Revisiting the Oxidation of Flavonoids: Loss, Conservation or Enhancement of Their Antioxidant Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flavonoids display a broad range of health-promoting bioactivities. Among these, their capacity to act as antioxidants has remained most prominent. The canonical reactive oxygen species (ROS)-scavenging mode of the antioxidant action of flavonoids relies on the high susceptibility of their phenolic moieties to undergo oxidation. As a consequence, upon reaction with ROS, the antioxidant capacity of flavonoids is severely compromised. Other phenol-compromising reactions, such as those involved in the biotransformation of flavonoids, can also markedly affect their antioxidant properties. In recent years, however, increasing evidence has indicated that, at least for some flavonoids, the oxidation of such residues can in fact markedly enhance their original antioxidant properties. In such apparent paradoxical cases, the antioxidant activity arises from the pro-oxidant and/or electrophilic character of some of their oxidation-derived metabolites and is exerted by activating the Nrf2-Keap1 pathway, which upregulates the cell's endogenous antioxidant capacity, and/or, by preventing the activation of the pro-oxidant and pro-inflammatory NF-κB pathway. This review focuses on the effects that the oxidative and/or non-oxidative modification of the phenolic groups of flavonoids may have on the ability of the resulting metabolites to promote direct and/or indirect antioxidant actions. Considering the case of a metabolite resulting from the oxidation of quercetin, we offer a comprehensive description of the evidence that increasingly supports the concept that, in the case of certain flavonoids, the oxidation of phenolics emerges as a mechanism that markedly amplifies their original antioxidant properties. An overlooked topic of great phytomedicine potential is thus unraveled.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".