* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Protein digestion in poultry – the value of an
Gaseous signaling molecules wikipedia , lookup
Endogenous retrovirus wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression wikipedia , lookup
Clinical neurochemistry wikipedia , lookup
Ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptides wikipedia , lookup
G protein–coupled receptor wikipedia , lookup
Expression vector wikipedia , lookup
Magnesium transporter wikipedia , lookup
Ancestral sequence reconstruction wikipedia , lookup
Point mutation wikipedia , lookup
Genetic code wikipedia , lookup
Amino acid synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Interactome wikipedia , lookup
Biosynthesis wikipedia , lookup
Bimolecular fluorescence complementation wikipedia , lookup
Metalloprotein wikipedia , lookup
Biochemistry wikipedia , lookup
Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of proteins wikipedia , lookup
Western blot wikipedia , lookup
Protein purification wikipedia , lookup
Protein–protein interaction wikipedia , lookup
CONFIDENTIAL Protein digestion in poultry – the value of an exogenous protease Aaron Cowieson Principal Scientist, DSM Professor of Poultry Nutrition, University of Sydney CONFIDENTIAL Presentation Overview • Introduction and key concepts in protein digestion • Endogenous and exogenous sources of protein in the intestine • Factors that influence protein/amino acid digestion • Optimising the use of exogenous protease and the importance of benchmarking raw material quality • Conclusions Page 1 CONFIDENTIAL Introduction • Protein/amino acids are among the most expensive nutrients to deliver in poultry nutrition • The digestibility of protein in poultry is typically incomplete by the terminal ileum • Undigested protein that leaves the ileum is from both exogenous (diet) and endogenous (bird) sources • Understanding the digestion of dietary proteins and the recovery of endogenous proteins is important and can provide a basis for the use of exogenous proteases Page 2 CONFIDENTIAL Key Concepts - background • Substantial input of endogenous protein into the lumen during digestion • Endogenous proteins are not fully recovered by the terminal ileum (estimates around 80-90%, Souffrant et al., 1993) • Endogenous proteolysis requires co-operative effort from several peptidases • Most (80%) amino acids are recovered from the lumen as di- and tri-peptides, not as free amino acids (Ganapathy et al., 1994) • Cytostolic peptidases have limited capacity to hydrolyse tetrapeptides (Sterchi & Woodley, 1980) • Dietary protein is generally well recovered and amino acids that exit the intestine are largely of endogenous origin • Ileal measurements are more meaningful (microbial synth/metab.) Page 3 CONFIDENTIAL Low (1980) Page 4 CONFIDENTIAL Endogenous loss (Moughan & Rutherfurd, 2012) • Sources of endogenous loss Pancreatic and gastric enzymes Mucin Bile Acids Bicarbonate Intestinal cells (Microbial protein) Saliva BALANCE OF SECRETION AND ABSORPTION! • ‘Loss’ defined when an endogenous secretion leaves the ileum (amino acid cost to the animal) where there will be no further reasorption Page CONFIDENTIAL Amino acid profile of endogenous proteins • mean amino acid profile of 8 sources of endogenous protein 12 % of amino acid 10 8 6 Mean = 5.3% 4 2 Ly s Ar g C ys M et is H Le u Ty r Ph e As p Th r Se r G lu Pr o G ly Al a Va l Ile 0 • amino acids of most significance, overall, are ser, gly, leu, pro, val, thr, as • of least significance are met and his Page CONFIDENTIAL Energy associated with amino acids • All amino acids have associated energy – ranges from 2891kcal/kg for aspartic acid to 6739kcal/kg for phenylalanine • The energetic consequence of the ingestion of an antinutrient will depend on the profile of amino acid response (AA profile of lost protein) & synthesis energy requirements GE (kcal/kg of amino acid) 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 Page Mean = 4954kcal/kg Asp Thr Ser Glu Pro Gly Ala Val Ile Leu Tyr Phe His Lys Arg Cys Met CONFIDENTIAL Adaptation to new diets – Corring (1980) • GIT