https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9774-8642
![Sample our Environment & Agriculture journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5934/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Agriculture.jpg"})
Abstract
Biofortification increases micronutrient content in staple crops through conventional breeding, agronomic methods, or genetic engineering. Bioaccessibility is a prerequisite for a nutrient to fulfill a biological function, e.g., to be bioavailable. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the bioavailability (and bioaccessibility as a proxy via in vitro and animal models) of the target micronutrients enriched in conventionally biofortified crops that have undergone post-harvest storage and/or processing, which has not been systematically reviewed previously, to our knowledge. We searched for articles indexed in MEDLINE, Agricola, AgEcon, and Center for Agriculture and Biosciences International databases, organizational websites, and hand-searched studies’ reference lists to identify 18 studies reporting on bioaccessibility and 58 studies on bioavailability. Conventionally bred biofortified crops overall had higher bioaccessibility and bioavailability than their conventional counterparts, which generally provide more absorbed micronutrient on a fixed ration basis. However, these estimates depended on exact cultivar, processing method, context (crop measured alone or as part of a composite meal), and experimental method used. Measuring bioaccessibility and bioavailability of target micronutrients in biofortified and conventional foods is critical to optimize nutrient availability and absorption, ultimately to improve programs targeting micronutrient deficiency.
Contributions of authors
V.M.F., M.N.N.M., E.M. and A.M.N. from GAIN were involved in conceptualization, interpretation of the results, and reviews and edits of the manuscript, but were not directly involved in conducting the search, deciding on study/report eligibility, data extraction, and statistical analyses. S.M. and S.L.H. conceptualized the review along with the GAIN team. S.L.H. conducted the searches. S.L.H., N.H.M., E.M.K. and A.B. screened the records for eligibility and extracted data. S.L.H., N.H.M., E.M.K., and A.B. synthesized the results. S.L.H. wrote the first draft of this manuscript. S.L.H., N.H.M., E.M.K., A.B., V.M.F., J.T.K., M.N.N.M., E.M., A.M.N., E.B., and S.M. critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
S.M. is an unpaid board member of a diagnostic startup focused on developing assays for low-cost and point-of-care measurement of certain nutrients from a drop of blood using results from his research as a faculty member at Cornell University. GAIN is a not-for-profit organization supporting and promoting biofortification programs; V.M.F., M.N.N.M., E.M., and A.M.N. are employees of GAIN. E.B. is currently employed by HarvestPlus/IFPRI. All other authors declare that they have no known conflicts of interest.