Abstract
The milk fat globule membrane (MFGM) has been recognized as a milk component for more than 60 years, but its exact benefits remain unknown. Research on human MFGM has revealed that the membrane holds a host of bioactive components with potential benefits for the brain–immune–gut (BiG) axis in early life. Gangliosides and sphingomyelin, components within the MFGM, have been included in infant formulas for many years. Recent advancements in dairy milk processing have allowed the successful separation of MFGM from bovine milk, enabling it to be used for supplementing infant formulas. Evidence indicates the potential benefits of MFGM in early life supplementation, including better cognitive development, reduction of infection risks, and modulation of the gut microbiome. However, larger and more robust randomized trials are needed, in addition to long‐term outcome data beyond the infancy period.
Keywords: brain–gut axis, human milk, immunity, infant formula
The milk fat globule membrane (MFGM) has been recognized as a milk component for more than 60 years, but its exact benefits remain unknown. Research on human MFGM has revealed that the membrane holds a host of bioactive components with potential benefits for the brain–immune–gut axis in early life. Evidence indicates the potential benefits of MFGM in early life supplementation, including better cognitive development, reduction of infection risks, and modulation of the gut microbiome.

Introduction
Continuing research on the composition human milk over the decades has increased the understanding of its nutrients in maintaining healthy infant growth and development. This has, in turn, helped in the advancement of infant formula development.
Though the milk fat globule membrane (MFGM) inherently makes up only a small part of all cow milk‐based products, components of MFGM, namely sphingomyelin (SM) and gangliosides, have been added to infant formulas for some years now, gaining familiarity among healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, the supplementation of MFGM as a whole in infant formulas is relatively new, primarily contributed by identifying the beneficial effects of the individual MFGM components. Recent advances in dairy technology have allowed the separation of MFGM from the fat globule, enabling the production of bovine MFGM to be available for use in infant formulas. 1 , 2
This article aims to provide viewpoints on the role of MFGM supplementation in early life on the brain–immune–gut (BiG) axis, by understanding its structure and function and the benefits of adding MFGM in infant formulas, as well as identifying evidence gaps in the clinical benefits of MFGM supplementation and desired future research.
Methods
The content for this review was formulated during a series of virtual workshops conducted in late 2020 with experts (listed as authors), which included a general pediatrician, a pediatric nutritionist, an allergist and immunologist, a pediatric gastroenterologist, a pediatric neurologist, and a developmental pediatrician. The PubMed database was used to collect articles that were in the English language and filtered according to original articles of clinical trials, meta‐analyses, randomized clinical trials, reviews, and systematic reviews. The search criteria did not set limits to time and included all relevant articles from the beginning to the time of search (March 2022). The following search terms were used alone: “milk fat globule membrane,” “human milk fat globule membrane,” and “bovine milk fat globule membrane.” The term “milk fat globule membrane” was also used in combination with the following terms: “brain,” “cognition,” “immune,” “gut,” “early life,” “infant,” “formula,” “dairy,” “bovine,” “structure,” “function,” “effects,” and “benefits.” A total of 755 articles were retrieved. Duplicate articles were removed and only articles pertaining to full‐term infants and supplementation with MFGM alone were reviewed.
MFGM structure and function
Human milk fat is produced by the formation of lipid droplets within the mammary cells, which are released from the mammary cells in the form of milk fat globules (MFGs) (Fig. 1). 3 The core of the globule consists of triacylglycerols, while its membrane (i.e., MFGM) consists of three layers. The membrane functions to stabilize the globule as an emulsion, and is a complex structure containing a variety of different components, of which many, but not all, have been characterized. 3 The two primary components of the MFGM are proteins and lipids. The lipids make up 40% of the MFGM, and proteins 60%. 2 , 4 The functions of specific MFGM components are briefly depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 1.

Formation of the MFG with its tri‐layer membrane (the MFGM). (a) Small lipid droplets are formed within the endothelial reticulum (ER) of the mammary cells. (b) By the process of budding, they break off from the ER and enter the mammary cell cytoplasm. (c) These single membrane lipid droplets coalesce to form larger lipid droplets. (d) Excretion of these larger single membrane lipid droplets occurs at the apical cell surface of the mammary cells. The double‐layered plasma membrane is pinched off as the droplet exit, resulting in a tri‐layer envelope around the newly formed MFG. MFG, milk fat globule, MUC‐1, mucin‐1; SM, sphingomyelin.
Figure 2.

Functions of MFGM proteins and lipids. A simplified illustration depicting some of the MFGM components mentioned in this article and their associated functions. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 MUC‐1, mucin‐1; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; PI, phosphatidylinositol; PS: phosphatidylserine; SM, sphingomyelin.
The lipid component of MFGM consists of phospholipids, glycolipids (polar lipids), gangliosides, cholesterol, and other lipids. 10 , 11 Phospholipids are the major lipid component of MFGM (~30% of the total lipid weight of MFGM). It only makes up 0.5–1% of the total fat in milk, yet it contains 15–20% of the total long‐chain polyunsaturated fatty acids. 10 , 12 The MFGM contains five major glycolipids: phosphatidylcholine (PC), phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), phosphatidylinositol (PI), phosphatidylserine (PS), and sphingomyelin (SM). SM, PC, and PE combined form up to 85% of the polar lipids. High‐performance liquid chromatography has elucidated that PC and SM are made up of different subclasses. 13 , 14 Glycolipids play an essential role in the development of the central nervous system and within the gut and immune systems. 15 , 16 , 17 The functions of each glycolipid component are described in Table 1.
Table 1.
Brief description of the components and functions of the MFGM glycolipids
| Glycolipid components | Composition in human milk glycolipids | Function |
|---|---|---|
| SM 6 , 18 , 19 | 36–38% of glycolipids in human milk |
|
| PC 6 , 7 | 25–28% of glycolipids in human milk |
|
| PE 6 , 7 , 8 | 20–29% of glycolipids in human milk |
|
| PS 6 , 7 , 8 | 6–8% of glycolipids in human milk |
|
| PI 6 , 7 , 20 | ~5% of glycolipids in human milk |
|
DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; MFGM, milk fat globule membrane; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; PI, phosphatidylinositol; PS, phosphatidylserine; SM, sphingomyelin.
MFGM carries between 1 and 4% of the total protein fraction in milk, although the levels vary along the lactation timeline. To date, 191 different bioactive proteins have been identified in human MFGM, which contribute to growth functions or are involved in various lipid metabolic processes or immunity. 21 The MFGM protein includes glycosylated proteins, which may play a role in gut immunity, determine resistance to digestive enzymes, and functionality in the gut. It also includes non‐glycosylated proteins such as xanthine oxidoreductase, an enzyme found in large amounts within the MFGM and is shown to exert an antimicrobial effect due to its role in the production of reactive oxygen species. 5 , 10
Are MFGMs sourced from human milk, bovine milk, and dairy products different?
On one hand, MFGM in human and bovine milk probably share many similarities with some distinct features (Table 2). On the other hand, the structure and composition of MFGM can vary widely between dairy products and human or bovine milk. The size of the milk fat globule, regardless of its source, is influenced by various factors such as (i) genetics, (ii) diet (the more the fat, the larger the globule), (iii) parity, and (iv) stage of lactation. 10 , 13 , 22 While most milk (either bovine or human) contains medium‐sized fat globules, milk with larger globules have a smaller surface area, resulting in less available MFGM; the converse is true for smaller globules. 1 , 22 The phospholipids level and their components in bovine and human milk are mostly comparable despite scarce and sometimes conflicting data, while the protein composition is similar in both. 24 , 25 Based on this, bovine‐derived MFGM may be considered appropriate if added to infant formulas.
Table 2.
Differences between human and bovine milk MFGM
| Parameter | Human milk | Bovine milk |
|---|---|---|
| Size of MFG 14 , 22 |
|
|
| Phospholipids within MFGM 10 , 22 |
|
|
| LC‐PUFAs 10 , 22 |
|
|
| Proteins 1 , 23 |
|
|
LC‐PUFA, long‐chain polyunsaturated fatty acid; MFG, milk fat globule; MFGM, milk fat globule membrane; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; PI, phosphatidylinositol; PS, phosphatidylserine; SM, sphingomyelin.
When milk is processed during the production of dairy products, MFGM is disrupted, and aqueous separation of the fat globule occurs. 18 , 26 Additionally, processing of milk, with processes such as centrifugation, heating, cooling, and storage, leads to loss of the phospholipid fraction in MFGM. 26 There is also absorption of the casein fraction into the disrupted MFGM, which may affect milk digestion. Because of this, buttermilk and butter serum in dairy are rich sources of MFGM components 18 and hold better potential if incorporated into infant formulas. 11
What are the factors to consider in commercial MFGM‐supplemented infant formula?
The rationale in adding MFGM (as a whole) into infant formula is to harness the benefits of all its nutrients. 23 However, commercially available MFGM‐enriched dairy ingredients will differ in the quantity of phospholipids and proteins and in the composition of the five key glycolipids depending on their source. 23 Most commercially available infant formulas use non‐fat milk as its base and vegetable oils to provide its fat content, often resulting in low MFGM levels. 27 When the fat globule in human milk is compared with that in processed lipid droplets in commercial infant formulas, there are several notable differences. 28
First, the lipid droplets in commercial infant formulas are much smaller than in human milk (0.3–0.8 vs 0.4–13 μm). Second, the human milk fat globule is covered by the three‐layered MFGM. In contrast, lipid droplets in infant formulas are covered by milk proteins, resulting in the lack of rich milk SM, other glycolipids, cholesterol, and glycoproteins commonly found in nature. Third, protein aggregates in infant formula are formed between the lipid droplets and proteins from heat‐induced denaturation during milk processing. This is further influenced by the blending of fats from various sources. Fourth, the levels of MFGM in an infant formula will vary depending on the manufacturers. 28
The bioavailability of MFGM from infant formulas is indirectly obtained from preclinical and clinical studies. Infants supplemented with bovine MFGM have shown significantly different plasma lipidome profile (particularly SM, PC, and ceramides) at 6 months of age, as well as in the erythrocyte membrane lipidome (particularly SM, PE, and PC). 29 Most preclinical studies reveal that complex milk lipids could enhance brain and neuronal development, leading to better cognitive outcomes. 19 , 30 , 31 In terms of immunity development, anti‐rotaviral activity has been demonstrated from the lipid components of MFGM 32 and bovine MFGM‐linked mucin protein. 33 MFGM glycoproteins have shown better resistance to gastrointestinal proteases versus non‐glycosylated proteins, which may be due to the presence of lipids within the MFGM structure. 34
Are there brain–immune–gut (BiG) benefits with MFGM supplementation?
Multiple reports have associated the positive effects of different MFGM bioactive components (in human and bovine milk) with cognitive and immunity development of infants, without impairing their growth. 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving 160 healthy term infants <2 months old compared standard formula (SF) to a formula containing bovine MFGM (Lactoprodan MFGM‐10, Arla Foods Ingredients) (experimental formula, EF). The infants were fed formula exclusively up to age 6 months, and followed up until 12 months. Cognitive scores (Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd edition [Bayley‐III] test) at 12 months showed that EF scored 4.0 points higher versus SF (95% CI 1.1, 7.0; P = 0.008), and a score similar to that of exclusively breastfed (BF) infants (<1 point difference; P = 0.35). 38 In the same cohort of infants, EF also showed positive outcomes with immunity; cumulative incidence of acute otitis media at 6 months was lower with EF than with SF (1 vs 9%; P = 0.034), and also, the use of antipyretics through 6 months was lower with EF than with SF (25 vs 43%; P = 0.021). A limitation of this study was the subjective reporting of symptoms by parents, although acute otitis media was verified from medical records. The low incidence of infections in the study population may also be of significance; the outcomes of the intervention in a population with a higher infectious morbidity may be of a different magnitude. 36 Furthermore, the microbiome in the oral cavity was studied in the same cohort, and the pathogen Moraxella catarrhalis was found to be lower in the EF group, which may have contributed to the lower incidence of acute otitis media. 42 However, follow‐up when the children were 6–6.5 years old revealed no effects on neurodevelopment, growth, or plasma cholesterol status between the EF and SF groups. 43
Another RCT compared SF and SF + MFGM (Lactoprodan MFGM‐10) + lactoferrin formula (EF) in 451 healthy term infants aged 10–24 days. The infants were exclusively fed the formula up to day 120, after which parents could introduce complementary feeding. Stage 1 formula was switched to the corresponding stage 2 formula from day 180 through day 365. Cognitive scores (Bayley‐III test) at day 365 showed significantly higher mean scores in cognitive, language, and motor domains for EF than SF (+8.7, +12.3, and +12.6, respectively; P < 0.001). EF also showed improvement in global developmental and attention scores versus SF. Significantly lower incidences of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI; 68% vs 78%; P = 0.02), cough (40 vs 30%; P = 0.02), and diarrhea (68 vs 54%; P = 0.003) were observed with EF than SF, whereas no differences were observed in other adverse events such as eczema, constipation, fussiness, and amount of gas. A potential limitation to this study was that the individual effects of MFGM and lactoferrin on the outcomes in the EF group could not be distinguished with certainty. 35
An RCT randomized 212 healthy term infants aged <14 days to receive either a bovine MFGM‐enriched formula (EF) or a control formula (Stage 1 provided at 0–6 months, and then switched to Stage 2 at 6–12 months). The EF group scored higher in composite social emotional (+3.5) and general adaptive behavior (+5.62) at 12 months of age versus the control group (95% CI 0.03–6.79 and 1.78–9.38; P = 0.048 and 0.004, respectively). Short‐term memory score was significantly higher in the EF group at 12 months of age (95% CI 1.40–12.33; P = 0.002), and serum gangliosides level was significantly higher in the EF group at 4 months of age (95% CI 0.64–13.02; P = 0.025). 39
The COGNIS study was an RCT analyzing 70 children who were fed SF or an experimental infant formula (EF) containing MFGM components, synbiotics, long‐chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, gangliosides, sialic acid, and nucleotides during the first 18 months of life and 33 BF children (reference group). The EF‐fed children at 2.5 years presented fewer pathological affective problems than SF‐fed children. Rates of externalizing problems were increased in SF infants versus EF and BF infants. 40
An RCT studied the impact of SF or SF supplemented with probiotic or MFGM (Lactoprodan MFGM‐10) (EF) in 600 healthy term infants aged 21 ± 7 days old, followed up until 4 months of age. Episodes of fever >38°C were fewer with EF versus SF (11 vs 21, P = 0.242), as was number of days with fever (18 vs 31, P = 0.230), although both associations were not significant. A limitation of this study in analyzing the impact of MFGM supplementation in infant immunity was that no otitis media assessment was performed. 44
An RCT involving 550 healthy term infants aged 6–11 months compared 6 months of complementary food + MFGM protein fraction (Lactoprodan MFGM‐10) or skim milk proteins (control). The prevalence of diarrhea was lower in infants fed complementary foods supplemented with MFGM than in those without supplementation (3.84 vs 4.37%; P < 0.05). MFGM supplementation also reduced bloody diarrhea episodes (odds ratio [OR] 0.54; 95% CI 0.31–0.93; P = 0.025). 37
An RCT randomized formula‐fed infants to either a formula with probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei ssp. paracasei strain F19 (N = 195) or MFGM (N = 192), or standard formula (SF) (N = 194) from age 21 ± 7 days until 4 months. A BF group served as reference (N = 208). The MFGM group had lower IL‐2 and IL‐17A concentrations compared with the SF group (P < 0.05). Cytokine concentrations were comparable between the MFGM and BF groups. The study concluded that the cytokine profile of the MFGM group approached that of BF infants, which might explain why the infectious outcomes for the MFGM group in this cohort were closer to those of BF infants, compared to SFs. The study limitations included the regional differences in immunization programs and the lack of a blood sampling at baseline for comparison of cytokine responses before and after the intervention period. 41
An RCT characterized the fecal microbiome of 90 infants who were fed either a bovine MFGM‐supplemented experimental formula (Lacprodan MFGM‐10) (EF), an SF, or BF. All infants showed a high prevalence of Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, Veillonella, Enterococcus, and Bacteroides from 2 to 6 months of age. Fecal Bifidobacteria and other microbes were significantly different between BF and formula‐fed infants, but the difference between EF and SF was small. By 12 months of age, the fecal microbiome became more homogenous and indistinguishable between BF and formula‐fed infants. In order to evaluate the impact of diet on intestinal microbial fermentation capability, the fecal metabolites were examined as well. A significant difference between the BF and formula‐fed infants was observed from 2 months of age, which continued at 4 and 6 months when no or only small amounts of complementary food were introduced. Similar to the microbial profile, BF infants had a more heterogeneous fecal metabolome profile than formula‐fed infants. The difference in fecal metabolome was less significant in infants who consumed complementary food and was indistinguishable by 12 months of age. 45
Allergy benefits associated with MFGM supplementation are unclear, and though three studies 35 , 36 , 44 showed no significant reports of eczema with the use of MFGM supplemented formulas, one study 46 revealed a higher incidence of eczema in the protein‐ versus lipid‐rich MFGM formula.
Table 3 provides an overview of the clinical benefits of MFGM supplementation associated with the BiG axis of developing term infants. Bovine MFGM supplementation has been shown to narrow the gap in immunologic and cognitive development between BF and formula‐fed infants. Therefore, it would not be amiss to consider MFGM supplementation in children in addition to more “traditional” nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA), to ensure the best possible conditions for wholesome childhood development. In healthy term infants, MFGM supplementation, in addition to protein, iron, and ARA, was well tolerated, associated with adequate growth throughout the first year of life, and supported normal iron status at 1 year of age. 47
Table 3.
Summary of benefits of MFGM supplementation on the brain–immune–gut (BiG) axis and the microbiome in infants
| Brain | Immunity | Gut | Microbiome |
|---|---|---|---|
|
BF, breast‐fed; IL, interleukin; URTI, upper respiratory tract infections.
What are the evidence gaps and suggestions for future clinical research?
Available efficacy and safety data show a tendency of MFGM supplementation to improve cognitive scores and immunity (Table 3). However, in most studies the sample sizes were small and heterogenous in their methodology, which pose a challenge. 48 To address cognitive benefits, cross‐over double‐blinded studies may be used to assess social and emotional scores. Though there are ongoing studies on the clinical outcomes of MFGM, there is a lack of long‐term data to confirm a sustained cognitive benefit of MFGM in children beyond 1.5 years of age. Additionally, there is a lack of replicated studies to further strengthen the currently available evidence. MFGM levels and composition in different populations may also differ. For example, a study on ganglioside levels in human milk of Malaysian mothers has shown a higher concentration than those previously reported in other populations. 49 The results also indicate a relationship between ganglioside levels and fat content in the milk: higher fat content results in higher ganglioside levels. Although there can be variations in ganglioside levels in human milk attributable to factors such as sampling time, collection method, demographics, diet, and stage of lactation, the level of gangliosides found in infant formulas is generally lower than in human milk. 49 , 50 Therefore, considering that human milk is the gold standard against which infant formulas are formulated, the authors concluded that these findings could support the need for increasing the lipid components (e.g., gangliosides, phospholipids) in infant formulas to further approximate those found in human milk. 49 In addition, it may be advantageous to determine whether there is a “window of opportunity” in the infancy period when MFGM supplementation would be most impactful. This may help doctors guide parents on when best to use MFGM‐supplemented infant formulas in an ecosystem overwhelmed with formulas supplemented with a host of bioactives. A new area that would be of potential interest to clinicians is the effect of MFGM on the gut microbiome. Studies on the metabolome would be helpful, as byproducts of microbiome metabolism are closely linked with gut immunity. 45 Besides, expanding MFGM research to determine its clinical benefits in specific cohorts of infants such as those with allergies or at increased risk of infection may be of interest to clinicians.
