Next Article in Journal
Development of Novel API-ILs for the Optimization of Anti-Alzheimer Drugs
Previous Article in Journal
Characterising Charm Jet Properties with Azimuthal Correlations of D Mesons and Charged Particles with ALICE at the LHC
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Chlorogenic Acid as a Model Compound for Optimization of an In Vitro Gut Microbiome-Metabolism Model †

by
Olivier Mortelé
1,2,*,
Elias Iturrospe
2,
Annelies Breynaert
1,
Christine Lammens
3,
Xavier Basil Britto
3,
Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar
3,
Philippe Jorens
4,
Luc Pieters
1,
Alexander L. N. van Nuijs
2 and
Nina Hermans
1
1
Natural Products and Food-Research & Analysis (NatuRA), University of Antwerp, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
2
Toxicological Centre, University of Antwerp, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
3
Laboratory of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
4
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Antwerp University Hospital, Clinical Pharmacotherapy and Toxicology, University of Antwerp, 2650 Edegem, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at Natural Products and the Hallmarks of Chronic Diseases—COST Action 16112, Luxemburg, 25–27 March 2019.
Proceedings 2019, 11(1), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2019011031
Published: 19 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of CA16112 - Luxemburg 2019)

Abstract

:
It has been believed that the metabolism of xenobiotics occurred mainly by the cytochrome P450 enzyme system in the liver. However, recent data clearly suggest a significant role for the gut microbiota in the metabolism of xenobiotic compounds. This microbiotic biotransformation could lead to differences on activation, inactivation and possible toxicity of these compounds. In vitro models are generally used to study the colonic biotransformation as they allow easy dynamic and multiple sampling over time. However, to ensure this accurately mimics communities in vivo, the pre-analytical phase requires optimization. Chlorogenic acid, a polyphenolic compound abundantly present in the human diet, was used as a model compound to optimize a ready-to-use gut microbiome biotransformation platform. Samples of the in vitro gastrointestinal dialysis-model with colon stage were analyzed by liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Complementary screening approaches were also employed to identify the biotransformation products.

1. Introduction

The microorganisms that live inside and on the human body outnumber the human cells by a factor of ten [1,2,3,4,5,6]. The gastrointestinal tract (GIT) accommodates between 1012–1013 microorganisms with the colon harboring the majority of bacteria of the GIT. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes are the two dominant phyla present in the human GIT, accounting for 90% of the gut diversity [5,7,8,9,10]. The gut microbiota is responsible for various developmental, immunological and nutrition host functions [11,12].
The gut microbiome, the cumulative genome content of the gut microbiota, is estimated to contain 100 to 300-fold more genes than the human genome [1,3,5,13,14] and therefore is considered an additional metabolic organ [3,7,15,16]. Important differences between hepatic and bacterial metabolism have been described. Metabolic pathways by the liver cytochrome P450 enzymes (CYP450) lead to the conversion of lipophilic compounds into more hydrophilic compounds, while the majority of biotransformations encoded for by the gut microbiome are reductive and hydrolytic reactions. In addition, the gut flora is responsible for demethylation, deacylation, decarboxylation, acetylation, dealkylation, dehalogenation, dehydroxylation, deamination, and oxidation/ dehydrogenation [1,17,18,19,20]. Direct and indirect interactions can influence the activity and toxicity of xenobiotics [20]. Conversion of a prodrug to the active compound, inactivation, detoxification, change of efficacy and direct binding to xenobiotics or dietary molecules are examples of direct interferences [11,21]. Examples of indirect interferences are competition and/or inhibition of host enzymes by microbial metabolites, the alteration of host genes expression and reactivation of drugs by deconjugation of the phase II metabolite after enterohepatic circulation [11,21]. Varying health-promoting compounds present in the human diet such as polyphenols are characterized by a poor absorption in the small intestines, leading to extensive biotransformation of these xenobiotics by the gut microbiota [7,17].
In vitro GIT models offer an alternative approach to in vivo studies to investigate the colonic biotransformation of xenobiotics as they allow multiple sampling overtime. In vitro models of the GIT can simulate the different parts of the digestive system by adjusting pH, temperature, enzymes and peristalsis. The gut flora is mimicked using a fecal suspension [22,23,24]. However, in vitro models are not fully representative of in vivo conditions. Therefore, it is important to optimize the pre-analytical phase to mimic the in vivo situation in order to obtain a high level of physiological significance [18,22]. During this study, the gastrointestinal dialysis model with colon (GIDM-colon), developed and validated by Breynaert et al., was used to investigate the colonic biotransformation of the polyphenolic compound chlorogenic acid [25]. As chlorogenic acid is a polyphenol abundantly present in the human diet of which the gastrointestinal metabolism has already been extensively investigated by multiple studies, it was selected as model compound to optimize a ready-to-use setup to study the colonic metabolism of xenobiotics [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].

