Open AccessDifferent Methods of Food Preparation affect the Glycation Markers of Commonly Consumed Food Samples and Antioxidant Potential of Erythrocytes
Author(s) -
Rashmi S. Tupe,
Nilima Bangar,
Prajakta A. Deshpande,
Sanskruti A. Gavanepatil
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of dairying, foods and home sciences/journal of dairying foods and home sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 0976-0563
pISSN - 0971-4456
DOI - 10.18805/ajdfr.dr-1527
Subject(s) - glycation , chemistry , food science , fructosamine , roasting , antioxidant , oxidative stress , functional food , food industry , biochemistry , diabetes mellitus , endocrinology , biology , receptor
Background: The advanced glycation end products (AGEs) interfere with the normal functioning of the protein, alter the enzyme activity leads to the development of diabetic complications. Food is an exogenous source of AGEs. The long term processes like storing and cooking lead to an elevated level of AGEs content in them. The elevated AGEs are responsible for the generation of oxidative stress and inflammation in a cellular environment. The present study aims to determine the glycation potency of commonly consumed foods samples and evaluate the effect of various food preparation methods on glycation content and its impact on healthy erythrocytes.Methods: In this investigation from December 2017 to April 2018, Aqueous extracts of 29 food samples were tested for their glycation potency using glycation markers (fructosamine, free thiol groups, â-amyloid content, AOPP). Erythrocytes were treated with food extracts and their antioxidant indices (FRAP, catalase) were determined. Result: The result shows that protein-rich food had maximum levels of glycation as compared to carbohydrate and fat-rich food. The study indicated that cooking methods like (frying, roasting, baking and boiling) have a different effect on the glycation indices of the food. The food samples cooked by frying method had increased glycation content (p less than 0.001) and deleterious cellular effect.