* (i) Crude polysaccharide-rich extract (>1 kDa) (CE)
(ii) Depolymerised crude extract (>1 kDa) (DE)
|
L. digitata
|
(i) (CE) Hot acid and ethanol precipitation (0.1 M HCl)
(ii) (DE) Fenton’s reaction with iron and hydrogen peroxide
|
Simulated in vitro colonic digestion
|
After 24 h fermentation, compared to cellulose control:
-
CE increased relative abundance of Porphyromonadaceae (p = 0.043), Lachnospiraceae (p = 0.015) and Dialister (p = 0.005); and reduced Fibrobacteraceae (p = 0.026) Streptococcaceae (p = 0.025), Ruminococcus, (p = 0.027) Streptococcus (p = 0.022) and Fibrobacter (p = 0.026).
-
DE increased Parabacteroides (p = 0.017) Lachnospiraceae (p = 0.039), Dialister (p = 0.008) and reduced Alcaligenaceae (a Proteobacterium) (p = 0.030) and Peptostreptococcaceae Incertae Sedis (p = 0.027).
CE and DE increased total SCFA, acetic, propionic, and butyric acid (all p < 0.05) after 10, 24, 36, and 48 h.
Ratio of propionate to acetate beneficially reduced by CE and DE (both p < 0.05) after 24, 36, and 48 h.
|
[147] |
* Porphyran, ulvan and laminarin
|
Pyropia, Ulva and Laminaria
|
Ethanol (80%)
|
Simulated in vitro colonic digestion
|
After 24 h fermentation, growth of bacterial genera compared to fructooligosaccharide (FOS) control:
Porphyran increased Lactobacilli (10.7%, p < 0.05).
Ulvan increased Bacteroides (6.7%, p < 0.05).
Laminarin increased Bifidobacteria (8.3%, p < 0.05) and Bacteroides (13.8%, p < 0.05).
Negative results: no significant increase at 24 h in total SCFA, butyrate, lactate or acetate by laminarin, ulvan or porpyran compared to FOS.
|
[132] |
* (i) Crude extract fraction (CF)
(ii) Low MW fraction (LPF)
(iii) High MW fraction (HPF)
|
E. radiata
|
(i) Enzymatic (Viscozyme-β-glucanase, hemicellulase, arabanase, xylanase)
(ii and iii) Viscozyme and ethanol precipitation
|
Simulated in vitro colonic digestion
|
Increases (log10 cells/mL) after 24 h fermentation (all p < 0.05 compared to controls):
-
▪ Bacteroidetes (CF 7.36 ± 0.03, LPF 7.21 ± 0.05 and HPF 7.28 ± 0.04) greater than cellulose (6.40 ± 0.05).
-
▪ Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (CF 6.34 ± 0.05, LPF 6.42 ± 0.08) greater than inulin (6.17 ± 0.04) and cellulose (6.07 ± 0.06).
-
▪ Clostridium coccoides (CF 8.29 ± 0.03, LPF 8.56 ± 0.06) greater than inulin (7.57 ± 0.06) and cellulose (7.40 ± 0.05)
-
▪ Escherichia coli (CF 7.16 ± 0.04, LPF 7.31 ± 0.05 and HPF 6.96 ± 0.04) greater than cellulose (6.81± 0.03)
-
▪ Bifidobacteria (LPF 7.11 ± 0.12) greater than cellulose (6.34 ± 0.06)
-
▪ Lactobacilli (LPF 6.56 ± 0.05) greater than inulin (6.07 ± 0.05) and cellulose (5.11 ± 0.06)
SCFA production after 24 h (all p < 0.05):
-
▪ Total SCFA in CF (97.3 μmol/mL), LPF (89.0 μmol/mL) greater than inulin positive control. HPF (68.9 μmol/mL) greater than cellulose (39.7 μmol/mL) but ~20% lower than inulin.
