Jukka-Pekka Suomela 2014 Research examples from the perspective of planning.

Jukka-Pekka Suomela2014

Research examples from the perspective of planning

Case: berry projectFunded by TEKES (the Finnish Funding

Agency for Innovation)Partial funding from six companiesCollaboration between different

faculties/departments and between the six companies

A large project lasting over 3 yearsThree separate trials

*

Whole berry product

EtOH Phenolic fraction (ethanol extract)=P

CO2

lb

bb

Trial III long term N=110 The fractions/berry products in random order

Berries: Black

currant=bc sea

buckthorn=sb lingonberry=lb bilberry=bb

nutritional advice

Lipid fract. (CO2

extract)=L

Trial II sensory

evaluation of products

children aged 4-9 years

N=100

Trial I long term (20

weeks) parallel N=30+30 Diet 1 Diet 2 = control diet

Berries and berry products

Reference for berry products (control diet)

bc

sb

* sea buckthorn

** sea buckthorn and bilberry

****

Figure Overall scheme of the clinical trials. Trial I: For Diet 1, all the berries/products are included in one complete diet in consecutive meals. Group B is given a control diet. Trial II: A sensory evaluation of test products with children aged four to nine years. Trial III: Sea buckthorn and bilberry are utilized, and sea buckthorn is fractionated. Phenolic (flavonoid) and lipid fractions, as well as whole berry products are included in the diet in random order.

2006 2007 2008 2009

2006 2007 2008 2009

Establishment of research

Component analysis of berries and test-products

Trial I Trial II

Product development

Analysis of samples from clinical trials

Statistics and conclusions of clinical trial I and sensory

trial II

Statistics and conc-lusions of

clinical trial III

Trial III

Figure Schedule

Figure Budget

salaries and side costs Pmw 2007 Pmw 2008 Pmw 2009 Pmw total

30PhD student N.N. 8 20 550 6 15 500 4 10400 18 46 450Technician 3 7 750 3 7 750 3 7 750 9 23 250Statistician 0,5 1650 0,5 1 650

Salaries+ 29 % side costs, total 17,5 45400 21 54150 19 49050 57,5 148 600

Overhead costs 20 800 24 900 22 500 68 200

Travel 8000 9000 8000 25 000Equipment (purchases, licenses etc.) 8000 8000 8000 24 000

Consumables and materials 17 000 16000 20 000 53 000Services 26 000 36 000 41 000 103 000

Total 125 200 148 050 148 550 421 800

Funding from industry 14 100 14 100 14 100 42 300Funding from TEKES 111 100 133 950 134 450 379 500

77 20030 900 12 30 900PhD student H-M Uusitupa 6 15 400 12

Functional Foods Forum

prof. Raija Tahvonen

Finnish Industry (Aromtech Oy, Fazer

Leipomot Oy, Finnish Berry Powders Ltd, Kiantama Oy, Pakkasmarja Oy, Saarioinen Oy, Satakunnan tyrniseura

ry)

Department of Biochemistry and Food Biochemistry

prof. Heikki Kallio Dr. Jukka-Pekka Suomela

(co-ordinator)

Department of Internal Medicine

prof. Jorma Viikari

UTU prof. Timo Knuutila

(project leader)

Figure. Co-operators of the research team and the persons in charge.

Trial 1The aim of the study wast to investigate the

effect of a berry diet consisting of blackcurrant, bilberry, lingonberry and sea buckthorn berries on the risk factors of type 2 diabetes in overweight womenDuring intervention, each day 162.6 g berries

and oil from 35 g of berries , divided into three portions

Test products – lots of discussion between the researchers and companiesWhole berries, juices, berry oils, powders,

lingonberry bread

Trial 1

Trial 1

Trial 1Recruiting

Advertisements in e-mail lists, newspaper and notice boards

Normal health status and suitability for the study were checked by 1) an interview (n =162) and 2) by biochemical laboratory tests (n= 102) - inclusion and exclusion criteria

Written informed consents importantRandomization

The subjects were randomly assigned to the two groups, intervention and control (n = 31 and 30, respectively) after stratification with LDL-cholesterol and body mass index

Trial 120-week study period

Blood samples collected before and after the study period (as well as in-between)

Trial 1Different biomarkers in blood were

analyzedCRP, total, LDL and HDL cholesterol,

triglycerides, insulin, glucose, ALAT, GT, adiponectin, blood pressure…

ALAT level decreased 23% in the intervention groupPossible enhancmenet of the liver function

and lowering the risk of diabetes

Trial 2The hedonic response (liking score) of 104

healthy children to the 12 berry products was studied recruited from five day-care centers and

three schools Another aim of the study was to study the

effects of the chemical composition of berries as well as children’s hTAS2R38 taste receptor genotypes on liking. berry flavonols, sugars, organic acids and

vitamin C were analyzed

Trial 2Prior to the sensory study, written consent

was obtained from parents and verbal assent was asked from the children

Prior to gene testing, 1) written consent was obtained from parents 2) verbal assent was asked from the children

(day-care) or both verbal assent asked and written consent obtained (schools)

Lots of planning on how to test the liking scores!

Trial 2Four products were tasted during each session The children evaluated the pleasantness of

berry samples in each product and rated their liking score using Peryam and Kroll (P&K) scale

Children at day-care were interviewed one-by-one, children in schools filled the evaluation form by themselves

Trial 2 The most liked product was bilberry with

yoghurt, followed by bilberry juice, dried bilberries, and lingonberry rye bread

The most disliked products were sea buckthorn juice, sea buckthorn berries with yoghurt, and oatmeal with blackcurrant powder and berry oil

High total organic acid concentration was strongly related with a poor average liking score of the berries/berry products

The liking scores of the children of different hTAS2R38 genotypes differed from each other

Diet 1 = Sea buckthorn oil

fraction

Diet 3 = Sea buckthorn product

(whole-berry)

Diet 2 = Sea buckthorn flavonoid

(phenolic) fractionThe effect of oil

The effect of phenolicscompared with oil

Diet 4 = Bilberry product

(whole-berry)

The effect of phenolics

The effect of unfractionatedsea buckthorn berry

Difference between the berries

The effect of unfractionatedbilberry

The effect of oil compared with whole-berry product

The effect of phenolicscompared with whole-berry product

Diet 1 = Sea buckthorn oil

fraction

Diet 3 = Sea buckthorn product

(whole-berry)

Diet 2 = Sea buckthorn flavonoid

(phenolic) fractionThe effect of oil

The effect of phenolicscompared with oil

Diet 4 = Bilberry product

(whole-berry)

The effect of phenolics

The effect of unfractionatedsea buckthorn berry

Difference between the berries

The effect of unfractionatedbilberry

The effect of oil compared with whole-berry product

The effect of phenolicscompared with whole-berry product

Figure. Trial 3: Conclusions that can be made of comparisons between the health state of study subjects with different diets.

Intervention period 1

Intervention period 2

Intervention period 3

Intervention period 4

Wash-out Wash-out Wash-out Wash-outWash-out

Figure. Trial 3: Intervention periods of 35 days and wash-out periods of 30 days. Stars represent the timepoints where samples are taken.

Trial 3