3.9 Article

Development of a polyamine database for assessing dietary intake

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
卷 107, 期 6, 页码 1024-1027

出版社

AMER DIETETIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2007.03.012

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [5 R01 CA88078-04, R01 CA088078, P50 CA095060, P50 CA095060-05] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA088078, P50CA095060] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reducing the concentration of polyamines (spermine, spermidine, and putrescine) in the body pool may slow the cancer process. Because dietary spermine, spermidine, and putrescine contribute to the body pool of polyamines, quantifying them in the diet is important. Limited information about polyamine content of food is available, especially for diets in the United States. This brief report describes the development of a polyamine database linked to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Values for spermine, spermidine, and putrescine were calculated and reported per serving size (nmol/serving). Of the foods from the database that were evaluated, fresh and frozen corn contain the highest levels of putrescine (560,000 nmol/serving and 902,880 nmol/serving) and spermidine (137,682 nmol/serving and 221,111 nmol/serving), and green pea soup contains the highest concentration of spermine (36,988 nmol/serving). The polyamine database and FFQ were tested with a convenience sample (n = 165). Average daily polyamine intakes from the sample were: 159,133 nmol/day putrescine, 54,697 nmol/day spermidine, and 35,698 nmol/day spermine. Orange and grapefruit juices contributed the greatest amount of putrescine (44,441 nmol/day) to the diet. Green peas contributed the greatest amount of spermidine (3,283 nmol/day) and ground meat contributed the greatest amount of spermine (2,186 nmol/day). Development of this database linked to an FFQ provides a means of estimating polyamine intake and contributes to investigations relating polyamines to cancer.

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

3.9
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