4.7 Article

Treatment of oat bran with carbohydrases increases soluble phenolic acid content and influences antioxidant and antimicrobial activities

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 568-574

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2013.03.037

关键词

Oat bran; Antioxidant; Phenolic acid; E. coli; B. subtilis

资金

  1. National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Saudi Arabia government's King Abdullah Foreign Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of medium oat bran treated with four polysaccharide enzymes viscozyme, cellulase, alpha-amylase, and amyloglucosidase. The effects of these enzymes on the release of phenolic acids were determined using reverse-phase HPLC chromatography. Antioxidant assays showed that enzyme pre-treatments significantly increased the hydroxyl radical (HO center dot) scavenging activity of all bran samples (16.6-20.0 mu M propyl gallate equivalents (PGE)/g bran) relative to untreated bran (13.3 +/- 1.8 mu M PGE/g). The order of activity was cellulase approximate to viscozyme > amyloglucosidase approximate to alpha-amylase. The DPPH free radical inhibitory activities of brans pre-treated with cellulase and amyloglucosidase, 43.0% and 45.0%, respectively were higher than inhibition by untreated bran 21.7% (P < 0.05). In the linoleic acid (LA) autoxidation assay, three of the treated and untreated brans similarly inhibited LA oxidation, while viscozyme pre-treated bran had no activity. HPLC analysis showed an increase in free phenolic acids, and this was more pronounced for ferulic and caffeic acids. In the antimicrobial assay, brans pre-treated with viscozyme and cellulase similarly inhibited the growth of Escherichia coli compared to untreated bran (P < 0.05), while viscozyme- and alpha-amylase-treated brans enhanced the growth of Bacillus subtilis, a non-pathogenic bacteria strain that has been used as a pro-biotic. (C) 2013 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