Open Access

Fatty acid and cholesterol profiles and hypocholesterolemic, atherogenic, and thrombogenic indices of table eggs in the retail market

  • Youssef A. Attia1Email author,
  • Mohammed A. Al-Harthi1,
  • Mohamed A. Korish1 and
  • Mohamed M. Shiboob2
Lipids in Health and Disease201514:136

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-015-0133-z

Received: 29 September 2015

Accepted: 29 September 2015

Published: 27 October 2015

Abstract

Background

Eggs are an important source of food due to its favorable effects on human health derived from the protein, fats, minerals, vitamins and bioactive components. We studied the effects of source of eggs in the retail market on fatty acids, lipid profiles and antioxidant status in eggs.

Methods

Eggs from four sources named A, B, C, and D in the retail market were collected to determine fatty acid, total lipid, and cholesterol profiles; hypocholesterolemic, atherogenic and thrombotic indices; antioxidant status (e.g., of malondialdehyde); and total antioxidant capacity in the whole edible parts of eggs (albumen + yolk) and egg yolk. Samples were collected four times and pooled over times to represent 5 and 10 samples per source for determinations of fatty acids and determinations of lipid profiles and antioxidant status, respectively.

Results

Fatty acid, total lipid, and cholesterol profiles; hypocholesterolemic, atherogenic and thrombotic indices; presence of malondialdehyde; and total antioxidant capacity in the whole edible parts of eggs and egg yolk showed significant differences (P ≥ 0.05) among different sources of eggs in retail market. Source D showed higher levels of saturated fatty acids (SFA) and linoleic and monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA)/polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) ratio but lower levels of MUFA and linolenic, arachidonic, eicosapentaeonic (EPA), decohexaenoic (DHA), and total ω9 fatty acids and lower unsaturated fatty acids (UFA)/SFA ratio. Similar trend was shown in fatty acids profiles of the whole edible parts of eggs. On the other hand, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL), LDL/high density lipoprotein (HDL) ratio, and atherogenic and thrombogenic indices and total antioxidant capacity of source D were significantly higher than those of other source, but levels of hypocholesterolemic index, and malondialdehyde levels were lower for source D.

Conclusion

Eggs in the retail market in Jeddah city, Saudi Arabia, from May to August 2015 showed a different pattern of fatty acid and cholesterol profiles; hypocholesterolemic, atherogenic, and thrombogenic indices; and antioxidant status, which might reflect the nutritional and husbandry practice of laying hens. This can affect the nutritional values of eggs, and hence, customer benefits, suggesting the need for standardization and quality control based on nutrient index values.

Keywords

Eggs lipidsAtherogenicThrombogenicRetail market

Background

Eggs are a principle food for human consumption practically for the children and elderly, it is delicious, easy to digest, and contains most of the nutrients needed by human based on recommended daily allowance. It is found on breakfast and dinner tables and is used for enrichment of other human foods [14]. Egg yolk is a rich source of both nutritive and non-nutritive compounds important to human health [5]. However, although eggs contain all the necessary nutrients for life, consumption of eggs may negatively affect because of high cholesterol content [1, 6, 7]. Although eggs contain essential proteins, UFA, minerals, and vitamins, it is suggested that egg consumption should be limited due to high cholesterol [5, 8]. It is also believed that increasing consumption of the eggs elevates the cardiovascular threat by increasing levels of blood cholesterol [9]. Concentrations and type of fat/fatty acids consumption were reported to affect cell membrane, tissues, egg-yolk lipid composition, and concentrations of lipoprotein in plasma [10]. Consumption of fatty acids can have a direct effect on stimulate or preclude atherosclerosis and coronary thrombosis due to their effect on blood cholesterol and low density lipoprotein (LDL)–cholesterol concentrations [10]. Accordingly, the atherogenic index has been introduced [11], and eggs with lower SFA/UFA ratio showed low values of atherogenic, thrombogenic, and hypercholesterolemic indices, and they were recommended for a healthy diet [10, 12, 13]. The C14:0 and C16:0 fatty acids are known to be among the most atherogenic, whereas C18:0 is believed to be neutral with respect to atherogenicity but is instead considered to be thrombogenic [1416]. In contrary, recent evidences suggested there is no direct link between egg consumption and blood cholesterol levels [17, 18]. Fatty acids and cholesterols in eggs are essential components from health and consumption prospective for human particularly in terms of polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) and omega-3 fatty acids consumption. It is well known that hens’ diet, particularly that containing fats/fatty acids, strongly influences egg composition [7, 1923]. Although there are general belief that eggs in the retail market have similar nutrient profiles and quality, through dietary manipulation, certain fatty acids and several nutrients with important health implication can be affected [1, 7, 24, 25]. Among the different factors affecting egg quality and composition are dietary profile and type of fats [26, 27], breed and strain of layers [6, 2830], health of birds, environmental conditions and husbandry practice [3032]. This study was performed to monitor the fatty acids, cholesterol profiles, atherogenic and thrombogenic indices, presence of malondialdehyde, and total antioxidant capacity of the eggs from four sources in the retail market in Jeddah city, Saudi Arabia, and their capability to fulfill RDA.

