Contribution of Human Oral Cells to Astringency by Binding Salivary

Subscriber access provided by CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Article

Contribution of human oral cells to astringency by binding salivary proteins/tannins complexes Susana Soares, Raul Ferrer-Gallego, Elsa Brandão, Mafalda Silva, Nuno Mateus, and Victor De Freitas J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 18 Sep 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on September 18, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 27

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

1

Contribution of human oral cells to astringency by binding salivary proteins/tannins

2

complexes

3

Susana Soares⁰*, Raúl Ferrer-Galego#, Elsa Brandão⁰, Mafalda Silva⁰, Nuno Mateus⁰, Victor

4

de Freitas⁰

5

⁰

6

Universidade do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre, 687, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal

7

8

Farmacia, Universidad de Salamanca, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, E 37007 Salamanca,

9

Spain.

REQUIMTE\LAQV, Departamento de Química e Bioquímica, Faculdade de Ciências da

Grupo de Investigación en Polifenoles. Unidad de Nutrición y Bromatología, Facultad de

10

#

11

*Corresponding author

Parc Tecnològic del Vi – VITEC, Ctra Porrera, 43730 Falset, Spain

12

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 2 of 27

13

ABSTRACT

14

The most widely accepted mechanism to explain astringency is the interaction and

15

precipitation of salivary proteins by food tannins, in particular proline-rich proteins.

16

However, other mechanisms have been arising to explain astringency, such as binding of

17

tannins to oral cells. In this work, an experimental method was adapted to study the

18

possible contribution of both salivary proteins and oral cells to astringency induced by

19

grape seed procyanidins fractions. Overall, in the absence of salivary proteins, the extent of

20

procyanidin complexation with oral cells increased with increasing procyanidin degree of

21

polymerization (mDP). Procyanidins fractions rich in monomers were the ones with the

22

lowest ability to bind to oral cells. In the presence of salivary proteins and for procyanidins

23

with mDP 2 the highest concentrations (1.5 and 2.0 mM) resulted in an increased binding

24

of procyanidins to oral cells. This was even more evident for fractions III and IV at 1.0 mM

25

and upper concentrations. Regarding the salivary proteins affected, it was possible to

26

observe a decrease of P-B peptide and aPRP proteins for fractions II and III. This decrease is

27

greater as the procyanidins mDP increases. In fact, for fraction IV it was observed an almost

28

total depletion of all salivary proteins. This decrease is due to the formation of insoluble

29

complexes salivary proteins/procyanidins.

30

Altogether, these data suggest that some procyanidins are able to bind to oral cells and

31

that the salivary proteins interact with procyanidins forming salivary proteins/procyanidins

32

complexes that are also able to link to oral cells. The procyanidins that remain unbound to

33

oral cells, are able to bind to salivary proteins forming a large network of salivary

34

proteins/procyanidin complexes. Overall, the results presented herein provide one more

35

step to understand food oral astringency onset.

36

KEYWORDS: proline-rich proteins, procyanidins, red wine, oral cells, astringency 2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 3 of 27


37



Page 4 of 27

38

INTRODUTION

39

Astringency is an important organoleptic sensory attribute of foodstuffs rich in tannins. It is

40

a tactile sensation usually described as dryness, puckering and tightening of the oral cavity

41

resulting from the ingestion of food or beverages rich in these compounds1, 2. In some

42

foodstuffs, such as red wine, this sensation is desired in balanced levels being even an

43

important quality parameter. On the other hand, in other foodstuffs, astringency is not

44

desirable at all, such as in the case of fruits, juices and tea.

45

As astringency influences the overall quality of red wine and of other fruit derived

46

beverages, the knowledge of the compounds structure/activity relationship on this sensory

47

property as well as the mechanisms underlying astringency development are important

48

aspects of winemaking and beverages industry. This allows winemakers to manage and

49

control unbalanced levels of astringency.

