日本食物 繊維 学 会誌Vol.10No.1(2006)

総 説

Prebiotics, synbiotics and resistant starch.

Ian L. Brown1*, Masaru Yotsuzuka2, Anne Birkett3 & Anders Henriksson4

1 Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Wollongong

2 National Starch Food Innovation, Nippon NSC Ltd.

3 National Starch Food Innovation, National Starch and Chemical Company

4 Research and Development Department, DSM Food Specialties

Abstract

Resistant starches (RS) have been shown to have a wide variety of physiological benefits. Many of these positive effects

arise from the fermentation of the RS by the colonic microflora. It has been observed that RS acts as a prebiotic by promoting

the growth and beneficial activity of specific species of colonic bacteria while reducing the numbers of pathogenic micro-

organisms. The use of RS is effective in stimulating the indigenous microflora to assist in the treatment of conditions such as

bacterially induced diarrhoea and ulcerative colitis.

Although probiotics have often been linked with improving the health of the host, experimental results concerning their

efficacy have been inconsistent. It has been suggested that "synbiotics", a combination of prebiotic and probiotic, would be

useful in improving the reproducibility of the beneficial results obtained from Probiotics. RS offers the opportunity of

providing "targeted synbiotics". In this case the RS has multiple functionalities through assisting in the protection of the

viability of the probiotic during its passage through the upper gastrointestinal tract and then in helping to induce the desired

specific physiological effect in the colon. The preparation of a targeted synbiotic, incorporating a Bifidobacteria lactis and a

RS from high amylose maize that is specifically fermented by this bacterial strain, has been shown to significantly increase

the apoptotic index (a positive biomarker) in a colorectal cancer rat model. The diversity of forms and types of RS offer the

opportunity to prepare targeted synbiotics using selected probiotics to improve colonic health and/or treat various diseases

that occur in the large bowel.

Key words: Resistant starch, prebiotic, probiotic, synbiotic, health benefits

Probiotics and prebiotics.

The important contribution that our intestinal microflora

(250-750 g of wet digesta weight with a bacterial

concentration of 1010 to 1011cfu/g)1) can make to our health

and well-being continues to be a focus of international

research activity. There appears to be significant differences

in the composition and activity of each individual's colonic

microflora and changes to this profile can occur as the

result of a variety of challenges, such as stress and disease,

that can impact on our lives. Historically a select number of

colonic microorganisms, including bifidobacteria and

lactobacilli, have been attributed with health promoting

properties. The concept arose that the consumption of these "b

eneficial" microorganisms in foods or supplements

might be a means of improving colonic health and through

this route our general health. Fuller (1989) defined these

* corresponding author : PO Box 405 , Gymea, NSW 2227 Australia

1 Building 39, Northfields Avenue, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia 2 3-5-10 Shimbashi , Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0004 Japan 3 10 Finderne Avenue , Bridgewater, NJ 08807 USA 4 9 Moorebank Avenue , Moorebank, NSW 2710 Australia

1

J. Jpn. Assoc. Dietary Fiber Res. Vol. 10 No.l (2006)

" probiotics" as a "live microbial feed supplement which

beneficially affects the host animal by improving its

intestinal microbial balance2)". Dairy foods, such as

yoghurt, containing live cultures of lactobacilli and/or

bifidobacteria, have traditionally been the main source of

probiotics for humans. The consumption of probiotics has

been suggested to provide a broad range of physiological

benefits through the changes they affect on the indigenous

microflora3) but there have been concerns about the

consistency, predictability and magnitude of the effect4),5)

Researchers have also focused on "prebiotics" which

are "non-digestible food ingredients that beneficially affect

the host by selectively stimulating the growth and/or

activity of one or a limited number of bacteria in the colon"6)

and which can help to improve the health of the host.

Prebiotics offer the opportunity to obtain the desired

physiological outcome through their fermentative

interaction with desirable indigenous colonic bacteria but

without the reliance on the potency of any introduced

probiotic. Although initial studies in this area focused on

fermentable substrates such as inulin, fructooligosaccharides

(FOS) and galactooligosaccharides there have now been a

number of other dietary components, such as RS, identified

which can act as a prebiotic.

