ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2021
Specificity of Saliva Esterases by Wine Carboxylic Esters and Inhibition by Wine Phenolic Compounds Under Simulated Oral Conditions.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Oenological Additives on Oral Aroma Retention During Wine Tasting.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Stimulation of Saliva Affects the Release of Aroma in Wine: A Study of Microbiota, Biochemistry, and Participant Origin.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2024Article
- Salivary esterases dramatically reduce biostability of dentin collagen treated with galloylated polyphenols.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The specificity of human esterase activity (EA) from the stimulated (SS) and non-stimulated (NSS) saliva toward different typical wine odorant carboxylic esters and its inhibition by the wine phenolic compounds has been evaluated. For the specificity, six p-nitrophenyl linked esters with different carbon chain lengths (from 2 to 12 carbons) were employed. The five single phenolic compounds (catechin, quercetin, kaempferol, myricetin, and resveratrol) at typical wine concentrations were assayed in the salivary EA inhibition study. Additionally, the inhibition exerted by the mixtures of wine polyphenols was evaluated using four commercial phenolic extracts [a grape seed extract (GSE), the monomers and oligomer fraction of the GSE, and a red wine extract (RWE)]. Finally, the saliva EA under the wine consumption conditions (pH = 5 and 11.3% ethanol) was evaluated. The results showed a higher EA in SS than NSS. It was also shown that the EA was higher toward the smaller than bigger esters regardless of the saliva types (SS or NSS). However, the inhibition exerted on saliva EA by the individual and mixtures of phenolic compounds was proven. Catechin was the phenolic compound that mostly inhibited saliva EA, while resveratrol showed the lowest EA inhibition. This inhibition was mainly related to the concentration of the phenolic compounds, but also with its structure. Finally, under simulated wine consumption, a decrease in EA was produced, which was mainly provoked by the decrease in the salivary pH. Nonetheless, since salivary pH recovers a few seconds after wine consumption, saliva EA might be relevant for the long-lasting perception of wine esters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.