Results

Fatty acid profiles of the whole edible parts (albumen + yolk)

Results for fatty acid content of the whole edible parts of eggs are presented in Table 1. Differences among various sources of eggs were significant in terms of majority of fatty acids, except for capric, lauric, myristic, arachidic, myristoleic, palmitoleic, erucic, and linoleic acids and decohexaenoic acid (DHA). In addition, differences in PUFA and total ω3 content and ω6/ω3 fatty acid ratio were not significant. Eggs from source D had greater (P ≤ 0.05) caprylic, palmitic, stearic, saturated fatty acid (SFA) content and MUFA/PUFA ratio than other sources as well as higher total ω6 content than sources A and B but lower oleic, eicosanoic, linolenic, arachidonic; MUFA; EPA; UFA; total ω9 content and UFA/SFA ratio. Fatty acids pattern of sources A, B, and C showed almost similar values except for those of UFA, UFA/SFA, and total ω6 that showed value in favor of source C than those of sources A and B.
Table 1

Fatty acid profiles of whole edible egg parts (albumen + yolk) of different sources in retail market

Fatty acid % of total fatty acids1

Egg sources

Statistical analyses

A

B

C

D

RSME

P-value

Caprylic

C8:0

0.063b

0.038b

0.063b

0.968a

0.163

0.001

Capric

C10:0

0.070

0.038

0.063

0.065

0.034

0.559

Lauric

C12:0

0.065

0.038

0.063

0.053

0.029

0.462

Myristic

C14:0

0.410

0. 390

0.393

0.360

0.057

0.673

Palmitic

C16:0

25.74b

25.70b

25.11b

27.30a

0.505

0.001

Stearic

C18:0

9.08b

9.05b

9.17b

11.11a

0.419

0.001

Arachidic

C20:0

0.482

0.463

0.570

0. 560

0.066

0.092

 Total saturated fatty acids

35. 92b

35.73b

35.41b

40.41a

0.802

0.001

Myristoleic

C14:1

0.133

0.193

0.147

0.173

0.080

0.739

Palmitoleic

C16:1

3.46

3.44

3.54

3.67

0.121

0.079

Oleic

C18:1

40.14a

39.12a

41.08a

34.38b

1.234

0.001

Eicosenoic

C20:1

0.344a

0.323a

0.354a

0.000b

0.081

0.002

Erucic

C22:1

0.066a

0.074a

0.118a

0.000b

0.059

0.098

 Total monounsaturated fatty acids

44.14a

43.15a

45.24a

38.22b

1.249

0.001

Linoleic

C18:2

13.28

13.27

13.92

14.38

0.887

0.277

Linolenic

C18:3

0.413a

0.392a

0.378a

0.030b

0.059

0.001

Arachidonic

C20:4

1.661a

1.640a

1.623a

0.760b

0.085

0.001

Eicosapentaeonic, EPA

C20:5

0.066a

0.074a

0.072a

0.000b

0.033

0.027

Decohexaenoic, DHA

C22:6

0.436

0.416

0.319

0.668

0.134

0.078

 Total polyunsaturated fatty acids

15.86

15.79

16.31

15.84

0.966

0.749

 Total unsaturated fatty acids

59.99b

58.93b

61.68a

54.06c

1.150

0.001

UFA/SFA ratio

1.671b

1.648b

1.738a

1.338c

0.020

0.001

MUFA /PUFA ratio

1.36 b

1.37 b

1.36b

2.56a

0.112

0.001

Total n9

40.14a

39.13a

41.09a

34.38b

1.234

0.001

Total n6

14.94b

14.91b

15.54a

15.64a

0.925

0.001

Total n3

0.920

0.880

0.900

0.790

0.164

0.735

n6/n3 ratio

16.43

17.49

17.50

20.85

4.186

0.486

SFA saturated fatty acids, UFA unsaturated fatty acids, PUFA poly unsaturated fatty acids, MUFA mono unsaturated fatty acids, RSME, root square mean error

1Each value is 5 pooled samples per egg part

abc Means within a row sharing common superscripts are significantly different

Fatty acid profiles of the egg yolk

Data for fatty acid content of egg yolk are presented in Table 2. Differences among various sources of egg yolk were significant in majority of fatty acids, except for capric, lauric, myristic, arachidic, myristoleic, palmitoleic, and linoleic acids. In addition, variations among different sources of eggs in PUFA, UFA, total ω6, and ω3 content and ω6/ω3 fatty acid ratio were insignificant. Sources A, B, and C had lower (P ≤ 0.05) caprylic, stearic, erucic, linoleic, SFA and MUFA/PUFA ratio than those of source D but higher oleic, eicosanoic, linolenic, arachidonic, EPA, total ω9, MUFA and UFA/SFA ratio. There also were significant differences among sources A, B, and C in terms of palmitic, oleic, MUFA, DHA, SFA, and ω9 content, showing that source B had higher (P ≤ 0.05) values than those of sources A and C. Difference between the latter groups in palmitic acid and SFA content was also significantly in favor of source A.
Table 2

