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

Abstract

In the context of the global prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency, we compared two key determinants of the bioavailability of 3 vitamin D forms with significant biopotencies: cholecalciferol, 25-hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol. To this aim, we studied their incorporation into synthetic mixed micelles and their uptake by intestinal cells in culture. Our results show that 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol was significantly more solubilized into mixed micelles compared to the other forms (1.6-fold and 2.9-fold improvement compared to cholecalciferol and 25-hydroxycholecalciferol, respectively). In Caco-2 TC7 cells, the hydroxylated forms were taken up more efficiently than cholecalciferol (p < 0.05), and conversely to cholecalciferol, their uptake was neither SR-BI(Scavenger-Receptor class B type I)- nor NPC1L1 (NPC1 like intracellular cholesterol transporter 1)-dependent. Besides, the apical membrane sodium-bile acid transporter ASBT (Apical Sodium-dependent Bile acid Transporter) was not involved, at least in vitro, in the uptake of any of the three vitamin D forms. Further investigations are needed to identify the uptake pathways of both 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol and 25-hydroxycholecalciferol. However, considering its high bioavailability, our results suggest the potential interest of using 1-α-hydroxycholecalciferol in the treatment of severe vitamin D deficiency.

DOI: 10.3390/nu9101152

Cite this paper

@article{Desmarchelier2017ComparisonOT, title={Comparison of the Micellar Incorporation and the Intestinal Cell Uptake of Cholecalciferol, 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol and 1-α-Hydroxycholecalciferol.}, author={Charles Desmarchelier and Marielle Margier and Damien P Pr{\'e}v{\'e}raud and Marion Nowicki and V{\'e}ronique Rosilio and Patrick Borel and Emmanuelle Reboul}, journal={Nutrients}, year={2017}, volume={9 10} }