Advertisement

Future Perspectives and Opportunities for Interdisciplinary Research on Food Digestion

  • Gail M. BornhorstEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In the last few decades, research in the area of food digestion has dramatically increased, due to public interest in the links between food consumption and health or disease. However, there are still opportunities for future advances in this area, many of which involve interdisciplinary research. These future opportunities must involve a combination of in vivo, in vitro, and in silico approaches in order to bring about transformational advances in the field of food digestion. For example, future in vivo studies may include increased use of noninvasive imaging and use of ingestible sensors in human studies, as well as integration of results from human and animal studies using a “one-health” approach. Future in vitro studies must be standardized across the food digestion community, with the complementary development of “near-real” type of digestion models as well as simple, widely applicable systems. Prior to their widespread adoption, these in vitro model systems must undergo rigorous in vitro-in vivo correlations with data from human and animal studies. Future in vitro and in silico studies may be personalized to represent the stomach or intestines from a certain patient, based on noninvasive images of that patient. In silico studies will need to incorporate more complexity in terms of solid food breakdown, secretions, and movement throughout the gastrointestinal tract to provide information that may assist in future food product development. In order to pursue these opportunities, it is necessary to take an interdisciplinary approach, involving collaboration between food scientists, nutritionists, biological and chemical engineers, electrical engineers, veterinarians, and medical doctors. Development of interdisciplinary collaborations will allow for an increase in evidence-based advances in our understanding of food digestion and the impact of food on health and disease.

Keywords

Conclusions Future perspectives Noninvasive imaging Ingestible sensors In vitro digestion models In silico breakdown modeling Interdisciplinary 

