Immunological effects of Kefir produced from Kefir grains versus starter cultures when fed to mice

Journal Title: Functional Foods in Health and Disease - Year 2018, Vol 8, Issue 8

Abstract

Background: Natural kefir grains have a unique microbiota. The structure contains lactic acid bacteria (LAB), acetic acid bacteria and yeast in specific ratios in a polysaccharide matrix. Authentic kefir is produced by a traditional method using kefir grains cultured in milk. In contrast, starter cultures are used instead of kefir grains in the industry. The commercial kefir starter cultures used are limited and often very different from the kefir grain microbiota. The resultant commercial “kefir” is just a fermented drink containing some probiotic microorganisms and does not possess the same microbial population or chemical and physical characteristics of authentic kefir. The aim of this project was to determine and compare the effects on the mouse immune system of kefir produced using natural kefir grain versus commercial kefir produced by starter culture. Methods: Kefir produced with different cultures was fed to Balb/c mice (6-8 weeks, 20-25 grams, male) by gavage for two weeks at 300 μl/day. Intestinal tissues were collected from sacrificed mice at the end of the trial. The control group of mice (CNI group) were fed with phosphate buffered saline (PBS). The experimental treatments were mice fed mice fed authentic kefir produced using kefir grains (KGI group) and mice fed kefir produced using starter culture (STI group). Immunoglobulin (Ig) A, Immunoglubulin G, Interleukin (IL)-4, Interleukin-10, Interleukin-12, Toll Like Receptor (TLR)-4 were analyzed immunologically in intestinal fluid samples. Results: Results indicated that IgA values were 60.87, 72.78 and 55.31 ng/mL; IgG values were 26.59, 38.90 and 29.44 ng/mL; IL-4 values were 84, 40.28 and 53.28 pg/mL; IL-10 values were 110.98, 175.91 and 134.77 pg/mL; IL-12 values were 53.90, 22.93 and 24.75 pg/mL; TLR-4 values were 0.53, 0.43 and 1.37 ng/mL, for the CNI, KGI and STI groups, respectively. Conclusion: The high probiotic content of grain kefir had the ability to modulate many immunological mechanisms.

Authors and Affiliations

Keywords

Related Articles

Nutritional components of the sea cucumber Holothuria scabra

Background: Holothuria scabra is one of the most commercially important species found in the Pacific region. The sea cucumber extracts have been widely reported to have beneficial health effects. The aim of this study wa...

The efficacy and safety of a proprietary onion-pumpkin extract (OPtain120) on blood pressure: an open-label study

Background: Nutraceuticals and functional foods are increasingly being used to help manage hypertension. Treatment with either pumpkin or onion can significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure in animal stud...

Glycemic index of some traditional fortified staple meals on the postprandial blood glucose responses of Nigerian undergraduate students: an open-label study

Background: Staple meals, or meals that are eaten routinely,inexpensive,and are readily available,constitute a dominant portion of the standard diet in a given population. Most of the indigenous staple...

Oral administration of an ethanolic extract of Hypericum gentianoides attenuates spontaneous colitis in mdr1a-/- mice

Background: Nutraceuticals (i.e., complementary and alternative medicines) are gaining ground as therapeutic modalities for inflammatory and autoimmune disorders due to their low toxicity and high patient compliance. Sev...

FFC’s Advancement of Functional Food Definition

Background: To create functional food products based on scientific evidence, we must first define functional foods. Previous definitions describe how functional foods improve health and mitigate disease. However, more re...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP592860
  • DOI 10.31989/ffhd.v8i8.533
  • Views 163
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

(2018). Immunological effects of Kefir produced from Kefir grains versus starter cultures when fed to mice. Functional Foods in Health and Disease, 8(8), 412-423. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-592860