Resistant starches as prebiotics

The portion of starch that resists digestion in the upper

gastrointestinal tract has been classified into four general

•ein vitro' categories, listed as RSI, RS2, RS3 and RS4,

reflecting the mechanism by which each achieves it

resistance to digestive amylases7),8). A variety of RS

ingredients are now available, either commercially or

experimentally, in flours prepared from high amylose

varieties of maize or corn (HAM), barley and wheat (RS 1),

extracted and/or hydrothermally prepared starches from

amylomaize (RS2), recrystallised starch derived material

from HAM and tapioca (RS3), and a chemically modified

starch (RS4) specifically prepared using diphosphate cross-

linking from wheat, potato and maize9). The use of

chemically modified starches is a potentially useful

innovation since it allows the preparation of RS from

sources other than the traditional high amylose varieties.

Even greater diversity of RS ingredients potentially exists

by using more of the possible and/or permitted physical,

chemical and enzymatic modifications. There may be a

further category of RS (potentially RS5) which relies on the

ability of starch polymers, particularly amylose, and polar

lipids to form inclusion complexes. These so called V-

structures (as determined by x-ray crystallography) have

been observed in high amylose starches10) and can also be

formed as a result of starch gelatinisation in rice' 1 and

extruded starch12). These V-structures may be useful in

protecting the starch derived material during food

processing and transit through the upper gastrointestinal

tract.

Western diets have been reported to contain relatively

small quantities of RS, usually in the region of 5 grams per

person per day13),14) from such foods as bread, breakfast

cereals, bars, noodles and biscuits, but it has been suggested

that as much as 15 to 20 grams a day is required to provide

good colonic health15). The supplementation of staple foods

with ingredients rich in RS, that have mainly been obtained

from HAM, has occurred since 19948). The inclusion of

these ingredients has occurred for a wide range of

functional and/or nutritional reasons16),17). This practice first

began in Australia but the use of RS ingredients now occurs

in foods in Asia, North America and Europe.

Although some initial clinical studies focused on sources

of RS obtained from raw potato and green bananas the

majority of experiments have utilised HAM starch and this

was utilised as the first source of RS in food

supplementation8). HAM starch is particularly useful since

its high gelatinisation temperature means that it can

maintain its granular form, which is the source of its

resistance to digestive amylases, during many of the

conditions commonly used in the preparation of foods. The

impact of RS in the colon is generally associated with the

beneficial stimulation of the colonic microflora (Table 1)

and its physiological action as a prebiotic (Table 2). It was

observed that the inclusion of RS in the diet increased the

production of short chain fatty acids (SCFA), in particular a

tendency to cause higher levels of fermentation, particularly

in terms of both amount and relative proportion, of the

physiologically important butyrate'''' . RS represents a

2

日本 食物繊 維学 会誌Vol.10No.1(2006)

broad range of starch and starch derived materials, both

native and modified, and individually these can be used to

selectively stimulate the fermentative activity of beneficial

microflora'9. The consumption of RS produces positive

effects on a range of biomarkers of colonic health including

decreases in transit time, pH and various toxic metabolites ,

such as secondary bile acids, ammonia and phenols. The

beneficial stimulation of the colonic microflora can also

lead to advantageous consequences such as increasing the

bioavailability of micronutrients, such as calcium20) ,

decreasing the symptoms of bacterially induced diarrhoea21),

improve insulin sensitivity22), being involved in

biotransformations such as the conversion of

phytoestrogenic materials into more bioactive forms23),

increasing the immune response24) and potentially

increasing lipid metabolism in the body25), 26).

Previous studies have shown that the composition of the

gastrointestinal microbiota can be influenced by diet27). It

Table 1 Prebiotic properties of resistant starches .

Table 2 Physiological benefits from the interaction of resistant starch and the colonic microflora (indigenous or added)

J. Jpn. Assoc. Dietary Fiber Res. Vol. 10 No.1 (2006)

has also been shown that RS obtained from retrograded

potato starch can influence the fecal microbial profile by

increasing the numbers of lactobacilli compared to those

fed native granular potato starch28~. A recent experiment

using specific pathogen free mice (Balb/c, inbred, 2 months

old) examined the impact of the consumption of resistant

starches, either from high amylose starch (80% amylose

with 33.4% total dietary fibre) or this same starch

chemically modified by acetylation (4% acetyl value dry

solids basis) on the composition of the microflora in the

stomach, ileum, caecum and colon29. The rats were fed a

The modified AIN 76 diet)) as described by Wang et al31)

various carbohydrates, namely sucrose, waxy maize starch

(WMS), high amylose maize starch (HAMS) or acetylated

high amylose maize starch (AHAMS), under review

constituted 40% (w/w) of the diet.

