4.7 Article

Antioxidant activity of Haematococcus pluvialis cells grown in continuous culture as a function of their carotenoid and fatty acid content

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 74, 期 5, 页码 1112-1119

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-006-0743-5

关键词

Haematococcus; antioxidant; fatty acid; carotenoids; astaxanthin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influence of culture conditions on the quality of Haematococcus pluvialis biomass is assessed. Continuously grown cells have been characterised with respect to their astaxanthin, fatty acid content, and antioxidant activity and compared with those of non-growing haematocysts. Moderate limitation of nitrate availability (1.7 mM) under continuous growth conditions favoured the production of reddish palmelloid cells whose extracts possessed antioxidant activity equivalent to that of haematocyst extracts, despite the lower astaxanthin content (0.6%d.wt.), which is compensated by a higher fatty acid level (7.6%d.wt.). Green cells produced under nitrate saturation conditions (> 4.7 mM) exhibit only 40% antioxidant activity than palmelloid. In addition, the major fatty acid present in palmelloid cells was oleic acid (40%f.a.), whereas, in both green cells and haematocysts, the main fatty acids were myristic, palmitic, and oleic acid (20-30%f.a. each). Biomass extracts were fractionated and analysed. The antioxidant capacity was a function of both the carotenoid and the fatty acid profiles, the antioxidant capacity of astaxanthin diesters fraction being 60% higher than astaxanthin monoesters fraction and twice than free astaxanthin. In such a way, the evaluation of the quality of H. pluvialis biomass must take into account both variables. When considering the production of H. pluvialis biomass for human consumption, special attention should be paid to the one-step continuous system approach for the generation of cells rich in both astaxanthin and fatty acids, as they have high antioxidant activity but without thick hard cell wall.

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