-
▪ Acetic acid HPF (40.8 μmol/mL) > cellulose
-
▪ Propionic acid CF (54.6 μmol/mL) > inulin and cellulose
-
▪ Butyric acid LPF (17.3 μmol/mL) > inulin and cellulose
Ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes beneficially lowered: HPF (1.08 ± 0.008), CF (1.14 ± 0.001) and LPF (1.18 ± 0.006) compared to cellulose (1.22 ± 0.004). Ratio of propionic acid to acetic acid beneficially reduced: 0.47 ± 0.04 (CF), 0.62 ± 0.06 (LPF) and 2.15 ± 0.06 (HPF) compared to 4.08 ± 0.18 (inulin) and 5.73 ± 0.13 (cellulose).
|
[10] |
* (i) Low MW polysaccharide (LMW) (primarily laminarin)
(ii) High MW polysaccharide acidic water extract (HMW) (primarily fucoidan and alginate)
(iii) High MW polysaccharide water and ethanol precipitate (HMWW) (primarily fucoidan and alginate)
|
E. radiata
|
(i) Enzymatic (cellulase)
(ii) Acidic water (pH 4.5)
(iii) Water and ethanol precipitation
|
Simulated in vitro colonic digestion
|
24 h post fermentation (all differences p < 0.05):
(i) LMW increased Bifidobacteria from 5.51 ± 0.15 log10 cells/mL (in cellulose fermented control) to 6.55 ± 0.08 log10 cells/mL; Lactobacillus from 4.73 ± 0.13 (cellulose) to 5.28 ± 0.19 log10 cells/mL and Bacteroidetes from 5.09 ± 0.06 (cellulose) to 6.02 ± 0.09 log10 cells/mL. Negative results: no significant increase by LMW on populations of F. prausnitzii, Clostridium leptum, Ruminococcus bromii, E. coli or Enterococcus.
(ii) HMW increased C. coccoides from 5.74 ± 0.75 (cellulose) to 7.07 ± 0.04 log10 cells/mL, E. coli from 6.09 ± 0.41 (cellulose) to 7.52 ± 0.07 log10 cells/mL and Enterococcus from 5.02 ± 0.31 (cellulose) to 6.63 ± 0.11 log10 cells/mL. Negative results: no significant increase by HMW in any other bacterial populations.
(iii) HMWW increased E. coli from 6.09 ± 0.41 (cellulose) to 7.01 ± 0.17 log10 cells/mL and Enterococcus from 5.02 ± 0.31 (cellulose) to 5.80 ± 0.33 log10 cells/mL.
HMWW also had a negative effect on several bacterial populations—Bifidobacteria reduced from 5.51 ± 0.15 (cellulose) to 3.21 ± 0.61 log10 cells/mL, Bacteroidetes from 5.09 ± 0.06 (cellulose) to 4.08 ± 0.12 log10 cells/mL, Lactobacillus 4.73 ± 0.13 log10 cells/mL (cellulose) to not detected (ND), C. coccoides from 5.74 ± 0.75 log10 cells/mL (cellulose) to ND, C. leptum from 6.23 ± 0.28 log10 cells/mL (cellulose) to ND and R. bromii from 6.20 ± 0.06 (cellulose) to 4.87 ± 0.29 log10 cells/mL.
