4.5 Article

Astaxanthin from the red crab langostilla (Pleuroncodes planipes):: optical R/S isomers and fatty acid moieties of astaxanthin esters

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1096-4959(02)00186-0

关键词

astaxanthin esters; carotenoids; fatty acids; langostilla; metabolism; optical R/S isomers; Pleuroncodes planipes; red crab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The composition of the fatty acids of astaxanthin esters and the distribution of astaxanthin optical RS isomers in the esterified and unesterified astaxanthin fractions extracted from the meal of the pelagic red crab langostilla (Pleuroncodes planipes; Decapoda, Anomura) were determined. Astaxanthin diesters comprised approximately 70%, monoesterified astaxanthin approximately 12%, and unesterified astaxanthin approximately 10% of total carotenoids, respectively. Unidentified carotenes and minor yellow xanthophylls represented approximately 8% of the total carotenoids. Three astaxanthin diester fractions (ratio 5:4:1) and one monoester fraction were clearly distinguished by thin-layer chromatography, and fatty acid moieties were determined in all of them. Saturated fatty acids accumulated in astaxanthin diesters, but were reduced in the monoester fraction when compared to langostilla crude oil extract (CE). Astaxanthin diesters, but not monoesters were enriched in C16:0 and C18:1n-9, when compared to the CE. Astaxanthin monoesters were rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (= 70% of total fatty acids), in particular C20:5n-3 and C22:6n-3. Acylation of astaxanthin in langostilla seems to be selective rather than specific. The three diesterified astaxanthin fractions of langostilla had a ratio of approximately 3:1:3 between the (3R,3'R)-, (3R,3'S)- and (3S,3'S)-astaxanthin isomers, whereas in the monoesterified and unesterified fractions the ratio was approximately 4:1:4. The astaxanthin optical RS isomer composition indicates that langostilla is unable to racemize astaxanthin. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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