2. Materials and Methods

The colonic biotransformation of chlorogenic acid was investigated using the GIDM-colon [25]. A blank (no chlorogenic acid) and negative control (no fecal suspension) sample were included as controls in each experiment. The pH was set at 2, 7.5 and 5.8 for the gastric, small intestinal and colon-stage respectively, together with the appropriate enzymes. Temperature was kept at 37 °C and during the colon-stage, dialysis cells were placed in an anaerobic environment.
In order to further optimize the in vitro GIDM-colon system, a thorough investigation was conducted to determine effects on the bacterial composition of the fecal samples used to inoculate the colon system, aiming to minimize changes in bacterial composition between initial donation of fecal samples by individuals (meeting certain inclusion criteria) and final biotransformation experiments in the in vitro GIDM-colon system. Thus, the processing procedure of the fecal suspension, used during the colon-stage, was optimized. Two incubation media, Wilkins-Chalgren Anaerobe Broth (WCB) and a sterile phosphate buffer (0.1 M, pH 7) were investigated. The fecal slurry was incubated for 17 h in the media and samples were taken before and after incubation and analyzed for their bacterial composition by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Furthermore, the effect of incubation time in the chosen medium on the bacterial concentration was also investigated. A pooled fecal slurry was incubated 24 h in the chosen medium and samples were taken every 2 h whereafter the anaerobic CFU/g was determined.
In view of optimal preparation of samples for accurate analysis of colon metabolites by liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry, the sample preparation procedure after GIDM-colon experiments was optimized. Four different sample preparation methods (SPP) on the samples received from the colon-stage were evaluated: all methods included the addition of methanol (MeOH) combined with centrifugation steps (14,000 rpm, 8 min), freeze-drying (reconstituted in MeOH, sonicated 45 min), sonication (60 min) or extraction by vortex mixing (60 s). Sample preparation methods were evaluated based on the number of identified biotransformation products with MS/MS fragmentation, and the time and effort needed for sample preparation. Samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution accurate-mass mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF-MS), including both complementary suspect and non-targeted screening workflows.

3. Results and Conclusions

Phosphate buffer was chosen as preferred incubation medium for this study. The medium demonstrated a closer resemblance to the initial in vivo bacterial composition, while WCB was found to introduce substantial changes. Furthermore, the anaerobic bacterial concentration remained stable during 24 h of incubation in phosphate buffer. In future experiments, no incubation is needed prior to the GIDM-colon which will lead to a reduction in total time of the experiment and reduced risk of introduction of changes to the initial bacterial composition.
Results of the investigation of different SPP prior to LC-QTOF-MS analysis, clearly showed freeze-drying to be the inferior, as lower relative peak areas of the identified biotransformation products were produced. Centrifugation, sonication and extraction SPPs showed similar relative peak areas. Furthermore, only 53% of the identified compounds showed MS/MS fragmentation by data dependent MS/MS using freeze-drying, while 63% was reached using the centrifugation or extraction method and 69% using the sonication method. Extraction was chosen as SPP for future experiments as a shorter time period is needed to obtain LC-suitable samples. In total, 23 colonic biotransformation products of chlorogenic acid were identified after digesting 78 mg chlorogenic acid in the optimized GIDM-colon system using liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry.
This study contributed to the development of a ready-to-use platform that can be used to investigate the gastrointestinal fate of different xenobiotic compounds and/or to compare interindividual differences in colonic biotransformation between different populations (e.g., fecal samples of patient groups).

