↓ Skip to main content

Minimization of free radical damage by metal catalysis of multivitamin/multimineral supplements

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Minimization of free radical damage by metal catalysis of multivitamin/multimineral supplements
Published in
Nutrition Journal, November 2010
DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-9-61
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander B Rabovsky, Andrei M Komarov, Jeremy S Ivie, Garry R Buettner

Abstract

Multivitamin/multimineral complexes are the most common dietary supplements. Unlike minerals in foods that are incorporated in bioorganic structures, minerals in dietary supplements are typically in an inorganic form. These minerals can catalyze the generation of free radicals, thereby oxidizing antioxidants during digestion. Here we examine the ability of a matrix consisting of an amino acid and non-digestible oligosaccharide (AAOS) to blunt metal-catalyzed oxidations. Monitoring of ascorbate radical generated by copper shows that ascorbate is oxidized more slowly with the AAOS matrix than with copper sulfate. Measurement of the rate of oxidation of ascorbic acid and Trolox® by catalytic metals confirmed the ability of AAOS to slow these oxidations. Similar results were observed with iron-catalyzed formation of hydroxyl radicals. When compared to traditional forms of minerals used in supplements, we conclude that the oxidative loss of antioxidants in solution at physiological pH is much slower when AAOS is present.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Professor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 8 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,194,543
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#836
of 1,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,207
of 179,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#17
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 179,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.