50

Along the years a significant amount of research has been done towards astringency

51

understanding. Presently, three major mechanisms were pointed as possible origins of

52

astringency sensation. In 1954, Bate-Smith

53

interaction of tannins with salivary proteins (SP) in the mouth. This is the most widely

54

accepted mechanism and is vastly supported by the literature and relies on the interaction

55

and precipitation of SP by food tannins, in particular proline-rich proteins (PRPs)

56

major SP are usually grouped into five structurally related major classes namely histatins,

57

PRPs, statherin (stat), cystatins (cyst) and mucins. Regarding astringency, PRPs are one of

58

the most important classes of SP and are usually divided in three families according to their

59

acidic/basic characteristics: basic PRPs (bPRPs) have mainly basic residues, acidic PRPs

60

(aPRPs) are similar to bPRPs but have the first 30 N-terminal residues composed mainly by

2

proposed that astringency results from the

3-7

. The


Page 5 of 27


61

aspartic and glutamic acid and glycosylated PRPs (gPRPs) are bPRPs that have

62

carbohydrates in their structure 8, 9.

63

Several authors have found a significant correlation between the precipitation of tannins

64

by proteins, such as SP, and astringency 10-12. Presently, it is known that protein and tannin

65

structures’ are both relevant for the interaction, as well as pH, ionic strength and the

66

presence of other molecules in solution such as carbohydrates

67

that the increasing mean degree of polymerization (mDP) and galloylation degree of

68

proanthocyanidins increase astringency perception of those tannins

69

influence of SP, it has been reported since many years ago that bPRP are the most reactive

70

SP toward tannins

71

statherin SP are also highly reactive toward food tannins 17, 18.

72

Other authors suggest that astringency could be detected by increased activation of

73

mechanoreceptors located within the mucosa, like for other primary tastes such as

74

bitterness. Another hypothesis suggests that astringency could be related to interactions

75

between tannins and oral epithelial cells19. However, astringency is such a complex

76

sensation that is unlikely to arise from only one physical-chemical mechanism.

77

So, in this work, procyanidins with different mDP were isolated from a grape seed extract

78

and it was adapted an experimental method to study the possible contribution of both SP

79

and oral cells to astringency induced by these procyanidins which are normally present in

80

red wine and are also widely distributed in vegetable foodstuffs and beverages.

16

13, 14

. It has been reported

7, 15

. Regarding the

. However, recent works concluded that aPRP, P-B peptide and

81



Page 6 of 27

82

EXPERIMENTAL

83

Grape seed fractions (GSF) isolation

84

Condensed tannins were extracted from Vitis vinifera grape seed extract and fractionated

85

according to the method described in the literature20. Briefly, this extract was fractionated

86

through a TSK Toyopearl HW-40(s) gel column (100 mmx10 mmi.d., with 0.8 mL.min-1

87

methanol as eluent), yielding four fractions of procyanidin with different molecular weight.

88

The first 30 min of elution were rejected. The first (GSFI), second (GSFII) and third (GSFIII)

89

fractions were obtained after elution with 99.8% (v/v) methanol during 15 min (12 mL),

90

other 15 min (12 mL) and other 4 h (192 mL), respectively. The fourth fraction (FIV) was

91

eluted with methanol/5% (v/v) acetic acid during the next 14 h (670 mL). All fractions were

92

mixed with deionized water, and the organic solvent was eliminated using a rotary

93

evaporator under reduced pressure at 30 ºC and then freeze-dried.

94

GSF characterization

95

The procyanidin composition of fractions was determined by direct analysis by ESI-MS

96

(Finnigan DECA XP PLUS) and subsequent analysis of the average full mass spectra. The

97

mean degree of polymerization (mDP) was determined by acid-catalysis reaction in the

98

presence of phloroglucinol as described in the literature followed by LC-MS (Finnigan DECA

99

XP PLUS) and HPLC analysis20, 21.

100

Saliva collection

101

Saliva was collected as referred previously in the literature17. Briefly, collection time was

102

standardized at 2 p.m. in order to reduce concentration variability connected to circadian

103

rhythms of secretion. The saliva pool was mixed with 10% TFA (final concentration 0.1%) to

104

precipitate several high molecular weight SP (such as α-amylases, mucins, carbonic 6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 7 of 27


105

anhydrase and lactoferrin) and to preserve sample protein composition, since TFA partially

106

inhibits intrinsic protease activity. However, peptides and proteins like histatins, basic,

107

acidic and glycosylated PRPs, statherin, cystatins are soluble in this acidic solution and may

108

be directly analyzed by RP-HPLC, as described ahead. After the centrifugation (8000 g for 5

109

min), the supernatant was dialyzed in a cellulose dialysis membrane (MWCO: 3.5 KDa) for

110

24 hours at 4 ºC with stirring against deionized water. Water was changed periodically.

