking the Bioavailability of Iron Compounds to the Efficacy of Iron-Fortified Foods. International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research 2007, 77, 166-173, 10.1024/0300-9831.77.3.166.
    19. Asavela Ngalavu; Hailong Jiang; Saeed El‐Ashram; Guillermo Tellez-Isaias; Mohammed Hamdy Farouk; Pakama Siphelele Nyingwa; Adams Seidu; Thobela Louis Tyasi; Effect of Dietary Fiber Sources on In-Vitro Fermentation and Microbiota in Monogastrics. Animals 2020, 10, 674, 10.3390/ani10040674.
    20. Hailong Jiang; Dongsheng Che; Guixin Qin; Xiangjie Kong; Mohammed Hamdy Farouk; Effects of dietary non-fiber carbohydrates on composition and function of gut microbiome in monogastrics: a review. Protein & Peptide Letters 2017, 24, 432-441, 10.2174/0929866524666170223142452.
    21. Jinbiao Zhao; Yu Bai; Gang Zhang; Ling Liu; Changhua Lai; Relationship between Dietary Fiber Fermentation and Volatile Fatty Acids’ Concentration in Growing Pigs. Animals 2020, 10, 263, 10.3390/ani10020263.