Dietary Milk Fat Globule Membrane Reduces the Incidence of Aberrant Crypt Foci in Fischer-344 Rats

Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food Sciences, Utah State University, 750 N 1200 E, Logan, Utah 84322-8700, USA.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (Impact Factor: 3.11). 02/2010; 58(4):2157-63. DOI: 10.1021/jf903617q
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Milk fat globule membrane (MFGM) is a biopolymer composed primarily of membrane proteins and lipids that surround the fat globules in milk. Although it is considered to have potential as a bioactive ingredient, few feeding studies have been conducted to measure its potential benefits. The aim of this investigation was to determine if dietary MFGM confers protection against colon carcinogenesis compared to diets containing corn oil (CO) or anhydrous milk fat (AMF). Male, weanling Fischer-344 rats were randomly assigned to one of three dietary treatments that differed only in the fat source: (1) AIN-76A diet, corn oil; (2) AIN-76A diet, AMF; and (3) AIN-76A diet, 50% MFGM, 50% AMF. Each diet contained 50 g/kg diet of fat. With the exception of the fat source, diets were formulated to be identical in macro and micro nutrient content. Animals were injected with 1,2-dimethylhydrazine once per week at weeks 3 and 4, and fed experimental diets for a total of 13 weeks. Over the course of the study dietary treatment did not affect food consumption, weight gain or body composition. After 13 weeks animals were sacrificed, colons were removed and aberrant crypt foci (ACF) were counted by microscopy. Rats fed the MFGM diet (n = 16) had significantly fewer ACF (20.9 +/- 5.7) compared to rats fed corn oil (n = 17) or AMF (n = 16) diets (31.3 +/- 9.5 and 29.8 +/- 11.4 respectively; P < 0.05). Gene expression analysis of colonic mucosa did not reveal differential expression of candidate colon cancer genes, and the sphingolipid profile of the colonic mucosa was not affected by diet. While there were notable and significant differences in plasma and red blood cell lipids, there was no relationship to the cancer protection. These results support previous findings that dietary sphingolipids are protective against colon carcinogenesis yet extend this finding to MFGM, a milk fat fraction available as a food ingredient.


Available from: Ilka Nemere, May 12, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Skim milk lipid material was characterized in terms of particle size distribution and lipid composition, and compared with other milk fat particle distributions. Whole milk, skim milk, large fat globules, small fat particles and skim milk lipid material were prepared using centrifugation and/or filtration, and the particle size distributions measured by laser diffraction. The lipid composition was determined using a combination of thin layer chromatography and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. There were significant compositional differences between each fraction for both particle size distribution and fatty acid composition. The most distinguishing feature of the skim milk lipid material was the increased percentage of long chain sphingomyelin species compared with the other milk fat fractions.
    International Dairy Journal 06/2014; 36(2). DOI:10.1016/j.idairyj.2014.01.010 · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The milk fat globule membrane (MFGM) surrounds fat globules, protects them against lipolysis and disperses the milk fat in the milk plasma. Besides their structural and emulsifying roles, in vivo and in vitro studies have demonstrated that phospholipids and sphingolipids of MFGM possess cancer risk‐reducing properties. Several reports attribute its chemopreventive activity to products of sphingomyelin hydrolysis, which affect multiple cellular targets that control cell growth, differentiation and apoptosis. With knowledge on the potential health benefits of MFGM lipids and proteins, dairy industries could in the future address their research in developing new functional dairy products enriched in beneficial MFGM components.
    International Journal of Dairy Technology 08/2012; 65(3). DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0307.2011.00759.x · 1.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    03/2014; 4(2):44-51. DOI:10.2527/af.2014-0014