111

After dialysis, saliva was centrifuged and the supernatant was freeze-dried. The lyophylized

112

saliva was re-solubilized in the same volume of water to maintain total protein

113

concentration. The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and was

114

approved by the Ethics Committee of Medical School of University of Porto (EK84032011).

115

HPLC saliva analysis

116

90 μL of saliva were injected on a HPLC Lachrom system (L-7100) (Merck Hitachi) equipped

117

with a Vydac C8 column (Grace Davison Discovery Sciences), with 5 μm particle diameter

118

(column dimensions 150 x 2.1 mm); detection was carried out at 214 nm, using a UV-Vis

119

detector (L-7420). The HPLC solvents were 0.2% aqueous TFA (eluent A) and 0.2% TFA in

120

ACN/water 80/20 (v/v) (eluent B). The gradient applied was linear from 10 to 40% (eluent

121

B) in 45 min, at a flow rate of 0.60 mL.min-1. After this program the column was washed

122

with 100% eluent B for 20 min in order to other late-eluting proteins. After washing, the

123

column was stabilized with the initial conditions.

124

Cell culture

125

One epithelial-like cell line (HSC-3) derived from human oral squamous cell carcinoma was

126

used in this study. The cells were grown under standard culture conditions of 5% CO2 at 37

127

°C in a humidified incubator in DMEM, supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 100 7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 8 of 27

128

U/ml of penicillin G, 100 μg/ml of streptomycin sulphate, and 0.25 μg/ml of amphotericin

129

B. Cells were dissociated with trypsin enzyme.

130

Interaction of grape seed fractions with oral cells

131

HSC-3 cells were seeded into 96 well flat bottomed tissue culture plates at a density of 1 ×

132

105 cells/well, and grown to confluence before use in an assay. The cell monolayers were

133

washed twice with PBS, pH 7.6, to remove residual growth medium, and water (control

134

condition; Figure 1, A to D lines) or saliva (lines E to H) were added, in triplicate, at 30

135

μl/well. Stock of test solutions of each fractions (6, 4.5, 3.0, 1.5 and 0.3 mM) were

136

prepared in water or ethanol concentration of 12%, and 15 μL of each stock were added (to

137

attain the final concentrations between 0.1 and 2 mM) and left in contact with the

138

monolayers for 15 min. Several control conditions were also tested, such as GSF and saliva

139

without oral cells (Figure 1; A line) and GSF and water without oral cells (Figure 1; H line),

140

to know if there was any unspecific binding to the plate.

141

After the incubation period, the solutions were removed from the wells and the oral cells

142

were washed twice with PBS in order to remove the eventual formed aggregates that were

143

not bounded. Then DMACA assay was done to measure the procyanidin content of each

144

well.

145

The incubation solutions from wells assays involving the interaction of SP with oral cells

146

and GSF (Figure 1, B, C and D lines) were recovered to be analyzed by RP-HPLC.

147

DMACA assay to measure the procyanidin content

148

The method used was similar to the one described previously19. Briefly, a 0.1% solution of

149

DMACA was prepared in acidified methanol (0.75 M H2SO4). After the interaction of HCS-3

150

cells with GSF in absence and presence of saliva, the 96 wells depleted from the incubation


Page 9 of 27


151

solutions (as referred before) were incubated with 50 μl of DMACA solution for 20 min at

152

room temperature, and the absorbance of each well was determined at 640 nm in a

153

μQuant microtitre plate reader.

154



Page 10 of 27

155

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

156

Astringency has been highly associated to the interaction between salivary proteins (SP)

157

and food tannins forming (in)soluble complexes that could precipitate in the oral cavity.

158

However, some points of view are appearing suggesting that astringency could result from

159

the contribution of several mechanisms. In fact, one of these mechanisms alone is not able

160

to explain all the sensations associated to astringency. However, it is difficult to study

161

simultaneously the several mechanisms and there is not much information about the

162

contribution of oral cells to astringency. A first study done by Payne and co-workers19

163

showed that oral cells have the ability to bind tannins. Though, the authors do not consider

164

the effect of SP in this interaction. In this work, it was intended to study the effect of SP in

165

the ability of tannins to bind to oral cells and the influence of ethanol on this interaction.

