Acidic Oligosaccharides from Pectin Hydrolysate as New Component for Infant Formulae: Effect on Intestinal Flora, Stool Characteristics, and pH

Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (Impact Factor: 2.63). 09/2005; 41(2):186-90. DOI: 10.1097/01.mpg.0000172747.64103.d7
Source: PubMed


To come even closer to the functional composition of human milk, acidic oligosaccharides (AOS) from pectin were added to well known neutral prebiotics (galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) and long-chain fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS)). The effect of AOS and GOS/FOS/AOS on intestinal flora, stool characteristics as well as acceptance and tolerance was investigated.
Human milk contains 75% to 85% neutral and 15% to 25% acidic oligosaccharides. In this prospective, randomized, double blind study, a mixture of 80% neutral oligosaccharides (from long-chain galacto- and long-chain fructo-oligosaccharides) with 20% acidic oligosaccharides derived from pectin hydrolysis was investigated. Forty-six term infants were fed a standard formula supplemented with either maltodextrin as control (n=15), or with 0.2 g acidic oligosaccharides (n=16), or with the latter plus 0.6 g neutral oligosaccharides (mixture of galacto- and fructo-oligosaccharides; n=15). Fecal flora using plating technique and pH were measured. Stool characteristics and possible side effects (crying, vomiting, and regurgitation) were recorded.
There was no difference in the bifidobacteria counts between the control and the group supplemented with acidic oligosaccharides alone (8.75+/-0.50 vs. 8.58+/-0.94 log colony forming units [CFU]/g stool). In infants fed the combination of acidic and neutral oligosaccharides, bifidobacteria were increased (9.61+/-0.70 log CFU/g stool; P<0.01). The same pattern was observed with lactobacilli. Stool consistency was softest in infants fed the complete oligosaccharide mixture, but also in those fed formula supplemented with acidic oligosaccharides alone, the stool consistency was significantly softer compared with the control group. Fecal pH increased in the controls, remained constant in acidic oligosaccharides alone, and decreased in the complete mixture of oligosaccharides group.
There was no difference in growth, crying, vomiting, and regurgitation patterns between the groups. In summary, acidic oligosaccharides from pectin hydrolysate are well tolerated as ingredient in infant formulae but do not affect intestinal microecology.

