4.7 Article

Phenolics of Green Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Hulls, Their Plasma and Urinary Metabolites, Bioavailability, and in Vivo Antioxidant Activities in a Rat Model

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 67, 期 43, 页码 11955-11968

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b04501

关键词

Pisum sativum L.; pea hulls; UHPLC-LTQ-OrbiTrap-MS; phenolics; bioavailability; metabolites; D-galactose rat model; in vivo antioxidant activities

资金

  1. key project for science and technology research of Jiangxi province in 2018 [5511, 20182ABC28010]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [31660470]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province of China [20171BBF60047]
  4. Agriculture & Agri Food Canada (AAFC) [J-001322.001.04, 2927]
  5. Ontario Research fund (ORF) [RE-08-082]
  6. AAFC
  7. Saskatchewan Pulse Growers [40004678]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased processing of pulses generates large volumes of hulls, which are known as an excellent source of phenolic antioxidants. However, the bioavailability and in vivo activity of these phenolics are rarely reported. This research was therefore carried out to study the absorption, metabolism, and in vivo antioxidant activities of green pea hull (GPH) phenolics using ultrahigh-pressure liquid chromatography with a linear ion trap-high-resolution Orbitrap mass spectrometry and an oxidative stress rat model. A total of 31 phenolics, including 4 phenolic acids, 24 flavonoids, and 3 other phenolics, were tentatively identified. Ten of these phenolics and 49 metabolites were found in the plasma and urine of rats, which helped to explain the favorable changes by GPH phenolics in key antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and glutathione) and indicators (total antioxidant capacity, malondialdehyde) in the plasma and different tissues of rats. This is the first comprehensive report on dry pea hull phenolics and their bioavailability, metabolic profiles, and mechanisms of in vivo antioxidant activities.

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