4.3 Article

DFT-based quantitative structure-activity relationship studies for antioxidant peptides

期刊

STRUCTURAL CHEMISTRY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 739-747

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11224-014-0533-0

关键词

Antioxidant peptides; Density functional theory (DFT); Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR); Scavenging of free radical

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171672, 31071523]
  2. MOST [2012BAD34B02, 2011BAK10B05, 2012BAD29B05]
  3. Public Program from the General Administration of Quality Supervision [201310128]
  4. Ministry of Health Foundation of China [W201304]
  5. Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation for Postgraduate [CX2014B387]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peptides derived from food sources exhibit many different biological properties, including antioxidant activities. Some antioxidant activities are attributed to the scavenging of free radicals through electron transfer. In this study, the quantum chemical parameters associated with electron transfer were investigated. All calculations were performed using the Gaussian 03 W software package using DFT theory (B3LYP hybrid functions), together with the 6-311 + G (d, p) basis set that supported the experimental free radical (center dot OH and O-2 (-)center dot) scavenging activities. The results of the scavenging O-2 (-)center dot model (R (2) = 0.882, Q (2) = 0.824) demonstrated that O-2 (-)center dot model has a high statistical significance and remarkable predictive ability; however, center dot OH model was not prominent. We used the multiple linear regression to build the model and used the leave-one-out method to verify the regression's prediction. The results showed that E-HOMO and L, related to electron donating ability, are the most important parameters for understanding the free radical especially O-2 (-)center dot scavenging ability of antioxidant peptides. The information obtained from this study could provide clues for the guided synthesis of antioxidant peptides.

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

4.3
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