Fatty acid profiles of yolk of eggs of different sources in retail market

Fatty acid % of total fatty acids1

Egg sources

Statistical analyses

A

B

C

D

RSME

P-value

Caprylic

C8:0

0.063b

0.050b

0.063b

1.178a

0.222

0.001

Capric

C10:0

0.070

0.050

0.070

0.050

0.028

0.729

Lauric

C12:0

0.065

0.050

0.063

0.043

0.029

0.578

Myristic

C14:0

0.410

0. 390

0.393

0.420

0.031

0.873

Palmitic

C16:0

25.74b

26.73a

24.74c

27.08a

0.361

0.001

Stearic

C18:0

9.076b

9.060b

9.167b

11.19a

0.375

0.001

Arachidic

C20:0

0.472

0.463

0.470

0. 460

0.037

0.943

 Total saturated fatty acids

35. 98c

36.82b

34.98d

40.41a

0.257

0.001

Myristoleic

C14:1

0.233

0.222

0.219

0.173

0.074

0.701

Palmitoleic

C16:1

3.553

3.542

3.539

3.516

0.183

0.991

Oleic

C18:1

40.23b

42.22a

40.22b

37.39c

0.590

0.001

Eicosenoic

C20:1

0.436a

0.426a

0.433a

0.000b

0.071

0.001

Erucic

C22:1

0.165 b

0.153b

0.115b

0.492a

0.079

0.001

 Total monounsaturated fatty acids

44.62b

46.56a

44.51b

41.57c

0.760

0.001

Linoleic

C18:2

13.29b

13.27b

14.35b

15.60a

1.798

0.267

Linolenic

C18:3

0.415a

0.405a

0.408a

0.000b

0.034

0.001

Arachidonic

C20:4

1.682a

1.663a

1.675a

0.908b

0.078

0.001

Eicosapentaeonic, EPA

C20:5

0.083a

0.065a

0.075a

0.000b

0.033

0.018

Decohexaenoic, DHA

C22:6

0.463b

0.553a

0.458b

0.468b

0.034

0.007

Total polyunsaturated fatty acids

15.93

15.96

16.96

16.98

1.876

0.758

 Total unsaturated fatty acids

60.55

62.53

61.48

58.54

2.228

0.133

UFA/SFA ratio

1.687a

1.698a

1.757a

1.449b

0.006

0.001

MUFA /PUFA ratio

1.357b

1.343b

1.381b

2.124a

0.064

0.001

Total n9

40.23b

42.22a

40.22b

37.39c

0.590

0.001

Total n6

14.98

14.94

16.03

16.51

1.863

0.567

Total n3

0.960

1.030

0.940

0.870

0.100

0.209

n6/n3 ratio

15.72

14.64

17.22

18.99

2.452

0.125

SFA saturated fatty acids, UFA unsaturated fatty acids, PUFA poly unsaturated fatty acids, MUFA mono unsaturated fatty acids, RSME, root square mean error

1Each value is 5 pooled samples per egg part

abc Means within a row sharing common superscripts are significantly different

Lipid profiles of different edible parts of eggs

Data for fatty acid profiles of the whole edible parts of eggs and egg yolk are presented in Table 3. It should be mentioned that fatty acid patterns of yolk and whole edible parts (yolk + albumen) were similar. Differences among different parts of eggs were significant in case of most fatty acids, except for caprylic, capric, lauric, myristic, palmitic, stearic, myristoleic, palmitoleic, linoleic, linolenic, SFA, EPA, DHA, PUFA, total ω6, ω3 and ω6/ω3 ratio. Yolk exhibited greater concentrations (P ≤ 0.05) of oleic, eicosanoic, erucic, arachidonic, UFA, total ω9, UFA/SFA ratio, but lower arachidic acid and MUFA/PUFA ratio.
Table 3

Fatty acids contents of different egg parts in retail market

Fatty acid % of total fatty acids1

Egg parts

Statistical analyses

Whole eggs

Yolk

RSME

P-value

Caprylic

C8:0

0.283

0.399

0.197

0.424

Capric

C10:0

0.0587

0.0575

0.031

0.910

Lauric

C12:0

0.0556

0.0556

0.028

1.000

Myristic

C14:0

0.388

0.406

0.046

0.273

Palmitic

C16:0

25.96

26.07

0.434

0.483

Stearic

C18:0

9.600

9.628

0.303

0.795

Arachidic

C20:0

0.517a

0.464b

0.053

0.010

 Total saturated fatty acids

36.86

37.03

0.599

0.453

Myristoleic

C14:1

0.162

0.210

0.078

0.093

Palmitoleic

C16:1

3.527

3.534

0.152

0.890

Oleic

C18:1

38.68b

40.01a

0.952

0.001

Eicosenoic

C20:1

0.253b

0.324a

0.076

0.015

Erucic

C22:1

0.064b

0.232a

0.069

0.001

 Total monounsaturated fatty acids

42.69b

44.31a

1.012

0.001

Linoleic

C18:2

13.71

14.13

1.411

0.411

Linolenic

C18:3

0.302

0.307

0.047

0.768

Arachidonic

C20:4

1.42b

1.48a

0.082

0.045

Eicosapentaeonic, EPA

C20:5

0.053

0.056

0.033

0.831

Decohexaenoic, DHA

C22:6

0.495

0.485

0.096

0.771

 Polyunsaturated fatty acids

15.98

16.46

1.486

0.373

 Unsaturated fatty acids

58.67b

60.77a

1.764

0.003

UFA/SFA ratio

1.60b

1.65a

0.044

0.005

MUFA /PUFA ratio

1.66a

1.55b

0.089

0.002

Total n9

38.68b

40.01a

0.952

0.001

Total n6

15.26

15.61

1.455

0.497

Total n3

0.874

0.949

0.133

0.125

n6/n3 ratio

18.04

16.64

3.421

0.259

SFA saturated fatty acids, UFA unsaturated fatty acids, PUFA poly unsaturated fatty acids, MUFA mono unsaturated fatty acids, RSME, root square mean error