The HAMS had the effect of increasing the levels of

lactobacilli in the caecum and colon while decreasing the

number of enteric bacteria in the ileum, caecum and colon

(Table 3). The other form of resistant starch used in the

study, namely AHAMS, only increased number of

bifidobacteria in the caecum and colon. The RS sources in

Table 3 Impact of various dietary carbohydrates on the gastrointestinal microflora

(Mean •} SD)

# Significantly different from animals fed AHAMS (p < 0.05) •˜•˜Significantly different from animals fed HAMS (p <0.01)

## Significantly different from animals fed AHAMS (p < 0.01)* Significantly different from animals fed HAMS (p < 0.05)

•˜ Significantly different from animals fed HAMS (p < 0.05)** Significantly different from animals fed HAMS (p < 0.01)

4

日本 食物繊 維学 会誌Vo1.10No.1(2006)

this trial, both unmodified and modified, demonstrated the

ability to increase the numbers of beneficial microflora,

bifidobacteria and lactobacilli, and decrease potentially

pathogenic enteric bacteria, throughout the gastrointestinal

tract. However there appeared to be differences in the

interaction between each form of RS and the

gastrointestinal microflora. The WMS is normally readily

digestible but in the absence of cooking there is the

possibility that some starch may enter the large bowel.

However it has been shown that HAMS, with or without

cooking, will enter the colon32)33). This trial supports earlier

studies demonstrating the prebiotic effects of unmodified

and modified RS 19).

The numerous potential types of RS, due to differences in

the source, form, structure and chemistry of the starch and

starch derived materials, provide many opportunities to

tailor the RS as a versatile prebiotic to deliver the specific

functional34) and physiological effects required35),36). It may

also be advantageous under certain circumstances to use a

combination of prebiotics, such as RS and FOS, to

stimulate a broader range of beneficial effects in the colon

through the simulation of the microflora or by varying the

rate or site of fermentation5), 37).

Culture Protagonist

RS has demonstrated the ability to have a positive

influence on the viability of probiotics. A major issue for

probiotics being incorporated into and then being delivered

in foods has been finding mechanisms of maintaining their

viability. A variety of methods have been used to address

this situation including the selection of more robust

probiotic strains, the manipulation of processing conditions

and the micro-encapsulation of the probiotics using a

variety of materials including, fats, proteins and various

hydrocolloids38).

Bacteria that are adhering to a surface are more resistant

to environmentall stresses39). In both laboratory and food

processing experiments it was observed that the viability of

probiotic strains was improved when granular HAM starch

was included in the formulations40). The probiotic bacteria

were attracted to the surface of the starch granules and

appeared to attach to their surface41). A number of HAM

based RS starches, varying only in the absence or presence

of a specific chemical modification, were placed in aqueous

suspension individually with different types of probiotic

bacteria. The degree of adhesion exhibited by each

probiotic strain varied significantly37). Individual probiotics displayed a selective preference for particular RS40). There

has been some investigation of the mechanism of adhesion

of the probiotic bacteria to the HAM starch granule and the

initial study indicated that a protein linkage was involved42).

While attached the probiotic bacteria exist in a micro-

environment that confers a degree of some protection31),40)

The adhesion of the bacteria to the RS granules confers a

measure of protection to the probiotic both during food

preparation and storage40),43),44) and after ingestion during

passage through the upper GI tract, particularly in relation

to survival in low pH conditions in the stomach and in the

presence of bile salts31),40). The term "Culture Protagonist"

has been proposed to refer to a material that displays this

property45). Iyer and Kailasapathy44) found that RS in the

form of HAM starch (1% w/v) gave better protection to

Lactobacillus acidophilus compared to FOS or inulin when

incubated at 3 hours at pH2.0. However further increases in

the amount of HAMS present did not improve upon the

observed effect. After protecting the viability of the

probiotic bacteria through to the colon the culture

protagonist is then available to act as a prebiotic to

stimulate the growth and/or activity of beneficial

microflora.