SCFA increases in seaweed ferments vs. cellulose control after 24 h (all p < 0.05):
-
▪ Total SCFA 63.42 ± 1.76 vs. 18.59 ± 0.14 μmol/mL
-
▪ Acetic acid 22.81 ± 0.91 vs. 9.09 ± 0.07 μmol/mL
-
▪ Propionic acid 29.61 ± 2.60 vs. 3.24 ± 0.04 μmol/mL
-
▪ Butyric acid 9.22 ± 1.38 vs. 2.02 ± 0.03 μmol/mL
-
2. HMW
-
▪ Total SCFA 62.86 ± 0.20 vs. 18.59 ± 0.14 μmol/mL
-
▪ Acetic acid 20.59 ± 0.21 vs. 9.09 ± 0.07 μmol/mL
-
▪ Propionic acid 36.79 ± 0.57 vs. 36.79 ± 0.57 μmol/mL
-
▪ Butyric acid 4.27 ± 0.48 vs. 2.02 ± 0.03 μmol/mL
-
3. HMWW
-
▪ Total SCFA 50.70 ± 1.10 vs. 18.59 ± 0.14 μmol/mL
-
▪ Acetic acid 27.05 ± 0.58 vs. 9.09 ± 0.07 μmol/mL
-
▪ Propionic acid 18.20 ± 0.38 vs. 3.24 ± 0.04 μmol/mL
-
▪ Butyric acid—no significant increase
|
[148] |
** (i) Polysaccharide fraction (PF) (primarily fucoidan and alginate)
(ii) Whole seaweed (WS)
|
E. radiata
|
(i) Enzymatic (Viscozyme)
(ii) Whole dried E. radiata
|
In vivo trial with healthy Sprague-Dawley rats (7 d, 5% PF or 5% WS added to feed)
|
After 7 days supplementation (all differences p < 0.05):
Reduction in potentially pathogenic Enterococci in WS group (6.04 ± 0.09 log10 cells/mL) vs. control (5.59 ± 0.08 log10 cells/mL)
Increase in butyrate-producing F. prausnitzii in PF group (5.32 ± 0.11 log10 cells/mL) vs. control (4.87 ± 0.11 log10 cells/mL)
2-fold increase in caecal digesta mass 1.36 ± 0.17 (PF) vs. 0.60 ± 0.06 g/100 g BM (control)
Putrefactive microbial products reduced (all values µg/g caecal digesta):
SCFA increase in WS (213.25 ± 14.40 µmol) and PF (208.59 ± 23.32 µmol) vs. control (159.96 ± 13.10 µmol)Negative results:
-
– No significant p-cresol decrease in PF fed rats (19.34 ± 5.14) vs. control (25.18 ± 6.18 µg/g caecal digesta)
|
[149] |
* (i) conventional chemical extraction (CCE) (11.9% fucoidan)
(ii) microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) (5.71% fucoidan)
(iii) ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) (4.56% fucoidan)
(iv) enzyme-assisted extraction (EAE) (3.89% fucoidan)
|
A. nodosum
|
(i, ii, and iii) Ethanol followed by acidic water (0.01 M HCl)
(iv) Cellulase, acetate buffer (pH 4.5)
|
L. casei and L. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus broth cultures, 3.75% (v/v).
A. nodosum extracts added at 0.1%, 0.3% and 0.5% (w/v)
|
All differences p < 0.05 compared to non-supplemented control medium:
Increase in L. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus by CCE, MAE, UAE and EAE at 0.1%, 0.3% and 0.5%.
Increase (24.5%) in L. casei only by MAE at 0.5% inclusion.
Negative results:
-
– No significant increase in L. casei by CCE, UAE or EAE vs. non-supplemented media.
|
[87] |
* Crude sulphated polysaccharide (716 kDa) (90% galactose, 9.07% sulphate)
|
C. pilulifera
|
Acidic extraction (0.0.1 M HCl) and ethanol precipitation
|
Simulated in vitro saliva, gastric, small intestinal and colonic digestion
|
After 24 h, all differences p < 0.05 compared to inulin control:
Increase in Bacteroides, Parabacteroides, Megamonas and Veillonella.
Increase in total SCFA (22.17 ± 0.82 mmol/L) vs. control (16.17 mmol/L ± 0.39).
Negative results:
-
– No significant increase in butyrate, lactate, iso-butyrate, valerate or iso-valerate in seaweed polysaccharide supplemented ferments.
|
[150] |
* (i) Polysaccharides (SJP) (138 kDa) (Fucose:galactose:glucuronic acid:mannose, molar ratio of 4.1:3.6:1.2: 1.0).
