4.5 Article

Evaluation of the copper(II) reduction assay using bathocuproinedisulfonic acid disodium salt for the total antioxidant capacity assessment: The CUPRAC-BCS assay

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 392, 期 1, 页码 37-44

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2009.05.024

关键词

CUPRAC-BCS assay; Total antioxidant capacity; Bathocuproinedisulfonic acid disodium salt; TEAC assay; FRAP assay; DPPH assay

资金

  1. Inocente-Inocente Foundation (Spain)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is heightened interest in determining antioxidant status of individuals in experimental and clinical Studies investigating progression of diseases or diverse aspects of oxidative stress, among others. The aim of this study was to evaluate the copper(II) reduction assay with bathocuproinedisulfonic acid disodium salt as chelating agent (the CUPRAC-BCS assay) for the total antioxidant capacity (TAC) assessment in human plasma and Urine. Samples from 20 individuals were determined with four spectrophotometric assays-CUPRAC-BCS, ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP), trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC), and 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl assay (DPPH)-to compare these methods. CUPRAC-BCS was significantly correlated with FRAP and TEAC for plasma and urine samples (r > 0.5, P < 0.05 for all) and with DPPH for urine samples (r = 0.925, P < 0.001) but not with DPPH for plasma samples (r = 0.366, P = 0.112). However, the four methods do not agree given that lines of equality and regression were not matched up. The imprecision of the method is less than 6%. the detection limit is 41.8 mu mol trolox equivalents/L, it is linear up to 2 mM trolox, and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid dihydrate disodium salt (EDTA) binds to Cu(II), avoiding the formation of Cu(I)-BCS complex. This study shows that CUPRAC-BCS is a simple, fast, inexpensive, and Suitable method for TAC assessment in human urine and heparinized plasma samples. (c) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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