| Literature DB >> 29382165 |
Taiwo Olusesan Akanbi1, Colin James Barrow2.
Abstract
In this study, several lipophilic hydroxytyrosyl esters were prepared enzymatically using immobilized lipase from Candida antarctica B. Oxidation tests showed that these conjugates are excellent antioxidants in lipid-based matrices, with hydroxytyrosyl eicosapentaenoate showing the highest antioxidant activity. Hydroxytyrosyl eicosapentaenoate effectively stabilized bulk fish oil, fish-oil-in-water emulsions and microencapsulated fish oil. The stabilizing effect of this antioxidant may either be because it orients itself with the omega-3 fatty acids in the oil, thereby protecting them against oxidation, or because this unstable fatty acid can preferentially oxidise, thus providing an additional mechanism of antioxidant protection. Hydroxytyrosyl eicosapentaenoate itself was stable for one year when stored at -20 °C.Entities:
Keywords: Candida antarctica B; antioxidant; conjugation; eicosapentaenoic acid; enzyme; hydroxytyrosol; lipase; microencapsulation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29382165 PMCID: PMC6017098 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23020275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Identification and characterization of conjugates by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and proton-nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR) spectroscopy.
| Compound | Conversion (%) * | LCMS | 1H NMR Chemical Shift (δ, ppm) ** | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fragment | A (CH2) | B (CH2) | C (CH2) | Allylic | Olefinic | Bis-Allylic | D (CH3) | |||
| Hydroxytyrosyl decanoate | 85.61 ± 2.9 e | [M + H]+ | 309.42 | 2.29 | 1.62 | 1.28 | - | - | - | 0.90 |
| Hydroxytyrosyl laurate | 81.61 ± 1.6 d | [M + H]+ | 337.48 | 2.29 | 1.63 | 1.29 | - | - | - | 0.90 |
| Hydroxytyrosyl myristate | 76.72 ± 2.7 c | [M + H]+ | 365.53 | 2.32 | 1.63 | 1.29 | - | - | - | 0.90 |
| Hydroxytyrosyl palmitate | 75.13 ± 3.9 c | [M + H]+ | 393.58 | 2.31 | 1.64 | 1.28 | - | - | - | 0.93 |
| Hydroxytyrosyl stearate | 61.82 ± 3.7 b | [M + H]+ | 421.64 | 2.33 | 1.66 | 1.28 | - | - | - | 0.96 |
| Hydroxytyrosyl oleate | 45.91 ± 0.5 a | [M + H]+ | 419.62 | 2.35 | 1.65 | 1.30 | 2.05 | 5.36 | - | 0.97 |
| Hydroxytyrosyl eicosapentaenoate | 68.13 ± 3.5 c | [M + H]+ | 439.28 | 2.34 | 1.75 | 1.29 | 2.09 | 5.37 | 2.87 | 0.99 |
* Values are mean ± standard deviation (SD) for triplicate replications. Mean values with different superscript letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05) as determined by Tukey–Kramer honestly significant difference (HSD). ** A, B, C and D represent α-Carboxyl, β-Carboxyl, aliphatic and terminal methyl group protons, respectively.
Figure 1HPLC chromatograms of hydroxytyrosyl eicosapentaenoate (a) before and (b) after purification and its (c) LCMS spectrum.
Antioxidant activity of conjugates by DPPH EC50, ABTS ABTS (2,2-Azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic) EC50 and β-carotene bleaching tests.
| Test Compound | DPPH EC50 (μM) | ABTS EC50 (μM) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydroxytyrosyl decanoate | 6.37 ± 0.82 a | 2.02 ± 0.41 a | 57.09 ± 3.10 b |
| Hydroxytyrosyl laurate | 6.55 ± 0.54 a | 2.12 ± 0.22 a | 59.99 ± 3.08 c |
| Hydroxytyrosyl myristate | 6.42 ± 0.26 a | 2.22 ± 0.16 a | 61.73 ± 1.60 c |
| Hydroxytyrosyl palmitate | 6.71 ± 0.42 a | 2.19 ± 0.25 a | 61.45 ± 2.79 c |
| Hydroxytyrosyl stearate | 7.04 ± 0.33 a | 2.64 ± 0.55 a | 61.15 ± 2.38 c |
| Hydroxytyrosyl oleate | 6.85 ± 0.61 a | 2.05 ± 0.12 a | 62.39 ± 2.10 c |
| Hydroxytyrosyl eicosapentaenoate | 6.65 ± 0.25 a | 2.85 ± 0.28 a | 72.21 ± 3.07 d |
| Hydroxytyrosol | 6.06 ± 0.31 a | 2.45 ± 0.15 a | 45.80 ± 2.81 a |
| BHT | 6.13 ± 0.62 a | 3.88 ± 0.38 b | 56.09 ± 3.65 b |
| 9.87 ± 1.03 b | 5.82 ± 0.65 c | 62.43 ± 1.10 c |
Values are mean ± SD for triplicate replications. Mean values with different superscript letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05) as determined by Tukey–Kramer HSD.
Figure 2Effects of conjugates, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT and α-tocopherol on the oxidation stability of anchovy oil (a) at a concentration of 1 mmol/kg oil and (b) at different concentrations. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Bars not sharing a common letter are significantly different (p < 0.05) within each treatment as determined by Tukey–Kramer HSD.
Figure 3Conjugated dienes (CD) and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) values of bulk anchovy oil (a,b) and those of the oil extracted from the oil-in-water emulsion (c,d). Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 4(a) The morphology of formed coacervates (blank anchovy oil) in the aqueous phase after agglomeration and microcapsules of (b) blank anchovy oil and oil with (c) hydroxytyrosyl palmitate and (d) hydroxytyrosyl eicosapentaenoate; (e) Oxidative stability index of blank and microencapsulated anchovy oil by accelerated oxidation test using Rancimat. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Mean values not sharing a common letter are significantly different (p < 0.05) as determined by Tukey–Kramer HSD.