406 DOI 10.1002/star.

201000099 Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415

REVIEW

Resistant starch as prebiotic: A review

Evangelica Fuentes-Zaragoza, Elena Sanchez-Zapata, Esther Sendra, Estrella Sayas,
Casilda Navarro, Juana Fernandez-Lopez and Jose A. Perez-Alvarez

IPOA Research Group, Agro-Food Technology Department, Universidad Miguel Hernandez, Orihuela, Alicante, Spain

The increase in consumers demand for high-quality food products has led to the growth in the Received: August 8, 2010
use of new technologies and ingredients such as RS. RS occurs basically in all starchy foods Revised: January 15, 2011
and has a long history as food source for humans. RS includes the portion of starch that can Accepted: January 17, 2011
resist digestion by human pancreatic amylase in the small intestine and thus, reach the colon.
His great nutritional interest is associated with his physiological effects, similar to those of
dietary fibre. The regular consumption of certain subclasses of highly fermentable dietary
fibre sources result in gut associated immune and microbiota modulation as well as a
significant production of SCFAs. Among the different physiological roles of RS, its prebiotic
effect is of great interest. RS can be considered prebiotic and it is not absorbed in the
intestine. The best approach of prebioticprobiotic symbiosis is achieved by encapsulation.
But other food biocompounds can be encapsulated too using RS.

Keywords:
Microencapsulation / Prebiotic / Probiotic / Resistant starch / Symbiosis

1 Introduction Foods can contain a range of chemically distinct carbo-

The role of dietary active compounds in human nutrition is
one of the most important areas of concern and research in
the field of nutritional science. The findings of researchers
on this subject have wide-ranging implications for consum-
ers, health-care providers, and nutrition educators as well
as food producers, processors, and distributors [13].
Currently, marketing healthy foods to otherwise healthy
people has met with unprecedented success because of
the realization that, attention to diet as part of a healthy
lifestyle, can considerably reduce the risk of disease and
promote health [3]. The early growth of the obesity epi-
demic in developed countries some 30 years ago was
associated with ingestion of high-fat, low-carbohydrate
diets. Thus any improvements in health by diet could be
interesting both, food industry and health systems.
Correspondence: Dr. Jose A. Perez-Alvarez, IPOA Research
Group, Agro-Food Technology Department, Universidad Miguel
Hernandez, Crta. a Beniel, Km. 3,2, E-03312 Orihuela, Alicante,
Spain.
E-mail: ja.perez@umh.es
Fax: 34-96-674-9677
Abbreviations: FOS, fructooligosaccharides; RDS, rapidly
digested starch.
hydrate substances, which have varied gastrointestinal
and metabolic properties. Based on current knowledge
of the mechanisms by which dietary carbohydrates exert
their influence on physiology and health, dietary carbo-
hydrates have been classified into: (i) available carbo-
hydrates, which are digested and absorbed in the small
intestine providing carbohydrates for metabolism, and
(ii) resistant carbohydrates, which resist digestion in the
small intestine or are poorly absorbed/metabolized [4].
Nutritionally, the most prominent resistant carbohydrate
is dietary fibre; however, there are numerous other sources
of resistant carbohydrates that occur naturally in small
amounts or that have been developed as functional ingre-
dients. These include extracted polysaccharides such as
gums, oligosaccharides such as fructans, polydextrose,
resistant maltodextrins, and RS [4]. The identification of fibre
as one of the effectors of healthy gut function inevitably led to
the search for other food carbohydrates with like properties.
2 Resistant starch
RS includes the portion of starch that can resist digestion
by human pancreatic amylase in the small intestine and
thus, reach the colon [5]. The general behaviour of RS is
physiologically similar to that of soluble, fermentable fibre,

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.starch-journal.com

Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415
like guar gum. The most common results include increased
fecal bulk and lower colonic pH [6] and improvements in
glycaemic control, bowel health, and cardiovascular dis-
ease risk factors [7], so it has shown to behave more like
compounds traditionally referred to as dietary fibre.
RS is the fraction of starch which is not hydrolyzed to
D-glucose in the small intestine within 120 min of being
consumed, but which is fermented in the colon. Many
studies have shown that RS is a linear molecule of
a-1,4-D-glucan, essentially derived from the retrograded
AM fraction, and has a relatively low MW (1.2
105 Da).
RS is an extremely broad and diverse range of materials
and a number of different types exist. At present, these are
mostly defined according to physical and chemical charac-
teristics [8, 9].
A number of factors may cause starch to be resistant to
digestion, including the size of the starch-containing frag-
ments (such as coarsely ground grains), the structure and
conformation of intact starch granules, and the formation
of retrograded crystallites as a result of processing and
chemical modification. RS is found in many common
foods, including grains, cereals, vegetables (especially
potatoes), legumes, seeds, and some nuts [10].
2.1 Types of resistant starch
RS has been classified into five general subtypes named
RS1RS5, which are described below:
Type 1 includes physically inaccessible starch that is
locked within cell walls and food matrixes, thus preventing
amylolysis. Milling and chewing can make these starches
more accessible and less resistant. RS1 is heat stable in
most normal cooking operations, which enables its use as
an ingredient in a wide variety of conventional foods.
Type 2 is composed of native starch granules from
certain plants containing uncooked starch or starch that
was gelatinized poorly and hydrolyzed slowly by R-amy-
lases (e.g., high-AM corn starches) [5, 1113]. RS2
describes native starch granules that are protected from
digestion by the conformation or structure of the starch
granule. This compact structure limits the accessibility of
digestive enzymes (has low bioaccesibility), various amy-
lases, and accounts for the resistant nature of RS2 such
as, ungelatinized starch. In the diet, raw starch is con-
sumed in foods like banana [14]. A particular type of RS2 is
unique as it retains its structure and resistance even during
the processing and preparation of many foods; this RS2 is
called high-AM maize starch [15].
Type 3 refers to retrograded or crystalline nongranular
starch formed after cooking, like the starch found in cooked
and cooled potatoes, bread crusts, cornflakes, and retro-
graded high AM maize starch. RS3 refers to non-granular
starch-derived materials that resist digestion [5, 12, 15].
RS3 is of particular interest, because of its thermal stability.
2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
407
This allows it to be stable in most normal cooking oper-
ations, and enables its use as an ingredient in a wide
variety of conventional foods [9]. During food processing,
in most cases in which heat and moisture are involved, RS1
and RS2 can be destroyed, but RS3 can be formed [16].
Storey et al., classified a soluble polysaccharide called
retrograded resistant maltodextrins as type 3 RS. They
are derived from starch that is processed to purposefully
rearrange or hydrolyze starch molecules, and subsequent
retrogradation, to render them soluble and resistant to
digestion. This process results in the formation of indiges-
tible crystallites that have a molecular similarity to type 3
RS but with a smaller degree of polymerization as well as a
lower MW [17], converting a portion of the normal alpha-
1,4-glucose linkages to random 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-alpha or
beta linkages [18].
Type 4 includes chemically modified or re-polymerized
starches (e.g., chain linkage altered dextrins, ethers, or
esters) used by food manufacturers to alter the functional
characteristics of the starch [5, 12, 13], and include
starches which have been etherized, esterified, or cross-
bonded with chemicals in such a manner as to decrease
their digestibility [19]. RS4 can be produced by chemical
modifications, such as conversion, substitution, or cross-
linking, which can prevent its digestion by blocking enzyme
access and forming atypical linkages [14, 20].
Type 5 RS is an AM-lipid complexed starch [21], which
is formed from high AM starches that require higher tem-
peratures for gelatinization and are more susceptible to
retrograde [22]. In general, the structure and amount of
starch-lipid in foods depend on their botanical sources [23].
Also, Frohberg and Quanz [24] defined as RS5 a poly-
saccharide that consists of water-insoluble linear poly-
alpha-1,4-glucan that is not susceptible to degradation
by alpha-amylases. They also found that the poly-alpha-
1,4-D-glucans promote the formation of short-chain fatty
acids (SCFA), particularly butyrate, in the colon and are
thus suitable for use as nutritional supplements for the
prevention of colorectal diseases.
2.2 Sources of resistant starch
RS occurs basically in all starchy foods but not in a fixed
quantity. In addition to the structure of the starch as laid
down during biosynthesis, methods used to prepare proc-
ess and store foods, either domestically or industrially also
determine the proportion of the starch that escapes diges-
tion [25]. Table 1 provides a summary of the RS content of
some basic and processed foods.
Starch is found in a wide variety of plant tissues, includ-
ing leaves, tubers, fruits, and seeds. RS may be found in
both unprocessed and processed foods. As shown in
Table 1, cereal grains and legumes are an important
natural source of RS.
www.starch-journal.com
408 E. Fuentes-Zaragoza et al. Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415

Table 1. Approximate total dietary fibre, starch and resistant starch of some food sources (g/100 g as eaten).

Source Total starch Total dietary fibre Resistant starch

Legumes
Red kidney beans 42.6 36.8 24.6
Lentils 53.3 33.1 25.4
Black-eyed peas 53.9 32.8 17.7
Cereal grains
Barley 55.2 17.0 18.2
Corn 77.9 19.6 25.2
White rice 95.1 1.5 14.1
Wheat 50.8 17.0 13.6
Oats 43.4 37.7 7.2
Flours
Corn 84.3 2.8 11.0
Wheat 68.8 12.1 1.7
Rice 86.9 5.1 1.6
Potato 81.0 2.1 1.7
Grain-based food products
Spaghetti 73.0 5.6 3.3
Rolled oats 56.0 10.0 8.5
Cereal products
Crisp bread 67.4 n/a 1.4
White bread 46.7 n/a 1.9
Granary bread 44.1 n/a 6.0
Extruded oat cereal 57.2 n/a 0.2
Puffed wheat cereal 67.0 n/a 1.2
Oat porridge 9.0 n/a 0.3
Cooked spaghetti n/a n/a 2.9
Cooked rice n/a n/a 3.7
Potato products
Boiled potatoes n/a n/a 2.0
Chips 29.5 n/a 4.8
Mashed potatoes n/a n/a 2.4

Adapted from [7]; n/a: not available.

In fruits, starch is an energetic reserve and its concen-
tration decreases with ripeness; banana and mango are
examples of this behaviour, since in their green or imma-
ture state, RS constitutes the largest fraction (7080% in
mango and 4050% in banana), and simple carbohydrates
(glucose, fructose, sucrose, etc.) are very scarce [26, 27].
Kumari et al. [28] reported that processing treatments
and storage result in an increase in RS content of ready-to-
eat foods. Processed foods invariably undergo storage at
moderate or low temperatures before consumption.
Storage of foods is also a contributing factor to the
changes in the available starch content of the product.
The quantity of RS formed during processing/storage
depends on the severity of the processing conditions like
temperature, pH, moisture, number of heating/cooking
cycles adopted, condition of storage, etc. In addition, many
of the processing treatments such as freezing, autoclav-
ing, etc., are also known to have significant impact on the
fermentation of RS.
3 Resistant starch as functional ingredient
Starch-based food products have diverse nutritional prop-
erties, which are influenced by the origin of the starch, its
composition, processing method used, and process con-
ditions applied. Increasing health awareness and growing
demand for functional foods by consumers are driving the
food industry internationally to look at ways to produce
innovative food products with health benefits [29].
Considerable scientific research has confirmed the
beneficial role of the dietary fibre in the reduction of several
chronic diseases. So consumer awareness about the
healthy role of dietary fibre intake has raised, gaining
popularity fibre-enriched cereal based products [30].
The development of slowly digestible carbohydrates has
increased considerably in recent years, due to interest in
low GI foods and to control obesity and diabetes and,
subsequently, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease
[29].

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.starch-journal.com

Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415 409

There is considerable interest in the nutritional implica-
tions of RS in foods, since its physiological effects are
similar to those attributed to dietary fibre [31], such as
increased laxation, reduced risk of get digestive tract can-
cers [32], lowering postprandial glucose response [33, 34],
and lowering blood lipid levels [35, 36]. RS also shows
promising physiological impact in the prevention of gall
stone formation [37].
RS has a long history of safe consumption by humans
and is a natural component of some foods. Intakes vary but
are generally low, particularly in Western diets. Similar to
soluble fibre, a minimum intake of RS (56 g) appears to
be needed in order for beneficial reductions in insulin
response to be observed. Estimates of daily intake of
RS range from 3 to 6 g/day (averaging 4.1 g/day) in
Europe and Australia with similar but inconsistent data
for the US [38]. As diets become more and more proc-
essed with fewer raw fruit and vegetables the con-
sumption of RS is reduced. Therefore, incorporating RS
into processed foods is increasingly important [3942].
As a food ingredient, RS has a lower calorific (8 kJ/g)
value compared with fully digestible starch (15 kJ/g) [43],
therefore it can be a substitutive of digestible carbo-
hydrates, lowering the energy content of the final formu-
lation. Some RS products are also measured as total
dietary fibre (TDF) in standard assays, potentially allowing
high-fibre claims. In addition, RS can be either water
soluble (e.g., Fibersol 2; resistant maltodextrins) or insolu-
ble. These differences can have a profound impact on
potential food applications and quality [10].
RS can be fermented by human gut microbiota, provid-
ing a source of carbon and energy for the 400500 bacteria
species present in this anaerobic environment and thus
potentially altering the composition of the microbiota and
its metabolic activities. The fermentation of carbohydrates
by anaerobic bacteria yields SCFA, primarily composed of
acetic, propionic, and butyric acids, which can lower the
lumen pH, creating an environment less prone to the
formation of cancerous tumours [5]. Table 2 shows some
results of the production of SCFA of some different sources
of RS.
RS consumption has also been related to reduced post-
prandial glycemic and insulinemic responses, which may
have beneficial implications in the management of diabe-
tes, and is associated with a decrease in the levels of
cholesterol and triglycerides. Other effects of RS con-
sumption are increased excretion frequency and fecal
bulk, prevention of constipation and hemorrhoids,
decreased production of toxic and mutagenic compounds,
lower colonic pH, and ammonia levels. Considering that
nowadays several diseases result from inadequate feed-
ing, and that some may be related to insufficient fibre
intake, it is reasonable to assume that an increased con-
sumption of indigestible components would be important.

Table 2. Molar proportion of the three main SCFAs produced from RS sources, compared with other types of fibre, after 24 h
of fermentation (mol%).

Fermentation conditions Source Acetate Propionate Butyrate Ref.

In vivo
RS 41 21 38 [8]
Starch 50 22 29 [8]
Oat bran 57 21 23 [8]
Wheat bran 57 15 19 [8]
Cellulose 61 20 19 [8]
Guar gum 59 26 11 [8]
Ispaghula 56 26 10 [8]
Pectin 75 14 9 [8]
In vitro
Amylopectin 35 11 54 [71]
Xilan 18 11 70 [71]
Inulin 20 5 75 [71]
Pectin 64 12 26 [71]
RS Hylon VIIa) (3 g/L) 6 4 4 [72]
RS Hylon VIIa) (6 g/L) 5 5 6 [72]
RS Hylon VIIa) (12 g/L) 5 7 9 [72]
Novelose 240 53 16 30 [73]
Cristalean 66 12 20 [73]
ACT-RS31 62 12 24 [73]

a) Hylon VII High-amylose maize starch.

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.starch-journal.com

410 E. Fuentes-Zaragoza et al.
In this context, RS sources could be preferentially included
in the diet, since they do not cause pronounced organo-
leptic alterations as do traditional fibre sources (brans)
[44, 45].
4 Prebiotic effects of resistant starch
4.1 Prebiotic definition
The definition of prebiotics as a novel concept in nutrition
has been proposed in 1995, by semantic analogy with the
term probiotics. Even if slightly different definitions are
proposed and discussed by several international instan-
ces, prebiotics always refer to the fact that food ingredients
or nutrients escape the digestion in the upper part of the
digestive tract, are selectively fermented by bacteria,
thereby changing the composition and/or activity of the
gastrointestinal microbiota. An important point of the
definition is that it must confer benefits upon host health
[46, 47].
Prebiotics are utilized to promote the survival of pro-
biotics. Prebiotics are nondigestible carbohydrates that are
not absorbed in the intestine, such as RS [48]. RS is not
absorbed in the small intestine; it provides the colonic
microbiota with a fermentable carbohydrate substrate. It
has been suggested that RS promotes a higher proportion
of butyric acid than other indigestible carbohydrates.
Butyrate constitutes a major energy substrate for the colo-
nocytes and is associated with benefits in relation to
colonic health [49, 50]. They travel to the colon where
they promote the growth of specific advantageous micro-
biota (probiotics) by supplying food/energy, while simul-
taneously influencing the microbiotas gene expression
[51].
RS is currently attracting widespread interest for its
potential health benefits leading to growing demand for
robust, cost-effective RS assays for industrial, regulatory,
and research use. Unlike other dietary fibre components,
RS is neither intrinsically indigestible nor a fixed entity and
is determined by an individuals upper gut digestive
capacity as well as food processing and storage conditions
so any analysis needs to accommodate physiological fac-
tors such as transit time [52].
The possible applications of RS such as prebiotic con-
stituents in functional food formulations could be summar-
ized [53]:
(i) as fermentable substrates for growth of probiotic
microbiota, especially lactobacilli and bifido-
bacteria,
(ii) as dietary fibre promoting several beneficial phys-
iological effects,
(iii) as encapsulation materials for probiotic in order to
enhance their stability.
2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415
4.2 Synergistic effects of RS
Short chain fructooligosaccharides (FOS) and RS may act
synergistically (by combining, and thus increasing, their
prebiotic effects) [54], the administration of the combi-
nation of FOS and RS induced changes in the intestinal
microbiota, by increasing lactobacilli and bifidobacteria in
caecum and colonic contents. Several types of prebiotic
fibres can be distinguished considering their rate of fer-
mentability. Such role depends on the carbohydrate chain
length as it has been demonstrated in vitro in a fermenta-
tion system, showing that FOS are rapidly fermented
whereas long chain prebiotic, like inulin, are steadily fer-
mented. These observations have been confirmed in vivo
once the different prebiotics reach the large intestine: FOS
are rapidly fermented, whereas RS is slowly degraded. In
consequence, the particular kinetics would determine the
region of the intestine where the effects will be clearer.
Thus, FOS would be more active in the first parts of the
large bowel whereas RS would reach the distal part of the
colon. In fact, Le Blay et al. [55] have reported that admin-
istration of FOS or raw potato starch induces different
changes in bacterial populations and metabolites in the
caecum, proximal, and distal colon, as well as in faeces. As
compared with RS FOS doubled the pool of caecal fer-
mentation products, like lactate, while the situation was just
the opposite distally. These observations confirm that each
prebiotic shows particular properties, which should be
considered before their application for intestinal diseases;
thus, rapidly fermentable prebiotics are particularly useful
in those affecting the proximal part of the large intestine,
while slowly fermentable prebiotics should be chosen for
more distal intestinal conditions. Moreover, an association
with different prebiotics with complementary kinetics
should be considered when a health-promoting effect
throughout the entire colon is required. So, functional foods
based on the combination of two different dietary fibres,
with different rate of fermentability along the large
intestine, may result in a synergistic effect, and thus, in
a more evident prebiotic effect that may confer a greater
health benefit to the host [56].
Also, RS and inulin combination showed synergistic
effects on intestinal calcium and magnesium absorption
and balance in rats. The fermentation of these substrates
in the large bowel to SCFA is the main reason for this
increase in mineral absorption [56].
4.3 Probiotic and symbiotic
Functional foods have changed and increased the role of
food in health. Probiotics are the fastest growing sector of
the functional food industry, through their role in increasing
the number of beneficial bacteria in the gut. These living
microorganisms are primarily derived from lactic acid bac-
www.starch-journal.com
Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415
teria, comprising multiple strains from the genera
Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. Some foods combine
several microorganisms [50]. Beneficial health effects
attributed to probiotics are shortening of the duration of
rotavirus diarrhea, relief of signs, and symptoms of lactose
intolerance, decreasing the risk of allergy in atopic individ-
uals, cancer prevention, lowering of serum cholesterol
levels, prevention of urogenital infections, and synthesis
and enhancement of the bioavailability of nutrients.
Probiotic bacteria may compete with pathogens for
nutrients and mucosal adherence, produce antimicrobial
substances, and modulate mucosal immune functions.
The beneficial effects of probiotics are strain-specific,
therefore for the definition of which probiotics (as a single
strain or a combination) are most effective in specific
diseases is needed [48].
The breakdown of prebiotic molecules by bacterial
enzymes into SCFA (acetate, butyrate, and propionate)
are crucial for gut integrity and function, modulation of the
immune system, calcium and magnesium absorption, and
maintenance of normal serum cholesterol levels. The end
products of this fermentation are consumed by both these
bacteria and intestinal epithelium as fuel. Symbiotic refer
to nutritional supplements which contain probiotics and
prebiotics in combination. Since it has been hypothesized
that prebiotics ensure the survival of some beneficial bac-
teria, their effects might be additive or symbiotic [48].
Prebiotics selectively can stimulate probiotic strains.
Prebiotics may improve the survival of bacteria crossing
the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract, thereby enhanc-
ing their effects in the large bowel [57].
The best model of prebioticprobiotic symbiosis is the
encapsulation. Encapsulation is often mentioned as a way
to protect bacteria against severe environmental factors.
The physical protection of probiotics by microencapsula-
tion is a new approach to improve the probiotic survival.
Encapsulation helps to isolate the bacterial cells from the
effects of the hostile environment and gastrointestinal
tract, thus potentially preventing cell loss [58]. The goal
of encapsulation is to create a micro-environment in which
the bacteria will survive during processing and storage and
be released at appropriate sites (e.g., small intestine) in the
digestive tract. The benefits of encapsulation to protect
probiotics against low gastric pH have been shown in
numerous reports and similarly for liquid based products
such as dairy products [59].
Microcapsules consist of a liquid core surrounded by a
semipermeable membrane which retains the cells inside,
reduces mass transfer limitation, and minimize phage
contamination. For the encapsulation of viable cells, the
materials and formulation conditions used should be
gentle and non-toxic. In this respect, the antibacterial
properties of chitosan limit its use as a core solution.
However, alginate and starch liquid core capsules offer
2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
411
the possibility to immobilize lactic acid bacteria without
loss of viability and fermentation ability [60]. Starch and
its derivated (RS) are widely used in the encapsulation of
various food components, as probiotics. Indeed the use of
starch in many encapsulation processes has provided
solutions to problems such as thermal stabilization; proc-
ess induced controlled release, and extended shelf-life of
sensitive compounds [61]. The (micro) encapsulation of
probiotics has received attention from food companies
interested in producing probiotic-containing consumer
products, but faced with the difficulty of maintaining cell
viability over the shelf-life of the product [59].
A symbiotic approach is often accomplished by co-
encapsulation of RS in the form of high-AM maize starch
together with the probiotic microorganisms within the
microcapsule. Usually, 12% insoluble starch grains are
added to the probiotichydrocolloid precursor directly
before the encapsulation process, with the aim to further
maintain the viability of probiotics [57, 62].
RS had been used to improve encapsulation of viable
bacteria in yogurt. Sultana et al. [62] reported that the
incorporation of Hi-Maize1 starch (commercial RS)
improved encapsulation of viable bacteria (Lactobacillus
acidophilus and Bifidobacterium spp.) in yoghurt, as com-
pared to when the bacteria were encapsulated without the
starch.
Iyer and Kailasapathy [57], selected three different
complementary prebiotics and were separately coencap-
sulated with Lactobacillus acidophilus and tested for their
efficacy in yogurt. Addition of Hi-maize1 starch to capsu-
les containing Lactobacillus spp. provided maximum pro-
tection to the encapsulated bacteria after 3 h of incubation
at pH 2.0 compared with other two prebiotics, Raftiline1
and Raftilose1. Viable counts of Lactobacillus spp.
increased significantly ( p < 0.05) with Hi-maize concen-
tration of up to 1.0% w/v the viability of bacteria under in
vitro acidic conditions. Addition of Hi-maize (1.0% w/v) to
capsules containing Lactobacillus spp. and further coating
with chitosan significantly increased ( p < 0.05) the sur-
vival of encapsulated bacteria under in vitro acidic and bile
salt conditions and also in stored yogurt compared with
alginate encapsulated cells.
Homayouni et al. [58] have shown that encapsulation
can significantly increase the survival rate of probiotic
bacteria in ice cream over an extended shelf-life. They
manufactured two types of symbiotic ice cream containing
1% of RS with free and encapsulated Lactobacillus casei
(Lc-01) and Bifidobacterium lactis (Bb-12). The addition of
encapsulated probiotics had no significant effect on the
sensory properties of non-fermented ice cream in which
was used the RS as prebiotic compound and L. casei and
B. lactis survive in high numbers in the encapsulated
samples. Encapsulation thus may enhance the shelf-life
of probiotic cultures in frozen dairy products.
www.starch-journal.com
412 E. Fuentes-Zaragoza et al.
Probiotic cell concentrates are often required to be
stored over longer periods prior to food manufacture
and ingestion. Hence, it is often required to dry the pro-
biotic microcapsules after production. This is particular
important for dry foods, such as cereal products or bev-
erage powder where probiotics are added in dry form.
Nevertheless, the impact of microencapsulation on drying
and storage of dried probiotic microorganisms prior to
application in food systems is barely investigated, since
efforts with respect to increase in survival are mainly
focused on the application of protective substances.
Heidebach et al. [63] studied the viability of probiotic cells
(Bifidobacterium Bb12 and Lactobacillus F19) with dried
protein-hydrogels microcapsules during a freeze-drying
step as well as during subsequent storage in the dried
state and the influence of RS granules in the protein matrix.
In the case of Bifidobacterium Bb12 no difference in sur-
vival was found between free and encapsulated samples
with and without RS. In the case of Lactobacillus F19,
survival rates of microencapsulated cells without RS were
significantly higher compared to free cells as well as cells
that were encapsulated together with RS corns.
5 Health benefits of resistant starch
Scientific interest upon RS has increased significantly
during the last decades, mostly due to its capacity to
produce a large amount of butyrate all along the colon.
Butyrate has been observed to have a range of effects on
cell metabolism, differentiation, and cell growth as well as
inhibition of a variety of factors that underlie the initiation,
progression, and growth of colon tumors [64].
Starch processing can increase its prebiotic properties.
The digestibility of starch in cooked potatoes changes
when the potatoes are cooled after cooking, and these
changes may be of considerable nutritional significance.
When potato is cooled after cooking the starch undergoes
profound changes in digestibility: the content of rapidly
digested starch (RDS) decreases; the content of slowly
digested starch (SDS), defined as starch digested
between 20 and 120 min in vitro, increases markedly
and the proportion of RS increases. The increase in RS
means that the loading of non-digested polysaccharide
(dietary fibre) into the colon is greatly increased, making
the cooled potato a valuable source of dietary fibre which,
moreover, is enriched in a type (RS) that has demonstrated
benefits as a prebiotic [65].
Without heat gelatinization the starch remains in gran-
ular form, highly resistant to enzymic attack (RS2) [66]. In
such a state the potato would have little glycaemic impact
but may contribute to prebiotic effects, although its use
would be limited to products of low water content in which
the granular form of the starch would remain intact. As a
2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415
result, this type of RS (RS2) is almost completely trans-
formed into RDS upon cooking, but upon cooling, the
content of RS again increases. Because this latter form
of RS must have been regenerated from the almost com-
pletely digestible form (RDS) present in the potatoes
immediately after cooking, it is RS Type III (RS3), or
retrograded starch [65].
Shimoni [61] studied a fraction of RS, from high AM
corn-starch, called RS type III (RS III). RS III is fermented
by the microbiota in the colon, and it indicates that it may
have health benefits such as modifying lipid metabolism
and reducing the risk of colon cancer. RS III can be pro-
duced by heat-induced gelatinization of starch followed by
recrystallization. The amount of RS III produced is affected
by its composition, heat treatment, and recrystallization
conditions. Understanding the relation between RS III poly-
morphism and its resistance is critical for the development
of RS with improved prebiotic properties. The crystallite
polymorphism and the lamella structure of RS III affect its
enzymatic resistance, thus changing its prebiotic activities
(e.g., its properties as an enzymatic substrate). This hy-
pothesis was formulated based on studies that found
correlation between starch crystallinity and its resistance
to enzymatic digestion, and on other studies showing the
effect of crystallization conditions on RS polymorph type.
6 Evaluation of the fermentation
properties and potential prebiotic activity
The prebiotic effect of a substrate can be measured as a
selective effect upon growth of major bacterial groups
commonly found in human gut, in particular a selection
for increased numbers of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli in
comparison with undesirable micro-organisms, such as
certain clostridia and bacteroides [67]. There are a number
of methods currently in use to determine the prebiotic
properties of a substrate, from pure cultures studies to
human trials [54, 6770]. However, a defining character-
istic of prebiotic is the selective nature of certain groups of
colonic bacteria seen as beneficial towards human health.
This can only be determined in studies using mixed
microbial culture which mimic the microbial ecology of
the human intestinal tract. For a rapid comparative evalu-
ation, anaerobic batch fermentations inoculated with fae-
cal slurries are used. Because they represent the diverse
gut microbiota, but are completed rapidly with several sets
running simultaneously, these anaerobic batch fermenta-
tions present an excellent mode for small-scale screening
of novel substrates. Until recently, growth of specific bac-
teria in such fermentations was measured through colony
counting on selective agars. This approach, however, suf-
fers from several drawbacks (time-consuming, labour-
intensive and non recovery of uncultivable organisms).
www.starch-journal.com
Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415
As a result, molecular techniques such as fluorescence in
situ hybridization (FISH) have been developed to study
microbial communities [70].
7 Conclusions
Functional foods have revolutionized and augmented the
role of food in health. Probiotics are the fastest growing
component of the functional food industry, through their
role in increasing the number of beneficial bacteria in the
gut. RS can be fermented by human gut microbiota, and
provides the colonic microbiota with a fermentable carbo-
hydrate substrate. Scientific interest upon RS has
increased significantly during the last decades, mostly
due to its capacity to produce a large amount of butyrate
all along the colon. Short chain FOS and RS may act
synergistically by combining, and thus increasing, their
prebiotic effects. The best model of prebioticprobiotic
symbiosis is the encapsulation. Starch and its derivated
(RS) are widely used in the encapsulation of various food
components, as probiotics. A symbiotic approach is often
accomplished by co-encapsulation of RS in the form of
high-amylose maize starch together with the probiotic
microorganisms within the microcapsule.
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
8 References
[1] Howlett, J. (Ed.), ILSI Europe Concise Monograph Series,
Walker, R., Brussels 2008.
[2] Food Quality and Standards Service (AGNS) & Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Report
On Functional Foods 2007, Available at: http://www.fao.org/
ag/agn/agns/files/Functional_Foods_Report_Nov2007.pdf.
[3] Arvanitoyannis, I. S., Van Houwelingen-Koukaliaroglou, M.,
Functional foods: A survey of health claims, pros and cons,
and current legislation. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2005, 45,
385404.
[4] Englyst, K. N., Liu, S., Englyst, H. N., Nutritional character-
ization and measurement of dietary carbohydrates. Eur. J.
Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, 1939.
[5] Yao, N., Paez, A. V., White, P. J., Structure and function of
starch and resistant starch from corn with different doses of
mutant amylose-extender and floury-1 alleles. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 2009, 57, 20402048.
[6] Slavin, J., Stewart, M., Timm, D., Hospattankar, A.,
International Association for Cereal Science and
Technology (ICC), 13 July 2009, van der Kamp, J. W.,
Vienna, Austria 2009, p. 35.
[7] Lunn, J., Buttriss, J. L., 2007, Carbohydrates and dietary
fibre. Nutr. Bull. 32, 2164.
[8] Sharma, A., Yadav, B. S., Ritika, B. Y., Resistant starch:
Physiological roles and food applications. Food Rev. Int.
2008, 24, 193234.
2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
413
[9] Haralampu, S. G., Resistant starch: A review of the physical
properties and biological impact of RS3. Carbohydr. Polym.
2000, 41, 285292.
[10] Goldring, J. M., Resistant starch: Safe intakes and legal
status. J. AOAC Int. 2004, 87, 733739.
[11] Hernandez, O., Emaldi, U., Tovar, J., In vitro digestibility of
edible films from various starch sources. Carbohydr. Polym.
2008, 71, 648655.
[12] Sanz, T., Salvador, A., Baixauli, R., Fiszman, S. M.,
Evaluation of four types of resistant starch in muffins. II.
Effects in texture, colour and consumer response. Eur.
Food Res. Technol. 2009, 229, 197204.
[13] Ratnayake, W. S., Jackson, D. S., Thermal behavior of resist-
ant starches RS 2, RS 3, and RS 4. J. Food Sci. 2008, 73,
356366.
[14] Sajilata, M. G., Singhal, R. S., Kulkarni, P. R., Resistant starch
A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2006, 5, 117.
[15] Wepner, B., Berghofer, E., Miesenberger, E., Tiefenbacher,
K., Citrate starch: Application as resistant starch in different
food systems. Starch/Starke 1999, 51, 354361.
[16] Faraj, A., Vasanthan, T., Hoover, R., The effect of extrusion
cooking on resistant starch formation in waxy and regular
barley flours. Food Res. Int. 2004, 37, 517525.
[17] Storey, D., Lee, A., Bornet, F., Brouns, F., Gastrointestinal
responses following acute and medium term intake of retro-
graded resistant maltodextrins, classified as type 3 resistant
starch. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, 12621270.
[18] Mermelstein, N. H., Analyzing for resistant starch. Food
Technol. 2009, 4, 8084.
[19] Nugent, A. P., Health properties of resistant starch. British
Nutrition Foundation. Nutr. Bull. 2005, 30, 2754.
[20] Kim, M. J., Choi, S. J., Shin, S. I., Sohn, M. R., et al. Resistant
glutarate starch from adlay: Preparation and properties.
Carbohydr. Polym. 2008, 74, 787796.
[21] Jiang, H., Jane, J. L., Acevedo, D., Green, A., et al. Variations
in starch physicochemical properties from a generation-
means analysis study using amylomaize V and VII parents.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 56335639.
[22] Cummings, J. H., Stephen, A. M., Carbohydrate terminology
and classification. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, 518.
[23] Siswoyo, T. R., Morita, N., Thermal properties of partially
hydrolyzed starch-glycerophosphatidylcholine complexes
with various acyl chains. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51,
31623167.
[24] Frohberg, C., Quanz, M., Use of Linear Poly-Alpha-1,4-
Glucans as Resistant Starch, United States Patent
Application 20080249297, 2008, Available on line at: http://
www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO 2005040223.
[25] Rahmana, S., Birda, A., Reginaa, A., Lia, Z., et al. Resistant
starch in cereals: Exploiting genetic engineering and genetic
variation. J. Cereal Sci. 2007, 46, 251260.
[26] Sandhu, K. S., Lim, S. T., Structural characteristics and in
vitro digestibility of Mango kernel starches (Mangifera indica
L.). Food Chem. 2008, 107, 9297.
[27] Juarez-Garcia, E., Agama-Acevedo, E., Sayago-Ayerdi, S.
G., Rodriguez-Ambriz, S. L., Bello-Perez, L. A., Composition,
digestibility and application in breadmaking of banana Flvor.
Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2006, 61, 131137.
[28] Kumari, M., Urooj, A., Prasad, N. N., Effect of storage on
resistant starch and amylose content of cerealpulse based
www.starch-journal.com
414 E. Fuentes-Zaragoza et al.
ready-to-eat commercial products. Food Chem. 2007, 102,
14251430.
[29] Htoon, A. K., Uthayakumaran, S., Piyasiri, U., Appelqvist, I.,
et al. The effect of acid dextrinisation on enzyme-resistant
starch content in extruded maize starch. Food Chem. 2010,
120, 140149.
[30] Rosell, C. M., Santos, E., Impact of fibers on physical charac-
teristics of fresh and staled bake off bread. J. Food Eng.
2010, 98, 273281.
[31] Tan, H. Z., Li, Z. G., Tan, B., Starch noodles: History, classi-
fication, materials, processing, structure. Food Res. Int.
2010, 42, 551576.
[32] Liu, R., Xu, G., Effects of resistant starch on colonic preneo-
plastic aberrant crypt foci in rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008,
46, 26722679.
[33] Higgins, J. A., Higbee, D. R., Donahoo, W. T., Brown, I. L.,
et al. Resistant starch consumption promotes lipid oxidation.
Nutr. Metab. 2004, 1, 8.
[34] Shimada, M., Mochizuki, K., Goda, T., Dietary resistant
starch reduces levels of glucose-dependent insulinotropic
polypeptide mRNA along the jejunumileum in both normal
and type 2 diabetics rats. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2008,
72, 22062209.
[35] Hashimoto, N., Ito, Y., Han, K. H., Shimada, K., et al. Potato
pulps lowered the serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels in
rats. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 2006, 52, 445450.
[36] Martinez-Flores, H. E., Chang, Y. K., Martinez-Bustos, F.,
Sgarbierid, V., Effect of high fiber products on blood lipids
and lipoproteins in hamsters. Nutr. Res. 2004, 24, 8593.
[37] Patindol, J. A., Guraya, H. S., Champagne, E. T., McClung,
A. M., Nutritionally important starch fractions of rice
cultivars grown in Southern United States. J. Food Sci.
2010, 75, 137144.
[38] Kay M. Behall, K.M., Daniel J. Scholfield, D.J., Hallfrisch,
J.G., Liljeberg-Elmstahl, H.G.M., Consumption of both
resistant starch and b-glucan improves postprandial plasma
glucose and insulin in women. Diabetes Care 2006, 29, 976
981.
[39] Ovando-Martinez, M., Sayago-Ayerdi, S., Agama-Acevedo,
E., Goni, I., Bello-Perez, L. A., Unripe banana flour as an
ingredient to increase the undigestible carbohydrates of
pasta. Food Chem. 2009, 113, 121126.
[40] Korus, J., Witczak, M., Ziobro, R., Juszczak, L., The impact of
resistant starch on characteristics of gluten-free dough and
bread, Food Hydrocolloids 2009, 23, 988995.
[41] Ares, G., Baixauli, R., Sanz, T., Varela, P., Salvador, A., New
functional fibre in milk puddings: Effect on sensory properties
and consumers acceptability, LWT - Food Sci. Technol.
2009, 42, 710716.
[42] Baixauli, R., Sanz, T., Salvador, A., Fiszman, S. M., Muffins
with resistant starch: Baking performance in relation to the
rheological properties of the batter, J. Cereal Sci. 2008, 47,
502509.
[43] Rochfort, S., Panozzo, J., Phytochemicals for health, the role
of pulses. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 79817994.
[44] Wei, C., Qin, F., Zhu, L., Zhou, W., et al. Microstructure and
ultrastructure of high-amylose rice resistant starch granules
modified by antisense RNA inhibition of starch branching
enzyme. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 12241232.
[45] Walter, M., Picolli da Silva, L., Casagrande denardin, C., rice
and resistant starch: Different content depending on chosen
methodology. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2005, 18, 279285.
2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415
[46] Roberfroid, M., Prebiotics: the concept revisited. J. Nutr.
2007, 137, (3 Suppl 2): 830S837S.
[47] Delzenne, N. M., in: Taylor, J., Poms, R. (Eds.), Prebiotics:
New Trends and Developments. Proceedings of 4th
International Dietary Fibre Conference, ICC, van der
Kamp, J. W., Vienna, Austria 2009, p. 28.
[48] Coskun, T., Pro-, pre- and synbiotics. Cocuk Sagligi Hast.
Derg. 2006, 49, 128148.
[49] Leeman, A. M., Karlsson, M. E., Eliasson, A. C., Bjorck, I. M.
E., Resistant starch formation in temperature treated potato
starches varying in amylose/amylopectin ratio. Carbohydr.
Polym. 2006, 65, 306313.
[50] Scourboutakos, M., 1 1 3. Synbiotics: Combining the
power of pre- and probiotics. J. Food Sci. Educ. 2010, 9,
3637.
[51] Lee, Y. K. Salminen, S. Hoboken, N. J. (Eds.), Handbook of
probiotics and prebiotics, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
United Kingdom 2009.
[52] Bird, A. R., Usher, S., May, B., Topping, D. L., Morell, M. K., in:
Cho, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th Vahouny Fiber
Symposium, Bethesda, MD, USA 2010, p. 25.
[53] Charalampopoulos, D., Wang, R., Pandiella, S. S., Webb, C.,
Application of cereals and cereal components in functional
foods: A review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 79, 131141.
[54] Rodrguez-Cabezas, M. E., Camuesco, D., Arribas, B.,
Garrido-Mesa, N., et al. The combination of fructooligosac-
charides and resistant starch shows prebiotic additive effects
in rats. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 29, 832839.
[55] Le Blay, G. M., Michel, C. D., Blottiere, H. M., Cherbut, C. J.,
Raw potato starch and short-chain fructo-oligosaccharides
affect the composition and metabolic activity of rat
intestinal microbiota differently depending on the caeco-
colonic segment involved. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 94,
312320.
[56] Younes, H., Coudray, C., Bellanger, J., Demigne, C., et al.
Effects of two fermentable carbohydrates (inulin and
resistant starch) and their combination on calcium and
magnesium balance in rats. Brit. J. Nutr. 2001, 86, 479485.
[57] Iyer, C., Kailasapathy, K., Effect of co-encapsulation of
probiotics with prebiotics on increasing the viability of
encapsulated bacteria under in vitro acidic and bile salt
conditions and in yogurt. J. Food Sci. 2005, 70, 1823.
[58] Homayouni, A., Azizi, A., Ehsani, M. R., Yarmand, M. S.,
Razavi, S. H., Effect of microencapsulation and resistant
starch on the probiotic survival and sensory properties of
synbiotic ice cream. Food Chem. 2008, 111, 5055.
[59] Weinbreck, F., Bodnar, I., Marco, M. L., Can encapsulation
lengthen the shelf-life of probiotic bacteria in dry products?
Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 136, 364367.
[60] Jankowski, T., Zielinska, M., Wysakowska, A., Encapsulation
of lactic acid bacteria with alginate/starch capsules.
Biotechnol. Technol. 1997, 11, 3134.
[61] Shimoni, E., in: Garti, N. (Ed.), Starch as an encapsulation
material to control digestion rate in the delivery of active food
components. Delivery and controlled release of bioactives in
foods and nutraceuticals. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA
2008, DOI: 10.1201/9781439824207.ch11.
[62] Sultana, K., Godward, G., Reynolds, N., Arumugaswamy, R.,
et al. Encapsulation of probiotic bacteria with alginatestarch
and evaluation of survival in simulated gastrointestinal
conditions and in yoghurt. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2000,
62, 4755.
www.starch-journal.com
Starch/Starke 2011, 63, 406415
[63] Heidebach, T., Forst, P., Kulozik, U., Influence of casein-
based microencapsulation on freeze-drying and storage of
probiotic cells. J. Food Eng. 2010, 98, 309316.
[64] Champ, M., Langkilde, A. M., Brouns, F., Kettlitz, B., Le Bail-
Collet, Y., Advances in dietary fibre characterisation. 2.
Consumption, chemistry, physiology and measurement of
resistant starch; implications for health and food labelling.
Nutr. Res. Rev. 2003, 16, 143161.
[65] Mishra, S., Monro, J., Hedderley, D., Effect of processing on
slowly digestible and resistant starch. Starch/Starke 2008,
60, 500507.
[66] Fuentes-Zaragoza, E., Riquelme-Navarrete, M. J., Sanchez-
Zapata, E., Perez-Alvarez, J. A., Resistant starch as
functional ingredient: A review. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43,
931942.
[67] Gomez, E., Tuohy, K. M., Gibson, G. R., Klinder, A.,
Costabile, A., In vitro evaluation of the fermentation proper-
ties and potential prebiotic activity of Agave fructans. J. Appl.
Microbiol. 2010, 108, 21142121.
[68] Vulevic, J., Rastall, R. A., Gibson, G. R., Developing a
quantitative approach for determining the in vitro prebiotic
2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
415
potential of dietary oligosaccharides. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.
2004, 236, 153159.
[69] Mandalari, G., Nueno Palop, C., Tuohy, K., Gibson, G. R., et
al. In vitro evaluation of the prebiotic activity of a pectic
oligosaccharide-rich extract enzymatically derived from
bergamot peel. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 73,
11731179.
[70] Parkar, S. G., Redgate, E. L., Wibisono, R., Luo, X., et al. Gut
health benefits of kiwifruit pectins: Comparison with commer-
cial functional polysaccharides. J. Funct. Food 2010, 2, 210
218.
[71] Scott, K. P., Duncan, S. H., Flint, H. J., Dietary fibre and the
gut microbiota. Br. Nutr. Found. Nutr. Bull. 2008, 33, 201
211.
[72] Zhao, X. H., Lin, Y., Resistant starch prepared from high-
amylose maize starch with citric acid hydrolysis and its
simulated fermentation in vitro. Eur. Food Res. Technol.
2009, 228, 10151021.
[73] Brouns, F., Kettlitz, B., Arrigoni, E., Resistant starch and the
butyrate revolution. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2002, 13,
251261.
www.starch-journal.com