These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Bioavailability and antioxidant activity of some food supplements in men and women using the D-Roms test as a marker of oxidative stress.
    Author: Cornelli U, Terranova R, Luca S, Cornelli M, Alberti A.
    Journal: J Nutr; 2001 Dec; 131(12):3208-11. PubMed ID: 11739867.
    Abstract:
    Most antioxidants show contradictory behaviors because in the biological environment, for unpredictable reasons, they can become prooxidants. Recently, a new simple method to monitor oxidative stress in serum was developed. This test detects the derivatives of reactive oxygen metabolites (D-Roms). Hydroperoxides are converted into radicals that oxidize N,N-diethyl-para-phenylendiamine and that can be detected through spectrophotometric procedures as U.CARR. (Carratelli units). One U.CARR. corresponds to 0.8 mg/L hydrogen peroxide. In normal subjects U.CARR. values range from 250 to 300. Values outside this range indicate a modification of the prooxidant/antioxidant ratio. On the basis of this method, we tested three different formulas of antioxidants (F1, F2, F3) in 14 apparently healthy volunteers (11 men and 3 women). Formula 1 was composed of 5 mg zinc, 48 microg selenium, 400 microg vitamin A (as retinol acetate), 50 microg beta-carotene, 15 mg vitamin E (as dl-alpha-tocopheryl acetate) and 10 mg L-cysteine. Formula 2 was composed of 30 mg bioflavonoids from citrus, 30 mg vitamin C (as L-ascorbic acid), 10 mg coenzyme Q(10) and 1 mg vitamin B-6 (as pyridoxine hydrochloride). Formula 3 was composed of Formula 1 plus Formula 2. Each formula was prepared in dry capsules (formulation D1, D2, D3) or in a fluid form (formulation P1, P2, P3). Each formulation was administered for 1 wk in a crossover design. A 15% deviation of U.CARR. levels was chosen as the cut-off value for a significant change in oxidative stress. Formulas F1 and F3 reduced mean U.CARR. levels in most of the treated subjects (t test, P < 0.05), whereas F2 was not active. Fluid formulations were more active than dry formulations (chi(2) test, P < 0.05). In some cases, a slight increase in oxidative stress was detected. These minimal increases were not related to any particular antioxidant formula. In one subject only, the administration of the dry formulation (D1), increased oxidative stress to a level that reached the cut-off value. In conclusion, when antioxidants are taken in combination at low dosages they reduce oxidative stress, and little relevant prooxidant activity is detectable.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]