4.7 Article

Antioxidant and DNA-Protective Activities of Chlorogenic Acid Isomers

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 46, 页码 11625-11630

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf303771s

关键词

chlorogenic acid; isomer; antioxidant; DNA-protective activity

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province, China [2012011031-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chlorogenic acid is a well-known antioxidant and has more isomers according to the difference in binding location and number of caffeic on quinic acid. In this study, we investigated and compared the profiles of antioxidant and DNA-protective activities of chlorogenic acid isomers including three caffeoylquinic,acid isomers (3-O-caffeoylquinic acid, 3-CQA; 4-O-caffeoylquinic acid, 4-CQA; and 5-O- caffeoylquinic acid, 5-CQA) and three dicaffeoylquinic acid isomers (3,5-dicaffeoyl-quinic acid, ICAA; 3,4-dicaffeoylquinic acid, ICAB; and 4,5-dicaffeoyl-quinic acid, ICAC). The results showed that each of chlorogenic acid isomers studied exhibited antioxidant activities and DNA damage protective effects to various extents. On the whole, dicaffeoylquinic acids possessed better antioxidant activities, mostly because they have more hydroxyl groups than caffeoylquinic acids. Three caffeoylquinic acid isomers showed quite similar antioxidant activities, indicating that the position of esterification on the quinic moiety of caffeoylquinic acid had no effect on its antioxidant activities. Quite the contrary, a difference among dicaffeoylquinic acid isomers was observed, namely, ICAA and ICAB exhibited the same antioxidant activities, whereas ICAC had higher antioxidant activities than ICAA and ICAB in some assays, which implied that their antioxidant activities were probably influenced by the position of esterification on the quinic moiety. We speculated that this difference might be due to the fact that there may exist a steric hindrance effect in the ICAC. However, this assumption needs to be further confirmed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据