4.7 Review

In vivo antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds: Facts and gaps

期刊

TRENDS IN FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 1-12

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2015.11.008

关键词

Aging-related diseases; Antioxidant activity; In vivo studies; Phenolic extracts/compounds; Bioavailability

资金

  1. Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) [SFRH/BD/87658/2012]
  2. research centre CIMO [Pest-OE/AGR/UI0690/2014]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/87658/2012] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Numerous diseases have been related with free radicals overproduction and oxidative stress. Botanical preparations possess a multitude of bioactive properties, including antioxidant potential, which has been mainly related with the presence of phenolic compounds. However, the mechanisms of action of these phytochemicals, in vivo effects, bioavailability and bio-efficacy still need research. Scope and approach: The present report aims to provide a critical review on the aspects related with the in vivo antioxidant activity of phenolic extracts and compounds from plant origin. Key findings: Biological functions beyond the human metabolism were discussed, comparing in vivo vs. in vitro studies, as also focusing the conditioning factors for phenolic compounds bioavailability and bioefficacy. Furthermore, an upcoming perspective about the use of phytochemicals as life expectancy promoters and anti-aging factors in human individuals was provided. Conclusions: Overall, and despite all of those advances, the study of the biological potential of numerous natural matrices still remains a hot topic among the scientific community. In fact, the available knowledge about the responsible phytochemicals for the biological potential, their mechanisms of action, the establishment of therapeutic and prophylactic doses, and even the occurrence of biochemical interrelations, is considerable scarce. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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