4.7 Article

Antioxidant and pro-oxidant phytochemicals in ultrasound and microwave assisted extracts from hop cones: a statistical modelling approach

期刊

FOOD & FUNCTION
卷 13, 期 18, 页码 9589-9601

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2fo02020c

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food, and Forestry Policies [18770]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the relationships between different green extracts from hop cones and their effects on human cultured colonocytes. The extracts were obtained using ultrasound and microwave assisted extraction, and their chemical fingerprinting revealed the presence of various bioactive compounds. The extracts showed dose-dependent cytotoxic effects, with the highest concentrations displaying pro-oxidant or antioxidant activity. Chemometric analysis identified the compounds most correlated with cellular toxicity and ROS production.
The present study investigated the relationships between different green extracts from hop cones (HGEs) and their cytoprotective/cytotoxic effects on human cultured colonocytes, using a multivariate statistical approach. HGEs were obtained by ultrasound (US) and microwave (MW) assisted extraction, using food grade solvents (ethanol and ethanol : water = 50 : 50 mixture). Their chemical fingerprinting showed the presence of 21 bioactive compounds belonging to the classes of polyphenols, prenylcalcones and floroacylglucinols, which were more abundant in MW ethanolic extracts. All the extracts, except for the US hydroalcoholic one, exerted a cytotoxic effect in a dose-dependent manner. HGEs did not alter the cellular redox status at low doses, while at the highest concentrations considered they displayed a pro-oxidant or antioxidant activity. Chemometric analysis revealed the compounds most correlated with cellular toxicity and/or ROS production and that the differences observed in Caco2 cells could be adequately explained by 2D statistical models including inhibitor-promoting agent pairs.

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