4.7 Article

Comparative Analysis of Lipids and Fatty Acids in Beaked Redfish Sebastes mentella Travin, 1951 Collected in Wild and in Commercial Products

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse10010059

关键词

lipids; fatty acids; beaked redfish; Sebastes mentella; wild and commercial products; mesopelagic zone; North Atlantic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By comparing the lipid and fatty acid profiles of beaked redfish caught in the wild and those from commercial supermarkets, this study evaluated the health implications of this popular food and calculated nutritional quality indexes. The results showed that commercial products had slightly degraded lipid quality and higher thrombogenicity index.
The lipid and fatty acid profile of muscles in beaked redfish, caught and fixed in the wild versus specimens from food supermarkets (commercial), were evaluated, as well as the health implications of this popular food for its consumers based on the calculation of nutritional quality indexes. The contents of the total lipids (TLs), total phospholipids (PLs), monoacylglycerols (MAGs), diacylglycerols (DAGs), triacylglycerols (TAGs), cholesterol (Chol), Chol esters, non-esterified fatty acids (NEFAs), and wax esters were determined by HPTLC; the phosphatidylserine (PS), phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), phosphatidylinositol (PI), phosphatidylcholine (PC), and lysophosphatidylcholine (LysoPC) were determined by HPLC; and fatty acids of total lipids were determined using GC. The TL content was higher in commercial products due to DA and NEFAs, among PL fractions the content of LysoPC was also higher. The results indicated multidirectional processes of slight degradation of lipids in commercial products in comparison to wild. The flesh lipid quality index was lower due to EPA and DHA in commercial specimens while the index of thrombogenicity was significantly higher. The differences in the quantities of lipid classes between muscle biopsy regions in fish apparently corroborate the morphology and physiology of deep-water fish.

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