physiology is fluid and adapts readily to changing diet composition. Page 8 CONFIDENTIAL Recovery of endogenous protein • Whilst much (perhaps 85%) of the endogenous protein is recovered and retained, some is lost and either excreted or modified by the hind gut microflora • Some endogenous protein sources are more readily recovered than others • Hydrophobic and/or refractory proteins are poorly recovered • Approximately 70% of endogenous protein is secreted distally from the stomach/gizzard and so does not readily undergo gastric digestion (Fuller & Reeds, 1998) • Glycosylated domains of mucin (rich in Ser, Thr, Pro) are poorly recovered (Forstner & Forstner, 1994) • Can we assist the bird with recovery of endogenous protein and/or reduce (in an appropriate way) endogenous secretion? Page 9 CONFIDENTIAL Fuller & Reeds, 1994 • Suggest that approx 1g of endogenous protein is secreted into the GIT for every 2g of dietary protein ingested • Dietary protein recovery is approximately 93% complete (on a ‘true’ basis) • Endogenous protein recovery is approximately 89% complete • Which endogenous proteins should be the ‘target’ for next generation exogenous enzymes? Page 10 CONFIDENTIAL Exogenous enzymes and endogenous secretion • Reduced antinutritive effects of e.g. phytate and fibre via exogenous enzymes – reduced endogenous loss • Supplementation with exogenous enzymes can directly influence endogenous production e.g. Jiang et al. (2008) – amylase mRNA 2,250mg/kg of supplementary amylase reduced pancreatic amylase mRNA by around 20% • Exogenous enzymes can alter GIT length and improve net energy e.g. Cowieson et al. (2003), Pirgozliev et al. (2009, 2010) Page 11 CONFIDENTIAL Li & Sauer (1994) • Effect of added fat (canola oil) on amino acid digestibility in piglets Page 12 CONFIDENTIAL Fat removal may compromise digestibility of AA 3 2 1 A la Ty r G lu Ph e M e M t E AN A rg H is P ro Le u V al G ly Ly s C ys A sp -1 Ile 0 Th r S er % change in ileal digestibility from PC to NC 4 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 Cowieson et al., 2010: 2% fat removed (PC to NC) d21 Page d42 CONFIDENTIAL Phytase and protease? • Bohn et al. (2007) phytate/protein globoids • The protein shell makes these resistant to phytases • Leske & Coon (1999) – phytate susceptibility differs in different raw materials – protease may help (xylanase appears not to) Page 14 CONFIDENTIAL Bye et al. (2013) Page 15 CONFIDENTIAL Franz Hofmeister • Prof. Franz Hofmeister (1850-1922) • Born in Prague, 1850 • Pharmaceutical chemistry • Proposer of the ‘Hofmeister Series’ ionic grouping based on their ability to influence protein solubility Page CONFIDENTIAL Hofmeister Series • Effect of ions on protein solubility CO32- > SO42- > HPO42- > OH- > F- > HCOO- > CH3COO- > Cl- > Br> NO3- > I- > SCN- > ClO4• Fig. 1 Representation of Hofmeister anions with increasing chaotropic potency from left to right (adapted from Leontidis, 2002; Zhang & Cremer, 2006). Cs+ > Rb+ > NH4+ > K+ > Na+ > Li+ > Mg+ > Sr2+ > Ca2+ • Fig. 2 Representation of Hofmeister cations with increasing chaotropic potency from left to right (adapted from Hess & van der Vegt, 2009) Page CONFIDENTIAL Damodaran & Kinsella (1982) • Effect of 1M ion salts on soy protein solubility (%): 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NaI NaCl Na2SO4 Page 18 CONFIDENTIAL Huang et al. (2005) British Poultry Science • Wheat/Canola – overall a decrease in AA digestibility d14-42 • Corn/Soy – overall an increase in AA digestibility d14-42 Page 19 CONFIDENTIAL Importance of benchmarking • Enzymes act on substrates – substrate type and concentration is clearly important e.g. phytate, fibre, refractory proteins and starch • Enzymes can degrade antinutrients such as trypsin inhibitors and phytate • INHERENT DIGESTIBILITY OF FOCAL NUTRIENTS is absolutely central to the magnitude and consistency of enzyme effects (Cowieson, 2010) – Xylanase, protease and phytase all follow this rule • So, how do we integrate these thoughts in order to optimise the use of enzymes in our diets? • Meta-analysis of large databases to show key leverage terms