1Each value is 20 pooled samples per egg part

ab Means within a row sharing common superscripts are significantly different

Yolk lipids and cholesterols

Data for lipid profiles of the whole edible parts of eggs and egg yolk are presented in Table 4. Total lipid, total cholesterol, LDL, SFA/UFA ratio, and total antioxidant capacity were significantly higher for source D than those for the other sources but hypocholesterolemic index and malondialdehyde levels were lower. Difference in HDL was significantly showing higher values of sources C and D than those of A and B. Source A also showed higher HDL and malondialdehyde levels than source B and sources B and C, respectively. In addition, source B showed lower LDL levels than source C but higher SFA/UFA ratio.
Table 4

Lipids profile, saturated to unsaturated fatty acid ratio, malondialdhyde, total antioxidant capacity and indices of atherogenic and thrombogenic of eggs of different sources in retail market

Parameters1

Egg sources

Statistical analyses

RDA/day2

A

B

C

D

RSME

P-value

Yolk total lipid, g/100 g

31.87ab

29.94b

28.10b

33.10a

1.378

0.001

20-35, g

Saturated to unsaturated fatty acid ratio

0.598b

0.606b

0.574c

0.748a

0.011

0.001

----

Total cholesterol, mg/g yolk

14.8ab

15.9c

14.3bc

15.2a

0.781

0.005

300 mg

Yolk HDL, mg/g

6.91b

6.01c

7.76a

7.54a

0.237

0.001

NR

Yolk LDL, mg/g

3.39bc

3.22c

3.94b

4.64a

0.621

0.001

NR

Egg hypocholesterolaemic index

2.14b

2.10b

2.26a

1.82c

0.029

0.001

---

Egg malondialdhyde, μmol/l

12.91a

11.61b

12.11b

11.50b

0.746

0.001

---

Egg total antioxidants capacity, μmol/l

419b

417b

420b

425a

4.32

0.002

NR

Egg LDL/HDL ratio (Atherogenic index)3

0.489b

0.537ab

0.509b

0.615a

0.089

0.02

NR

Egg atherogenic index4

0.458b

0.463b

0.434c

0.533a

0.0098

0.001

---

Egg thrombogenic index

0.393b

0.397b

0.389b

0.784a

0.023

0.001

---

LDL low density lipoprotein, HDL high density lipoprotein, NR not reported, RSME root square mean error

1Each value is ten pooled samples per egg source used for determination of total lipids, total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, malondialdhyde and total antioxidant capacity analyses

abc Means within a row sharing common superscripts are significantly different

2Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) For Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of DietaryReference Intakes. 2002-2005. Available: http://www.nap.edu. Access May 2014.

3Atherogenic index was calculated according to Laudadio et al. [10] as the ratio of LDL-cholesterol to HDL-cholesterol

4Atherogenic index was calculated using the equation proposed by Ulbricht and Southgate (1991)

Atherogenic and thrombogenic indices

Data for atherogenic and thrombogenic indices are shown in Table 4. It should be mentioned that atherogenic index calculated based on LDL/HDL ratio and that estimated using the fatty acid profiles of the eggs according to [11] were similar. These indicated that eggs of source D had higher atherogenic and thrombogenic indices than the other sources. In addition, atherogenic index calculated based on fatty acid profiles was the best for source C. Differences in atherogenic and thrombogenic indices were not significant among sources A, B, and C.

Discussion

It was found that eggs in the retail market had different fatty acid and cholesterol profiles; lipid peroxidation biomarker; total antioxidant capacity; and hypocholesterolemic, atherogenic, and thrombogenic indices. Eggs from source D showed higher SFA and linoleic acid content and MUFA/PUFA ratio but lower MUFA, linolenic acid, EPA, DHA, and total ω9 content. On the other hand, total cholesterol content of source D was higher than that of sources B and C, and this concurred with higher LDL levels and LDL/HDL ratio and total lipids and total SFA (caprylic, palmitic, and stearic acids) content. In literature, high cholesterols corresponded with high total lipids and SFA content [7, 10, 33]. On the other hand, the low cholesterol of B source was coincided with lower SFA content and lower HDL and LDL levels. Egg consumption is negatively affected by lipid, cholesterol, and fatty acid profiles, and recently, by atherogenic and thrombogenic indices and their health implications [5, 8, 10] due to higher cardiovascular threat associated with increasing levels of blood cholesterol [9, 34]. However, the lipid and cholesterol contents of the present samples of eggs were found to be within the RDA for adult assuming daily consumption of one egg.