Conclusion
Human milk is the best single source of MFGM for infants; however, when this is not an option, a formula that is closer in makeup to human milk may be considered. Available commercial formulas differ in the level and composition of MFGM, and thus may affect bioavailability and clinical benefits. Current evidence indicates that MFGM has the potential to benefit the BiG axis in infants through better cognitive development, reduced infection risks (acute otitis media, respiratory tract infections, and diarrhea), and probably shaping the gut microbiome activity and function.
Acknowledgments
Editorial assistance was provided by Mediconnexions Consulting (Malaysia) and funded by the MJN Pediatric Nutrition Institute, PNI Singapore.
Declaration of conflict of interest: Rajini Sarvananthan has received honoraria from Mead Johnson Nutrition (Malaysia) and Fonterra (Malaysia). Eric Lee has received honoraria from Abbott Nutrition (Malaysia) and Wyeth Nutrition (Malaysia) in the past 36 months. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author contribution: Hamid Mohamed, Eric Lee, Kent Woo, Rajini Sarvananthan, Lee Yeong Yeh and Zabidi Hussin all contributed to the study and wrote the paper.
Financial support: The medical writing services for this manuscript was funded by the MJN Pediatric Nutrition Institute, PNI Singapore.
[Correction added on 20 June 2022, after first online publication: ‘Mead Johnson Nutrition (Malaysia)’ and ‘Mead Johnson Nutrition’ have been amended to ‘MJN Pediatric Nutrition Institute, PNI Singapore’ in the Financial support, Funding support, and Acknowledgments sections.]
References
- 1. Dewettinck K, Rombaut R, Thienpont N, Le TT, Messens K, Van Camp J. Nutritional and technological aspects of milk fat globule membrane material. Int. Dairy J. 2008; 18: 436–57. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Timby N, Domellöf M, Lönnerdal B, Hernell O. Supplementation of infant formula with bovine milk fat globule membranes. Adv. Nutr. 2017; 8: 351–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Keenan TW. Milk lipid globules and their surrounding membrane: a brief history and perspectives for future research. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia. 2001; 6: 365–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Rueda R. The role of dietary gangliosides on immunity and the prevention of infection. Br. J. Nutr. 2007; 98: S68–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Martin HM, Hancock JT, Salisbury V, Harrison R. Role of xanthine oxidoreductase as an antimicrobial agent. Infect. Immun. 2004; 72: 4933–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Bitman J, Wood DL, Mehta NR, Hamosh P, Hamosh M. Comparison of the phospholipid composition of breast milk from mothers of term and preterm infants during lactation. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1984; 40: 1103–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Giuffrida F, Cruz‐Hernandez C, Flück B et al. Quantification of phospholipids classes in human milk. Lipids. 2013; 48: 1051–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Kim HY, Huang BX, Spector AA. Phosphatidylserine in the brain: metabolism and function. Prog. Lipid Res. 2014; 56: 1–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Tayebati SK, Marucci G, Santinelli C, Buccioni M, Amenta F. Choline‐containing phospholipids: structure‐activity relationships versus therapeutic applications. Curr. Med. Chem. 2015; 22: 4328–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Lee H, Padhi E, Hasegawa Y et al. Compositional dynamics of the milk fat globule and its role in infant development. Front. Pediatr. 2018; 6: 313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Vanderghem C, Bodson P, Danthine S, Paquot M, Deroanne C, Blecker C. Milk fat globule membrane and buttermilks: from composition to valorization. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2010; 14: 485–500. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Hernell O, Timby N, Domellöf M, Lönnerdal B. Clinical benefits of milk fat globule membranes for infants and children. J. Pediatr. 2016; 173: S60–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Ortega‐Anaya J, Jiménez‐Flores R. Symposium review: the relevance of bovine milk phospholipids in human nutrition—evidence of the effect on infant gut and brain development. J. Dairy Sci. 2019; 102: 2738–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Lopez C, Ménard O. Human milk fat globules: polar lipid composition and in situ structural investigations revealing the heterogeneous distribution of proteins and the lateral segregation of sphingomyelin in the biological membrane. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 2011; 83: 29–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Danielsen EM, Hansen GH. Lipid raft organization and function in brush borders of epithelial cells. Mol. Membr. Biol. 2006; 23: 71–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Demmelmair H, Koletzko B. Lipids in human milk. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2018; 32: 57–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Lönnerdal B. Infant formula and infant nutrition: bioactive proteins of human milk and implications for composition of infant formulas. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014; 99: 712s–7s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Contarini G, Povolo M. Phospholipids in milk fat: composition, biological and technological significance, and analytical strategies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013; 14: 2808–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Liu H, Radlowski EC, Conrad MS, Li Y, Dilger RN, Johnson RW. Early supplementation of phospholipids and gangliosides affects brain and cognitive development in neonatal piglets. J. Nutr. 2014; 144: 1903–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Holub BJ. The nutritional significance, metabolism, and function of myo‐inositol and phosphatidylinositol in health and disease. Adv. Nutr. Res. 1982; 4: 107–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Liao Y, Alvarado R, Phinney B, Lönnerdal B. Proteomic characterization of human milk fat globule membrane proteins during a 12 month lactation period. J. Proteome Res. 2011; 10: 3530–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Martini M, Salari F, Altomonte I. The macrostructure of milk lipids: the fat globules. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013; 56: 1209–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Fontecha J, Brink L, Wu S, Pouliot Y, Visioli F, Jiménez‐Flores R. Sources, production, and clinical treatments of milk fat globule membrane for infant nutrition and well‐being. Nutrients. 2020; 12: 1607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Russo M, Cichello F, Ragonese C et al. Profiling and quantifying polar lipids in milk by hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography coupled with evaporative light‐scattering and mass spectrometry detection. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2013; 405: 4617–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Zeisel SH, Char D, Sheard NF. Choline, phosphatidylcholine and sphingomyelin in human and bovine milk and infant formulas. J. Nutr. 1986; 116: 50–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Gallier S, Gragson D, Jiménez‐Flores R, Everett D. Using confocal laser scanning microscopy to probe the milk fat globule membrane and associated proteins. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010; 58: 4250–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Brink LR, Lönnerdal B. Milk fat globule membrane: the role of its various components in infant health and development. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2020; 85: 108465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Lopez C, Cauty C, Guyomarc'h F. Unraveling the complexity of milk fat globules to tailor bioinspired emulsions providing health benefits: the key role played by the biological membrane. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2019; 121: 1800201. [Google Scholar]
- 29. Grip T, Dyrlund TS, Ahonen L et al. Serum, plasma and erythrocyte membrane lipidomes in infants fed formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes. Pediatr. Res. 2018; 84: 726–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Gustavsson M, Hodgkinson SC, Fong B et al. Maternal supplementation with a complex milk lipid mixture during pregnancy and lactation alters neonatal brain lipid composition but lacks effect on cognitive function in rats. Nutr. Res. 2010; 30: 279–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Vickers MH, Guan J, Gustavsson M et al. Supplementation with a mixture of complex lipids derived from milk to growing rats results in improvements in parameters related to growth and cognition. Nutr. Res. 2009; 29: 426–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Fuller KL, Kuhlenschmidt TB, Kuhlenschmidt MS, Jiménez‐Flores R, Donovan SM. Milk fat globule membrane isolated from buttermilk or whey cream and their lipid components inhibit infectivity of rotavirus in vitro. J. Dairy Sci. 2013; 96: 3488–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Kvistgaard AS, Pallesen LT, Arias CF et al. Inhibitory effects of human and bovine milk constituents on rotavirus infections. J. Dairy Sci. 2004; 87: 4088–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Le TT, Van de Wiele T, Do TNH et al. Stability of milk fat globule membrane proteins toward human enzymatic gastrointestinal digestion. J. Dairy Sci. 2012; 95: 2307–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Li F, Wu SS, Berseth CL et al. Improved neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with bovine milk fat globule membrane and lactoferrin in infant formula: a randomized, controlled trial. J. Pediatr. 