Cargando…

Comparison of the Micellar Incorporation and the Intestinal Cell Uptake of Cholecalciferol, 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-Hydroxycholecalciferol

In the context of the global prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency, we compared two key determinants of the bioavailability of 3 vitamin D forms with significant biopotencies: cholecalciferol, 25-hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol. To this aim, we studied their incorporation into...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Desmarchelier, Charles, Margier, Marielle, Prévéraud, Damien P., Nowicki, Marion, Rosilio, Véronique, Borel, Patrick, Reboul, Emmanuelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5691768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29065536
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu9101152
_version_ 1783279859374489600
author Desmarchelier, Charles
Margier, Marielle
Prévéraud, Damien P.
Nowicki, Marion
Rosilio, Véronique
Borel, Patrick
Reboul, Emmanuelle
author_facet Desmarchelier, Charles
Margier, Marielle
Prévéraud, Damien P.
Nowicki, Marion
Rosilio, Véronique
Borel, Patrick
Reboul, Emmanuelle
author_sort Desmarchelier, Charles
collection PubMed
description In the context of the global prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency, we compared two key determinants of the bioavailability of 3 vitamin D forms with significant biopotencies: cholecalciferol, 25-hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol. To this aim, we studied their incorporation into synthetic mixed micelles and their uptake by intestinal cells in culture. Our results show that 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol was significantly more solubilized into mixed micelles compared to the other forms (1.6-fold and 2.9-fold improvement compared to cholecalciferol and 25-hydroxycholecalciferol, respectively). In Caco-2 TC7 cells, the hydroxylated forms were taken up more efficiently than cholecalciferol (p < 0.05), and conversely to cholecalciferol, their uptake was neither SR-BI(Scavenger-Receptor class B type I)- nor NPC1L1 (NPC1 like intracellular cholesterol transporter 1)-dependent. Besides, the apical membrane sodium–bile acid transporter ASBT (Apical Sodium-dependent Bile acid Transporter) was not involved, at least in vitro, in the uptake of any of the three vitamin D forms. Further investigations are needed to identify the uptake pathways of both 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol and 25-hydroxycholecalciferol. However, considering its high bioavailability, our results suggest the potential interest of using 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol in the treatment of severe vitamin D deficiency.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5691768
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56917682017-11-22 Comparison of the Micellar Incorporation and the Intestinal Cell Uptake of Cholecalciferol, 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-Hydroxycholecalciferol Desmarchelier, Charles Margier, Marielle Prévéraud, Damien P. Nowicki, Marion Rosilio, Véronique Borel, Patrick Reboul, Emmanuelle Nutrients Article In the context of the global prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency, we compared two key determinants of the bioavailability of 3 vitamin D forms with significant biopotencies: cholecalciferol, 25-hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol. To this aim, we studied their incorporation into synthetic mixed micelles and their uptake by intestinal cells in culture. Our results show that 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol was significantly more solubilized into mixed micelles compared to the other forms (1.6-fold and 2.9-fold improvement compared to cholecalciferol and 25-hydroxycholecalciferol, respectively). In Caco-2 TC7 cells, the hydroxylated forms were taken up more efficiently than cholecalciferol (p < 0.05), and conversely to cholecalciferol, their uptake was neither SR-BI(Scavenger-Receptor class B type I)- nor NPC1L1 (NPC1 like intracellular cholesterol transporter 1)-dependent. Besides, the apical membrane sodium–bile acid transporter ASBT (Apical Sodium-dependent Bile acid Transporter) was not involved, at least in vitro, in the uptake of any of the three vitamin D forms. Further investigations are needed to identify the uptake pathways of both 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol and 25-hydroxycholecalciferol. However, considering its high bioavailability, our results suggest the potential interest of using 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol in the treatment of severe vitamin D deficiency. MDPI 2017-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5691768/ /pubmed/29065536 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu9101152 Text en © 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Desmarchelier, Charles
Margier, Marielle
Prévéraud, Damien P.
Nowicki, Marion
Rosilio, Véronique
Borel, Patrick
Reboul, Emmanuelle
Comparison of the Micellar Incorporation and the Intestinal Cell Uptake of Cholecalciferol, 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-Hydroxycholecalciferol
title Comparison of the Micellar Incorporation and the Intestinal Cell Uptake of Cholecalciferol, 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-Hydroxycholecalciferol
title_full Comparison of the Micellar Incorporation and the Intestinal Cell Uptake of Cholecalciferol, 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-Hydroxycholecalciferol
title_fullStr Comparison of the Micellar Incorporation and the Intestinal Cell Uptake of Cholecalciferol, 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-Hydroxycholecalciferol
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Micellar Incorporation and the Intestinal Cell Uptake of Cholecalciferol, 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-Hydroxycholecalciferol
title_short Comparison of the Micellar Incorporation and the Intestinal Cell Uptake of Cholecalciferol, 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-Hydroxycholecalciferol
title_sort comparison of the micellar incorporation and the intestinal cell uptake of cholecalciferol, 25-hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5691768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29065536
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu9101152
work_keys_str_mv AT desmarcheliercharles comparisonofthemicellarincorporationandtheintestinalcelluptakeofcholecalciferol25hydroxycholecalciferoland1ahydroxycholecalciferol
AT margiermarielle comparisonofthemicellarincorporationandtheintestinalcelluptakeofcholecalciferol25hydroxycholecalciferoland1ahydroxycholecalciferol
AT preverauddamienp comparisonofthemicellarincorporationandtheintestinalcelluptakeofcholecalciferol25hydroxycholecalciferoland1ahydroxycholecalciferol
AT nowickimarion comparisonofthemicellarincorporationandtheintestinalcelluptakeofcholecalciferol25hydroxycholecalciferoland1ahydroxycholecalciferol
AT rosilioveronique comparisonofthemicellarincorporationandtheintestinalcelluptakeofcholecalciferol25hydroxycholecalciferoland1ahydroxycholecalciferol
AT borelpatrick comparisonofthemicellarincorporationandtheintestinalcelluptakeofcholecalciferol25hydroxycholecalciferoland1ahydroxycholecalciferol
AT reboulemmanuelle comparisonofthemicellarincorporationandtheintestinalcelluptakeofcholecalciferol25hydroxycholecalciferoland1ahydroxycholecalciferol