Differences in fatty acids profiles and cholesterols contents of eggs have been found to be affected by lipid metabolism and fats/fatty acids composition in the laying hen diets [4, 23, 25, 30, 34, 35]. However, there also are several other factors of second order that can affect lipid and cholesterol contents of eggs such as feed additives supplementation [6, 7, 24], age and strain of laying hens [28, 30], dietary fiber [6, 7, 33, 36], and flock husbandry [37] Cholesterol contents of eggs can also be manipulated by antioxidants supplementations [10].

Malondialdehyde, a lipid peroxidation biomarker, was higher in eggs from source A and this concurred with higher UFA and lower total antioxidant capacity of eggs. Increasing PUFA in chickens eggs is not total beneficial as it can lead to increasing lipid peroxidation and consequently oxidative rancidity if not accompanied with adequate supplementation of antioxidants [5, 7, 24]. Thus, increasing antioxidants supplementations for laying hens such as those of vitamin E, carotenoids, and Se could improve eggs keeping quality during storage and handling after harvest and thus increase costumers’ benefits. Free radicals formation during storage showed a negative effect on human health and welfare [7, 23, 38]. Thus, eggs enhanced with PUFA and antioxidants had a beneficial health benefits for human and recently recommended and showed increasing consumer preference [1, 7, 24]. Thus, the decrease in malondialdehyde of eggs from source D can be attributed partially to the high antioxidants contents, whereas the visa versa was shown by egg from source A. The latter effect was connected with high UFA/SFA ratio, which are highly susceptible to lipid peroxidation.

Eggs from source D had high of atherogenic and thrombogenic indices and this concurred with high LDL and SFA/UFA ratio. The atherogenic index (0.434–0.533), thrombogenic index (0.393–0781), and hypocholesterolemic index (1.81–2.26) of eggs of this study are comparable with those reported by [10, 12, 13]. A healthy diet was characterized by low hypercholesterolemic, atherogenic and thrombogenic indices [10, 12, 13]. It is well known that myristic and palmitic acids are among the most atherogenic agents, whereas stearic is thought to be neutral with respect to atherogenicity but is instead considered to be thrombogenic [14]. Eggs with high UFA content are preferable for customers due to low cholesterol (hypocholesterolemic), LDL/HDL and lower atherogenic index. However, eggs with greater PUFA are susceptible to peroxidation and thus enriching such eggs with antioxidants could decrease lipid peroxidation and improve quality of eggs in the retail market [10]. Similar to the present findings, [39] found that feeding atherogenic diet exhibited marked elevation in serum total cholesterol (hypercholesterolemic), LDL, VLDL, and triglycerides levels, along with decreased HDL levels. It should be considered that eggs with low atherogenic, thrombogenic and hypercholesterolemic indices are good for retarding atherosclerosis and thus risk of cardiovascular disorders [39], whereas eggs with low thrombogenicity decrease the threat of atrial fibrillation [15, 40].

Conclusions

Eggs in the retail market in Jeddah city, Saudi Arabia, from May to August 2015 showed different fatty acid profiles, cholesterol profiles, malondialdehyde status, total antioxidant capacity and hypocholesterolemic, atherogenic, and thrombogenic indices. These variations can affect the nutritional values of eggs and hence customers health benefits. Thus, it can be suggested that standardization and quality control for eggs in the retail market based on fatty acid and cholesterol profiles can be introduced as a tool to reduce the risk of hypercholesterolemia, atherosclerosis, and thrombogenesis.

Methods

Material

Eggs were collected from four sources named A, B, C, and D, chosen randomly to represent different sources of eggs, in the retail market in Jeddah city, Saudi Arabia, from May to August 2015. A total number of 120 eggs of each source was used for egg quality determination as outlined in the first part of this research [5].

Measurements

Fatty acids and lipid profiles of eggs

The sample size was 5 eggs/source/time, which was replicated four times, resulting in a total of 20 eggs/source. For total lipid and cholesterol profiles, total antioxidant capacity, and malondialdehyde determinations, the 20 samples were pooled over times for each source to represent 10 samples/source. A part of these samples were used for fatty acids analyses, for which the 10-pooled/source samples were pooled again to represent 5 samples/source.

Yolk lipids and cholesterols

Lipid of the whole edible part of eggs (albumen + yolk) and yolk was extracted using the method given by [41], which includes homogenizing the yolk with 2:1 chloroform–methanol (v/v). Yolk cholesterols were determined using commercial diagnostic kits (Diamond Medical Services, Cairo, Egypt). Yolk total lipids [42], total cholesterol [43], high density lipoprotein (HDL) [44] were determined. LDL cholesterol levels were estimated using the equation [45]:
$$ \mathrm{L}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{L}\hbox{--} \mathrm{cholesterol} = \left(\mathrm{total}\ \mathrm{cholesterol} - \mathrm{H}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{L}\ \mathrm{cholesterol}\right) - \mathrm{triglycerides}/5. $$
The hypocholesterolemic index was calculated according to the equation [46]:
$$ \mathrm{Hypocholesterolemic}\ \mathrm{index} = \left(\mathrm{C}18:1 + \mathrm{C}18:2 + \mathrm{C}18:3 + \mathrm{C}20:3 + \mathrm{C}20:4 + \mathrm{C}20:5 + \mathrm{C}22:4 + \mathrm{C}22:6\right)/\left(\mathrm{C}14:0 + \mathrm{C}16:0\right) $$

