4.6 Article

Unraveling the Relationship between Grapes and Health

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 139, 期 9, 页码 1783S-1787S

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.109.107458

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA48112] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As described in this Supplement and elsewhere, consumption of grapes or grape products has been associated with various health benefits. Resveratrol is a unique component of grapes. Following our report on potential cancer chemopreventive activity, thousands of studies have been performed to characterize the mode of action of this substance. Nonetheless, scores of additional chemicals are known to be constituents of grapes, several of which are capable of mediating biological responses. Accordingly, when considering grapes and health, a holistic view appears to be more meaningful, taking into account all chemical components, metabolism, biological potential, biodistribution, absorption, processing, etc. To fathom such a massive amount of information, we propose the creation of focused ontologies. Grapes seem reasonable as a test bed for exploring this approach, especially because a fair amount of results are available with whole-grape powder. In essence, by utilizing a next generation intelligent system, attempts can be made to leverage the existing complexity. This approach involves bringing together all available information, together with expert judgment, and processing this information through a computational engine or engines to provide suggested solutions (or implicit functional relationships). Accomplishment of this task, employing grapes as a prototype, could lead to broader application by incorporating the myriad of features associated with other fruits and vegetables. The ability to correlate heretoforeuncharacterized signatures with biologic outcome could fundamentally transform copious amounts of disparate information into a coherent explanation of human disease prevention. J. Nutr. 139: 1783S-1787S, 2009.

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

4.6
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