(ii) Oligosaccharides (SJO)
|
S. japonica
|
(i) Methanol, dichloromethane, water and ethanol
(ii) Methanol, dichloromethane, water and ethanol, followed by 0.6 M HCl
|
Simulated in vitro colonic digestion
|
After 24 h, all differences p < 0.05 compared to FOS control
|
[91] |
** Crude sulphated polysaccharide (SP) (28.807 kDa) (Galactose (59.7%), galacturonic acid (19.8%), xylose (7.1%) and sulphate (8.8%))
|
G. pacificum
|
Ultrasound-assisted water extraction followed by ethanol, acetone and petroleum precipitation
|
In vivo trial with lincomycin hydrochloride induced diarrhoeal mice (9 days, 75 mg SP/kg BM)
|
After 9 d, seaweed polysaccharide group vs. non-supplemented normal recovery group (all differences p < 0.05):
Increase in beneficial Bacteroides, Oscillospira and Bifidobacterium.
Decrease in Parabacteroides, Sutterella and AF12.
Reduction in inflammatory cytokines, TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-2.
Improved (lower) diarrhoea status scores, water intake, and less weight loss.
Increase in total SCFA, acetate and propionate.
|
[151] |
** Fucoidan (300 kDa) (60% fucose, 14.3% sulphate)
|
C. okamuranus
|
Method not specified
|
In vivo trial with Traf3 ip2-mutant psoriasis mice (fucoidan diet group n = 14, normal diet group n = 9, 63 days, 1% fucoidan added to feed)
|
Fucoidan group vs. cellulose control group (all differences p < 0.05).
After 56 days:
-
▪ Increase (% relative abundance) in Bacteroidetes (78.2 ± 6.42 vs. 59.4 ± 9.69%), Proteobacteria (3.05 ± 0.62 vs. 1.73 ± 0.53%), and Paraprevotellaceae.
-
▪ Decrease in Firmicutes (16.3 ± 4.98 vs. 34.3 ± 9.05%) and TM7 Saccharibacteria (3.80 ± 0.24 vs. 1.23 ± 0.11%).
-
▪ After 21 days increase in mucin production in ileum and faeces
-
▪ After 63 days increase in IgA production in cecum+
-
▪ Reduction in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) and ethological scratch-test
Negative results:
-
– Decreases in Deferribacteres and Actinobacteria after 56 days were not significant
|
[89] |
** Laminarin and fucoidan (10% laminarin,8% fucoidan and 82% ash)
|
Laminaria hyperborea
|
Method not specified
|
In vivo trial (10 pregnant sows/treatment) (10 g/days seaweed extract from day 107 of
gestation until weaning (day 26)) and ex vivo lipopolysaccharide (LPS) immunological challenge
|
Compared with non-supplemented group, seaweed extract supplemented (SWE) sows had:
-
▪ Greater colostrum IgA (p < 0.01) and IgG (p = 0.062)
-
▪ Decreased faecal Enterobacteriaceae populations at parturition (p < 0.05)
-
▪ Reduced faecal Enterobacteriaceae on expected farrowing date (7.26 vs. 8.60 log10 CFU/g, pooled SEM 0.463, p < 0.05)
LPS challenge increased pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1α and IL-6 (p < 0.01) in ileal tissue and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α in colonic (p < 0.01) tissue
Piglets suckling SWE sows had:
-
▪ Greater TNF-α after ex vivo LPS challenge (p < 0.05)
-
▪ Increased serum IgG (p < 0.05) on day 14
-
▪ Decreased colonic E. coli population (p < 0.01) at weaning
-
▪ Greater Lactobacilli: E.coli ratio (p < 0.05)
Negative results:
-
– No increase in faecal volatile fatty concentrations in SWE sows
-
– SWE diet had no effect on TNF-α mRNA expression in unchallenged sow ileal tissue
-
– Piglet birth and weaning weight, and small intestinal morphology unaffected by SWE sow diet
|
[101] |