4.7 Article

Durian (Durio zibethinus Murr.) cultivars as nutritional supplementation to rat's diets

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 581-589

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.042

关键词

durian cultivars; bioactive compounds; antioxidant capacity; rats; plasma lipid and antioxidant levels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The properties of Mon Thong, Chani and Kan Yao durian (Durio zibethinus Murr.) cultivars were compared in vitro and in vivo studies in order to find the best one as a supplement to anti atherosclerotic diet. Total polyphenols (361.4 +/- 35.3 mgGAE/100 g FW), flavonoids (93.9 +/- 8.9 mgCE/100 g FW) and total antioxidant capacity determined by DPPH and P-carotene-linoleic acid assays (261.3 +/- 25.3 mu MTE/100 g FW and 77.8 +/- 7.8% of inhibition) were maximal in Mon Thong in comparison with Chani and Kan Yao and showed a good correlation between these three variables (R-2 = 0.9859). Five groups of rats were fed diets supplemented with cholesterol and different durian cultivars. Diets supplemented with Mon Thong and to a lesser degree with Chani and Kan Yao significantly hindered the rise in the plasma lipids (TC-8.7%, 16.1% and 10.3% and (b) LDL-C-20.1%, 31.3% and 23.5% for the Chol/Kan Yao, Chol/Mon Thong and Chol/Chani, respectively) and the decrease in plasma antioxidant activity (P < 0.05). Nitrogen retention remained significantly higher in Chol/Mon Thong than in other diet groups. Diet supplemented with Mon Thong affected the composition of plasma fibrinogen in rats and showed more intensity in protein bands around 47 kDa. No lesions were found in the examined tissue of heart and brains. Mon Thong cultivar is preferable for the supplementation of the diet as positively influenced the lipid, antioxidant, protein and metabolic status. The durian fruit till now was not investigated extensively, therefore based on the results of this study durian cultivars can be used as a relatively new source of antioxidants. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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