| Literature DB >> 31531180 |
Xiang Li1, Si Chen2, Jing-En Li1, Ning Wang1, Xin Liu1, Qi An1, Xi-Mei Ye1, Zi-Tong Zhao1, Meng Zhao1, Yi Han1, Ke-Hui Ouyang2, Wen-Jun Wang1.
Abstract
The study was designed to investigate the chemical composition and antioxidant activities of polysaccharides from Yingshan Cloud Mist Tea. The chemical composition of green tea polysaccharides (GTPS) was analyzed by Fourier-transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy, scanning electron microscope (SEM), thermogravimetric (TGA), gas chromatograph (GC), and high-performance gel-permeation chromatography (HPGPC). Then, the antioxidant activities in vitro of GTPS, effects of GTPS on body weight, and the antioxidant activities in chickens were studied. The results showed that GTPS were composed of rhamnose (Rha), arabinose (Ara), xylose (Xyl), mannose (Man), glucose (Glu), and galactose (Gal) in a molar ratio of 11.4 : 26.1 : 1.9 : 3.0 : 30.7 : 26.8 and the average molecular weight was 9.69 × 104 Da. Furthermore, GTPS exhibited obvious capacity of scavenging DPPH radical, hydroxyl radical, and superoxide radical and enhanced the ferric-reducing power in vitro. Last, GTPS significantly increased the body weight of chickens, enhanced the T-AOC, SOD, and GSH-Px level, and decreased the content of MDA in chickens. The results indicated that GTPS might be a kind of natural antioxidant, which had the potential application in feed industry.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31531180 PMCID: PMC6721110 DOI: 10.1155/2019/1915967
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Figure 1FT-IR and TGA analysis of GTPS. (a) Spectrum of GTPS purified from green tea in the range of 4000-400 cm−1. (b) TGA results of GTPS.
Figure 2Scanning electron micrographs (SEM) of GTPS: (a) GTPS (200x), (b) GTPS (500x), (c) GTPS (2000x), and (d) GTPS (10000x).
Figure 3GC chromatograms (a) and HPGPC profile (b) of GTPS.
HPGPC results: molar weight of GTPS.
| Mp (Da) | Mn (Da) | Mv (Da) | Mw (Da) | Mz (Da) | Mw/Mn | Mz/Mw | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTPS | 6.72 × 104 | 3.63 × 104 | 8.46 × 104 | 9.69 × 104 | 2.16 × 105 | 2.67 | 2.23 |
Mp = peak average molecular weight. Mn = number-average molecular weight. Mv = viscosity average molecular weight. Mw = weight-average molecular weight. Mz = Z-average molecular weight.
Effects of GTPS on growth performance in chickens.
| Item | Groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (g) | NC | LDG | MDG | HDG |
| Body weight after prefeeding period | 187.7 ± 5.57a | 191.9 ± 4.03a | 188.1 ± 4.24a | 191.3 ± 4.40a |
| 28 d | 680.0 ± 30.00d | 728.0 ± 37.09c | 850.0 ± 28.28b | 910.0 ± 30.00a |
| 56 d | 1092.0 ± 18.37d | 1246.0 ± 64.65c | 1486.0 ± 58.99b | 1626.0 ± 97.11a |
| Average daily gain (g/d per chicken) | ||||
| 1-28 d | 17.58 ± 1.23c | 19.15 ± 2.12c | 23.64 ± 1.11b | 25.67 ± 1.79a |
| 28-56 d | 14.71 ± 2.44d | 18.50 ± 1.67c | 22.71 ± 3.12b | 25.57 ± 1.79a |
| 1-56 d | 16.14 ± 1.45d | 18.82 ± 2.48c | 23.17 ± 3.1b | 25.61 ± 2.79a |
| Average daily feed intake (g/d per chicken) | ||||
| 1-28 d | 33.45 ± 2.12d | 36.20 ± 1.56c | 45.25 ± 2.47b | 50.57 ± 3.22a |
| 28-56 d | 22.05 ± 3.71d | 27.11 ± 2.65c | 32.78 ± 2.26b | 36.41 ± 3.16a |
| 1-56 d | 27.56 ± 1.98d | 32.32 ± 2.67c | 40.32 ± 2.61b | 45.84 ± 1.34a |
| Feed conversion ratio (g/g) | ||||
| 1-28 d | 1.90 ± 0.06 | 1.89 ± 0.009 | 1.91 ± 0.01 | 1.97 ± 0.08 |
| 28-56 d | 1.49 ± 0.005 | 1.47 ± 0.06 | 1.44 ± 0.008 | 1.42 ± 0.03 |
| 1-56 d | 1.71 ± 0.008 | 1.72 ± 0.02 | 1.74 ± 0.01 | 1.78 ± 0.003 |
Within the same lines, values with different letters differed significantly (P < 0.05). The values were expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 15). NC: normal control group (basal diet). LDG: low-dose group (basal diet supplemented with 200 mg/kg GTPS). MDG: middle-dose group (basal diet supplemented with 400 mg/kg GTPS). HDG: high-dose group (basal diet supplemented with 800 mg/kg GTPS).
Figure 4In vitro antioxidant activity of GTPS and vitamin C. (a) DPPH radical scavenging activity, (b) hydroxide radical scavenging activity, (c) superoxide anion radical scavenging activity, and (d) ferric-reducing power activity.
Figure 5Effects of dietary GTPS on serum antioxidant activities of GSH-Px, SOD, T-AOC, and MAD levels. Broilers were divided into four groups: the high-dose group (HDG, 800 mg/kg), middle-dose group (MDG, 400 mg/kg), low-dose group (LDG, 200 mg/kg), and normal control group (NC, basal diet without GTPS). Values were means ± SD, n = 15. a, b, c, d (28 d) and a′, b′, c′, d′ (56 d): bars with different letters were significantly different (P < 0.05) in reference to Duncan's multiple tests.