4.7 Article

Antioxidant profile of red wines evaluated by total antioxidant capacity, scavenger activity, and biomarkers of oxidative stress methodologies

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 55, 期 14, 页码 5476-5483

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf070306q

关键词

red wine; ABTS; DPPH; DMPD; ORAC; FRAP; scavenger activity; biomarkers of oxidative stress; total polyphenols

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study of the antioxidant capacity of foodstuffs requires the use of diverse determination methods to gain a wider picture of their multiple effects. The aim of this work was to evaluate the antioxidant profile of red wines applying TAC (total antioxidant capacity) methods: 2,2'-azinobis(3-ethyl-benzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl, N,N-dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine dihydrochloride, oxygen radical absorbance capacity, ferric reducing/antioxidant power, hydroxyl and superoxide radical scavenger activities, and biomarkers of oxidative stress methods such as lipid peroxidation inhibition and inhibition of damage to DNA. Furthermore, levels of total polyphenols (TPP) of wines were also evaluated. Three bottles of 107 different Spanish red wines (total samples 321), made from different grape varieties, aging processes, and vintages, were analyzed. The validation of TAC methods, the first step in this work, provided a good linearity, proportionality, and low detection limits. Among these methods, the ABTS was the most satisfactory for its rapidity, cost, and precision. All wines showed an important capacity to scavenge hydroxyl radicals and were capable of blocking superoxide radicals but with 10 times lower intensity. Wines also showed important protective action on biomarkers of oxidative stress; they were much more active to inhibit lipid peroxidation than DNA oxidation. Few statistically significant correlations among levels of TPP and antioxidant properties of wines were detected. Furthermore, values of these correlations were very low.

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