166

In order to simulate in vitro what happens in the oral cavity, saliva volume used taken into

167

account the volume of saliva normally present in the mouth after ingestion of a sip of wine

168

(around 20 mL of saliva)11. It was also considered the average oral surface (214 cm2) 22 and

169

the surface of each well (0.31 cm2) to determine the saliva volume to put in each well (30

170

μL). Besides, it seems that wine ingestion usually results in a ratio of 2:1 saliva:wine11. So, it

171

was added a volume of 15 μL of GSF stock solutions to each well.

172

The final range of GSF concentrations was chose in order to cover the reported red wine

173

concentrations at Phenol Explorer Database23 according to procyanidins mDP. Fraction I

174

(GSF I) was found to contain mainly catechins and gallic acid, but also a small quantity of

175

procyanidin dimers (mDP 1.1). GSF II contains essentially catechins and procyanidin dimers

176

and galloyl derivatives (mDP 1.4). GSF III contains mainly procyanidin dimers and trimers

177

and their galloyl derivatives but also a small quantity of procyanidin tetramers (mDP 2).


Page 11 of 27


178

GSF IV contains mainly procyanidin trimers and tetramers, their galloyl derivatives and also

179

procyanidin pentamers (mean DP 4).

180

Interaction of GSF with oral cells

181

Procyanidins isolated from a grape seed extract were incubated with oral cells in different

182

concentrations and after incubation the solutions were removed. Then oral cells were

183

washed with buffer to remove procyanidins that were not effectively bound to oral cells.

184

The wash process is sufficiently gentle to ensure that there is no damage of cell monolayer

185

but could remove any weakly, hydrophobically-bound procyanidins. DMACA was used to

186

detect GSF bounded to HSC-3 oral cells in the absence and presence of ethanol (12%). As

187

shown by the results of this first assay in Figure 2A, it was observed that the GSF

188

procyanidins bind to cell monolayers in a dose-dependent manner at concentrations

189

between 0.5 and 2.0 mM. Beside GSF concentration, it was also observed a different

190

binding related to the mDP of GSF. It was observed an increase in binding with mDP

191

increase. So, the highest binding to HSC-3 oral cells was observed for the most polymerized

192

fractions (GSF III and IV).

193

GSF I and II are the ones with lowest binding ability to oral cells. This is probably related to

194

the high quantity of monomers in these fractions while the other ones have dimers and

195

highly polymerized structures.

196

The same trend was observed in the presence of 12% ethanol (Figure 2B) but in this case

197

the interaction of GSF with HSC-3 was slightly higher for all GSF, especially for GSF III and

198

IV. This small effect of ethanol has been previously observed for the interaction of an

199

extract of procyanidins to oral cells 19.



Page 12 of 27

200

Figure 3 presents the interaction of GSF with HCS-3 oral cells in the presence of SP in water

201

or in 12% EtOH. From these results it is possible to observe that the influence of SP is not

202

the same for all fractions. In fact, SP do not affect the interaction of GSF I with oral cells.

203

The interaction with oral cells is very small for this fraction both in absence or presence of

204

SP. For GSF II it is possible to observe that for the highest concentrations (1.5 and 2.0 mM)

205

in water (Figure 3A), the presence of SP resulted in an increased binding of GSF

206

procyanidins to oral cells. This is even more evident for GSF III and IV. In these cases, for 1.0

207

mM and upper concentrations it is clearer the increase of procyanidins binding to oral cells

208

induced by SP.

209

For the experiments in 12% EtOH the results for GSF II, III and IV are different from the

210

ones in water. It was not observed a difference between procyanidins binding to oral cells

211

in presence of SP. From the literature it is already known that ethanol influences the

212

interaction of procyanidins with proteins, usually inhibiting the formation of hydrophobic

213

bonds and therefore its interaction and complexation.