Funding

Olivier Mortelé wants to thank the Special Fund for Research and the Concerted Research Action for his PhD fellowship.

Acknowledgments

This work is based upon work from COST Action NutRedOx-CA16112 supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stojancevic, M.; Bojic, G.; Al Salami, H.; Mikov, M. The Influence of Intestinal Tract and Probiotics on the Fate of Orally Administered Drugs. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2014, 16, 55–67. [Google Scholar]
  2. Belkaid, Y.; Hand, T.W. Role of the microbiota in immunity and inflammation. Cell 2014, 157, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Borody, T.J.; Paramsothy, S.; Agrawal, G. Fecal microbiota transplantation: Indications, methods, evidence, and future directions. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2013, 15, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fijan, S. Microorganisms with claimed probiotic properties: An overview of recent literature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 4745–4767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Jandhyala, S.M.; Talukdar, R.; Subramanyam, C.; Vuyyuru, H.; Sasikala, M.; Nageshwar Reddy, D. Role of the normal gut microbiota. World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 8787–8803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Janssen, A.W.; Kersten, S. The role of the gut microbiota in metabolic health. FASEB J. 2015, 29, 3111–3123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lee, H.C.; Jenner, A.M.; Low, C.S.; Lee, Y.K. Effect of tea phenolics and their aromatic fecal bacterial metabolites on intestinal microbiota. Res. Microbiol. 2006, 157, 876–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rooks, M.G.; Garrett, W.S. Gut microbiota, metabolites and host immunity. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2016, 16, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Isolauri, E.; Salminen, S.; Ouwehand, A.C. Microbial-gut interactions in health and disease. Probiotics Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2004, 18, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Williamson, G.; Clifford, M.N. Colonic metabolites of berry polyphenols: The missing link to biological activity? Br. J. Nutr. 2010, 104, S48–S66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Carmody, R.N.; Turnbaugh, P.J. Host-microbial interactions in the metabolism of therapeutic and diet-derived xenobiotics. J. Clin. Invest. 2014, 124, 4173–4181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Sousa, T.; Paterson, R.; Moore, V.; Carlsson, A.; Abrahamsson, B.; Basit, A.W. The gastrointestinal microbiota as a site for the biotransformation of drugs. Int. J. Pharm. 2008, 363, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Boulange, C.L. Impact of the gut microbiota on inflammation, obesity, and metabolic disease. Genom. Med. 2016, 8, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hemarajata, P.; Versalovic, J. Effects of probiotics on gut microbiota: Mechanisms of intestinal immunomodulation and neuromodulation. Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2013, 6, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Borody, T.J.; Brandt, L.J.; Paramsothy, S. Therapeutic faecal microbiota transplantation: Current status and future developments. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 2014, 30, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. O’Hara, A.M.; Shanahan, F. The gut flora as a forgotten organ. EMBO Rep. 2006, 7, 688–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, F.; Wen, Q.; Jiang, J.; Li, H.-L.; Tan, Y.-F.; Li, Y.-H.; Zeng, N.-K. Could the gut microbiota reconcile the oral bioavailability conundrum of traditional herbs? J. Ethnopharmacol. 2016, 179, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Venema, K.; van den Abbeele, P. Experimental models of the gut microbiome. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2013, 27, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Haiser, H.J.; Turnbaugh, P.J. Developing a metagenomic view of xenobiotic metabolism. Pharmacol. Res. 2013, 69, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wilson, I.D.; Nicholson, J.K. Gut microbiome interactions with drug metabolism, efficacy, and toxicity. Transl. Res. 2017, 179, 204–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Spanogiannopoulos, P.; Bess, E.N.; Carmody, R.N.; Turnbaugh, P.J. The microbial pharmacists within us: A metagenomic view of xenobiotic metabolism. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016, 14, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Verhoeckx, K.; Cotter, P.; Lopez-Exposito, I.; Kleiveland, C.; Lea, T.; Mackie, A.; Requena, T.; Swiatecka, D.; Wichers, H. The Impact of Food Bioactives on Health: In Vitro and Ex Vivo Models; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mosele, J.I.; Martín-Peláez, S.; Macià, A.; Farràs, M.; Valls, R.-M.; Catalán, Ú.; Motilva, M.J. Faecal microbial metabolism of olive oil phenolic compounds: In vitro and in vivo approaches. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2014, 58, 1809–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ekmekcioglu, C. A Physiological Approach for Preparing and Conducting Intestinal Bioavailability Studies Using Experimental System. Food Chem. 2002, 76, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Breynaert, A.; Bosscher, D.; Kahnt, A.; Claeys, M.; Cos, P.; Pieters, L.; Hermans, N. Development and Validation of an in vitro Experimental GastroIntestinal Dialysis Model with Colon Phase to Study the Availability and Colonic Metabolisation of Polyphenolic Compounds. Planta Med. 2015, 81, 1075–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gonthier, M.P.V.M.; Besson, C.; Rémésy, C.; Scalbert, A. Chlorogenic acid bioavailability largely depends on its metabolism by the gut microflora in rats. J. Nutr. 2003, 133, 1853–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tomas-Barberan, F.; Garcia-Villalba, R.; Quartieri, A.; Raimondi, S.; Amaretti, A.; Leonardi, A.; Rossi, M. In vitro transformation of chlorogenic acid by human gut microbiota. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2014, 58, 1122–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Konishi, Y.; Kobayashi, S. Transepithelial transport of chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, and their colonic metabolites in intestinal Caco-2 cell monolayers. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 2518–2526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Del Rio, D.; Stalmach, A.; Calani, L.; Crozier, A. Bioavailability of Coffee Chlorogenic Acids and Green Tea Flavan-3-ols. Nutrients 2010, 2, 820–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gonthier, M.P.; Remesy, C.; Scalbert, A.; Cheynier, V.; Souquet, J.M.; Poutanen, K.; Aura, A.M. Microbial metabolism of caffeic acid and its esters chlorogenic and caftaric acids by human faecal microbiota in vitro. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2006, 60, 536–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Olthof, M.R.; Hollman, P.C.H.; Buijsman, M.; van Amelsvoort, J.M.M.; Katan, M.B. Chlorogenic acid, quercetin-3-rutinoside and black tea phenols are extensively metabolized in humans. J. Nutr. 2003, 133, 2692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pinta, M.N.; Montoliu, I.; Aura, A.M.; Seppanen-Laakso, T.; Barron, D.; Moco, S. In Vitro Gut Metabolism of U-C-13-Quinic Acid, The Other Hydrolysis Product of Chlorogenic Acid. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2018, 62, 7. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rechner, A.R.; Smith, M.A.; Kuhnle, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Debnam, E.S.; Srai, S.K.S.; Moore, K.P.; Rice-Evans, C.A. Colonic metabolism of dietary polyphenols: Influence of structure on microbial fermentation products. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2004, 36, 212–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mortelé, O.; Iturrospe, E.; Breynaert, A.; Lammens, C.; Britto, X.B.; Malhotra-Kumar, S.; Jorens, P.; Pieters, L.; Nuijs, A.L.N.v.; Hermans, N. Chlorogenic Acid as a Model Compound for Optimization of an In Vitro Gut Microbiome-Metabolism Model. Proceedings 2019, 11, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2019011031

AMA Style

Mortelé O, Iturrospe E, Breynaert A, Lammens C, Britto XB, Malhotra-Kumar S, Jorens P, Pieters L, Nuijs ALNv, Hermans N. Chlorogenic Acid as a Model Compound for Optimization of an In Vitro Gut Microbiome-Metabolism Model. Proceedings. 2019; 11(1):31. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2019011031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mortelé, Olivier, Elias Iturrospe, Annelies Breynaert, Christine Lammens, Xavier Basil Britto, Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar, Philippe Jorens, Luc Pieters, Alexander L. N. van Nuijs, and Nina Hermans. 2019. "Chlorogenic Acid as a Model Compound for Optimization of an In Vitro Gut Microbiome-Metabolism Model" Proceedings 11, no. 1: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2019011031

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop