Next Article in Journal
Microbiome-Metabolomics Insights into the Milk of Lactating Dairy Cows to Reveal the Health-Promoting Effects of Dietary Citrus Peel Extracts on the Mammary Metabolism
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Cooking with Superheated (SHS) vs. Standard Steam Oven on the Fatty Acids Profile of Different Kinds of Meat and Fish
Previous Article in Journal
A Comprehensive Review of Variability in the Thermal Resistance (D-Values) of Food-Borne Pathogens—A Challenge for Thermal Validation Trials
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dietary Schizochytrium Microalgae Affect the Fatty Acid Profile of Goat Milk: Quantification of Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) and Its Distribution at Sn-2 Position
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 24
10.3390/foods11244118
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Milk Odd- and Branched-Chain Fatty Acids among Human, Dairy Species and Artificial Substitutes

by
Silvia Carta
,
Fabio Correddu
*,
Gianni Battacone
,
Giuseppe Pulina
and
Anna Nudda
Dipartimento di Agraria, University of Sassari, Viale Italia, 39, 07100 Sassari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(24), 4118; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11244118
Submission received: 25 November 2022 / Revised: 14 December 2022 / Accepted: 16 December 2022 / Published: 19 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fatty Acids of Foods from Animals: Functional Roles and Effects on Human Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the study was to compare odd and branched-chain fatty acids (OBCFA) of milk from sheep, goat, cow, buffalo, donkey, human, and formula milk. Ruminant, monogastric, and human milks have different concentrations of these fatty acids (FA). To highlight the differences on OBCFA, a total of 282 individual milk samples were analyzed by gas chromatography. The OBCFA were found higher in ruminant than non-ruminant milks (p < 0.05). Among ruminants, sheep milk had the highest OBCFA (4.5 g/100 g of total FAME), whereases the lowest values were found in formula milk (0.18 g/100 g of total FAME). Regarding individual linear odd-chain FA (linear-OCFA), C11:0 was found higher in donkey milk than others, while sheep and buffalo milks had the greatest concentration of C15:0. Among BCFA, the iso-BCFA were higher than anteiso-BCFA in all considered milks. The isoC17:0 showed the highest concentration in all milks except for donkey and buffalo, which showed higher concentration of isoC16:0 than others. In conclusion, ruminant milks are different in terms of these FA compared to human milk and its substitutes. However, the greatest differences were found with formula milk, suggesting that this product needs the implementation of these FA to be more similar to human milk composition.

1. Introduction

Milk is considered a complete food, especially for infants, due to its content of essential compounds (amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, etc.). Milk and derived foods are also defined nutraceutical foods, because of the presence of bioactive complexes with healthy effects. Extensive literature dealt with the benefits of bioactive peptides [1,2] and peculiar fatty acids [3]. Regarding fatty acids (FA), in the last decades, great attention has been dedicated to polyunsaturated FA of the omega3 family (PUFA n-3) and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) concentrations of dairy products. More recently, other milk FA, the odd- and branched-chain FA (OBCFA) have attracted increasing interest among scientists. The principal OBCFA in the milk of ruminants are isomers of tetradecanoic acids (isoC14:0), pentadecanoic acid (C15:0, iso and anteisoC15:0), hexadecenoic acid (isoC16:0), and heptadecanoic acid (C17:0, iso and anteisoC17:0). The OBCFA arise mainly as residuals of the ruminal bacterial membranes [4] and, for this reason, are distinctive of ruminant products [5]. Milk and meat from these species represent the main source of OBCFA for humans [6,7], whereas they are found in low amounts in the products from monogastrics [7]. The OBCFA can be found also in human milk, as a consequence of the intake of dairy products and ruminant meat [8]. Endogenous synthesis of OBCFA in humans cannot be excluded, even if very little is known about de novo OBCFA synthesis in internal tissues (e.g., the mammary gland) [9]. The concentration and the proportion among OBCFA can vary depending on different factors, but the animal diet is the principal [5]. In ruminants, a decrease of the forage to concentrate ratio [6,10] and the supplementation of polyphenols [11,12] could lead to a decrease of OBCFA. Moreover, the negative energy balance causing lipid mobilization of body fat and the FAs metabolism in mammary glands can affect the OBCFA content in milk [5]. The positive relationship between OBCFA and human health has been evidenced by several studies highlighting a beneficial role in gut health [5,13] and cardiovascular diseases [14], inflammation [15] and cancer [16]. In particular, the increasing interest on these FA is related to their anticancer activity, evidenced through the inhibition of fatty acids synthesis in tumor cells [17]. OBCFA are also associated to a lower risk of heart diseases [15] and metabolic diseases [18]. Among the OBCFA, C15:0 and C17:0 are known for their positive effects on cardiovascular disease [19], on the incidence of type 2 diabetes [20] and on inflammation and fibrosis [15]. The role of OBCFA in weight loss and weight maintenance has been reported [21]. Recently, it has been evidenced that iso- branched-chain fatty acids (iso-BCFA) could downregulate the expression of genes implicated in lipid synthesis and of genes that codify proinflammatory proteins [22].
The OBCFA could be considered as biomarkers of the rumen function of animals. Some studies showed that cellulosolytic bacteria are rich in iso-BCFA, whereas the linear odd-chain fatty acid (linear-OCFA) and anteiso-BCFA are mainly abundant in amylolytic ones [4,23]. Considering the strong relationship between diet composition and bacteria microflora, OBCFA could also give information about proper rumen function. Moreover, some BCFA might be used as biomarkers to identify diarrheic diseases in animals and humans. For example, the concentrations of total even-chain-branched FA and some individuals as isoC16:0, isoC17:0, anteisoC17:0 were increased in the feces of unhealthy animals [13]. The increase of these FA could be associated with the increase in some branched-chain aminoacids (such as valine, leucine and isoleucine) in animals with diarrhea that could be transformed to α ketoacids to produce isoC16:0, isoC17:0, and anteiso-C17:0 [13]. However, isoC14:0, isoC16:0, isoC18:0, anteisoC15:0, and anteisoC17:0 have demonstrated to have anti-inflammatory functions in intestinal epithelial cell lines [24].
The C15:0 and C17:0 have different origins, and, for this reason, their concentration may vary based on several factors, such as species and diet. Jenkins et al. [19] evidenced a C15:0 to C17:0 ratio approximately equal to 1:2 in human plasma, whereases the same ratio is found about 2:1 in dairy products. In ruminants, these FA are derived mainly from ruminal bacteria cell walls [10], even if it is known that the mammary gland can synthetize them from propionate [25]. Liu et al. [26] suggested that C17:0 might be synthetized partially endogenously due to the higher content of this FA in milk than in duodenal flow. In human plasma, the concentration of C15:0 is strongly related to the intake of dairy products, whereas, for the C17:0 a potential endogenous synthesis has been suggested.
Infant formula is considered substitute for infant feeding, and it is formulated to be as much as possible similar to human breast milk, by using cow milk and/or soy as the base, with the addition of a number of supplemental ingredients of different origin [27]. Donkey milk has become popular for human consumption because it is considered a substitute for human milk, in particular for infants with an intolerance for cow’s milk [28,29]. The FA composition of these types of milk can differ greatly and a huge difference could be observed in the content of beneficial FA, including OBCFA.
The objective of this experimental work was to compare the OBCFA spectrum in human milk and artificial infant formula compared to that of dairy ruminant species (cows, buffalo, goat and sheep), and donkeys.