Fatty acids profile of egg edible parts and yolk

A part of the lipid was extracted from whole edible part of egg (yolk + albumen) and yolk was analyzed for its fatty acid contents by gas liquid chromatography (GLC) using Shimadzu Gas Chromatograph GC-4CM (PFE). A standard mixture of methyl esters was analyzed under identical conditions prior to running the samples. The instrument was equipped with flame ionization detector (FID) under the following conditions: an analytical glass column (3 × 3 mm i.d.) packed with 5 % diethylene glycol succinate on 80/100 Chromo Q. Operating temperature (°C) for column: 180 °C isothermal and injector and detector: 270 °C and gas flow rates (ml/min) for nitrogen: 30, hydrogen: 1, and air: 0.5. Chart speed 0.5 mm/min according to [47]. The retention times (tR) of the unknown sample of methyl esters was compared with those of the standard. The concentration of methyl esters was calculated by the triangulation method.

Total antioxidant capacity and malondialdehyde determinations for the whole edible of eggs were performed using diagnostic kits (Diamond Diagnostics, 33 Fiske St, Holliston MA 01746, USA), according to the method given by [48, 49], respectively.

Atherogenic and thrombotic indices:

Atherogenic and thrombogenic indices were calculated using the [11] equations as follows:
$$ \mathrm{Atherogenic}\ \mathrm{index}=\left(\mathrm{C}1\kern0.2em 2\kern0.34em :\kern0.32em 0\kern0.32em +\kern0.32em 4\kern0.42em \times \kern0.32em \mathrm{C}1\kern0.2em 4\kern0.34em :\kern0.32em 0\kern0.42em +\kern0.32em \mathrm{C}16\kern0.42em :\kern0.32em 0\right)\kern0.1em /\kern0.1em \left[\kern0.1em {\displaystyle \sum \kern0.2em \mathrm{M}\kern0.2em \mathrm{U}\mathrm{F}\kern0.1em \mathrm{A}+{\displaystyle \sum \left(\mathrm{n}\kern0.3em \hbox{-} \kern0.4em 6\right)\kern0.32em +{\displaystyle \sum \left(\mathrm{n}\kern0.3em \hbox{-} \kern0.4em 3\right)}}}\right] $$
$$ \begin{array}{l}\mathrm{Thrombogenic}\ \mathrm{index}=\left(\mathrm{C}1\kern0.2em 4\kern0.5em :\kern0.42em 0\kern0.5em +\kern0.5em \mathrm{C}16\kern0.6em :\kern0.5em 0\kern0.5em +\kern0.5em \mathrm{C}1\kern0.3em 8\kern0.5em :\kern0.5em 0\right)\kern0.1em /\left[0.5\right.\kern0.6em \times \kern0.4em {\displaystyle \sum \kern0.1em \mathrm{M}\kern0.2em \mathrm{U}\mathrm{F}\kern0.1em \mathrm{A}}\kern0.4em +\kern0.5em 0.5\kern0.5em \times \kern0.4em {\displaystyle \sum \left(\mathrm{n}\kern0.4em \hbox{-} \kern0.5em 6\right)}\kern0.4em +\kern0.4em 3\kern0.4em \times \\ {}{\displaystyle \sum \kern0.2em \left(\mathrm{n}\kern0.7em \hbox{-} \kern0.6em 3\kern0.2em \right)}\kern0.6em +\kern0.6em {\displaystyle \sum \kern0.2em \left(\mathrm{n}\kern0.7em \hbox{-} \kern0.7em 3\kern0.2em \right)\;}\kern0.1em /{\displaystyle \sum \kern0.2em \left(\mathrm{n}\kern0.7em \hbox{-} \kern0.8em 6\kern0.2em \right)}\kern0.1em \left.\kern0.1em \right]\end{array} $$

where MUFA is monounsaturated fatty acids.

Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance was performed using straight run experimental design (one-way analyses of variance) of SAS software computer program [50] using the following model:
$$ \mathrm{Y}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j} = \mu + \mathrm{Ai} + \mathrm{e}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j} $$
μ = general mean, Ai: effect of egg source; eij: random error.

All percentages were transformed to arc sin to normalize data distribution before running the statistical analysis and Student–Newman–Keuls test to test mean differences if a significant probability value was obtained.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under grant No (155-61-D1436). The authors, therefore, gratefully acknowledge with thanks the DSR technical and financial support.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Arid Land Agriculture Department, Faculty of Meteorology, Environment and Arid land Agriculture, King Abdulaziz University
(2)
Environmental Department, Faculty of Meteorology, Environment and Arid land Agriculture, King Abdulaziz University

References

  1. Vila B. Improvement of biologic and nutritional value of eggs. In: Brufau J, Tacon A, editors. Feed manufacturing in the Mediterranean region: Recent advances in research and technology, vol. n. 37. Zaragoza: CIHEAM Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes; 1999. p. 379–96.Google Scholar
  2. Bradley F A, King A J. Egg basics for the consumer: Packaging, storage, and nutritional information, 2000; University of California, available at: http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8154.pdf.
  3. Basmacioglu H, Ergul M. Research on the factors affecting cholesterol content and some other characteristics of eggs in laying hens. The effects of genotype and rearing system. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2005;29:157–64.Google Scholar
  4. Boso KMO, Murakami AE, Duarte CRA, Nascimento GR, Matumoto-Pintro PT, Ospina-Rojas IC. Fatty acid profile, performance and quality of eggs from laying hens fed with crude vegetable glycerine. Int J Poultry Sci. 2013;12(6):341–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Attia YA, Al-Harthi MA, Shiboob MM. Evaluation of quality and nutrient contents of table eggs from different sources in the retail market. Itla J anim Sci. 2014;13:369.Google Scholar
  6. Elkin RG. Reducing shell egg cholesterol content. I. Overview, genetic approaches, and nutritional strategies. Banff, Alberta, Canada: 3rd International Symposium on Egg Nutrition for Health Promotion, 18–21; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Attia YA, Abdalah AA, Zeweil HS, Bovera F, Tag El-Din AA, Araft MA. Effect of inorganic or organic selenium supplementation on productive performance, egg quality and some physiological traits of dual-purpose breeding hens. Czech J Anim Sci. 2010;55:505–19.Google Scholar
  8. Jung S, Han BH, Nam K, Ahn DU, LeeJ H, Jo C. Effect of dietary supplementation of gallic acid and linoleic acid mixture or their synthetic salt on egg quality. Food Chem. 2011;129:822–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Weggemans RM, Zock PL, Katan MB. Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in humans: A meta analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73:885–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Laudadio V, Ceci E, Edmondo M B, Lastella N, Tufarelli V. Dietary high-polyphenols extra-virgin olive oil is effective in reducing cholesterol content in eggs. Lipids Health Dis. 2015; 14 (5) doi:10.1186/s12944-015-0001-x (Online).
  11. Ulbricht TLV, Southgate DAT. Coronary heart disease: seven dietary factors. Lancet. 1991;338:982–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Mutungi G, Ratliff J, Puglisi M, Torres-Gonzalez M, Vaishnav U, Leite JO, et al. Dietary cholesterol from eggs increases plasma HDL cholesterol in overweight men consuming a carbohydrate-restricted diet. J Nutr. 2008;138:272–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Grela ER, Ognik K, Czeck A, Matras J. Quality assessment of eggs from laying hens fed a mixture with Lucerne protein concentrate. J Anim and Feed Sic. 2014;23:236–43.Google Scholar
  14. Laudadio V, Tufarellim V. Influence of substituting dietary soybean meal for dehulled-micronized lupin (Lupinus albus cv. Multitalia) on early phase laying hens production and egg quality. Livest Sci. 2010;140:184–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Hosseini-Vashan SJ, Sarir H, Afzali N, Mallekaneh M, Allahressani A, Esmaeilinasab P. Influence of different layer rations on atherogenesis and thrombogenesis indices in egg yolks. J Birjand University of Medical Sciences. 2010;17(4):265–73.Google Scholar
  16. Popa CD, Arts E, Fransen J, van Riel PL. Atherogenic index and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol as cardiovascular risk determinants in rheumatoid arthritis: the impact of therapy with biologicals. Mediators Inflamm. 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/785946.Google Scholar
  17. Lee A, Griffin B. Dietary cholesterol, eggs and coronary heart disease risk in perspective. Nutr Bull. 2006;31:21–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Qureshi AI, Suri FK, Ahmed S, Nasar A, Divani AA, Kirmani JF. Regular egg consumption does not increase the risk of stroke and cardiovascular diseases. Med Sci Monit. 2007;13:CR1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hargis PS, Van Elswyk ME. Manipulating the fatty acid composition of poultry meat and eggs for the health conscious consumer. World Poultry Sci J. 1993;49:251–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Li-Chan ECY, Powrie WD, Nakai S. The chemistry of eggs and egg products. In: Stadelman WJ, Cotterill OJ, editors. Egg Science and Technology. New York: Food Products Press; 1995. p. 105.Google Scholar
  21. Grobas S, Mendez J, De Blas C, Mateos GG. Influence of source and percentage of fat added to diet on performance and fatty acid composition of egg yolks of two strains of laying hens. Poultry Sci. 2001;80:1171–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Belitz HD, Grosch W, Schieberle P. Food Chemistry. 4th ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2009 (Chapter 11).Google Scholar
  23. King EJ, Hugo A, de Witt FH, van der Merwe HJ, Fair MD. Effect of dietary fat source on fatty acid profile and lipid oxidation of eggs. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42(5):503–6.Google Scholar
