4.7 Article

Recommendations for standardizing nomenclature for dietary (poly)phenol catabolites

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 112, 期 4, 页码 1051-1068

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa204

关键词

dietary (poly)phenols; microbial catabolites; phase II metabolites; nomenclature; food/diet metabolome

资金

  1. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [1011757]
  2. JPI-HDHL FoodPhyt Project [ANR-19-HDH2-0002-01, 1160]
  3. EU [818318]
  4. ISCIII [AC19/00096]
  5. CIBERFES
  6. ERDF, A way to make Europe
  7. ICREA Academia award 2018
  8. AGAUR [2017SGR1546]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a lack of focus on the protective health effects of phytochemicals in dietary guidelines. Although a number of chemical libraries and databases contain dietary phytochemicals belonging to the plant metabolome, they are not entirely relevant to human health because many constituents are extensively metabolized within the body following ingestion. This is especially apparent for the highly abundant dietary (poly)phenols, for which the situation is compounded by confusion regarding their bioavailability and metabolism, partially because of the variety of nomenclatures and trivial names used to describe compounds arising from microbial catabolism in the gastrointestinal tract. This confusion, which is perpetuated in online chemical/metabolite databases, will hinder future discovery of bioactivities and affect the establishment of future dietary guidelines if steps are not taken to overcome these issues. In order to resolve this situation, a nomenclature system for phenolic catabolites and their human phase II metabolites is proposed in this article and the basis of its format outlined. Previous names used in the literature are cited along with the recommended nomenclature, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry terminology, and, where appropriate, Chemical Abstracts Service numbers, InChIKey, and accurate mass. Am J Clin Nutr 2020;112:1051-1068.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据