214

Salivary proteins interaction with GSF in absence and presence of oral cells

215

In order to understand the influence of oral cells on the astringency and what happens to

216

the SP during the interaction with oral cells, saliva was analyzed by HPLC before the

217

interaction with both GSF and with oral cells. Figure 4A shows the saliva (control) HPLC

218

chromatogram. The HPLC chromatogram of saliva is roughly divided into six SP family

219

regions: the first region comprises mainly proteins that belong to the classes of bPRPs. The

220

bPRPs identified in this region include IB-8b, IB-8c, IB-9, IB-4 and P-J. The second region

221

comprises mainly a gPRPs, the bPRP3. The next region corresponds entirely to aPRPs,

222

namely PRP1 and PRP3, and the next two peaks have phosphorylated forms of statherin 12 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 13 of 27


223

and peptide P-B, respectively. The last region comprises cystatin proteins. The HPLC profile

224

of saliva with 12% of ethanol or after saliva interaction with oral cells (without GSF) does

225

not change (data not shown).

226

Initially, this interaction was made in the absence of oral cells to know the amount of

227

interaction between SP and procyanidins and which proteins are more affected. The

228

interaction with saliva was only studied for the GSF that presented differences in the

229

interaction with oral cells in presence of SP (GSF II, III and IV) (Figure 3A). Besides, it was

230

only studied for one GSF concentration (1.0 mM) because it was the first concentration for

231

which it was observed differences by the presence of SP in DMACA assay (Figure 3A). As an

232

example, the saliva chromatogram before and after interaction with GSF IV 1.0 mM is

233

displayed in Figure 4B.

234

The observed changes in the chromatographic peaks were then calculated as the

235

percentage decrease of SP (Table 1). From the saliva analysis it is possible to observe a

236

decrease of certain SP peaks, in special P-B and aPRP proteins for GSF II and III. This

237

decrease is greater as the mDP increases. In fact, for GSF IV, it was observed an almost

238

total depletion of SP. These decreases are due to the formation of insoluble complexes

239

SP/procyanidins that are removed by centrifugation prior to analysis by HPLC. Procyanidins

240

from GSF II and III that did not reacted with SP are overlaid with bPRP region. This was

241

verified by injection of GSF in the same chromatographic conditions (data not shown).

242

Unfortunately, this overlapping does not allow to get any information about the effect of

243

GSF onto bPRPs family.

244

After this experiment, the saliva recovered from the interaction with GSF (II, III and IV 1.0

245

mM) (Figure 1, Lines E to G, Columns 3 and 10) in the presence of oral cells was also

246

analyzed by HPLC. Figure 5 presents, as an example, the saliva analysis after interaction 13 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 14 of 27

247

with GSF III in absence and presence of oral cells. In this example, the SP and polyphenols

248

were completely depleted. The variations observed in the chromatographic peaks area for

249

each protein and GSF are summarized in the table presented in Figure 5. For GSF II the area

250

of SP peaks is practically the same both in the absence and presence of oral cells. This is in

251

agreement with the previous results (Figure 3A) because there was also no significant

252

difference in the amount of GSF detected in oral cells at this concentration. For the other

253

fractions (GSF III and IV) it was observed a completely depletion of SP when the interaction

254

occurred in presence of oral cells (table presented in Figure 5). These results could explain

255

the higher detection of procyanidin observed in DMACA assay for GSF 1.0 mM of these

256

fractions.

257

For the experiments done in presence of 12% ethanol the HPLC profile of saliva are similar

258

with or without oral cells (data not shown) which is in agreement with the results from

259

DMACA assay .

260

Overall, the results obtained from the DMACA assay and from the HPLC analysis of SP are in

261

agreement. It was observed that for 1.0 mM and upper concentrations GSF II, III and IV

262

bind to oral cells and this binding is increased by SP. Simultaneously, SP disappear from the

263

solution. Altogether, these data suggests that some GSF procyanidins are able to bind to

264

oral cells (OC-GSF) and that the SP interact with GSF procyanidins forming SP/procyanidins

265

complexes that are also able to bind to oral cells (GSF-SP-OC) (Figure 6). The procyanidins

266

that remained unbound to oral cells, are able to bind to SP forming a large network of

267

complexes SP/procyanidins [OC-(GSF-SP)n]. However, this mechanism of interaction only

268

seems important in the absence or low concentrations of ethanol. In the presence of

269

ethanol the interaction of procyanidins with oral cells seems to be independent of SP.


Page 15 of 27


270

Ultimately, it seems that oral astringency is a very complex sensation and that depending

271

on the food matrix it could in some cases result from the combination of these two

272

mechanisms (oral cells binding and SP precipitation) while in other cases it could arise

273

mainly from one mechanism. In this way, the results presented herein provide one more

274

step to understand food oral astringency onset.



275

ABBREVIATIONS USED

276

ACN, acetonitrile

277

aPRPs, acidic proline-rich proteins

278

bPRPs, basic proline-rich proteins

279

cyst, cystatins

280

DMACA, , 4-(dimethylamino)cinnamaldehyde

281

DMEM, Dulbecco’s

282

gPRPs, glycosylated proline-rich proteins

283

GSF, grape seed fraction

284

HPLC, high pressure liquid chromatography

285

LC-MS, Liquid chromatrography- mass spectrum

286

mDP, mean degree of polymerization

287

OC, oral cells

288

PRPs, proline-rich proteins

289

SP, salivary proteins

290

stat, statherin

291

TFA, trifluoroacetic acid

Page 16 of 27

292


Page 17 of 27


REFERENCES

293 294 295

1.

296

American Society of Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, PA, 1989; Vol. 15.07.

297

2.

Bate-Smith, E. C., Astringency in foods. Food 1954, 23, 124.

298

3.

Baxter, N. J.; Lilley, T. H.; Haslam, E.; Williamson, M. P., Multiple interactions

299

between polyphenols and a salivary proline-rich protein repeat result in complexation and

300

precipitation. Biochemistry 1997, 36, 5566-5577.

301

4.

302

Saliva and to Proline-Rich Proteins Derived from It. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 838-843.

303

5.

304

aggregates. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2002, 82, 113-119.

305

6.

306

unstructured protein to bind different tannin targets revealed by mass spectrometry. Anal.

307

Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 398, 815-822.

308

7.

309

salivary proteins. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 940-945.

310

8.

311

Blüggel, M.; Ruhl, S., Proteome analysis of glandular parotid and submandibular-sublingual

312

saliva in comparison to whole human saliva by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis.

313

Proteomics 2006, 6, 1631-1639.

314

9.

315

Roles in oral homeostasis and counteracting dietary tannin. Journal of Chemical Ecology

316

1995, 21, 663-691.

ASTM, Standard Terminology to Sensory Evaluation of Materials and Products.

Bacon, J. R.; Rhodes, M. J. C., Binding Affinity of Hydrolyzable Tannins to Parotid

de Freitas, V.; Mateus, N., Nephelometric study of salivary protein-tannin

Canon, F.; Giuliani, A.; Paté, F.; Sarni-Manchado, P., Ability of a salivary intrinsically

de Freitas, V.; Mateus, N., Structural features of procyanidin interactions with

Walz, A.; Stühler, K.; Wattenberg, A.; Hawranke, E.; Meyer, H. E.; Schmalz, G.;

McArthur, C.; Sanson, G. D.; Beal, A. M., Salivary proline-rich proteins in mammals:



Page 18 of 27

317

10.

Sun, B.; Sá, M. d.; Leandro, C.; Caldeira, I.; Duarte, F. L.; Spranger, I., Reactivity of

318

Polymeric Proanthocyanidins toward Salivary Proteins and Their Contribution to Young Red

319

Wine Astringency. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 939-946.

320

11.

321

to the evaluation of red wine astringency. Food Chem. 2012, 135, 2498-2504.

322

12.

323

D.; Li, J.; Cabane, B., Aggregation of the Salivary Proline-Rich Protein IB5 in the Presence of

324

the Tannin EgCG. Langmuir 2013, 29, 1926-1937.

325

13.

326

of astringency in ripening fruit. Phytochemistry 1987, 26, 2937-2942.

327

14.

328

tannin aggregation by nephelometry. Food Chem. 2003, 81, 503-509.

329

15.

330

Waters, E. J., The mouth-feel properties of grape and apple proanthocyanidins in a wine-

331

like medium. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2003, 83, 564-573.

332

16.

333

Arch. Oral Biol. 1998, 43, 717-728.

334

17.

335

F.; de Freitas, V., Reactivity of human salivary proteins families toward food polyphenols. J.

336

Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 5535-5547.

337

18.