2. Materials and Methods

The number of individual milk samples used for this study were 11 from humans (donated by volunteer mothers), 70 from cows, 61 from buffalo, 69 from goats, 55 from sheep, and 8 from donkeys. The samples used come from our abundant collection of milk of different species obtained in various experimental surveys conducted in Sardinia, except for the buffalo, whose milk comes from Campania, and human, whose milk was voluntarily donated. All samples were frozen immediately after collection and stored at −20 °C. Eight different formula substitutes were purchased at random from local supermarkets.
Fat extraction and FAME preparation were performed as described by Nudda et al. [30]. Analyses of milk OBCFA were carried out by a gas chromatographic method as previously described [31]. Briefly, after the lipid extraction, the FIL-IDF standard procedure [32] was followed for the esterification of FA. Obtained fatty acids methyl esters (FAME) were separated, using a GC FID system equipped with a capillary column (CP-Sil 88 100 × 0.25 × 0.2, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), and identified by comparing their retention time with that of a series of analytical standards and consulting previous studies [33,34]. Analytical standard included the Supelco 37 component FAME MIX (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA), the GLC-110 MIX (Matreya Inc. Pleasant Gap, PA, USA) and some individual BCFA (Matreya Inc. Pleasant Gap, PA, USA). Methyl valerate and methyl tridecanoate (Sigma-Aldrich Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA) were used as internal standards. The FA concentration was reported as g/100 g of total FAME.
Data of milk fat concentration and milk OBCFA composition were processed using ANOVA based on the general linear model procedure (PROC GLM) of the software SAS [35], where the type of milk was considered as fixed factor. The Tukey test was used as the post hoc test. Means were declared statistically different when p < 0.05.
To obtain an overview of the differences of milk OBCFA profile among milks, a principal component analysis (PCA) was applied on all the considered FA (eleven) of milk using Minitab 17 software (Minitab17). A total 11 principal components were extracted, and individual PC scores and loadings were retained to produce plots of the two first PC.

3. Results

3.1. Univariate Analysis

Table 1 reports the differences in fat and individual OBCFA concentrations among milks of different species and milk substitutes.
The highest fat concentration was found in buffalo milk, followed by sheep and goats and then by cows. Donkey and human milks exhibited lower fat concentration than ruminant milks (p < 0.05). Formula milk had lower fat concentration than buffalo and sheep milks (p < 0.05).
In total, 11 FAs were identified: 3 linear-OCFA (C11:0, C:15:0 and C17:0), 5 iso-BCFA (isoC13:0, isoC14:0, isoC15:0, isoC16:0 and isoC17:0) and 3 anteiso-BCFA (anteisoC13:0, anteisoC15:0 and anteisoC17:0). All the considered FA were identified in buffalo, donkey, goat, and sheep milks, whereases anteisoC13:0 in cow milk and isoC13:0 and anteisoC13:0 in human and in formula milk were not detected. The OBCFA were higher in ruminant than monogastric species. Sheep milk displayed higher concentration (4.5 g/100 g of total FAME, p < 0.001) of OBCFA than the milk of the other ruminants (p < 0.05), mainly due to the high concentration of C15:0 and C17:0 (in all their forms: odd, iso and anteiso), followed by milk of buffaloes, which had higher OBCFA than cows and goats’ milks (p < 0.05). Among non-ruminant milks, the lowest value of OBCFA was found in formula milk (about 0.2 g/100 g of total FA), which was about the 10% compared to the concentration of these FA in human milk (1.3 g/100 g of total FAME).
Regarding the linear-OCFA, milk of cow, buffalo, goat, and donkey had similar concentration (mean of 1.66 g/100 g of total FAME), that was lower than that of sheep (p < 0.05) and higher compared to that of human and formula milks (p < 0.05). The C11:0 concentration was higher in donkey milk samples (0.895 g/100 g of total FAME) compared to the other milks (p < 0.05); among ruminants, the highest concentration was found in sheep, followed by goat, cow, and buffalo milk. The C15:0 exhibited higher concentration in sheep and buffalo (mean of 1.16 g/100 g of total FA) than in the cow and goat milks (p < 0.05), with cow milk having higher concentration than goat milk (p < 0.05). Donkey and human milk had similar concentration of C15:0, a result lower than that of ruminant milks (p < 0.05) and higher than that of formula milk (p < 0.05). The C17:0 showed higher values in sheep and goat milks (mean of 0.77 g/100 g of total FAME) compared to the buffalo and cow milk (p < 0.05), with the first showing higher values (p < 0.05). Donkey and human milk had similar concentration of C17:0, a result lower than that of ruminant milks (p < 0.05) and higher than that of formula milk (p < 0.05).
The highest iso-BCFA, in almost all species, was the isoC17:0, except for donkey and buffalo milk, which had the isoC16:0 as the highest compared to others. Sheep milk had higher concentration of this FA compared to the other milks (p < 0.05), goat milk had higher concentration than cow and buffalo milks (p < 0.05), which did not differ among them (p > 0.05), but that had higher concentration than donkey milk (p < 0.05). Among the anteiso-BCFA, the anteisoC15:0 and anteisoC17:0 showed the highest concentration in sheep milk. The anteisoC15:0 and anteisoC17:0 displayed similar concentration in milk of ruminants (0.46 and 0.42 g/100g of total FA, respectively), whereases in donkey and human samples anteisoC17:0 was about double than anteisoC15:0. Formula milk exhibited the lowest concentration of BCFA, being about 7% to that found human milk (0.04 and 0.55 g/100 g of total FAME, respectively).
Among anteiso-BCFA, anteisoC15:0 and anteisoC17:0 were the most abundant in the milk of all species, except for donkey, that had relatively higher concentration of anteisoC13:0. Among ruminants, anteisoC15:0 was higher in sheep and buffalo compared to the other milks (p < 0.05), with cow milk having higher concentration than goats milk (p < 0.05); anteisoC17:0 was higher in sheep compared to the other milks (p < 0.05), with cow milk having higher concentration than buffalo and goats milks (p < 0.05), which did not differ among them. Donkey, human, and formula milks had lower concentrations of anteisoC15:0 and anteisoC17:0 than ruminant milks (p < 0.05).
Table 2 shows the percentage of individual OBCFA and the sums of linear-OCFA and BCFA on the total OBCFA. Milk from monogastric species and the formula substitutes showed a greater proportion of linear-OCFA than BCFA. Of the total content of OBCFA, the linear-OCFA was 68.7% in donkey and 59% in human milk, whereas they represent about the 80% of the total OBCFA in formula (Table 2). The content of linear-OCFA in ruminant’s milk ranged from 44.5 to 51.9% of total OBCFA.

3.2. Principal Component Analysis

About the 88% of the total variance was explained by the first four principal components (PCs), with the two first PCs accounting for about the 70% (PC1 and PC2, 47% and 19%, respectively). Figure 1, reporting the plot of the scores of the PC1 and PC2, allows to identify some clusters of the different types of milk.
Sheep and buffalo milks have generally positive scores for PC1, whereas donkey, human and formula milks have negative scores. Cow and goat milks had mean scores for PC1 close to zero, with a large range of values. For the PC2, milks of donkey, goat, and sheep had positive scores, while those of buffalo, cow, human, and formula milks had negative scores.
Figure 2 shows the plot of the PC loadings that can be useful to describe and explain the main differences in term of OBCFA among the clusters of milk observed in Figure 1.
The PC1 had high positive loadings for C15:0, isoC15:0, isoC16:0, anteisoC15:0 and anteisoC17:0. The PC2 had high positive scores for C11:0 and anteisoC13:0, whereases it had high negative scores for isoC13:0.

