| Literature DB >> 28754099 |
José George F Albuquerque1, Valéria L Assis1, Arthur J P O Almeida1, Ionaldo J L D Basílio1, Melissa N Luciano2, Bruno R L A Meireles3, Ângela M T M Cordeiro4, Islânia G A Araújo1, Robson C Veras1, Thaís P Ribeiro1, Isac A Medeiros5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In northeastern Brazil, grape pomace has become a potential alternative byproduct because of the recover phenolic compounds from the vinification process. Comparative analyses were performed between lyophilized extract of grape skins from pomace, described as fermented (FGS), and fresh, unfermented (UGS) grape skins to show the relevant brand's composition upon the first maceration in winemaking.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Grape pomace; Vasorelaxation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28754099 PMCID: PMC5534086 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-017-1881-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Antioxidant reducing power and EC50 values obtained in DPPH assay, and total phenolic compounds
| Samples | DPPH | TP | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| -AA- | 0.50 ± 0.05 | 2.00 | - |
| -FGS- | 1.10 ± 0.14 * | 0.91 | 185.53 ± 14.73 |
| -UGS- | 1.91 ± 0.42 **; # | 0.52 | 25.29 ± 0.30 ## |
Mean values ± SEM of triplicate are shown. (AA), Ascorbic Acid; (FGS), Fermented Grape Skin; (UGS), Unfermented Grape Skin; (−), Not Analyzed. * significant when compared to AA, P < 0.05; ** significant when compared to AA, P < 0.01; # significant when compared to FGS and AA, P < 0.05; ## significant when compared to FGS, P < 0.05
Phenolic components identified in dried extracts from fermented (FGS) and unfermented (UGS) grape skin
| PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS ANALISED | (μg of phenolic compounds / mg of dried extract) | |
|---|---|---|
| FGS | UGS | |
| 2,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid | 16.8 | 9.0 |
| 2,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| 4-hydroxybenzoic acid | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| sinapic acid | 0.6 | 0.0 |
| syringic acid | 1.6 | 0.6 |
| vanillic acid | 2.4 | 2.4 |
| ferulic acid | 0.8 | 0.0 |
| caffeic acid | 3.8 | 4.0 |
| quercetin | 2.4 | 2.2 |
| naringenin | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| catechin | 2.6 | 0.8 |
| hesperetin | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| chrysin | 1.0 | 0.0 |
Fig. 1Vasorelaxant effect induced by fermented (FGS) and unfermented (UGS) grape skin extracts (10–3000 μg/mL). The responses were assessed in endothelium-intact mesenteric artery ring resistance pre-contracted to PE 10 μM. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM of 5 and 7 experiments, respectively. *** significant when compared to FGS, P < 0.001
Fig. 2Vasorelaxant effect induced by fermented (FGS) grape skin extracts (10–3000 μg/mL). The responses were assessed in resistance mesenteric artery rings, pre-contracted with PE 10 μM in endothelium-intact, endothelium-denuded and in endothelium-intact preparation, pre-incubated with L-NAME (100 μM) and charybdotoxin (50 nM) plus apamin (50 nM). Data are expressed as mean ± SEM of 5, 4, and 4 experiments, respectively. ** significant when compared to endothelium-intact preparations, P < 0.01
Fig. 3ROS measurement in intact mesenteric arteries exposed to different experimental conditions. Reduced effects of redox-sensitive fluorescence dye to DHE in normotensive small mesenteric artery sections exposed to vehicle (PBS), fermented (FGS) or unfermented (UGS) grape skin extracts. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM of 4 experiments. * significant when compared to controls (CTL), P < 0.05