338

Procyanidins and Human Saliva Proteins: Effect of Repeated Exposures to Procyanidins

339

Solution. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, a9562-9568.

Rinaldi, A.; Gambuti, A.; Moio, L., Application of the SPI (Saliva Precipitation Index)

Canon, F.; Paté, F.; Cheynier, V.; Sarni-Manchado, P.; Giuliani, A.; Pérez, J.; Durand,

Ozawa, T.; Lilley, T. H.; Haslam, E., Polyphenol interactions: astringency and the loss

de Freitas, V.; Carvalho, E.; Mateus, N., Study of carbohydrate influence on protein-

Vidal, S.; Francis, L.; Guyot, S.; Marnet, N.; Kwiatkowski, M.; Gawel, R.; Cheynier, V.;

Lu, Y.; Bennick, A., Interaction of tannin with human salivary proline-rich proteins.

Soares, S.; Vitorino, R.; Osório, H.; Fernandes, A.; Venâncio, A.; Mateus, N.; Amado,

Brandão, E.; Soares, S.; Mateus, N.; de Freitas, V., In Vivo Interactions between


Page 19 of 27


340

19.

Payne, C.; Bowyer, P. K.; Herderich, M.; Bastian, S. E. P., Interaction of astringent

341

grape seed procyanidins with oral epithelial cells. Food Chem. 2009, 115, 551-557.

342

20.

343

procyanidins and salivary proteins: Effect of stomach digestion on the resulting complexes.

344

RSC Advances 2015, 5, 12664 - 12670.

345

21.

346

Following Acid-Catalysis in the Presence of Excess Phloroglucinol. J. Agric. Food Chem.

347

2001, 49, 1740-1746.

348

22.

349

Thickness of the Salivary Film Covering the Teeth and Oral Mucosa. J. Dent. Res. 1987, 66,

350

1300-1302.

351

23.

352

Eisner, R.; Cruz, J.; Wishart, D.; Scalbert, A., Phenol-Explorer: an online comprehensive

353

database on polyphenol contents in foods. In 2010.

Soares, S.; Brandão, E.; Mateus, N.; De Freitas, V., Interaction between red wine

Kennedy, J. A.; Jones, G. P., Analysis of Proanthocyanidin Cleavage Products

Collins, L. M. C.; Dawes, C., The Surface Area of the Adult Human Mouth and

Neveu, V.; Perez-Jiménez, J.; Vos F, C., V., ; du Chaffaut, L.; Mennen, L.; Knox, C.;

354 355



Page 20 of 27

FIGURES CAPTIONS Figure 1. Scheme of a 96 well plate assay, indicating all the control conditions made. In each column is presented the final grape seed fraction (GSF) concentrations. For GSF III and IV the same plate scheme was used. Figure 2. Relative intensity of GSF (different mDP fractions) bounded to HSC-3 oral cells in absence (A) and presence of 12% ethanol (B). Figure 3. Relative intensity of GSF (different mDP fractions) bounded to HSC-3 oral cells in absence (solid line) and presence (dashed line) of SP in water (A) and in 12% ethanol (B). Figure 4. A. RP-HPLC profile detected at 214 nm of control saliva (30 μL of saliva + 15 μL water) before the interaction with GSF and with oral cell. Each region/peak is assigned to the major family of SP identified. B. RP-HPLC profile detected at 214 nm of control saliva (solid line) before the interaction and after 15 min of interaction with GSF IV (final concentration 1.0 mM) in water (dashed line). Figure 5. RP-HPLC profile detected at 214 nm of saliva after the interaction with GSF III (1.0 mM) in absence of oral cells (solid line), and in presence of oral cell (dashed line) in water. After the interaction, the solutions were centrifuged and the supernatant was analyzed by HPLC. Table presents HPLC peaks intensity (in % comparing to the control saliva) after interaction with different GSF fractions (FII, FIII and FIV) in absence and presence of HSC-3 oral cells. T.A., trace amounts. Figure 6. Schematic representation of the mechanism of astringency sensation involving oral cells, salivary proteins and tannins.


