4.7 Review

Advanced glycation end products in food and their effects on intestinal tract

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION
卷 62, 期 11, 页码 3103-3115

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1863904

关键词

AGEs; diet; food safety; gut microbiota; intestinal

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2020YFC1606804]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31671890, 31900841, 32071166]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the improvement of living standards, harmful substances in diet have become a serious threat to people's health. Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) formed in processed food have been significantly associated with chronic diseases and sparked widespread controversy in academia. This review summarizes the factors influencing the production of dietary AGEs, their metabolism and absorption, and discusses their effects on intestinal health and gut microbiota.
With the development of living standards, harmful substances in diet and food safety have seriously endangered people health and life. Advanced glycation end products (AGEs), which formed by Maillard reactions in processed food, have been shown a significantly associated with many chronic diseases, such as nephropathy, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and tumors. In recent years, the research about diet advanced glycation end products (dAGEs) have widespread controversy in academia. The main arguments include the production mechanism of dAGEs, metabolic pathways, and relationships with chronic diseases, especially related to the intestines, gut microbiota, and intestinal disorders. So this review attempts to briefly summarize the dAGE in following aspects, including the influencing factors, metabolism, absorption, and so forth. In addition, the effects of dAGEs on intestinal health and gut microbes were discussed, which can offer a goal for boff in to design low dAGEs products and provided some perspectives for further study with AGEs in the future.

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