Specificity, Dose Dependency, and Kinetics of Markers of Chicken and Beef Intake Using Targeted Quantitative LC‐MS/MS: A Human Intervention Trial

Scope Common methods for food intake assessment are error‐prone. Estimating food intake via metabolite biomarkers in blood/urine is challenged by inter‐individual variation. Here, meat intake markers based on criteria defined within the FoodBAll consortium, including dose dependency, specificity, ki...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Molecular nutrition & food research 2020-03, Vol.64 (5), p.e1900921-n/a
Main Authors: Giesbertz, Pieter, Brandl, Beate, Lee, Yu‐Mi, Hauner, Hans, Daniel, Hannelore, Skurk, Thomas
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
amino acid metabolism
Animals
Anserine - blood
Beef
Biomarkers
Biomarkers - blood
Cattle
chicken/beef consumption
Chickens
Chromatography, Liquid
Consortia
Dependence
Diet
Dimethylglycine
Dose dependency
Female
Food intake
Humans
Ingestion
Kinetics
Liquid chromatography
Male
Mass spectrometry
Mass spectroscopy
Meat
meat biomarkers
Metabolites
Methylamines - blood
Poultry
Red Meat
Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Trimethylamine
trimethylamine‐N‐oxide
Young Adult
π‐methyl histidine
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Scope Common methods for food intake assessment are error‐prone. Estimating food intake via metabolite biomarkers in blood/urine is challenged by inter‐individual variation. Here, meat intake markers based on criteria defined within the FoodBAll consortium, including dose dependency, specificity, kinetics, and their ability to predict meat dose, are evaluated. Methods and results In two randomized human interventions, meat at different doses are consumed. Plasma concentrations of 100 analytes, including previously proposed meat intake markers, are determined at different time points up to 24 h after meat ingestion using targeted liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Plasma concentrations of π‐methylhistidine (π‐M‐His) correlated best with the chicken meat amount consumed even after 24 h (R2 = 0.96). Both, anserine and π‐M‐His show first‐order elimination kinetics, irrespective of meat dose (t1/2 is 1.4 and 5.9 h, respectively). Surprisingly, π‐M‐His best predicted the amount of beef consumed, albeit at lower concentrations. Furthermore, trimethylamine‐N‐oxide (TMAO) increases only after beef, while dimethylglycine only after chicken consumption. The lack of baseline concentrations for π‐M‐His and anserine is likely the strength of these compounds to predict meat dose. Conclusion Quantitative assessment of meat intake within 24 h is most accurate with π‐M‐His, whereas TMAO and dimethylglycine best discriminate between chicken and beef. An intervention with chicken and beef is performed to evaluate meat markers. Dose dependency, specificity, kinetics, and predictive power of known and novel markers are analyzed. π‐Methylhistidine best predicted dose for both chicken and beef. Anserine and π‐methylhistidine also discriminated the meat types, as values after chicken intake are much larger. In opposition to this, trimethylamine‐N‐oxide increases only after beef intake.
ISSN:1613-4125
1613-4133
DOI:10.1002/mnfr.201900921