4.3 Article

Antioxidant and free radical scavenging properties of N-acetylcysteine amide (NACA) and comparison with N-acetylcysteine (NAC)

Journal

FREE RADICAL RESEARCH
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 372-377

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10715760801998638

Keywords

NACA; NAC; antioxidant properties; radical scavenging

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R15DA023409] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [1 R15DA023409-01A2] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The antioxidant potential of N-acetylcysteine amide (NACA), also known as AD4, was assessed by employing different in vitro assays. These included reducing power, free radical scavenging capacities, peroxidation inhibiting activity through linoleic acid emulsion system and metal chelating capacity, as compared to NAC and three widely used antioxidants, alpha-tocopherol, ascorbic acid and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Of the antioxidant properties that were investigated, NACA was shown to possess higher 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl-hydrate (DPPH) radical scavenging ability and reducing power than NAC, at all the concentrations, whereas the scavenging ability of H2O2 differed with concentration. While NACA had greater H2O2 scavenging capacity at the highest concentration, NAC was better than NACA at lower concentrations. NAC and NACA had a 60% and 55% higher ability to prevent beta-carotene bleaching, respectively, as compared to control. The chelating activity of NACA was more than 50% that of the metal chelating capacity of EDTA and four and nine times that of BHT and alpha-tocopherol, respectively. When compared to NACA and NAC; alpha-tocopherol had higher DPPH scavenging abilities and BHT and alpha-tocopherol had better beta-carotene bleaching power. These findings provide evidence that the novel antioxidant, NACA, has indeed enhanced the antioxidant properties of NAC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available