Soluble and bound phenolics of two different millet genera and their milled fractions: Comparative evaluation of antioxidant properties and inhibitory effects on starch hydrolysing enzyme activities
Journal of Functional Foods, ISSN: 1756-4646, Vol: 35, Page: 682-693
2017
- 64Citations
- 79Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Soluble and bound phenolic extracts of foxtail and little millet whole grains and their milled fractions (dehulled, hull, bran and pearled) were comparatively evaluated for their phenolic contents, antioxidant properties and inhibition of α-amylase and α-glucosidase activities. Although whole grain foxtail millet had higher total phenolic content than little millet, both the millets possess similar total flavonoid contents. Phenolic contents decreased from outer layers to the inner layers in the order hull > bran > pearled grains in millets. Thus, hull and bran fractions possess higher phenolic content compared to other fractions. Hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives accounted for more than 83% to the total phenolic content in soluble and bound extracts of milled fractions. Caffeic, ferulic and sinapic acids were the major phenolic acids in soluble fractions of whole grain millets, while ferulic and p -coumaric acids were present in higher levels in bound fractions. Quercetin was the most abundant flavonoid detected in all the fractions. However, a remarkably high amount of daidzein was found in bran and pearled grain fractions. Milled fractions of millets exhibited various antioxidant activities. Bound extracts of pearled grain fractions with lower phenolic content presented very high metal chelating activity than other fractions. Furthermore, soluble and bound extracts of both the millets inhibited α-amylase and α-glucosidase activities in a dose-dependent manner. These results suggest the potential utility of millets and their milled fractions as ingredients in functional foods for the management of diabetes by controlling oxidative stress and inhibiting α-glucosidase and α-amylase activities.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175646461730350X; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2017.06.033; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85021264669&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S175646461730350X; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2017.06.033
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know