Crocetin, Dimethylcrocetin, and Safranal Bind Human Serum Albumin: Stability and Antioxidative Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crocetin (CRT) and dimethylcrocetin (DMCRT) are derived from crocins which are found in the stigmas of saffron (Crocus sativus L.), while safranal is the main component of saffron's essential oil. The aim of the present study was to examine their interaction with human serum albumin in aqueous solution at physiological conditions using constant protein concentration and various ligand contents. FT-IR and UV-visible spectroscopic methods were used to determine the ligands' binding mode, the binding constant, and the effects of ligand complexation on protein secondary structure. Structural analysis showed that crocetin, dimethylcrocetin, and safranal bind nonspecifically (H-bonding) via protein polar groups with binding constants of Kcrt =2.05 (+/-0.30) x 103 M-1, Kdmcrt = 9.60 (+/-0.35) x 104 M-1, and Ksaf = 2.11 (+/-0.35) x 103 M-1. The protein secondary structure showed no major alterations at low ligand concentrations (1 microM), whereas at higher content (1 mM), decrease of alpha-helix from 55% (free HSA) to 43-45% and increase of beta-sheet from 17% (free HSA) to 18-22% and random coil 7% (free HSA) to 10-14% occurred in the ligand-HSA complexes. The results point to a partial unfolding of protein secondary structure at high ligand content. The antioxidant activity of CRT, DMCRT, and safranal was also tested by the DPPH* antioxidant activity assay, and their IC50 values were compared to that of well-known antioxidants such as Trolox and butylated hydroxy toluene (BHT). The IC50 values of CRT and safranal were 17.8 +/- 1 microg/mL and 95 +/- 1 microg/mL, respectively, while the inhibition of DMCRT reached a point of 38.8%, which corresponds to a concentration of 40 microg/mL, and then started to decrease. The IC50 values of Trolox and BHT were 5.2 +/- 1 microg/mL and 5.3 +/- 1 microg/mL, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".