2019; 215: 24–31.e28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Timby N, Hernell O, Vaarala O, Melin M, Lönnerdal B, Domellöf M. Infections in infants fed formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2015; 60: 384–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Zavaleta N, Kvistgaard AS, Graverholt G et al. Efficacy of an MFGM‐enriched complementary food in diarrhea, anemia, and micronutrient status in infants. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2011; 53: 561–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Timby N, Domellöf E, Hernell O, Lönnerdal B, Domellöf M. Neurodevelopment, nutrition, and growth until 12 mo of age in infants fed a low‐energy, low‐protein formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014; 99: 860–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Xia Y, Jiang B, Zhou L et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of healthy Chinese term infants fed infant formula enriched in bovine milk fat globule membrane for 12 months‐A randomized controlled trial. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021; 30: 401–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Nieto‐Ruiz A, Diéguez E, Sepúlveda‐Valbuena N et al. The effects of an infant formula enriched with milk fat globule membrane, long‐chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and synbiotics on child behavior up to 2.5 years old: the COGNIS study. Nutrients. 2020; 12: 3825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Li X, Peng Y, Li Z et al. Serum cytokine patterns are modulated in infants fed formula with probiotics or milk fat globule membranes: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0251293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Timby N, Domellöf M, Holgerson PL et al. Oral microbiota in infants fed a formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes ‐ a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0169831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Timby N, Adamsson M, Domellöf E et al. Neurodevelopment and growth until 6.5 years of infants who consumed a low‐energy, low‐protein formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021; 113: 586–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Li X, Peng Y, Li Z et al. Feeding infants formula with probiotics or milk fat globule membrane: a double‐blind, randomized controlled trial. Front. Pediatr. 2019; 7: 347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. He X, Parenti M, Grip T et al. Fecal microbiome and metabolome of infants fed bovine MFGM supplemented formula or standard formula with breast‐fed infants as reference: a randomized controlled trial. Sci. Rep. 2019; 9: 11589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Billeaud C, Puccio G, Saliba E et al. Safety and tolerance evaluation of milk fat globule membrane‐enriched infant formulas: a randomized controlled multicenter non‐inferiority trial in healthy term infants. Clin. Med. Insights Pediatr. 2014; 8: 51–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Hedrick J, Yeiser M, Harris CL et al. Infant formula with added bovine milk fat globule membrane and modified iron supports growth and normal iron status at one year of age: a randomized controlled trial. Nutrients. 2021; 13: 4541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Hernell O, Domellöf M, Grip T, Lönnerdal B, Timby N. Physiological effects of feeding infants and young children formula supplemented with milk fat globule membranes. Nestle Nutr. Inst. Workshop Ser. 2019; 90: 35–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Ma L, MacGibbon AKH, Jan Mohamed HJB et al. Determination of ganglioside concentrations in breast milk and serum from Malaysian mothers using a high performance liquid chromatography‐mass spectrometry‐multiple reaction monitoring method. Int. Dairy J. 2015; 49: 62–71. [Google Scholar]
- 50. Jensen RG, Bitman J, Carlson SE, Couch SC, Hamosh M, Newburg DS. Human milk lipids. In: Jensen RG (ed.). Handbook of Milk Composition. London, England: Academic Press, 1995; 495–542. [Google Scholar]