  24. Surai PF, Sparks NHC. Designer eggs: from improvement of egg composition to functional food. Trends Food Sci Tech. 2001;12:7–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Ahmadi F, Rahimi F. Factors affecting quality and quantity of egg production in laying hens: a review. World Appl Sci J. 2011;12(3):372–84.Google Scholar
  26. Rahimi G. Dietary forage legume (Onobrychis altissima grossh.) supplementation on serum/yolk cholesterol, triglycerides and eggshell characteristics in laying hens. Int J Poultry Sci. 2005;4:772–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Calislar S, Kirik A. Effects of fat type on performance, some egg characteristics and egg yolk cholesterols of laying hens. J Anim Vet Adv. 2009;8(12):2727–9.Google Scholar
  28. Schneider WJ, Carroll R, Severson DL, Nimpf J. Apolipoprotein VLDL-II inhibits lipolysis of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in the laying hen. J Lipid Res. 1990;31:507–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Zita L, Tumova E, Stolc L. Effects of genotype, age and their interaction on egg quality in brown-egg laying hens. Acta Vet Brno. 2009;78:85–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Kucukyilmaz K, Bozkurt M, Herken EN, Cinar M, Cath AU, Bintas E, et al. Effects of rearing systems on performance, egg characteristics and immune response in two layer hen genotype. Asian-Australasian. J Anim Sci. 2012;25:559–68.Google Scholar
  31. Pistekova V, Hovorka M, Vecerek V, Strakova E, Suchy P. The quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and a deep litter system. Czech J Anim Sci. 2006;7:318–25.Google Scholar
  32. Zemkkova L, Simeonovova J, Lichovnikova M, Somerlikova K. The effects of housing systems and age of hens on the weight and cholesterol concentration of the egg. Czech J Anim Sci. 2007;52(4):110–5.Google Scholar
  33. Al-Harthi MA, El-Deek AA. Effect of different dietary concentrations of brown marine algae (Sargassum dentifebium) prepared by different methods on plasma yolk lipid profiles, yolk total carotene lutein plus zeaxanthin of laying hens. Itla. J Anim Sci. 2012;11(64):347–53.Google Scholar
  34. González-Muñoz MJ, Bastida S, Jiménez O, de Lorenzo C, Vergara G, Sánchez-Muniz FJ. The effect of dietary fat on the fatty acid composition and cholesterol content of the eggs from Hy-line and Warren hens. Grasas y Aceites. 2009;60(4):350–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Al-Harthi MA, El-Deek AA, Attia YA. Impacts of dried whole eggs on productive performance, quality of fresh and stored eggs, reproductive organs and lipid metabolism of laying hens. Br Poultry Sci. 2011;52:333–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Al-Harthi MA, El-Deek AA, Attia YA, Bovera F, Qota EM. Effect of different dietary levels of mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) leaves and spices supplementations on productive performance, egg quality, lipids metabolism and metabolic profiles in laying hens. Br Poult Sci. 2009;50:700–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Guardiola F, Codony R, Rafecas M, Boatella J, López A. Fatty acid composition and nutritional value of fresh eggs from large and small –scale farms. J Food Compos Anal. 1994;7:171–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheideler SE, Froning GW. The combined influence of dietary flaxseed level, form and storage conditions on egg production and composition among vitamin E-supplemented hens. Poultry Sci. 1996;75:1221–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. EL-Wakf AM, Ebraheem HA, Serag HA, Hassan HA, Gumaih HS. Association between inflammation and the risk of cardiovascular disorders in atherogenic male rats: Role of virgin and refined olive oil. J Am Sci. 2010;6(12):807–17.Google Scholar
  40. Watson T, Eduard S, Lip GYH. Mechanisms of thrombogenesis in atrial fibrillation: Virchow’s triad revisited. Lancet. 2009;373(9658):155–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Folch J, Lees M, Sloane SGH. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipides from animal tissues. J Biol Chem. 1957;226:497–509.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Zollner N, Krisch KK. Uber die quantitative Bestimmung von Lipoiden (Mikromethode) mittels der vielen Lpoiden (allen bekannten Plasmalipoiden) gemeinsamen Sulfophosphovanillin Reaktion. Zeitschrift Fur Die Gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie. 1962;135:545–61.Google Scholar
  43. Allain CC, Poon LS, Cicely S, Chan G, Richmond W, Fu PC. Enzymatic determination of total Serum cholesterol. Clin Chem. 1974;20:470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lopez-Virella MF, Stone P, Ellis S, Colwell JA. Cholesterol determination in high-density lipoproteins separated by three different methods. Clin Chem. 1977;23:882–4.Google Scholar
  45. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;18:499–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Fernández M, Ordóñez JA, Cambero I, Santos C, Pin C, De la Hoz L. Fatty acid compositions of selected varieties of Spanish dry ham related to their nutritional implications. Food Chem. 2007;9:107–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Radwan SS. Coupling of two dimension thin layer chromatography with gas chromatography for the quantitative analysis of lipids classes and their constituent fatty acids. J Chromatogr Sci. 1978;16:538–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Koracevic D, Koracevic G, Djordjevic V, Andrejevic S, Cosic V. Method for the measurement of antioxidant activity in human fluids. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54:356–61.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ohkawa H, Ohishi N, Yagi K. Assay for lipid peroxides in animal tissues by thiobarbituric acid reaction. Anal Biochem. 1979;95:351–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. SAS Institute. User’s guide. Version 9.2, second edition. Cary, NC. USA: SAS institute Inc; 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Attia et al. 2015

Advertisement