4. Discussion

4.1. Univariate Analysis

The mean fat contents observed in ruminants, donkey, and formula milks, were in agreement with previous works [36,37,38]. The fat content of human milk was lower compared to the mean reported in the literature [39]. It should be highlighted that, for the present work, human milk was not sampled from the total daily milk production, but it was spot sampled. Despite this, the fatty acid composition can be considered representative of whole milk production, according to previous observations [40].
The generally higher concentration of OBCFA found in ruminants compared with non-ruminants was expected and in agreement with previous studies [7,41]; it is mainly related to the presence of ruminal bacterial population that synthesize de novo these FA, that are incorporated in their cell membranes. For that, OBCFA can give information about the nutritional status of animals, because the unbalance of some nutrients could lead to a variation of the microbial population, and consequently of these FA. In ruminants, the milk linear-OCFA are considered not exclusively of rumen microbial origin; in particular, a higher content of C17:0 in milk than that found in duodenal flow, suggests a partial synthesis of this FA in the mammary gland [10,26]. This double origin could partially explain the higher concentration of these FA in ruminant milk compared to non-ruminant milk [42].
The concentration of OBCFA found in sheep and goat milk was similar to that reported in previous studies [43,44]. The concentration of these FA in cow and buffalo was lower than that measured by other authors [45,46]. The higher concentration of OBCFA found in sheep milk compared to cow, goat, and buffalo milks could be associated with the different feeding management of these species. The same factor can partially explain differences among works conducted within the same species. For example, OBCFA concentration could be affected by the forage to concentrate ratio [6,10], by the presence of bioactive compounds in the diets [11,12] and by the energy balance of animals [5]. Among monogastrics, the donkey milk had higher amounts of OBCFA than human milk, partly because of the low ability of human tissues to produce OBCFA [9], but mainly because the donkey, being herbivorous, is characterized by the abundant activity of intestinal microflora for fiber digestion [47]. In fact, monogastric herbivores are characterized by a high fermentation activity in the cecum that is responsible for the production of these FA. Regarding this species, the relatively high proportions of C11:0 and isoC13:0 found in the present work (representing the 40 and 6.5% of the total OBCFA respectively) was in contrast with a previous work, where the most abundant OBCFA were C15:0 and C17:0, similarly to what was observed for the other considered species [7]. However, it should be highlighted that different donkey breeds (Sarda breed, Italy) were involved in our and the previous work (Chinese breed).
Products from ruminants are the main source of linear-OCFA in the human diet [48]. However, recent studies showed that C15:0 and C17:0 have different origins in human tissues [15,25]. Indeed, the concentration of C15:0 is strongly correlated to dietary intake, whereas for C17:0 the relationship is weaker [49]. Jenkins et al. [25] highlighted that part of C17:0 is produced endogenously through the elongation of propionyl-CoA and α-oxidation of C18:0. For this reason, C15:0 is a better biomarker of dairy products intake, rather than C17:0. Moreover, the higher concentration of C17:0 found in the human milk compared to the other OBCFA could be due, in part, to its intermediate chain length that can easily fit into lipid structures of triglycerides, phospholipids, and glycosphingolipids [50]. Due to the strong association between C15:0 and the reduction of several diseases (such as reduction of proinflammatory, profibrotic states in human cells and anemia) and the strong correlation between the circulation of this FA in human blood and its intake, the consumption of dairy products might be considered as a strategy able to increase this FA and, consequently, human health.
The high content of BCFA found in sheep could be also associated to a different de novo synthesis of these FA in mammary glands. For example, methylmalonyl-CoA is better used from sheep compared to cow and goat [10]. Methylmalonyl-CoA is the carboxylation product of propionate that could be incorporated at the first step of chain elongation, which might result in the production of anteiso-FA.
In ruminants the iso- and anteiso-BCFA origins are also different, as the iso form arises from isobutyrate and isovalerate, while the anteiso form originates from 2-methybutyrate. The proportion of iso and anteiso is affected by several factors, such as the availability of the precursors and the amount of chain extender, which are related to microorganism activity [51]. For this reason, a change of the ratio odd-chain iso- to anteiso- chain fatty acids could give information about rumen function. A reduction of this ratio could be related to an increase of concentrate levels in animal diets that could lead to a decrease of pH and a consequent change in the rumen bacterial population [10]. Thus, a higher proportion of concentrate in the diet may explain the higher iso to anteiso ratio observed in this work for buffalo milk compared to the other ruminant milks.
Even if the main amount of BCFA arises from rumen bacteria, Vlaeminck et al. [52] showed that an endogenous synthesis of them should not been excluded. Results from Gómez-Cortés et al. [53] supported the hypothesis that a fraction of iso and anteiso C17:0 derived from the endogenous synthesis through the elongation of isoC15:0 and anteisoC15:0. Regarding the concentration of BCFA on human milk, little information is available due to their lower concentration. Generally, the content of BCFA in human milk is associated with the intake of dairy products, even if a small amount could be synthetized in the maternal intestinal bacteria and then transported into milk [9].
Regarding the formula, the concentration of OBCFA is markedly lower compared to the other milks (5% compared to cow milk). This is because there are no sources or poor sources of these FA in the fat of formula milks, being mostly based on vegetable oils [54]. The lower content of OBCFA in these products compared to human milk (10%) needs to be carefully considered, because of the use in infants’ nutrition. The OBCFA in human milk play an important role in the nutrition of newborns and for the neonatal gastrointestinal tract [55]. Moreover, these FA have a protective effect against the necrotizing enterocolitis that could affect premature infants and, for this reason, the presence of OBCFA is necessary also in formula milks [16].
Donkey milk is considered another substitute for human milk, in particular for infants or people with an intolerance for cow’s milk. In terms of OBCFA content, this milk had a higher percentage compared to human milk. However, this milk suffers for a very low fat content. In the present work, the mean was 0.4%, in agreement with previous studies on indigenous Italian, Greek, and Cypriot donkey breeds [56,57]. Due to the low fat content, in children below six months, whose diet is exclusively based on donkey’s milk, the fat levels require a supplementation, e.g., by adding vegetable oils [58].