Download full-text


Available from: Jürgen Jelinek, Jul 09, 2014
  • Source
    • "Acidic POS were studied in infant nutrition since they resemble chemical and functional aspects of human milk oligosaccharides . They were tested in infant formulae for their effect on intestinal flora and stool frequency and consistency , but no significant effect on bifidobacteria was shown ( Fanaro et al . 2005 ) . Their immunomodulatory properties were dem onstrated in vitro ( Vos et al . 2007 ; Eiwegger et al . 2010 ) ."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pectins are complex branched polysaccharides present in primary cell walls. As a distinctive feature, they contain high amount of partly methyl-esterified galacturonic acid and low amount of rhamnose and carry arabinose and galactose as major neutral sugars. Due to their structural complexity, they are modifiable by many different enzymes, including hydrolases, lyases, and esterases. Their peculiar structure is the origin of their physicochemical properties. Among others, their remarkable gelling properties make them a key additive for food industries. Pectin-degrading enzymes and -modifying enzymes may be used in a wide variety of applications to modulate pectin properties or produce pectin derivatives and oligosaccharides with functional as well as nutritional interests. This paper reviews the scientific information available on pectin structure, pectin-modifying enzymes, and the use of enzymes to produce pectin with controlled structure or pectin-derived oligosaccharides, with functional or nutritional interesting properties.
    Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 11/2013; 98(2). DOI:10.1007/s00253-013-5388-6 · 3.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Boehm 2003 [47] Knol 2005 [48] Pre-Term Numico Fanaro 2005 [49] Full Term None / Not clear Chrzanowska-Liszewska 2012 [50] Pre-Term None/Not clear Fanaro 2008 [51] Full Term Humana GmbH Costalos 2003 [52] Pre-Term None/Not clear Gibson 2009 [53] Full Term Nestle Dani 2002 [54] Pre-Term None/Not clear Gil-Campos 2012 [55] Full Term Puleva Indrio 2008 [56] Pre-Term Bio Gaia Hascoet 2011 [57] Full Term Nestle Indrio 2009 [58] Pre-Term Numico Holscher 2012a [59] Full Term Nestle Kapiki 2007 [60] Pre-Term None/Not clear Holscher 2012b [61] Full Term Nestle Kitajima 1992 [62] Pre-Term None/Not clear Kim 2010 [63] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is little or no information available on the impact of funding by the food industry on trial outcomes and methodological quality of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics research in infants. The objective of this study was to compare the methodological quality, outcomes of food industry sponsored trials versus non industry sponsored trials, with regards to supplementation of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics in infant formula. A comprehensive search was conducted to identify published and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Cochrane methodology was used to assess the risk of bias of included RCTs in the following domains: 1) sequence generation; 2) allocation concealment; 3) blinding; 4) incomplete outcome data; 5) selective outcome reporting; and 6) other bias. Clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions were reported in frequencies and percentages. The association between source of funding, risk of bias, clinical outcomes and conclusions were assessed using Pearson's Chi-square test and the Fisher's exact test. A p-value < 0.05 was statistically significant. Sixty seven completed and 3 on-going RCTs were included. Forty (59.7%) were funded by food industry, 11 (16.4%) by non-industry entities and 16 (23.9%) did not specify source of funding. Several risk of bias domains, especially sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, were not adequately reported. There was no significant association between the source of funding and sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting, majority of reported clinical outcomes or authors' conclusions. On the other hand, source of funding was significantly associated with the domains of incomplete outcome data, free of other bias domains as well as reported antibiotic use and conclusions on weight gain. In RCTs on infants fed infant formula containing probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics, the source of funding did not influence the majority of outcomes in favour of the sponsors' products. More non-industry funded research is needed to further assess the impact of funding on methodological quality, reported clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions.
    BMC Medical Research Methodology 11/2013; 13(1):137. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-13-137 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Results from the two studies [32,42] using a 5-point scale (1=watery, 2=soft, 3=seedy, 4=formed, 5=hard) were pooled in a meta-analysis but due to significant heterogeneity detected between the two studies, their results are reported separately. Stools from the prebiotic group were significantly softer compared to controls for both Fanaro 2005 [42] (MD −1.20, 95% CI: -1.61 to −0.79, n = 46) and Moro 2006 [32] (MD −0.78, 95% CI: -1.00 to −0.56, n = 206). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics are being added to infant formula to promote growth and development in infants. Previous reviews (2007 to 2011) on term infants given probiotics or prebiotics focused on prevention of allergic disease and food hypersensitivity. This review focused on growth and clinical outcomes in term infants fed only infant formula containing synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics. Methods Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared term infant formula containing probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics to conventional infant formula with / without placebo among healthy full term infants. The mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was performed; heterogeneity was explored using subgroup and sensitivity analyses. If studies were too diverse a narrative synthesis was provided. Results Three synbiotic studies (N = 475), 10 probiotics studies (N = 933) and 12 prebiotics studies (N = 1563) were included. Synbiotics failed to significantly increase growth in boys and girls. Use of synbiotics increased stool frequency, had no impact on stool consistency, colic, spitting up / regurgitation, crying, restlessness or vomiting. Probiotics in formula also failed to have any significant effect on growth, stool frequency or consistency. Probiotics did not lower the incidence of diarrhoea, colic, spitting up / regurgitation, crying, restlessness or vomiting. Prebiotics in formula did increase weight gain but had no impact on length or head circumference gain. Prebiotics increased stool frequency but had no impact on stool consistency, the incidence of colic, spitting up / regurgitation, crying, restlessness or vomiting. There was no impact of prebiotics on the volume of formula tolerated, infections and gastrointestinal microflora. The quality of evidence was compromised by imprecision, inconsistency of results, use of different study preparations and publication bias. Authors’ conclusions There is not enough evidence to state that supplementation of term infant formula with synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics does result in improved growth or clinical outcomes in term infants. There is no data available to establish if synbiotics are superior to probiotics or prebiotics.
    Nutrition Journal 10/2012; 11(1):81. DOI:10.1186/1475-2891-11-81 · 2.60 Impact Factor
Show more