Marine Bioactives and Their Application in the Food Industry: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structurally diverse bioactive compounds found in marine organisms represent valuable resources for the food and pharmaceutical industries. The marine ecosystem encompasses over half of the world’s biota, providing an extensive range of bioactive compounds that can be extracted from various marine life forms, including marine microorganisms (such as bacteria, cyanobacteria, and actinobacteria), algae (both macroalgae and microalgae), invertebrates (including sponges, mollusks, echinoderms, and crustaceans), and, most importantly, fish. Many of these organisms thrive in extreme marine environments, leading to the production of complex molecules with unique biological functions. Consequently, marine biomolecules, such as lipids (especially polyunsaturated fatty acids), proteins/peptides, polysaccharides, carotenoids, phenolics, and saponins, exhibit a wide range of biological properties and can serve as valuable components in nutraceuticals and functional foods. Nevertheless, most of these biomolecules are susceptible to oxidation and degradation; encapsulation-based technologies tend to preserve them and increase their bioavailability and functions. These biological compounds demonstrate diverse activities, including antioxidant, anticancer, antithrombotic, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative, antidiabetic, antimicrobial, and cardioprotective effects, making them promising candidates for applications in the food industry. Despite their numerous health benefits, marine bioactive compounds have remained underutilized, not only in the food industry but also in the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical sectors. Therefore, this review aims to provide an overview of the various sources of marine bioactive compounds and their potential contributions to the food industry.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".