that promote enzyme efficacy Page 20 CONFIDENTIAL Methodology • Digestibility meta-analysis included 804 datapoints from 25 independent experiments • Performance meta-analysis included 673 datapoints from 63 independent experiments • Data were generated from experiments run between 2006 and 2013 • Most trials were conducted in EU, US and Brazil • Models were constructed using the statistical software ‘R’ – trials nested in region and ProAct treatment nested in trial – compared with the appropriate control • Predictors were assessed based on degree of statistical significance and biological relevance Page 21 CONFIDENTIAL Digestibility • Mean response to ProAct was around 4% ranging from 5.6% for Thr to 2.7% for Glu • AME was significantly increased by 49 Kcal/kg and fat dig by 1% • Inherent digestibility in the control diet explained around 47% of the variance in response (Fig above) • Pattern of response is correlated with the AA profile of intestinal mucin (Fig below) • We need to be able to predict control digestibility to better predict ProAct effect Page 22 Amino acid profile of intestinal mucin (%) 18 y = 3.3192x - 6.239 R² = 0.3515 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Change in amino acid digestibility with protease (%) 6 CONFIDENTIAL Performance Modelling • Considered 93 separate leverage terms • Significance set at P < 0.05 • Non-significant terms re-introduced once a beta-model was in place to confirm lack of importance • Heat mapping used to check for co-linearity Page 23 CONFIDENTIAL Performance Model: key terms that influence effect of protease SUBJECTIVE 1. Relative performance of control birds (index Ross standard) OBJECTIVE 1. Diet CP, % 2. Diet AME, kcal/kg 3. dLys, % 4. Limestone inclusion, % 5. AME:dLys ratio 6. CP:dThr ratio 7. AME:dSAA ratio 8. dLys:dThr ratio Page 24 CONFIDENTIAL Models – Grower/Finisher Page 25 CONFIDENTIAL Models – Grower/Finisher LOWER VALUE OF PROACT: - High CP - Low AME - Good bird performance - High limestone - Inappropriate AA balance: - LOW dLys:dSAA - HIGH dLys:dThr - LOW CP:dThr - HIGH AME:dSAA Page 26 HIGH VALUE OF PROACT: - Low CP - High AME - Poor bird performance - Low limestone - Appropriate AA balance: - HIGH dLys:dSAA - LOW dLys:dThr - HIGH CP:dThr - LOW AME:dSAA CONFIDENTIAL Grower/Finisher Model – how this may be applied in future DIET INPUTS CP, % AME, kcal, kg dLys, % dSAA, % dThr, % Limestone, % DIET RATIOS dLys:dSAA AME:dSAA CP:dThr dLys:dThr MODEL TERMS MEAN IN DATABASE 19.13 19.13 3107 3107.00 1.05 1.05 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.8 0.80 1.40 4142.67 26.94 1.48 BIRD INPUTS Relative Performance, % lifetime dif to breeder target 1.2 OUTPUT Predicted ProAct Effect (% FCE/BWG change) 2.8 Page 27 1.20 0% 5% 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 95% 100% 15.18 16.30 17.01 18.00 19.00 20.10 22.00 22.00 23.13 2900.00 2979.00 3004.40 3035.00 3107.00 3179.00 3200.00 3247.90 3275.00 0.81 0.85 0.90 0.96 1.00 1.12 1.23 1.26 1.40 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.69 0.75 0.80 0.87 0.92 1.04 0.55 0.55 0.60 0.64 0.69 0.78 0.83 0.87 0.96 0.00 0.24 0.35 0.53 0.63 1.13 1.51 1.60 2.00 1.25 1.28 1.29 1.32 1.37 1.44 1.56 1.62 1.67 3238.04 3425.67 3661.21 3891.03 4254.67 4565.22 4822.72 5042.02 5411.67 22.94 24.34 25.22 25.64 26.59 28.86 29.64 30.40 31.82 1.30 1.32 1.37 1.41 1.47 1.53 1.61 1.65 1.86 -69.80 -29.74 -17.62 -11.59 4.10 14.11 22.34 28.65 35.91 CONFIDENTIAL Application in the future Page 28 CONFIDENTIAL Application in the future Page 29 CONFIDENTIAL Where do the performance effects of ProAct come from? • Mechanisms responsible for the ‘extra-proteinaceous’ effects of ProAct may include: – Gut health – Mucosal integrity – Tight junction integrity – Collagen structure – Mucin and enzyme flow – Litter quality Page 30 CONFIDENTIAL Future application of ProAct • Articulated – Digestibility effects may be further optimised via raw material quality assessment – Additional performance benefits may be delivered through metaanalysis model application • How may a raw material assessment tool be developed? • A case study on corn Page 