Synbiotics and RS

Recently scientific attention has been given to the

concept of "combining the effects of probiotics and

prebiotics to produce health-enhancing functional food

ingredients"4). The possibility of providing both the

beneficial bacteria and a fermentable substrate is attractive

because it increases the potential of ensuring the desired

physiological outcome or health related benefit (Table 4).

A number of animal studies have examined the effects of

symbiotic combinations of RS and probiotics19),31)46).

However rather than combining just any probiotic and

prebiotic the concept of using a "targeted symbiotic" offers

5

J. Jpn. Assoc. Dietary Fiber Res. Vol. 10 No.1 (2006)

the opportunity of improving the outcome by matching the

probiotic to a specific prebiotic. This is important since the

desired outcome may be influenced by the impact of the

targeted synbiotic on the number and/or activity of the

colonic microflora.

RS (HAMS) acting as a prebiotic and as part of a symbiotic preparation

A human cross-over study was conducted in Australia47)

where each subject consuming a control diet or a probiotic

diet (Bifidobacterium lactis (5 x 109 log10 CFU/day)

ingested in a capsule) or prebiotic (HAM starch (40g/day)

consumed as a powder) or as a targeted synbiotic

combination of both the B. lactis and HAM starch. The

HAM starch was a preferred substrate for this probiotic .

Each diet was consumed over a 14 day period with a

washout period of 14 days between each diet. The fecal

level of bifidobacteria for the subjects on the control diet

was 7.41 log10 CFU/g. When only the probiotic was added

to the diet there was a non significant reduction of 0.7 logo

CFU/g in the number of fecal bifidobacteria. However

when the prebiotic HAMS was added to the diet, either

alone or as part of the targeted synbiotic combination there

was an increase in fecal bifidobacteria numbers of 1.72

log,, CFU/g and 1.62 log,0 CFU/g respectively (Table 5).

During this study it was also noted that the presence of

HAM starch either as a prebiotic or when provided as part

of a synbiotic also showed improved absorption of

magnesium (15% compared to the control; P < 0.05),

although the levels of absorption of other minerals such as

calcium and iron appeared to remain stable.

Table 4 Some suggested potential benefits of synbiotics

Table 5 Impact of synbiotic combination of Bifidobacterium lactis and high

amylose maize starch in humans.

p < 0.002 (Control compared to Prebiotic) p < 0.013 (Control compared to Synbiotic) p < 0.0004 (probiotic compared to Prebiotic) p < 0.003 (Probiotic compared to Synbiotic)

6

日本 食物繊 維学 会誌Vol.10No.1(2006)

Use of targeted synbiotics containing

resistant starch and bifidobacteria.

In a recent experiment two synbiotic preparations were

tested for their ability to enhance the effectiveness of

prebiotic RS (HAM starch) to increase the amount of

apoptosis caused in the colonic tissue of rats after they had

been exposed to the carcinogen azoxymethane48). It had

already been shown that RS, in the form of HAM starch,

could increase the amount of apoptosis in this model in a

dose responsive manner49). Two probiotics were included in

the experiment, a Lactobacillus acidophilus and a

Bifidobacterium lactis, but only the bifidobacteria could

utilise the HAM starch directly. In this study neither of the

probiotics in the absence of the prebiotic increased the

apoptotic response compared to the control diet. However

the effect of the bifidobacteria on the apoptotic response

increased significantly when it was consumed with the

dietary prebiotic HAM starch. The lactobacillus did not

increase the apoptotic response when it was ingested alone or

with HAM starch. The presence of a synbiotic combination ,

where the probiotic had been selected because of its ability to

interact with the prebiotic in a specific manner, increased the

magnitude of the apoptotic response by approximately 50%

when compared to the use of HAM starch alone.

The mechanism by which the apoptotic response is

increased appears to involve more than the production and

presence of butyrate in the colonic lumen. Bifidobacteria has

not been reported to produce butyrate in the colon, however

these bacteria do ferment the HAM starch directly and this

may provide nutrients, either from the HAM starch directly

or through the products of bacterial fermentation, to enhance

the growth and/or activity of other bacterial species that may

play a role in stimulating the apoptotic activity. Studies are

now underway to explore the long term effects of this

targeted synbiotic combination in both animals and humans.

