4.7 Article

Inhibitory effect of fruit extracts on the formation of heterocyclic amines

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 55, 期 25, 页码 10359-10365

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf071820z

关键词

genotoxic heterocyclic amines; fruit extracts; phloridzin; chlorogenic acid; polyphenolics; proanthocyanidins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural extracts have attracted considerable attention for development into effective inhibitors against the formation of genotoxic heterocyclic amines (HAs) in processed foods. In this study, four fruit extracts (apple, elderberry, grape seed, and pineapple) were evaluated for their effects on HA formation in fried beef patties. Apple and grape seed extracts were found to be the most effective in both the degree of inhibition in the formation of individual HAs (2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo [4,5-f]quinoxaline (MeIQx), 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (4,8-DiMeIQx), and 2-amino-1-methyl-6-henylimidazo [4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP)) and in the reduction of total HA content (similar to 70% relative to the control). Activity-guided analysis of apple extract using model systems (PhIP- and MeIQx-producing models) showed that the proanthocyanidins, phloridzin and chlorogenic acid were responsible for reducing the amount of HAs formed. Proanthocyanidins were identified as the dominant inhibitors because they were strongly active against HA formation in both the PhIP and MeIQx model systems. For phloridzin, the inhibitory effect was observed only on the formation of PhIP. In contrast, chlorogenic acid, although effective against the formation of MeIQx, significantly enhanced the formation of PhIP. This is the first report showing the inhibitory activities of apple phenolics on the formation of heterocyclic amines. The findings provide valuable information for the development of effective strategies to minimize HA content of cooked meats and to identify several new natural products that may have new applications in the food industry.

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