Antioxidative protection of dietary rosehips and polyphenol active lactobacilli in mice subjected to intestinal oxidative stress by ischemia-reperfusion

Figures & data

Figure 1. Isolation frequency from cecum content of the different Lactobacillus strains administered to mice with dietary supplements of rosehips and a mixture of polyphenol active Lactobacillus strains (LAB). RC+LAB was given standard diet supplemented with rosehips of R. canina and LAB; RP+LAB, standard diet supplemented with rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia and LAB; LAB group was given standard diet supplemented with LAB.

Figure 2. Malondialdehyde (MDA) in cecal tissue after ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) of mice administered different diets supplemented rosehips and polyphenol active Lactobacillus strains (LAB): I/R control was given standard diet; LAB, standard diet supplemented with LAB; RC, standard diet and rosehips of R. canina; RC+LAB, standard diet, rosehips of R. canina, and LAB; RP, standard diet and rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia; RP+LAB, standard diet with rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia and LAB; sham group was given standard diet. ^adenotes p<0.05 compared to I/R control.

Figure 3. Malondialdehyde (MDA) in colonic tissue after ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) or mice administrated different diets supplemented with rosehips and polyphenol active Lactobacillus strains (LAB): I/R control was given standard diet; LAB, standard diet supplemented with LAB; RC, standard diet and rosehips of R. canina; RC+LAB, standard diet, rosehips of R. canina, and LAB; RP, standard diet and rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia; RP+LAB, standard diet with rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia and LAB; sham group was given standard diet.^a denotes p<0.05 compared to control; ^bdenotes p<0.01 compared to control; ^cdenotes p<0.05 compared to RC group; ^ddenotes p<0.05 compared to RC+LAB group.

Table I. Total antioxidant capacity (FRAP) in cecal content of mice administered different dietary supplements of rosehips and a mixture of polyphenol active Lactobacillus strains (LAB).

	FRAP (mmol/100 g ww)
Group	Median value	25th–75th percentiles
I/R control (n=7)	0.93	0.82–1.14
LAB (n=7)	0.95	0.84–1.19
RC (n=7)	6.21^a,b,c	5.32–7.52
RC+LAB (n=7)	6.95^a,b,c	6.42–7.53
RP (n=6)	5.47^a,b,c	3.65–6.08
RP+LAB (n=7)	6.45^a,b,c	4.81–7.75
Sham (n=7)	1.16	1.13–1.21

I/R-control was given standard diet; LAB, standard diet supplemented with LAB; RC, standard diet and rosehips of R. canina; RC+LAB, standard diet, rosehips of R. canina, and LAB; RP, standard diet and rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia; RP+LAB, standard diet with rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia and LAB; sham group was given standard diet. ^ap<0.001 compared with I/R control, ^bp<0.001 compared with the LAB group, ^cp<0.001 compared with the sham group.

Table II. Total phenolic content measured with Folin-Ciocalteau reagent in cecal content of mice administered different dietary supplements of rosehips and a mixture of polyphenol active Lactobacillus strains (LAB).

	Total phenols (mg/g ww)
Group	Median value	25th–75th percentiles
I/R control (n=7)	0.91	0.75–0.98
LAB (n=7)	0.97	0.95–1.31
RC (n=7)	3.73^a,b,c	3.16–5.11
RC+LAB (n=7)	4.28^a,b,c	3.74–4.83
RP (n=6)	3.95^a,b,c	2.68–4.35
RP+LAB (n=7)	4.23^a,b,c	3.30–5.09
Sham (n=7)	1.19	1.15–1.27

I/R control was given standard diet; LAB, standard diet supplemented with LAB; RC, standard diet and rosehips of R. canina; RC+LAB, standard diet, rosehips of R. canina, and LA; RP, standard diet and rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia; RP+LAB, standard diet with rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia and LAB; sham group was given standard diet. ^ap<0.001 compared with I/R control, ^bp<0.001 compared with LAB group, ^cp<0.001 compared with the sham group.

Table III. HPLC-ESI-MS analysis of proanthocyanidins in cecal content of mice administered different dietary supplements of rosehips and a mixture of polyphenol active Lactobacillus strains (LAB).

	Median value with (25th–75th percentile)
Group	Catechin	Metabolite I	Proanthocyanidin-monomer-glycoside	Proanthocyanidin-dimer-monoglycoside	Proanthocyanidin-dimer-diglycoside	Protocatechuic acid
Control	2.4	1.8	0.02	0.07	0.04	0.09
("=7)	(1.9–2.5)	(1.5–2.5)	(0.01–0.03)	(0.06–0.1)	(0.04–0.05)	(0.07–0.09)
LAB	1.8	2.1	0.03	0.07	0.04	0.11
(n=7)	(1.7–2.4)	(1.7–2.2)	(0.02–0.05)	(0.04–0.08)	(0.03–0.05)	(0.07–0.14)
RC	20.5^b,e,h	65.9^b,e,h	10.1^b,e,h	16.1^b,e,h	7 2^c,e,h	0.59^b,e
(n=7)	(14.7–27.2)	(51.2–93.4)	(7.4–15.6)	(13.2–19.6)	(5.2–9.4)	(0.33–0.74)
RC+LAB	23.7^b,e,f	83.6^b,e,f	14.4^b,e,f	20.8^b,e,f	11.1^c,e,g	0.41^b,e
(n=7)	(21.3–29.7)	(79.3–108.4)	(14.0–20.2)	(14.4–24.8)	(8.0–15.4)	(0.26–0.67)
RP	13.1^b,e	40.4^b,e	0.2^b,d	0.2^b,e	0.03	10.54^c,e,j
(n=6)	(11.3–14.8)	(33.5–41.4)	(0.12–0.5)	(0.2–0.3)	(0.02–0.03)	(6.6–14.9)
RP+LAB	12.4^b,e	45.1^b,e	0.3^a,d	0.2^b,e	0.04	8.89^c,e,i
(n=7)	(11.5–13.7)	(34.8–50.0)	(0.09–0.4)	(0.2–0.3)	(0.03–0.05)	(6.2–11.1)
Sham	2.7	1.9	0.03	0.05	0.03	0.08
(n=7)	(2.1–3.3)	(1.4–2.3)	(0.02–0.05)	(0.04–0.06)	(0.02–0.04)	(0.06–0.11)

I/R control was given standard diet; LAB, standard diet supplemented with LAB; RC, standard diet and rosehips of R. canina; RC +LAB, standard diet, rosehips of R. canina, and LAB; RP, standard diet and rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia; RP+LAB, standard diet with rosehips of R. pimpinellifolia and LAB; sham group was given standard diet. The units are expressed as μg proanthocyanidin/g wet weight. All the values are presented as median with 25th to 75th percentiles in parentheses. Catechin, m/z 289; metabolite I, m/z 291; proanthocyanidin-monomer-glycoside, m/z 451; proanthocyanidin-dimer-monoglycoside, m/z 739.3; proanthocyanidin-dimer-diglycoside, m/z 901.3; protocatechuic acid, m/z 153. ^{a, b, c} denotes p<0.05, p<0.01, andp<0.001, respectively, compared to I/R control; ^{d, e} denotes p<0.05 andp<0.001, respectively, compared to LAB group; ^{f, g} denotes p<0.01 and p<0.001, respectively, compared to RP+LAB group; ^h denotes p<0.05 compared to RP group; i denotes p<0.001 compared to RC+LAB group; j denotes p<0.001 compared to RC group.