4.7 Article

The use of cyclodextrins as solubility enhancers in the ORAC method may cause interference in the measurement of antioxidant activity

期刊

TALANTA
卷 243, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2022.123336

关键词

Antioxidant; Cyclodextrin; ORAC; Encapsulation; Solubility; Interference

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [AGL2017-86526-P MCI/AEI/FEDER, UE]
  2. Programa de Ayudas a Grupos de Excelencia de la Region de Murcia, Fundacion Seneca, Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnologia de la Region de Murcia (Spain) [19893/GERM/15]
  3. Fundacion Seneca (Region de Murcia, Spain) [21269/FPI/19, 21229/PD/19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of cyclodextrins to enhance water solubility of lipophilic compounds can interfere with fluorescent readings, leading to contradictory results. The encapsulation of other substrates in the reaction is the main cause of this interference.
The ability of cyclodextrins to enhance the water solubility of lipophilic compounds is used to modify the water-based Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) method to measure antioxidant activity in vitro. However, the use of these solubility enhancers may alter fluorescent readings, which has led to contradictory results being described in the literature. The low specificity of these oligosaccharides and their controlled release effect can result in cyclodextrins forming inclusion complexes with other reagents in the assay, changing the kinetics. In this study, the cause of cyclodextrins' interference in the ORAC method is evaluated through a physicochemical and computational approach. Cyclodextrins showed a clear increase in the fluorescent signal both in the presence and absence of the antioxidant oxyresveratrol, the precise effect being dependent on the type and concentration of cyclodextrin. Although the glucidic nature of cyclodextrins could play a minimal role in this effect, it seems that the main cause was the encapsulation of other substrates in the reaction, fluorescein and AAPH.

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