References

  1. Amidon, G., Lennernäs, H., Shah, V., & Crison, J. (1995). A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutic drug classification: The correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability. Pharmaceutical Research, 12(3), 413–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornhorst, G. M., Ferrua, M. J., Rutherfurd, S. M., Heldman, D. R., & Singh, R. P. (2013). Rheological properties and textural attributes of cooked brown and white rice during gastric digestion in vivo. Food Biophysics, 8(2), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornhorst, G. M., Ferrua, M. J., & Singh, R. P. (2015). A proposed food breakdown classification system to predict food behavior during gastric digestion. Journal of Food Science, 80(5), R924–R934.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornhorst, G. M., Ströbinger, N., Rutherfurd, S. M., Singh, R. P., & Moughan, P. J. (2013). Properties of gastric chyme from pigs fed cooked brown or white rice. Food Biophysics, 8(1), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardot, J. M., Beyssac, E., & Alric, M. (2007). In vitro–in vivo correlation: Importance of dissolution in IVIVC. Dissolution Technology (February), 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chia, H. N., & Wu, B. M. (2015). Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. Journal of Biological Engineering, 9(1), 4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ciobanu, L., Seeber, D. A., & Pennington, C. H. (2002). 3D MR microscopy with resolution 3.7μm by 3.3μm by 3.3μm. Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 158(1), 178–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curran, R., Price, M., Raghunathan, S., Benard, E., Crosby, S., Castagne, S., et al. (2005). Integrating aircraft cost modeling into conceptual design. Concurrent Engineering, 13(4), 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahan, A., Miller, J., & Amidon, G. (2009). Prediction of solubility and permeability class membership: Provisional BCS classification of the world’s top oral drugs. The AAPS Journal, 11(4), 740–746.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drechsler, K. C., & Bornhorst, G. M. (2018). Modeling the softening of carbohydrate-based foods during simulated gastric digestion. Journal of Food Engineering, 222, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dupont, D., Alric, M., Blanquet-Diot, S., Bornhorst, G., Cueva, C., Deglaire, A., et al. (2018). Can dynamic in vitro digestion systems mimic the physiological reality? Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–17.Google Scholar
  12. Emami, J. (2006). In vitro–in vivo correlation: From theory to applications. J Pharm Pharm Sci, 9(2), 169–189.Google Scholar
  13. Ferrua, M. J., & Singh, R. P. (2010). Modeling the fluid dynamics in a human stomach to gain insight of food digestion. Journal of Food Science, 75(7), R151–R162.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrua, M. J., Xue, Z., & Singh, R. P. (2014). On the kinematics and efficiency of advective mixing during gastric digestion—A numerical analysis. Journal of Biomechanics, 47(15), 3664–3673.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. (1997). Guidance for industry: Extended release oral dosage forms: Development, evaluation, adn application of in vitro/in vivo correlation. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  16. Gavião, M. B. D., Engelen, L., & van der Bilt, A. (2004). Chewing behavior and salivary secretion. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 112(1), 19–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunter, M. J., Murphy, N., Cross, A. J., Dossus, L., Dartois, L., Fagherazzi, G., et al. (2017). Coffee drinking and mortality in 10 European countries: A multinational cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(4), 236–247.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hafezi, H., Robertson, T. L., Moon, G. D., Au-Yeung, K. Y., Zdeblick, M. J., & Savage, G. M. (2015). An ingestible sensor for measuring medication adherence. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 62(1), 99–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalantar-zadeh, K., Ha, N., Ou, J. Z., & Berean, K. J. (2017). Ingestible sensors. ACS Sensors, 2(4), 468–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keane, A., & Nair, P. (2005). Computational approaches for aerospace design: The pursuit of excellence. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kozu, H., Kobayashi, I., Nakajima, M., Uemura, K., Sato, S., & Ichikawa, S. (2010). Analysis of flow phenomena in gastric contents induced by human gastric peristalsis using CFD. Food Biophysics, 5(4), 330–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lentle, R. G., Janssen, P. W. M., Deloubens, C., Lim, Y. F., Hulls, C., & Chambers, P. (2013). Mucosal microfolds augment mixing at the wall of the distal ileum of the brushtail possum. Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 25(11), 881–e700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Love, R. J., Lentle, R. G., Asvarujanon, P., Hemar, Y., & Stafford, K. J. (2013). An expanded finite element model of the intestinal mixing of digesta. Food Digestion, 4(1), 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maqbool, S., Parkman, H. P., & Friedenberg, F. K. (2009). Wireless capsule motility: Comparison of the SmartPill® GI monitoring system with scintigraphy for measuring whole gut transit. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 54(10), 2167–2174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marco, M. L., Heeney, D., Binda, S., Cifelli, C. J., Cotter, P. D., Foligné, B., et al. (2017). Health benefits of fermented foods: Microbiota and beyond. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 44, 94–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McClelland, J. R., Blackall, J. M., Tarte, S., Chandler, A. C., Hughes, S., Ahmad, S., et al. (2006). A continuous 4D motion model from multiple respiratory cycles for use in lung radiotherapy. Medical Physics, 33(9), 3348–3358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Medina-Remón, A., Kirwan, R., Lamuela-Raventós, R. M., & Estruch, R. (2018). Dietary patterns and the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, and neurodegenerative diseases. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 58(2), 262–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Minekus, M., Alminger, M., Alvito, P., Ballance, S., Bohn, T., Bourlieu, C., et al. (2014). A standardised static in vitro digestion method suitable for food—An international consensus. Food and Function, 5(6), 1113–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pan, A., Lin, X., Hemler, E., & Hu, F. B. (2018). Diet and cardiovascular disease: advances and challenges in population-based studies. Cell Metabolism, 27(3), 489–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rock, M., Buntain, B. J., Hatfield, J. M., & Hallgrímsson, B. (2009). Animal–human connections, “one health,” and the syndemic approach to prevention. Social Science and Medicine, 68(6), 991–995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schoeman, L., Williams, P., du Plessis, A., & Manley, M. (2016). X-ray micro-computed tomography (μCT) for non-destructive characterisation of food microstructure. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 47, 10–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shelat, K. J., Nicholson, T., Flanagan, B. M., Zhang, D., Williams, B. A., & Gidley, M. J. (2015). Rheology and microstructure characterisation of small intestinal digesta from pigs fed a red meat-containing Western-style diet. Food Hydrocolloids, 44(0), 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tosti, V., Bertozzi, B., & Fontana, L. (2017). Health benefits of the mediterranean diet: Metabolic and molecular mechanisms. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 73(3), 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glx227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van der Schaar, P. J., Dijksman, J. F., Broekhuizen-de Gast, H., Shimizu, J., van Lelyveld, N., Zou, H., et al. (2013). A novel ingestible electronic drug delivery and monitoring device. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 78(3), 520–528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu, P., Dhital, S., Williams, B. A., Chen, X. D., & Gidley, M. J. (2016). Rheological and microstructural properties of porcine gastric digesta and diets containing pectin or mango powder. Carbohydrate Polymers, 148, 216–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biological and Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations