4.7 Article

Glucosinolates, glycosidically bound volatiles and antimicrobial activity of Aurinia sinuata (Brassicaceae)

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 121, 期 4, 页码 1020-1028

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.01.041

关键词

Aurinia sinuata; Glucosinolates; Isothiocyanates; Nitriles; Glycosidically bound volatiles; O-aglycones; Antimicrobial activity, GC-MS

资金

  1. Ministry of Science. Education and Sports, Republic of Croatia [011-0982929-1329, 177-0000000-3182]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Volatiles of Aurinia sinuata (L.) Griseb. were isolated from aerial parts and analysed by gas chromatography/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/GC-MS). The main compounds were glucosinolate degradation products originating from glucoberteroin, glucobrassicanapin and glucoalyssin. They were: 6-(methylthio)hexanenitrile (1.8-51.5%), 6-(methylsulfinyl)hexanenitrile (0-11.5%), 5-(methylsulfinyl)pentyl isothiocyanate (0-10.2%), 5-(methylthio)pentyl isothiocyanate (0.4-9.5%). 4-pentenyl isothiocyanate (0.7-8.9%), 5-hexenenitrile (2.6-14.6%) and 5,6-epithiohexanenitrile (0-3.4%). Also other volatiles were identified, such as fatty acids and esters (0.3-19.2%), phenols, phenylpropane derivatives and related compounds (0.4-15.8%), aliphatic alcohols and carbonyl compounds (4.2-11.6%) and some other compounds in smaller percentages. The O-glycosidically bound volatiles were isolated from aerial parts of A. sinuata. After the enzymatic hydrolysis and GC and GC-MS analyses, among 20 volatile aglycones identified, eugenol (73.0%) was the main one. The volatile samples containing glucosinolate degradation products were evaluated for antimicrobial activity using the disc diffusion method with calculated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC). All volatile samples expressed a wide range of growth inhibition activity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and fungi. The minimum inhibitory concentrations varied between 0.008 and 0.115 mg/ml. (C) 2010 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