4.7 Article

Effects of extraction methods on the antioxidant activities of polysaccharides from Agaricus blazei Murrill

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.08.031

Keywords

Agaricus blazei Murrill; Polysaccharides; Extraction methods; Antioxidant activity

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41003040, 41201487]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin [10JCYBJC06000]
  3. Construction of Technical Platform 160 for Pharmaceutical Separation and Refinement [2009ZX09301-008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Five polysaccharides were obtained from Agaricus blazei Murrill (ABM) through different extraction methods including hot water extraction, single enzyme extraction (pectinase, cellulase or papain) and compound enzymes extraction (cellulase:pectinase:papain). Their characteristics such as the polysaccharide yield, polysaccharide content, protein content, infrared spectra were determined, and antioxidant activities were investigated on the basis of hydroxyl radical, DPPH free radical, ABTS free radical and reducing power. The results showed that five extracts exhibited antioxidant activities in a concentration-dependent manner. Compared with other methods, the compound enzymes extraction method was found to present the highest polysaccharides yield (17.44%). Moreover, compound enzymes extracts exhibited the strongest reducing power and highest scavenging rates on hydroxyl radicals, DPPH radicals and ABTS radicals. On the contrary, hot water extraction method had the lowest polysaccharides yield of 11.95%, whose extracts also exhibited the lowest antioxidant activities. Overall, the available data obtained in vitro models suggested that ABM extracts were natural antioxidants and compound enzymes extraction was an appropriate, mild and effective extracting method for obtaining the polysaccharide extracts from Agaricus blazei Murrill (ABM). (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available