Page 21 of 27


TABLES Table 1. HPLC peaks intensity (in % comparing to the control saliva) after interaction with different GSF fractions. FII

FIII

FIV

gPRPs

100,00

47,12

6,68

aPRPs

75,61

35,38

8,69

statherin

64,39

43,04

7,84

P-B

56,58

33,07

11,67

100,00

82,65

7,49

cystatins



Page 22 of 27

FIGURES Figure 1. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2 mM 1.5 mM 1 mM 0.5 mM 0.1 mM

10

11

12

Water

Water + GSF II

Oral cells + Water + GSF

Oral cells + water

Oral cells + Water + GSF

B

D E F

9

Water + GSF I

A

C

8

0.1 mM 0.5 mM 1 mM 1.5 mM 2 mM

Oral cells + Saliva + GSF

G

Saliva + GSF I

H

Oral cells Oral cells + Saliva + GSF + water + saliva Saliva + water Saliva + GSF II

Figure 2. A: Water

B: 12% EtOH GSF:

0.4

Abs (λ λ 640 nm)

I 0.3

(m DP 1.1)

II

(m DP 1.4)

III

(m DP 2)

IV (m DP 4) 0.2

0.1

0.0 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Abs (λ λ 640 nm)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

GSF / mM

GSF / mM


Page 23 of 27


Figure 3. A: Water 0.4

0.12

Abs (λ λ 640 nm)

Abs (λ λ 640 nm)

0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.02 0.00 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.0 0.0

2.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

|GSF|/mM

|GSF|/mM FI (control)

FI (+ saliva)

FIII (control)

FIII (+ saliva)

FII (control)

FII (+ saliva)

FIV (control)

FIV (+ saliva)

B: 12% EtOH 0.4

0.12 0.10

0.3 Abs

Abs

0.08 0.06

0.2

0.04

0.1 0.02 0.00 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.0 0.0

2.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

|GSF|/mM

|GSF|/mM FI (control)

FI (+ saliva)

FIII (control)

FIII (+ saliva)

FII (control)

FII (+ saliva)

FIV (control)

FIV (+ saliva)

Figure 4. A.

B. bPRP gPRP

aPRP

stat P-B

cyst

6

4

4

Abs/Au

Abs/Au

6

2

2

0

0 5

10

15

20

25 t (min)

30

35

40

45

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

t (min)



Page 24 of 27

Figure 5 6

FII Abs/Au

4

2

0 15 10

20

25

30

35

40

FIII

FIV

- cells

+ cells

- cells

+ cells

- cells

gPRPs

100,00

83,65

47,12

T.A.

6,68

+ cells T.A.

aPRPs

75,61

83,42

35,38

T.A.

8,69

T.A.

statherin

64,39

72,19

43,04

T.A.

7,84

T.A.

statherin

56,58

78,34

33,07

T.A.

11,67

T.A.

cystatins

102,69

93,80

82,65

T.A.

7,49

T.A.

45

t (min)

Figure 6

Saliva proteins (SP) forming saliva film

Oral cells (OC)

Cells of oral cavity and saliva film

Food tannins bind to oral cells

(OC-SP)

Salivary proteins bind to tannins onto oral cells (OC-GSF, GSF-SP and OC-GSF-SP)

Formation of an extensive network of salivary proteins/tannins complexes [OC-(GSF-SP)n]

Food polyphenols (grape seed fractions) Salivary proteins


Page 25 of 27


TOC Graphic

Saliva proteins (SP) forming saliva film

Oral cells (OC)

Cells of oral cavity and saliva film

Food tannins bind to oral cells

(OC-SP)

Salivary proteins bind to tannins onto oral cells (OC-GSF, GSF-SP and OC-GSF-SP)

Formation of an extensive network of salivary proteins/tannins complexes [OC-(GSF-SP)n]

Food polyphenols (grape seed fractions) Salivary proteins



Page 26 of 27

FUNDING SOURCES The authors thank the financial support by one postdoctoral fellowship (SFRH/BPD/88866/2012) and one phD fellowship (SFRH/BD/105295/2014) from FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia). The work has also financial support by FCT/MEC through national funds and co-financed by FEDER (UID/ QUI/50006/2013 - POCI/01/0145/FERDER/007265), under the Partnership Agreement PT2020 and also by project AGL2014-58486-C2-1-R.


Page 27 of 27


TOC graphic


Contribution of Human Oral Cells to Astringency by Binding Salivary

Recommend Documents