Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Aug 22.
Published in final edited form as: Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jun 26;11(9):821–834. doi: 10.1080/17474124.2017.1343143

Table 1. Advantages and limitations of evaluation methods for intestinal barrier function.

Advantages Limitations
Intestinal permeability

In vivo
          51Cr-EDTA Whole intestine, easy detection, not naturally present Limited use in humans being radio-active, single probe
          PEGs Whole intestine Laborious detection with HPLC, GC-MS or LC-MS
          Sugars Combination in multi-sugar tests, widely used Baseline food contamination, laborious detection with HPLC, GC-MS or LC-MS
                  Sucrose             Specific for stomach             Degraded by sucrase in the duodenum
                  Lactulose             Specific for small intestine             Degraded by intestinal bacteria
                  Mannitol, Rhamnose             Specific for small intestine             Degraded by intestinal bacteria
                  Sucralose             Resistive to bacterial degradation             Long collection time
          Macromolecules Correlation with food-related antigens Limited use in humans
                  Ovalbumin, HRP, dextrans,…             Specific when used in intestinal loops, differently sized probes             Invasive when used in intestinal loops

Ex vivo
          Ussing chambers Region-specific, wide range of molecules, combination with cell lines possible Need for fresh tissue, limited viability (2 hours), laborious, operator-dependent

In vitro
          Intestinal cell lines Long follow-up times, wide range of molecules, different test conditions Less representative to the in vivo condition, cell culture variability

In situ intestinal barrier defects

          Mucus & tight junctions Mechanistic view, co-staining with bacteria possible Does not represent functional characteristics of the barrier

Biomarkers

Urine
          Claudin proteins Rapid detection of tight junction loss without tissue sections/test molecules Non-specific for gut (e.g. release from kidney epithelia)
          FABP Region-specific dependent on isoform, detectable in urine and blood Only useful for acute damage
          α-GST Detectable in urine and blood Non-specific, possibly only useful for acute damage

Blood
          FABP Region-specific dependent on isoform, detectable in urine and blood Only useful for acute damage
          α-GST Detectable in urine and blood Non-specific, possibly only useful for acute damage
          Citrulline Specific for enterocytes, not present in exogenous sources Laborious detection
          Zonulin Specific for the small intestine, correlation with IP Low specificity for detection with ELISA
          Bacteria and bacterial products Representation of effective bacterial translocation Not all bacteria can be cultured, high false positive rate for LPS detection
          EndoCab Indirect representation of effective bacterial translocation Indirect marker for bacterial translocation, correlation with IP conflicting
          D-lactate Easy detection Limited data in humans

Faeces
          Calprotectin Stable in faeces for up to 7 days at room temperature, easily detectable Indirect marker dependent on presence of intestinal inflammation

51Cr-EDTA, Crohmium-labelled EDTA; PEG, polyethylene glycol; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; FABP, fatty acid-binding proteins; GST, glutathione S-transferase; EndoCab, endotoxin core antibodies; HPLC, high performance liquid chromatography; GC-MS, gas chromatography mass spectrometry; LC-MS, liquid chromatography mass spectrometry; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; IP, intestinal permeability