Conclusion

The use of probiotics has continued to increase globally

based on the promise that they can improve our health as

the pace of life and our level of stress increases. The

opportunity also exists to achieve this end through the

beneficial stimulation of our own indigenous microflora

through the consumption of prebiotics. The use of RS as a

culture protagonist offers a versatile range of substrates to

help maintain the viability of probiotics in a wide range of

foods during processing and after consumption during their

transit through the upper gastrointestinal tract. In order to

improve their efficacy synbiotic combinations of pro- and

prebiotics are a promising area for investigation. A

synbiotic can achieve improved benefits through the

manipulation of the colonic microflora, stimulating the

production of beneficial metabolites such as SCFA's,

facilitating the reduction in the numbers and activity of

pathogenic bacteria, and through the prevention or

treatment of the symptoms of various diseases. However,

the best outcomes from mixtures of probiotics and

prebiotics may arise from carefully matched rather than as

random combinations. Targeted synbiotics offer a new

means of promoting colonic health. This is particularly

relevant given that the health status of the gastrointestinal

tract can also influence physiological activity elsewhere in

the body including lipid metabolism, immune response and

insulin sensitivity. In this regard targeted synbiotics offer a

potential new means of preventing or treating many socially

important health concerns, including obesity.

References

1) Topping, DL & Clifton, PM. (2001). Physiological

Reviews. 81(3): 1031-1064.

2) Fuller, R. (1989). J. Appl. Bacteriol. 66: 365-378.

3) Tannock, GW. (1999). Probiotics: a critical review.

Ed: GW Tannock. Horizon Scientific Press. l-4.

4) Reid, G. (1999). Probiotics: a critical review. Ed: GW

Tannock. Horizon Scientific Press. 129-140.

5) Topping, DL, Fukushima, M & Bird, AR. (2003).

Proceedings Nutr Soc. 62: 171-176.

6) Gibson GR & Roberfroid MB. (1995). J Nutr. 125:

1401-1412.

7) Englyst, HN, Kingman, SM & Cummings JH. (1992).

European J Clinical Nutr. 46(2): S33-50.

8) Brown IL, McNaught, K & Moloney E. (1995). Food

Australia. 47(6): 272-275.

9) Gelski J. (2006). Food Business News (7 March 2006).

50-52.

7

J. Jpn. Assoc. Dietary Fiber Res. Vol. 10 No.1 (2006)

10) Zobel HF. (1992). Developments in Carbohydrate

Chemistry. RJ Alexander & HF Zobel eds. AACC, St.

Paul, Minnesota. 1-36.

11) Priestly RJ. (1976). Food Chem. 1:5.

12) Mercier, C, Charbonniere, R, Gallant D & Guilbot, A.

(1979). Polysaccharides in food. J.M.V. Blanshard,

and J.R. Mitchell, eds. Butterworths, London. :153.

13) Dysseler, P & Hoffem, D. (1994). Proceedings of the

concluding plenary meeting of EURESTA. N-G Asp,

JMM van Amelsvoort & JGAJ Hautvast eds.

EURESTA. 84-86.

14) Roberts, J, Jones, GP, Rutishauser, IHE, Birkett A &

Gibbons, C. (2004). Nutrition & Dietetics. 61(2):98-

104.

15) Baghurst PA, Baghurst KI & Record SJ. (1996). Food

Australia. 48(3): S1-S35.

16) Brown, IL. (2004). J AOAC International. 87(3): 727-

32.

17) Brown IL. (2004). J Jpn Assoc Dietary Fiber Res. 8(2):

148-150.

18) Nakanishi, S, Kataoka, K, Kuwahara, T & Ohnishi, Y.

(2003). Microbiol. Immunol. 47(12): 951-958.

19) Wang, X, Brown, IL, Khaled, D, Mahoney, MC,

Evans, AJ & Conway, PL. (2002). J Applied

Microbiology. 93(3): 390-397.

20) Lopez HW, Levrat-Verney M-A, Coudray C, Besson

C, Krespine V, Messager A, Demigne C & Remesy C.

(2001). J Nutr.131: 1283-1289.

21) Ramakrishna, BS, Venkataraman, S, Srinivasan, P,

Dash, P, Young, GP & Binder, HJ. (2000). New

England Journal of Medicine. 342:308-313.

22) Robertson, MD, Bickerton, AS, Dennis, AL, Vidal, H

& Frayn, KN. (2005). Am J Clin Nutr. 82: 559-567.

23) Larkin T, Astheimer L, Price W & Brown IL. (2001).

EUROFOODCHEM XI Biologically-active

Phytochemicals in Foods: Analysis, metabolism,

bioavailability and Function (UK).

24) Morita T, Tanabe H, Takahashi K & Sugiyama K.

(2004). J Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 19: 303-

313.

25) Higgins JA. (2004). J AOAC International. 87(3): 761-

768.

26) Higgins JA, Higbee DR, Donahoo WT, Brown IL, Bell

ML & Bessesen DH. (2004). Nutrition & Metabolism,

1:8.

27) Finegold, SM, Attebery, HR & Sutter, VL. (1974).

Amer. J Clin Nutr. 27:1456-1469.

28) Kleessen, B, Stoof, G, Proll, J, Schmiedl, D, Noack, J

& Blaut, M. (1997). J Animal Sci. 75: 2453-2462.

29) Henriksson, A, Wang, ‡], Conway, PL & Brown, IL.

(2006). The effect of chemically modified and

unmodified high amylose maize (amylomaize) starch

on the gastrointestinal microbiota of mice.

Unpublished

.30) Rickard, KL, Folino, M, McIntyre, A, Albert, ‡X, Muir,

J & Young, GP. (1994). Proceedings of Nutrition

Society of Australia.18: 57.

31) Wang, X, Brown, IL, Evans, AJ & Conway, PL.

(1999a). J Applied Micro. 87: 631-639.

32) Muir, JG, Birkett, A, Brown, IL, Jones, G & O'Dea, K.

(1995). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 61: 82-89.

33) Bird, AR, Brown, IL & Topping, DL. (2000). Current

Issues in Intestinal Microbiology. 1: 25-37.

34) Crittenden, RG, Morris, LF, Harvey, ML, Tran, LT,

Mitchell, HL & Playne, MJ. (2005). J. Food Science.

70(1): M18-M23.

35) Nugent, AP. (2005). Nutrition Bulletin British

Nutrition Foundation. 30(1): 27-54.

36) Wang, X, Conway, PL, Brown, IL & Evans, AL

(1999b). J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65(11): 4848-

4854.

37) Topping, DL, Warhurst, M, Illman, RJ, Brown, IL,

Playne, MJ & Bird, AR. (1997). Proc. Nutr. Soc. Aust.

21:134.

38) Suita-Cruce, P & Goulet, J. (2001). Food Technology

55(10): 36-42.

36) Kirchman, D & Mitchell, R. (1982). Applied

& Environmental Microbiology. 43: 200-209.

40) Brown IL, Wang X, Topping DL, Playne MJ and

Conway PL. (1 998). Food Australia. 50(12):603-610.

41) Brown IL, Wang X and Conway PL. (1999).

Microbiology Australia. 20(4):18-19.

42) O' Riordan K, Muljadi N and Conway P. (2001). J.

Appl. Microbiology. 90:1-6.

43) Brown, IL, Conway PL & Topping DL. (2000).

Scandinavian JNutr. 44(2): 53-58.

44) Iyer C and Kailasapathy K. (2005). J Food Sci.

70(1):M18-M23.

8

日本 食物繊 維学 会誌Vo1.10No.1(2006)

(平成18年7月5日 受理)

45) Brown, IL, Warhurst, M, Arcot, J, Playne, M, Illman,

RJ & Topping, DL. (1997). J. Nutr. 127: 1822-1827.

46) Conway PL. (2001). Scandinavian Journal of

Nutrition. 45:13-21.

47) Henriksson, A. (2001). Effect of oral administration

of probiotics and prebiotics on gut health. UNSW &

CRC for Food Industry Innovation. Unpublished.

48) Le Leu RK, Brown IL, Hu Y, Bird AR, Jackson M,

Esterman A & Young GP. (2005). J Nutr. 135: 996-

1001.

