Download Protein digestion in poultry – the value of an

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