4.6 Review

Polyphenolic Compounds and Digestive Enzymes: In Vitro Non-Covalent Interactions

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules22040669

关键词

polyphenolic compounds; structure; digestive enzymes; enzymatic inhibition; van der Waals forces; hydrogen binding; hydrophobic binding

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, CONACYT, Mexico [CB-201101-167932, CB-2011-01-167164]
  2. CONACYT
  3. UACJ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The digestive enzymes-polyphenolic compounds (PCs) interactions behind the inhibition of these enzymes have not been completely studied. The existing studies have mainly analyzed polyphenolic extracts and reported inhibition percentages of catalytic activities determined by UV-Vis spectroscopy techniques. Recently, pure PCs and new methods such as isothermal titration calorimetry and circular dichroism have been applied to describe these interactions. The present review focuses on PCs structural characteristics behind the inhibition of digestive enzymes, and progress of the used methods. Some characteristics such as molecular weight, number and position of substitution, and glycosylation of flavonoids seem to be related to the inhibitory effect of PCs; also, this effect seems to be different for carbohydrate-hydrolyzing enzymes and proteases. The digestive enzyme-PCs molecular interactions have shown that non-covalent binding, mostly by van der Waals forces, hydrogen binding, hydrophobic binding, and other electrostatic forces regulate them. These interactions were mainly associated to non-competitive type inhibitions of the enzymatic activities. The present review emphasizes on the digestive enzymes such as alpha-glycosidase (AG), alpha-amylase (PA), lipase (PL), pepsin (PE), trypsin (TP), and chymotrypsin (CT). Existing studies conducted in vitro allow one to elucidate the characteristics of the structure-function relationships, where differences between the structures of PCs might be the reason for different in vivo effects.

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

4.6
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