4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Possibilities and limitations in the analysis of covalent interactions between phenolic compounds and proteins

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 13-19

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.05.042

关键词

Plant phenolic compounds; Non-covalent and covalent interactions; Structure-reactivity relationships; Oxidation; Innovative analytical strategies and methodologies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Besides all comprehensive studies on botanical, analytical, and nutritional aspects of polyphenols, knowledge on interactions of these bioactive compounds with other constituents in the plant, food, or even in the human body is still scarce. From the several possibilities of interactions, covalent reaction products seem to be the most important ones, as they irreversibly affect the properties of both reaction partners. The phenolic compounds are highly reactive and many of them are able to be oxidized to their corresponding semiquinones and quinones which are further capable of undergoing covalent reactions with an enormous number of nucleophiles. When taking a look at nature, prominent nucleophiles are selected protein side chains such as lysine or cysteine. In the case of a reaction between phenolic compounds and protein side chains, properties of the single proteins and correspondingly the whole organism (plant or animal) might be severely affected. Even the smallest amounts of interactions can be of great impact. However, analysis of such reaction products is complex and therefore challenging. This is due to the fact that phenolic compounds remain reactive after the addition to the protein. This minireview shortly describes the chemical background(s) of the reaction and illustrates the main challenges in the analysis of protein-phenol-adducts. Moreover, questions that have to be considered when analyzing protein-phenol reaction products are raised and an alternative analytical idea is presented. (C) 2014 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