4.7 Article

Effects of freeze drying and hot-air drying on the physicochemical properties and bioactivities of polysaccharides from Lentinula edodes

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.12.222

关键词

Lentinula edodes; Polysaccharides; Drying; Characterization; Immunomodulatory

资金

  1. Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Food Nutrition and Human Health [20181047]
  2. Major Project of Technological Innovation Special Fund of Hubei Province [2017ABA148]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fresh Lentinula edodes were dried using two process technologies freeze drying (FD) and hot-air drying (HD). The physicochemical, antioxidant and immunomodulatory properties of purified polysaccharides from dried L. edodes (LEP) were then comparatively investigated. Two neutral polysaccharides (FLEP-1 and HLEP-1) and two acidic polysaccharides (FLEP-2 and HLEP-2) were obtained by DEAE-52 cellulose column. The HD treated LEP had higher levels of uronic acid than that of the FD treated LEP. The molar ratios of monosaccharides in FLEP-1, FLEP-2, HLEP-1 and HLEP-2 were different. Moreover, HD treated LEP had more galactose and less glucose. The (1 -> 3)-alpha-glucan structure was dominant in the two neutral polysaccharides, whereas the (1 -> 6)-beta-glucan was dominant in the two acidic polysaccharides. Hot-air drying could thus promote the alpha-configuration in neutral polysaccharides while reducing the beta-configuration in acidic polysaccharides. FLEP-1, FLEP-2, HLEP-1 and HLEP-2 had potential scavenging capacity against the ABTS center dot(+), whereas freeze-dried polysaccharides exhibited a stronger scavenging ability than that of hot-air dried polysaccharide. LEP could improve immunity by inducing the secretions of NO, TNF-alpha and IL-6, whereas hot-air drying improved the immunomodulatory activity of LEP. Our results suggested that freeze drying and hot air drying could be appropriately used to obtain functional polysaccharides from L. edodes. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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