31 CONFIDENTIAL Corn Quality • Hydration is a pre-requisite for digestion • Composition is not an adequate predictor of AME or protein quality - Corns with identical starch, protein and fat contents may not have the same AME - Different starch and protein solubility can lead to different ileal digestibilities and thus undigested fractions - Solubility of corn starch and protein can be estimated in vitro - A laboratory has developed a method to estimate starch and protein quality (starch industry) and also feeding value Page CONFIDENTIAL Salt Soluble Protein Usefulness for predicting quality • Nutritional value of corn is well correlated with chemical composition and solubility of protein • Several trials have demonstrated these correlations: – Gehring et al. (2013) Worlds Poultry Science Journal – Gehring et al. (2013) Poultry Science – Gehring et al. (2012) Poultry Science – Kaczmarek et al. (2007) ESPN – Kaczmarek et al. (2013) Animal Production Science – Metayer et al. (2009) Worlds Poultry Science Journal • And more generally in other species – Malumba et al. (2009) Journal of Food Engineering – Malumba et al. (2008) Food Chemistry – Malumba et al. (2010) Carbohydrate Polymers Page 33 CONFIDENTIAL CORN QUALITY ASSESSMENT - to scale enzyme response • • • • Mean = 46.4% - relative to albumin standard N = 93 SD = 11.23 Min/Max = 19.1-65.9 Page 34 CONFIDENTIAL Undried Corn Starch Page Source: University of Poznan, Poland CONFIDENTIAL Page Dried Corn Starch Source: University of Poznan, Poland CONFIDENTIAL Trial at University of Auburn Gehring et al. (2013) Poultry Science Quality Saline Protein Solubility (%) Vitreousness (%) Starch (%) Protein (%) 1 High 49.2 58.5 74.83 2 High 46.6 59.8 3 Moderate 39.4 4 Moderate 5 6 Sample Page Oil (%) Crude fiber (%) Predicted AMEn (kcal/kg) 8.36 3.72 2.67 3,274 74.63 9.91 3.45 2.79 3,295 59.2 75.54 8.12 3.72 2.62 3,236 33.4 59.7 74.51 8.17 3.79 2.65 3,174 Low 26.9 60.0 74.92 8.17 3.72 2.59 3,143 Low 25.7 57.8 75.88 8.01 3.69 2.58 3,159 CONFIDENTIAL Apparent Ileal N Digestibility 78.0 P = 0.57 SEM = 1.44 77.15 77.0 75.87 % 76.0 75.06 75.0 75.04 74.09 74.04 Low 5 5 Low 6 6 74.0 73.0 NRC 3843 72.0 Page High 1 1 NRC 4025 High 2 2 NRC 8405 Moderate 3 3 Moderate 4 4 CONFIDENTIAL Ileal Digestible Energy 3,450 1 and 2 vs. 5 and 6 P = 0.001 1 vs. 6 P = 0.014 SEM = 34 3,408 3,400 3,358 kcal/kg 3,350 3,322 3,316 3,287 3,300 3,248 3,250 3,200 NRC 3843 3,150 Page High 1 1 NRC 4025 High 2 2 NRC 8405 Moderate 3 3 Moderate 4 4 Low 5 5 Low 6 6 CONFIDENTIAL Vitreousness • Indication of endosperm hardness (protein/starch matrix & density) • (A) High Vitreousness (starch imbedded in prolamin-protein matrix) • (B) Low Vitreousness (floury starch) – from Gibson et al., 2003 • High vitreousness = poorer digestibility of protein and starch Page CONFIDENTIAL CORN QUALITY ASSESSMENT - to scale enzyme response • • • • Mean = 61.4% N = 93 SD = 2.43 Min/Max = 52.5-66.5 Page 41 CONFIDENTIAL Implications • ProAct is currently widely used to reduce feed cost and does so very successfully • DSM are currently working on further enhancement of the application of ProAct to deliver additional value through: – Possible further feed cost savings linked to raw material quality – Improved performance of birds via diet balance (meta-analysis) Page 42 CONFIDENTIAL Conclusions • Protein digestion in poultry (and other animals) is a complex process of hydrolysis of incoming proteins, absorption, further processing and the concurrent secretion and recovery of endogenous protein • Endogenous proteins are often less well recovered that exogenous proteins and ProAct may assist the animals with digestion of both fractions • Though ProAct currently delivers substantial value through the CP/AA matrices and/or DIF values and the focus of use is feed cost saving there may be additional advantages in performance in the future • Work is ongoing to further explore the mechanisms responsible for the effect of ProAct on gut health, litter quality, performance etc. • In the future the value of ProAct may extend beyond feed cost savings to offer performance enhancement Page 43