49) Le Leu RK, Brown IL, Hu Y & Young GP. (2003).

Carcinogenesis. 24(8): 1347-1352.

50) Birkett, A, Muir, J, Phillips, J, Jones, G, et al. (1996).

Am J Clin Nutr. 63(5): 766-72.

51) Muir, JG, Yeow, EG, Keogh, J, Pizzey, C, et al.

(2004). Am J Clin Nutr. 79(6):1020-8.

52) Noakes, M, Clifton, PM, Nestel, PJ, Le Leu, R, et al.

(1996). Am J Clin Nutr. 64(6): 944-51.

53) Hylla, S, Gostner, A, Dusel, G, Anger, H, et al. (1998).

Am J Clin Nutr. 67(1):136-42.

54) Grubben, MJ, van den Braak, CC, Essenberg, M,

Olthof, M, et al. (2001). Dig Dis Sci. 46(4): 750-6.

55) Phillips, J, Muir, JG, Birkett, A, Lu, ZX, et al. (1.995).

Am J Clin Nutr. 62(1): 121-30.

56) Heijnen, ML, van Amelsvoort, JM, Deurenberg, P &

Beynen, AC (1998). Am J Clin Nutr. 67(2): 322-31.

57) Jenkins, DJ, Vuksan, V, Kendall, CW, Wursch, P, et

al. (1998). J Am Coll Nutr.17(6): 609-16.

58) Silvester, KR, Bingham, SA, Pollock, JR, Cummings,

JH, et al. (1997). Nutr Cancer. 29(1):13-23.

59) Heijnen, M L, van Amelsvoort, JM, Deurenberg, P &

Beynen, AC. (1996). Am J Clin Nutr. 64(3): 312-8.

60) Robertson, MD, Currie, JM, Morgan, LM, Jewell, DP

& Frayn, KN. (2003). Diabetologia. 46(5): 659-665.

J. Jpn. Assoc. Dietary Fiber Res. Vol. 10 No.1 (2006)

プ レバ イオテイクス、シンバ イオテイクス及 び レジスタントスター チ

Ian L. Brown1, Masaru Yotsuzuka2, Anne Birkett3 & Anders Henriksson4

1 Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Wollongong

2 National Starch Food Innovation, Nippon NSC Ltd.

3 National Starch Food Innovation, National Starch and Chemical Company

4 Research and Development Department, DSM Food Specialties

和文要旨

　レジス タントス ターチ(RS)は 多彩 な生理学的機能 を発揮す るが,そ の効果の多 くはRSの 大腸内菌叢 による

醗酵に由来す る・RSは 特定の腸内益性菌の増殖 を促進するとともに多 くの病原 性細菌 を抑制す るこ とによ りフ・

レバイオテ ィクス として機能することが観察 されている。RSは 腸内常在菌叢 を活性化するので細菌性の下痢や炎

症性大腸炎などの治癒 を助 ける。

　プロバ イオテ ィクスは宿主の健康 を改善す ると考え られて きたが ,そ の有効性に関する検証結果は必ず しも 一

貫性のある ものではなかった。 この ような中で,プ ロバ イオテ ィクス とプ レバ イオテ ィクス を組み合わせ た

『シンバ イオテ ィクス』がプロバ イオティクスの有益な効果の再現性 を改善す るもの として提案 されている。 また・RSは 特定のプ ロバ イオテ ィクスを狙 った標的シ ンバ イオティクス開発 の可能性 を提供す る。 この場合,RSは上部消化管内通過 に際 してプロバ イオテ ィクスを保護する とともに大腸内で好 ましい特定の生理機能 を誘発す

るなど,多 面的 な機能 を発揮する。Bifidobacterialactisと それが好 んで醗酵するハ イア ミロー一スコーン起源のRS

とを配合 した 『シンバ イオテ ィクス』 は,大 ・直腸がんのモデ ルラ ットでアポ トーシス係数 を顕著に高めること

が示 されている。RSは,そ の多様性のため,目 的に応 じて適切 なプロバ イオテ ィクスを用いて標的特異的な

『シンバ イオテ ィクス』 を開発 し,大 腸の健康の改善や疾患の治療 に寄与する機会を提供する。

10