4.2. Principal Component Analysis

The principal component analysis was conducted in order to highlight the overall differences among the different types of milk considered in the present study, and to find possible clusters among them, based on the odd and branched fatty acid composition.
This statistical multivariate analysis is considered a useful approach to reduce the number of the original variables, such as FA, and to reassume the main variability of the system in few new variables (i.e., principal components, PCs). This technique has different applications, including that related to the ability to separate samples (e.g., milk, dairy products or meat of different species, breed, dietary treatment, season of production, etc.), based exclusively on the FA composition [59,60,61].
From the plot of the scores of the two first PCs some considerations can be tried: PC1 seems to separate milks of different species, based on their usual milk fat content. Moving from positive to negative scores, sheep and goat form the first cluster, followed by cow and goat and then by human and donkey; even if formula milks had a mean fat content of 3% (similar to cow milk), these products formed a unique cluster with negative scores, probably due to the vegetable origin of this fat. Indeed, vegetable oils are typically used, (in partial or total substitution of milk fat) to provide the essential fatty acids in infant formula [54].
Looking at the PC2, a certain separation can be observed between small and large ruminants; the same PC provides evidence for the positive scores of donkeys, similar to small ruminants, and negative scores of human and formula milk, more like large ruminants; negative scores for human milk may be related to the human consumption of cow milk or dairy products; negative scores for formula milks can be related to the use of cow’s milk and derivates for the formulation of these products. Looking at the PC loadings, the separation between small and large ruminants is mainly related to differences in the concentration of isoC13:0, isoC14:0, C11:0, and anteisoC13:0 in these species. As previously reported, differences in the OBCFA composition can be related to several factors, in particular, differences of synthesis of these classes of microbial FA may be related to different feeding, BCFA being mainly produced by cellulolytic bacteria, and linear-OCFA by amylolytic bacteria [62]; differences in terms of carbohydrate fermentation and passage rate also cannot be excluded.
Overall, considering both the PCs, donkey milk forms a unique cluster, far from the other milks; considering the PC loadings (Figure 2), this unique cluster is related to a very high proportion of C11:0 and anteisoC13:0 compared to the other milks. These two FA can be then considered as markers, useful to identify donkey milk and derived products.
According to our findings, in a recent work, human milk and donkey milk formed two different clusters, well differentiated from the clusters including other milks, even if in that work all the FA were taken into account [7].
Interestingly, the cluster of formula milks (Figure 1) is quite different from the others: an overlapping of all the samples (except for one) can be observed, suggesting a huge standardization of these milks, even if produced by different companies.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, milk from ruminants and monogastric animals and infant formula strongly differ from each other in terms of OBCFA. Sheep, goat, cow and buffalo milks have higher concentration of these FA compared to donkey, human and formula milks. The differences found among the species depend mainly on the different origins of them. Human milk has moderate concentration of OBCFA and part of them arise from the diet and, in particular, from the intake of dairy products. Considering the recent observations on the beneficial aspects of OBCFA on human health, the lowest concertation of these FA found in formula draws the attention to improve the nutritional value of some substitutes of breast milk.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.N. and G.P.; methodology, G.P.; software, F.C. and S.C.; validation, F.C., A.N., G.B. and G.P.; investigation, S.C.; data curation, S.C. and F.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C. and F.C.; writing—review and editing, S.C., F.C., G.B., A.N. and G.P.; supervision, A.N. and G.B.; funding acquisition, G.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by “FAR2020-Fondo di Ateneo per la Ricerca 2020”, of the University of Sassari.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Roberto Rubattu for his support in laboratory activities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Korhonen, H.; Pihlanto, A. Bioactive peptides: Production and functionality. Int. Dairy J. 2006, 16, 945–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Karami, Z.; Akbari-Adergani, B. Bioactive food derived peptides: A review on correlation between structure of bioactive peptides and their functional properties. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 535–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gómez-Cortés, P.; Juárez, M.; de la Fuente, M.A. Milk fatty acids and potential health benefits: An updated vision. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 81, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Fievez, V.; Colman, E.; Castro-Montoya, J.; Stefanov, I.; Vlaeminck, B. Milk odd- and branched-chain fatty acids as biomarkers of rumen function—An update. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2012, 172, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Abdoul-Aziz, S.K.A.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J. Milk Odd and Branched Chain Fatty Acids in Dairy Cows: A Review on Dietary Factors and Its Consequences on Human Health. Animals 2021, 11, 3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nudda, A.; Correddu, F.; Cesarani, A.; Pulina, G.; Battacone, G. Functional Odd- and Branched-Chain Fatty Acid in Sheep and Goat Milk and Cheeses. Dairy 2021, 2, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, F.; Chen, M.; Luo, R.; Huang, G.; Wu, X.; Zheng, N.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J. Fatty acid profiles of milk from Holstein cows, Jersey cows, buffalos, yaks, humans, goats, camels, and donkeys based on gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 1687–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ran-Ressler, R.R.; Bae, S.; Lawrence, P.; Wang, D.; Brenna, J.T. Branched-chain fatty acid content of foods and estimated intake in the USA. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 112, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dingess, K.A.; Valentine, C.J.; Ollberding, N.J.; Davidson, B.S.; Woo, J.; Summer, S.; Peng, Y.M.; Guerrero, M.L.; Ruiz-Palacios, G.M.; Ran-Ressler, R.R.; et al. Branched-chain fatty acid composition of human milk and the impact of maternal diet: The Global Exploration of Human Milk (GEHM) Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 105, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Vlaeminck, B.; Fievez, V.; Cabrita, A.R.J.; Fonseca, A.J.M.; Dewhurst, R.J. Factors affecting odd- and branched-chain fatty acids in milk: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2006, 131, 389–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Purba, R.A.P.; Yuangklang, C.; Paengkoum, S.; Paengkoum, P. Milk fatty acid composition, rumen microbial population and animal performance in response to diets rich in linoleic acid supplemented with Piper betle leaves in Saanen goats. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 62, 1391–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Makmur, M.; Zain, M.; Sholikin, M.M.; Suharlina; Jayanegara, A. Modulatory effects of dietary tannins on polyunsaturated fatty acid biohydrogenation in the rumen: A meta-analysis. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Xin, H.; Ma, T.; Xu, Y.; Chen, G.; Chen, Y.; Villot, C.; Renaud, D.L.; Steele, M.A.; Guan, L.L. Characterization of fecal branched-chain fatty acid profiles and their associations with fecal microbiota in diarrheic and healthy dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 2290–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Khaw, K.-T.; Friesen, M.D.; Riboli, E.; Luben, R.; Wareham, N. Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acid Concentration and Incident Coronary Heart Disease in Men and Women: The EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Study. PLOS Med. 2012, 9, e1001255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Venn-Watson, S.; Lumpkin, R.; Dennis, E.A. Efficacy of dietary odd-chain saturated fatty acid pentadecanoic acid parallels broad associated health benefits in humans: Could it be essential? Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 8161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ran-Ressler, R.R.; Khailova, L.; Arganbright, K.M.; Adkins-Rieck, C.K.; Jouni, Z.E.; Koren, O.; Ley, R.; Brenna, J.T.; Dvorak, B. Branched Chain Fatty Acids Reduce the Incidence of Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Alter Gastrointestinal Microbial Ecology in a Neonatal Rat Model. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e29032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Vahmani, P.; Salazar, V.; Rolland, D.C.; Gzyl, K.E.; Dugan, M.E.R. Iso- but Not Anteiso-Branched Chain Fatty Acids Exert Growth-Inhibiting and Apoptosis-Inducing Effects in MCF-7 Cells. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 10042–10047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Santaren, I.D.; Watkins, S.M.; Liese, A.D.; Wagenknecht, L.E.; Rewers, M.J.; Haffner, S.M.; Lorenzo, C.; Hanley, A.J. Serum pentadecanoic acid (15:0), a short-term marker of dairy food intake, is inversely associated with incident type 2 diabetes and its underlying disorders. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 100, 1532–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Jenkins, B.; West, J.A.; Koulman, A. A Review of Odd-Chain Fatty Acid Metabolism and the Role of Pentadecanoic Acid (C15:0) and Heptadecanoic Acid (C17:0) in Health and Disease. Molecules 2015, 20, 2425–2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Imamura, F.; Fretts, A.; Marklund, M.; Ardisson Korat, A.V.; Yang, W.S.; Lankinen, M.; Qureshi, W.; Helmer, C.; Chen, T.A.; Wong, K.; et al. Fatty acid biomarkers of dairy fat consumption and incidence of type 2 diabetes: A pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies. PLoS Med. 2018, 15, e1002670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Su, X.; Magkos, F.; Zhou, D.; Eagon, J.C.; Fabbrini, E.; Okunade, A.L.; Klein, S. Adipose tissue monomethyl branched-chain fatty acids and insulin sensitivity: Effects of obesity and weight loss. Obesity 2015, 23, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Czumaj, A.; Śledziński, T.; Mika, A. Branched-Chain Fatty Acids Alter the Expression of Genes Responsible for Lipid Synthesis and Inflammation in Human Adipose Cells. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gómez-Cortés, P.; Domenech, F.R.; Rueda, M.C.; De La Fuente, M.; Schiavone, A.; Marín, A.L.M. Odd- and Branched-Chain Fatty Acids in Lamb Meat as Potential Indicators of Fattening Diet Characteristics. Foods 2021, 10, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Yan, Y.; Wang, Z.; Greenwald, J.; Kothapalli, K.; Park, H.; Liu, R.; Mendralla, E.; Lawrence, P.; Wang, X.; Brenna, J. BCFA suppresses LPS induced IL-8 mRNA expression in human intestinal epithelial cells. Prostaglandins Leukot. Essent. Fat. Acids 2017, 116, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jenkins, B.; Seyssel, K.; Chiu, S.; Pan, P.-H.; Lin, S.-Y.; Stanley, E.; Ament, Z.; West, J.; Summerhill, K.; Griffin, J.; et al. Odd Chain Fatty Acids; New Insights of the Relationship Between the Gut Microbiota, Dietary Intake, Biosynthesis and Glucose Intolerance. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Liu, K.; Li, Y.; Luo, G.; Xin, H.; Zhang, Y.; Li, G. Relations of Ruminal Fermentation Parameters and Microbial Matters to Odd- and Branched-Chain Fatty Acids in Rumen Fluid of Dairy Cows at Different Milk Stages. Animals 2019, 9, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Martin, C.R.; Ling, P.-R.; Blackburn, G.L. Review of infant feeding: Key features of breast milk and infant formula. Nutrients 2016, 8, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bertino, E.; Agosti, M.; Peila, C.; Corridori, M.; Pintus, R.; Fanos, V. The Donkey Milk in Infant Nutrition. Nutrients 2022, 14, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Sarti, L.; Martini, M.; Brajon, G.; Barni, S.; Salari, F.; Altomonte, I.; Ragona, G.; Mori, F.; Pucci, N.; Muscas, G.; et al. Donkey’s Milk in the Management of Children with Cow’s Milk protein allergy: Nutritional and hygienic aspects. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2019, 45, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nudda, A.; McGuire, M.; Battacone, G.; Pulina, G. Seasonal Variation in Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Vaccenic Acid in Milk Fat of Sheep and its Transfer to Cheese and Ricotta. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 1311–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Correddu, F.; Gaspa, G.; Pulina, G.; Nudda, A. Grape seed and linseed, alone and in combination, enhance unsaturated fatty acids in the milk of Sarda dairy sheep. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1725–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Standard 182:1999; Milk Fat. Preparation of Fatty Acid Methyl Esters. FIL-IDF International Dairy Federation: Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
  33. Vetter, W.; Gaul, S.; Thurnhofer, S.; Mayer, K. Stable carbon isotope ratios of methyl-branched fatty acids are different to those of straight-chain fatty acids in dairy products. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 389, 597–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gómez-Cortés, P.; Rodríguez-Pino, V.; Juárez, M.; de la Fuente, M. Optimization of milk odd and branched-chain fatty acids analysis by gas chromatography using an extremely polar stationary phase. Food Chem. 2017, 231, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. SAS. User’s Guide: Statistics; Version 8.2; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gantner, V.; Mijić, P.; Baban, M.; Škrtić, Z.; Turalija, A. The overall and fat composition of milk of various species. Mljekarstvo 2015, 65, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Valle, E.; Pozzo, L.; Giribaldi, M.; Bergero, D.; Gennero, M.S.; Dezzutto, D.; McLean, A.; Borreani, G.; Coppa, M.; Cavallarin, L. Effect of farming system on donkey milk composition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 2801–2808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Le Huërou-Luron, I.; Lemaire, M.; Blat, S. Health benefits of dairy lipids and MFGM in infant formula. OCL 2018, 25, D306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Demmelmair, H.; Koletzko, B. Lipids in human milk. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2018, 32, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Daly, S.E.; Di Rosso, A.; Owens, R.A.; Hartmann, P. Degree of breast emptying explains changes in the fat content, but not fatty acid composition, of human milk. Exp. Physiol. 1993, 78, 741–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Devle, H.; Vetti, I.; Naess-Andresen, C.F.; Rukke, E.; Vegarud, G.; Ekeberg, D. A comparative study of fatty acid profiles in ruminant and non-ruminant milk. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2012, 114, 1036–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mollica, M.; Trinchese, G.; Cimmino, F.; Penna, E.; Cavaliere, G.; Tudisco, R.; Musco, N.; Manca, C.; Catapano, A.; Monda, M.; et al. Milk Fatty Acid Profiles in Different Animal Species: Focus on the Potential Effect of Selected PUFAs on Metabolism and Brain Functions. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Carta, S.; Tsiplakou, E.; Mitsiopoulou, C.; Pulina, G.; Nudda, A. Cocoa husks fed to lactating dairy ewes affect milk fatty acid profile and oxidative status of blood and milk. Small Rumin. Res. 2022, 207, 106599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Carta, S.; Tsiplakou, E.; Nicolussi, P.; Pulina, G.; Nudda, A. Effects of spent coffee grounds on production traits, haematological parameters, and antioxidant activity of blood and milk in dairy goats. Animal 2022, 16, 100501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Baumann, E.; Chouinard, P.; Lebeuf, Y.; Rico, D.; Gervais, R. Effect of lipid supplementation on milk odd- and branched-chain fatty acids in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 6311–6323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Pegolo, S.; Stocco, G.; Mele, M.; Schiavon, S.; Bittante, G.; Cecchinato, A. Factors affecting variations in the detailed fatty acid profile of Mediterranean buffalo milk determined by 2-dimensional gas chromatography. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 2564–2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Correddu, F.; Carta, S.; Mazza, A.; Nudda, A.; Rassu, S.P.G. Effect of extruded linseed on sarda donkey milk quality. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 21, 1200–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dąbrowski, G.; Konopka, I. Update on food sources and biological activity of odd-chain, branched and cyclic fatty acids—A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 119, 514–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sellem, L.; Jackson, K.G.; Givens, I.D.; Lovegrove, J.A. Can individual fatty acids be used as functional biomarkers of dairy fat consumption in relation to cardiometabolic health? A narrative review. Br. J. Nutr. 2022, 128, 2373–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pfeuffer, M.; Jaudszus, A. Pentadecanoic and Heptadecanoic Acids: Multifaceted Odd-Chain Fatty Acids. Adv. Nutr. Int. Rev. J. 2016, 7, 730–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Xin, H.; Xu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Chen, G.; Steele, M.A. Odd-chain and branched-chain fatty acid concentrations in bovine colostrum and transition milk and their stability under heating and freezing treatments. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 11483–11489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vlaeminck, B.; Gervais, R.; Rahman, M.; Gadeyne, F.; Gorniak, M.; Doreau, M.; Fievez, V. Postruminal synthesis modifies the odd- and branched-chain fatty acid profile from the duodenum to milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 4829–4840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gómez-Cortés, P.; De la Fuente, M.Á. Metabolic origin and bioactive properties of odd and branched-chain fatty acids in ruminants’ milk. Review. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2020, 11, 1174–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Berger, A.; Fleith, M.; Crozier, G. Nutritional Implications of Replacing Bovine Milk Fat With Vegetable Oil in Infant Formulas. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2000, 30, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Teng, F.; Wang, P.; Yang, L.; Ma, Y.; Day, L. Quantification of Fatty Acids in Human, Cow, Buffalo, Goat, Yak, and Camel Milk Using an Improved One-Step GC-FID Method. Food Anal. Methods 2017, 10, 2881–2891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Malissiova, E.; Arsenos, G.; Papademas, P.; Fletouris, D.; Manouras, A.; Aspri, M.; Nikolopoulou, A.; Giannopoulou, A.; Arvanitoyannis, I.S. Assessment of donkey milk chemical, microbiological and sensory attributes in Greece and Cyprus. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2016, 69, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Martemucci, G.; D’Alessandro, A.G. Fat content, energy value and fatty acid profile of donkey milk during lactation and implications for human nutrition. Lipids Health Dis. 2012, 11, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Altomonte, I.; Salari, F.; Licitra, R.; Martini, M. Donkey and human milk: Insights into their compositional similarities. Int. Dairy J. 2019, 89, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Correddu, F.; Cesarani, A.; Dimauro, C.; Gaspa, G.; Macciotta, N. Principal component and multivariate factor analysis of detailed sheep milk fatty acid profile. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 5079–5094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Correddu, F.; Murgia, M.A.; Mangia, N.P.; Lunesu, M.F.; Cesarani, A.; Deiana, P.; Pulina, G.; Nudda, A. Effect of altitude of flock location, season of milk production and ripening time on the fatty acid profile of Pecorino Sardo cheese. Int. Dairy J. 2021, 113, 104895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Conte, G.; Palombo, V.; Serra, A.; Correddu, F.; D’Andrea, M.; Macciotta, N.P.P.; Mele, M. Study of the Fatty Acid Profile of Milk in Different Sheep Breeds: Evaluation by Multivariate Factorial Analysis. Animals 2022, 12, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fievez, V.; Vlaeminck, B.; Dhanoa, M.; Dewhurst, R. Use of Principal Component Analysis to Investigate the Origin of Heptadecenoic and Conjugated Linoleic Acids in Milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 4047–4053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 11 04118 g001 550
Figure 1. Score plots of the two first principal components explaining 47 and 19% of the total variance, respectively.
Figure 1. Score plots of the two first principal components explaining 47 and 19% of the total variance, respectively.
Foods 11 04118 g001
Foods 11 04118 g002 550
Figure 2. Loadings plot of the two first principal components explaining 47 and 19% of the total variance, respectively.
Figure 2. Loadings plot of the two first principal components explaining 47 and 19% of the total variance, respectively.
Foods 11 04118 g002
Table
Table 1. Individual and groups of odd- and branched-chain fatty acids (g/100 g of FAME) of formula milk and milk from buffalo, cow, donkey, goat, sheep, and human.
Table 1. Individual and groups of odd- and branched-chain fatty acids (g/100 g of FAME) of formula milk and milk from buffalo, cow, donkey, goat, sheep, and human.
CowBuffaloSheepGoatDonkeyHumanFormula Milk
ItemMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
Fat content, %3.746 d0.6217.581 a1.4216.050 b1.3865.415 bc3.0700.390 e0.2071.076 e0.7083.004 cde1.210
Individual FA
C11:00.085 d0.0390.024 e0.0140.286 b0.0880.186 c0.0420.895 a0.3980.010 de0.0090.004 de0.006
C15:01.063 b0.2731.153 ab0.1761.178 a0.1710.751 c0.1680.374 d0.0850.375 d0.1010.056 e0.043
C17:00.455 c0.1050.506 b0.0760.760 a0.1040.791 a0.0790.353 d0.1090.407 cd0.0800.078 e0.025
isoC13:00.091 a0.0470.020 bc0.0090.026 b0.0100.025 b0.0050.026 bc0.017nd-nd-
isoC14:00.120 b0.0550.189 a0.040.118 bc0.0330.099 cd0.0310.063 de0.0410.020 ef0.0090.002 f0.005
isoC15:00.218 b0.0520.318 a0.0580.293 a0.0790.185 c0.0420.087 d0.0390.054 d0.0290.008 d0.015
isoC16:00.233 c0.0700.391 a0.0860.332 b0.0590.245 c0.0830.140 d0.0410.082 de0.0310.007 e0.015
isoC17:00.253 c0.0660.241 c0.0420.415 a0.0790.311 b0.0940.058 de0.0350.127 d0.0550.006 e0.013
AnteisoC13:0nd-0.036 b0.0070.043 b0.0130.022 c0.0070.154 a0.121nd-nd-
AnteisoC15:00.444 b0.1060.540 a0.0960.562 a0.1270.329 c0.0600.072 d0.0310.086 d0.0400.011 d0.019
AnteisoC17:00.415 b0.1020.365 c0.0670.500 a0.0860.388 bc0.0780.138 d0.0550.181 d0.0480.005 e0.012
Groups of FA 1
linear-OCFA1.603 b0.3621.683 b0.2222.223 a0.2821.729 b0.2471.621 b0.3310.792 c0.1730.138 d0.069
iso-BCFA0.916 b0.1631.159 a0.2031.185 a0.2280.865 b0.1900.374 c0.1480.283 cd0.1190.022 d0.037
anteiso-BCFA0.858 b0.1850.941 b0.1591.105 a0.1960.739 c0.1180.363 d0.0950.267 d0.0860.016 e0.031
BCFA1.775 c0.3032.100 b0.3562.290 a0.3971.604 d0.2860.738 e0.1850.550 e0.2020.038 f0.066
OBCFA3.378 c0.4943.783 b0.5384.513 a0.5773.333 c0.4992.359 d0.4241.342 e0.3640.176 f0.133
1 linear-OCFA = odd-chain fatty acids (sum of all individual linear odd-chain FA); iso-BCFA = iso branched-chain fatty acids (sum of all individual iso-branched chain FA); anteiso-BCFA = anteiso branched-chain fatty acids (sum of all individual anteiso-branched-chain FA); BCFA = branched-chain FA (sum of all branched-chain FA); OBCFA = odd- and branched-chain FA (sum of all odd- and branched-chain FA). Different superscripts in the same row indicate significant difference (p < 0.001) among type of milk. n.d. indicates not detected FA. SD indicates standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Percentage of individual odd and branched fatty acids of the total of OBCFA considered.
Table 2. Percentage of individual odd and branched fatty acids of the total of OBCFA considered.
Type of Milk
CowBuffaloSheepGoatDonkeyHumanFormula
Individual FA
C11:02.50.66.35.637.90.72.3
C15:031.530.526.122.515.827.931.8
C17:013.513.416.823.715.030.344.4
isoC13:02.70.50.60.81.1ndnd
isoC14:03.65.02.63.02.71.51.0
isoC15:06.58.46.55.53.74.04.3
isoC16:06.910.37.47.45.96.13.8
isoC17:07.56.49.29.32.59.43.4
anteisoC13:0nd0.90.90.76.5ndnd
anteisoC15:013.114.312.59.93.06.46.0
anteisoC17:012.39.611.111.65.813.53.1
Groups of FA 1
linear-OCFA47.544.549.351.968.759.078.5
BCFA52.555.550.748.131.341.021.5
1 linear-OCFA = linear odd-chain fatty acids (sum of all individual linear odd-chain FA); BCFA = branched-chain FA (sum of all branched-chain FA).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carta, S.; Correddu, F.; Battacone, G.; Pulina, G.; Nudda, A. Comparison of Milk Odd- and Branched-Chain Fatty Acids among Human, Dairy Species and Artificial Substitutes. Foods 2022, 11, 4118. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11244118

AMA Style

Carta S, Correddu F, Battacone G, Pulina G, Nudda A. Comparison of Milk Odd- and Branched-Chain Fatty Acids among Human, Dairy Species and Artificial Substitutes. Foods. 2022; 11(24):4118. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11244118

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carta, Silvia, Fabio Correddu, Gianni Battacone, Giuseppe Pulina, and Anna Nudda. 2022. "Comparison of Milk Odd- and Branched-Chain Fatty Acids among Human, Dairy Species and Artificial Substitutes" Foods 11, no. 24: 4118. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11244118

APA Style

Carta, S., Correddu, F., Battacone, G., Pulina, G., & Nudda, A. (2022). Comparison of Milk Odd- and Branched-Chain Fatty Acids among Human, Dairy Species and Artificial Substitutes. Foods, 11(24), 4118. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11244118

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop