Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Review

Cassia auriculata L.–A mini review of phytochemical compounds and their antidiabetic mechanisms

  • Received: 31 December 2023 Revised: 21 February 2024 Accepted: 27 February 2024 Published: 20 March 2024
  • Cassia auriculata is an important medicinal herb traditionally used for the treatment and management of diabetes. Scientific research has reported some bioactivities related to traditional roles that include antihyperglycemic and antihyperlipidemic, which could inhibit onset of diabetes. Our aim was twofold: To review the presence of phytochemical compounds in plant extracts and to perform an in-papyro evaluation of their antidiabetic potential. A detailed literature survey was carried out for evaluating metabolic syndrome-related medicinal bioactivities and antidiabetic activity from specific compounds of C. auriculata. We uncovered a wide range of medicinal uses of C. auriculata in Ayurveda and Sri Lankan medicinal traditions and cultures. Many of the compounds in C. auriculata extracts have already been reported for their specific antidiabetic, hypoglycemic, and hypolipidemic activities, which exhibited positive effects on neuro, renal, and liver support. In conclusion, our findings suggested that the phytocomposition of C. auriculata could be attributed to the presence of antidiabetic activity through various mechanisms.

    Citation: Zipora Tietel, Devanesan Arul Ananth, Thilagar Sivasudha, Liron Klipcan. Cassia auriculata L.–A mini review of phytochemical compounds and their antidiabetic mechanisms[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(1): 374-392. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024022

    Related Papers:

    [1] Marte K.R. Kjøllesdal, Gerd Holmboe-Ottesen . Dietary Patterns and Birth Weight—a Review. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(4): 211-225. doi: 10.3934/Publichealth.2014.4.211
    [2] Wenpeng You, Maciej Henneberg . Cereal Crops Are not Created Equal: Wheat Consumption Associated with Obesity Prevalence Globally and Regionally. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(2): 313-328. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.2.313
    [3] Carol E. O'Neil, Theresa A. Nicklas, Victor L. Fulgoni III . Nutrient Intake, Diet Quality, and Weight Measures in Breakfast Patterns Consumed by Children Compared with Breakfast Skippers: NHANES 2001-2008. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 441-468. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.441
    [4] Louise BB Andersen, Christian Mølgaard, Katrine T Ejlerskov, Ellen Trolle, Kim F Michaelsen, Rasmus Bro, Christian B Pipper . Development of Dietary Patterns Spanning Infancy and Toddlerhood: Relation to Body Size, Composition and Metabolic Risk Markers at Three Years. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 332-357. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.332
    [5] Cynthia M. LeRouge, Donghua Tao, Jennifer Ohs, Helen W. Lach, Keri Jupka, Ricardo Wray . Challenges and Opportunities with Empowering Baby Boomers for Personal Health Information Management Using Consumer Health Information Technologies: an Ecological Perspective. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(3): 160-181. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2014.3.160
    [6] Bee Leng Per, Anne W Taylor, Tiffany K Gill . Prescription medicines, over-the-counter medicines and complementary and alternative medicines use: a comparison between baby boomers and older South Australians. AIMS Public Health, 2019, 6(4): 380-395. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.4.380
    [7] Vasiliki Panagopoulou, Athina Kalokairinou, Foteini Tzavella, Styliani Tziaferi . A survey of Greek women’s satisfaction of postnatal care. AIMS Public Health, 2018, 5(2): 158-172. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2018.2.158
    [8] Carmen Giurgescu, Lara Fahmy, Jaime Slaughter-Acey, Alexandra Nowak, Cleopatra Caldwell, Dawn P Misra . Can support from the father of the baby buffer the adverse effects of depressive symptoms on risk of preterm birth in Black families?. AIMS Public Health, 2018, 5(1): 89-98. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2018.1.89
    [9] Celine M Murrin, Mirjam M Heinen, Cecily C Kelleher . Are Dietary Patterns of Mothers during Pregnancy Related to Childrens Weight Status? Evidence from the Lifeways Cross-Generational Cohort Study. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 274-296. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.274
    [10] Dorota Zarnowiecki, Meaghan S Christian, James Dollman, Natalie Parletta, Charlotte E.L Evans, Janet E Cade . Comparison of school day eating behaviours of 8–11 year old children from Adelaide, South Australia, and London, England
    . AIMS Public Health, 2018, 5(4): 394-410. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2018.4.394
  • Cassia auriculata is an important medicinal herb traditionally used for the treatment and management of diabetes. Scientific research has reported some bioactivities related to traditional roles that include antihyperglycemic and antihyperlipidemic, which could inhibit onset of diabetes. Our aim was twofold: To review the presence of phytochemical compounds in plant extracts and to perform an in-papyro evaluation of their antidiabetic potential. A detailed literature survey was carried out for evaluating metabolic syndrome-related medicinal bioactivities and antidiabetic activity from specific compounds of C. auriculata. We uncovered a wide range of medicinal uses of C. auriculata in Ayurveda and Sri Lankan medicinal traditions and cultures. Many of the compounds in C. auriculata extracts have already been reported for their specific antidiabetic, hypoglycemic, and hypolipidemic activities, which exhibited positive effects on neuro, renal, and liver support. In conclusion, our findings suggested that the phytocomposition of C. auriculata could be attributed to the presence of antidiabetic activity through various mechanisms.



    Understanding the dietary intakes of infants and toddlers is important because early life nutrition influences future health outcomes [1]. Although authoritative recommendations exist regarding the feeding of breast milk, infant formula, and cow's milk [2][4], the guidelines for feeding solid foods to children are to introduce solid foods between 4 to 6 months of age (mos) [5], depending on physiologic and developmental maturation [5],[6]. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (known as the Farm Bill) directed the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) to expand their mandate by including development of recommendations for infants from birth to 24 mos beginning with the 2020 DGA (the B-24 Project) [7],[8]. Data collected through the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) have many potential uses in this regard. The new mandate also called for identification of key research questions and data gaps as the government moves forward with the 2020 DGA [9]. Thus, for the first time, recommendations for helping to provide dietary guidance such that the path to healthy eating starts as early in life as possible.

    Dietary intake in infants and toddlers is understudied. Existing data suggest that, for infants and toddlers, the micronutrients that are most likely to be low or deficient (depending on the developmental age and the time and amount of introducing complementary foods and table foods) are dietary fiber, iron; calcium; zinc; magnesium; potassium; vitamins B6, D, E, and A, along with high intakes of sodium, added sugars, and saturated fatty acids (SFA) [10][13].

    In the past, obtaining adequate iron intake in infants has been a focus area and because of this focus the prevalence of iron deficiency among infants and children has decreased in the US over the past 20–30 years. However, national data still indicate nearly one in five (18%) infants 6–12 mos falls short of the recommendations for dietary iron [14]. Therefore, iron deficiency remains a public health concern for infants, particularly because iron is a critical nutrient for neurodevelopment [15],[16]. Thus, preventing iron insufficiency remains an important priority of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) [5] recommendations to prevent and treat iron deficiency for both breastfed and formula-fed infants.

    The AAP recommends exclusive breast-feeding for approximately 6 mos after birth for healthy term infants. Thus, it is necessary to address the impact of breast milk in the diets of infants and toddlers for exclusively breast-fed infants given that it is the only source of nutrients. In addition, the influence of micronutrient deficiency on the development of infants who are exclusively breast fed must be addressed. While the AAP supports exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 mos, it recognizes that infants may be developmentally ready to initiate complementary feeding at 4 to 6 mos [5]. Introduction of solid food prior to 4 mos of age has been consistently identified as contributing to later overweight [17],[18]. If the mother cannot breast-feed, the AAP acknowledges that iron-fortified formula is an appropriate substitute for human milk. Whole cow's milk should not be introduced during the first year of life [5], because it has been linked to iron deficiency in infants and toddlers [19]. However, 20% of infants received cow's milk daily before the age of one year [20]. The recommended introduction of complementary foods (other than breast milk and infant formula) should gradually begin between 4–6 mos. However, close to 40% of infants received complementary foods at 4 mos of age [21]. After 6 mos developmentally appropriate “table foods” should be gradually introduced into the diets of toddlers. The AAP provides two practical recommendations for initiating complementary foods: (1) to introduce one “single-ingredient” food at a time, and (2) to choose foods in no particular sequence, that provide key nutrients that help meet energy needs. The AAP recommends iron-fortified infant cereal and pureed meats as good first foods because they contain protein, iron, and zinc. Iron-fortified infant rice cereal is a good choice as an infant's first complementary food for several reasons: contains important nutrients; the texture can be altered to meet an infants' developmental needs; is easily digested; and, is least likely to cause an allergic reaction [6]. By the end of the first year, a variety of foods [22] such as fruits, vegetables, and mixed dishes can be added to the diet [5].

    Complementary foods consumed early in life should include a source of iron, specifically fortified infant cereal or iron-rich meat. By 4 to 6 mos, 65% of infants consumed infant cereal and small percentages consumed other types of grain products [23]. Infant cereal continued to be the predominant grain-based food in infants' diets through 9 to 11 mos. After 9 to 11 mos, the percentage of infants consuming infant cereals begins to decline and there was a marked increase in the percentage consuming other grain products and grain-based mixed dishes. Non-infant cereals were among the grain products most commonly consumed by toddlers over 12 mos [20].

    Fortified rice cereal is the most commonly food introduced in the diets of infants [24]. Understanding what foods are gradually introduced in the diets after fortified rice cereal are initially introduced, will provide valuable information on complementary feeding that is based on evidence rather than based on traditions for determining best practices. In addition, understanding the nutrient profiles of food-specific patterns would be timely to inform the development of the 2020 DGA for infants and toddlers. Thus, introducing a wide variety of developmentally appropriate nutrient-rich foods takes advantage of the opportunity to instill positive initial dietary practices [24].

    The objective of this study was to examine food patterns among infants and toddlers (birth to 23 mos) consuming rice baby cereal and non-rice baby cereal versus non-consumers for nutrient intake, nutrient adequacy, and food group consumption using data from NHANES 2001–2014. The results of this study have the potential to strengthen the importance of baby cereals and the introduction of complementary foods in the diet of the understudied group of infants and toddlers. The results will also add to the body of evidence considered in the development of national guidelines and healthcare professional recommendations for this population.

    Data from the NHANES were used to assess dietary intakes of infants and toddlers aged birth to 23 mos. The NHANES is a cross-sectional survey which uses a complex, multistage, probability sampling procedure to provide nationally representative estimates on the nutritional status of the non-institutionalized US civilian population. Full details of the sampling framework and analytical considerations can be found elsewhere [25],[26]. A proxy provided written informed consent for the infants and toddlers. The NHANES protocols were approved by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) ethics review board [27]. This study did not require further institutional review as this was the analysis of secondary data without personal identifiers. To obtain an adequate sample size to produce reliable estimates within this age group, data from seven cycles (2001–2014) were combined [28],[29]. Dietary data (24-h recalls provided by parent or caregiver) from infants and toddlers less than 24 mos (n = 5,587) were used after exclusions for data judged by NCHS Staff to be unreliable (n = 544),

    Most demographic information was collected via interviews using cycle appropriate questionnaires [27],[30]. Poverty Income Ratio was classified into three categories: < 1.35, 1.35 ≤ 1.85 and > 1.85. Weight, and recumbent length were obtained using the NHANES Anthropometry Procedures Manual [31]. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as body weight (kilograms) divided by height (meters) squared. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth chart programs were used to determine BMI-for-age percentiles/z-scores; infants and toddlers with a BMI ≥ the 85th but < 95th, and ≥ the 95th percentiles were considered overweight or obese, respectively [32]. The parent/caregiver self-reported the study child's race or ethnic group according to pre-defined categories used in the NHANES.

    An in-person 24-h dietary recall was administered by trained interviewers using an Automated Multiple-Pass Method [33] with the parent/caregiver providing intakes for the infant or toddler. A second recall was collected via a telephone interview 3–10 days after the in-person interview. Food intake was assessed using USDA food codes/categories corresponding to What We Eat in America (WWEIA), the dietary component of NHANES [34]. Energy and nutrient intake from foods were determined using respective Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) for each NHANES cycle [35] available from total nutrient intake files. Use of supplements was not included in the analyses.

    Three baby cereal consumption groups were examined: baby cereal non-consumers (n = 3,910) non-rice baby cereal consumers (n = 711) and rice baby cereal consumers (n = 966). Infants and toddlers who consumed both non-rice baby cereal and rice baby cereal were place in the rice baby cereal group (n = 9, 48, 61, and 10 for those 0–3, 4–6, 7–11, and 12–23 mos, respectively. Some younger subjects were exclusively breastfeed but the number of subjects exclusively breastfed dropped precipitously with age (n = 242, 47, 6, and 0 for those 0–3, 4–6, 7–11, and 12–23 mos, respectively); these subjects were placed in the baby cereal non-consumer group. Baby cereals were defined as foods in the FNDDS [35] subetaoup 578 (cereals baby food) and in the WWEIA [34] category 2002 (baby food cereals). Baby foods was a separate food category. Rice cereals were baby cereal foods that contained rice in the food description. Non-rice baby cereals were baby cereal foods that did not contain rice in the food description (e.g. mixed cereal, oatmeal). Baby cereal non-consumers did not consume any type of baby cereals. There were three consumers (ages 3, 8, 23 mos) that ate “cereal, nestum” food code 56210000. Food code 56210000 is in WWEIA category 9002 but is not in FNDDS subetaoup 578. This code is in FNDDS category 562 which is defined as “cooked cereals, rice.” Therefore age groups that included 3, 8, or 23 mos could show consumption of WWEIA category 9002 for subjects that were non-consumers of “baby cereals” as defined in this study. Food specific patterns were examined using both the WWEIA food subetaoups and categories and the Food Patterns Equivalent Databases (FPED) main food groups [36]. The food categories used were approximately 150 WWEIA food categories along with approximately 48 subetaoups and 15 main categories (excluding other and alcoholic beverages food categories). In addition, the FPED eight main food groups were assessed.

    The primary focus was to determine the food-specific patterns by four age groups (i.e. 0–3 mos, 4–6mos, 7–11 mos, and 12–23 mos) for infants and toddlers consuming rice baby cereal or non-rice baby cereal versus non-consumers. Specifically, whether infants/toddlers who consumed rice baby cereal or other type of baby cereal: (1) had different food-specific patterns than non-consumers, (2) obtained more of the nutrients that are most likely to be low or deficient; and (3) consumed less added sugars, SFA, and sodium, was examined.

    Food-specific patterns were defined as mean gram amounts consumed for each food group by age within the three baby cereal consumption groups. A secondary analysis focused on the impact of the food-specific patterns on nutrients (micronutrients that were most likely to be low or deficient) and nutrient adequacy (only for those ages with an Estimated Average Requirement [EAR]) [37].

    Sample-weighted data were used in all statistical analyses [38], and all analyses were performed using SUDAAN Release 11.0 (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC) and/or SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) to adjust the variance for the clustered sample design. The sample-weighted percentage of the population (and standard error of the percentage) who consumed baby cereals and those who did not consume baby cereals were calculated. Least-square means ± SEs were determined for nutrient intake and food group consumption by using regression analyses procedures of SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC). Covariates included age, gender, race/ethnicity, poverty income ratio, and energy intake for nutrient-related variables and food groups. P-value for statistical significance was set at p < 0.01.

    Usual Intake (UI) of nutrients was determined using the preferred National Cancer Institute method [39]. The NCI macros (Mixtran and Distrib) were used to generate parameter effects after covariate adjustments and to estimate the distribution of UI. The one part NCI model was used since these substances are consumed on most days by most subjects. Covariates for these analyses were the day of the week of the 24-hr recall [coded as weekend (Friday-Sunday) or weekday (Monday-Thursday)] and sequence of dietary recall (first or second); variance estimates were obtained using the two days of intake with one-day sampling weights. Nutrient adequacy was determined as percentage below the EAR using the cut-point method [37],[40]; specifically the EAR [41] for 12–36 mos of age for iron (3.0 mg/d ); calcium (500 mg/d); zinc (2.5 mg/d); vitamins B6 (0.4 mg/d), D (10 mcg/d), E (5 mg/d), and A (210 mcg/d), were examined because they are the micronutrients that are most likely to be low or deficient in infants and toddlers [23]. The EAR for all other nutrients was used when appropriate [41].

    Sample demographics of infants and toddlers 0–23 mos of age are presented in Table 1. Very few differences were shown in the demographic variables between the non-rice baby cereal consumers and the two rice baby cereal consumers. Compared to baby cereal consumers (regardless of type), baby cereal non-consumers were older, had higher mean recumbent length (cm), higher percentage of Mexican Americans, and lower percentage of formula fed infants and toddlers. Demographics for all four age groups and the three baby cereal consumption groups (i.e. baby cereal non-consumers, non-rice baby cereal consumers, and rice baby cereal consumers) are presented in Supplemental Tables 14. The most notable findings between baby cereal non-consumers and baby cereal consumers (regardless of type) were in the infant feeding practices. A higher percentage of baby cereal non-consumers were exclusively breast fed (ages 0–3 mos and 4–6 mos) and a lower percentage were formula fed (for all four age groups) compared to baby cereal consumers (regardless of type).

    Mean nutrient intake by age group and baby cereal consumption groups were presented in Tables 25. A majority of the significant differences were shown between baby cereal non-consumers and baby cereal consumers (regardless of type) across all four age groups. At 0–3 mos (Table 2), baby cereal consumers had higher mean intakes of total energy, total carbohydrate, iron, calcium, and zinc and higher mean intakes of total fat and vitamin A compared to baby cereal non-consumers. At 4–6 mos (Table 3), baby cereal consumers had significantly higher mean intakes of total energy, total carbohydrate, whole grain, vitamin B6, calcium, iron, and magnesium; as well as higher mean intakes of total fat (specifically polyunsaturated fatty acids [PUFA] and SFA) and total sugars compared to baby cereal non-consumers. At 7–11 mos (Table 4), baby cereal consumers had significantly lower mean intakes of total fat, SFA, monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and total cholesterol; as well as higher mean intakes of total carbohydrate, added sugars, vitamin E, calcium, iron, zinc, and magnesium compared to baby cereal non-consumers. At 12–23 mos (Table 5), baby cereal consumers had significantly higher intakes of vitamin E, iron, and zinc compared to baby cereal non-consumers.

    Table 1.  Demographics of sample of infants and toddlers 0–23 months of age participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2001–2012.
    Total population (N= 5,587)* Baby Cereal Consumption Groups
    Baby cereal non-consumers (n = 3,910)* Non-rice baby cereal consumers (n = 711)* Rice baby cereal consumers (n = 966)*
    Variables Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
    Age Months (mean) 11.36 0.11 12.63a,c 0.15 9.31b,e 0.27 6.68d,f 0.14
    Males (%) 51.13 0.87 51.16 1.12 52.08 2.69 50.24 2.23
    Race/Ethnicity (%)
    Mexican American 17.15 1.22 18.46a,c 1.31 13.15b 1.73 13.80d 1.45
    Other Hispanic 7.42 0.65 7.45 0.73 8.74 1.26 6.27 0.9
    Non-Hispanic White 54.73 1.85 54.43 1.94 56.1 2.86 55.14 2.68
    Non-Hispanic Black 13.11 0.91 11.96c 0.88 14.57 1.49 17.73d 1.77
    Other 7.58 0.54 7.71 0.64 7.43 1.13 7.06 1.01
    Poverty Income Ratio (%)
    <1.35 39.98 1.15 41.03 1.34 34.39 2.57 39.21 1.98
    1.35 ≤ 1.85 10.14 0.63 10.59 0.83 9.13 1.67 8.69 1.04
    >1.85 49.87 1.28 48.38a 1.47 56.48b 2.66 52.09 2.23
    Recumbent Length (cm ) 73.78 0.17 75.14a,c 0.21 72.09b,e 0.37 68.36d,f 0.22
    Weight for Length Percentile 57.83 0.62 57.15 0.74 59.15 1.4 60.17 1.17
    Weight for Length z-score 0.26 0.02 0.23 0.02 0.3 0.05 0.33 0.04
    Weight Status (%)
    Overweight 13 0.69 12.4 0.83 15.08 2.02 14.35 1.58
    Overweight or Obese 21.69 0.82 20.92 1.01 24.04 2.16 23.69 1.91
    Obese 8.69 0.5 8.51 0.54 8.96 1.32 9.33 1.27
    Infant Feeding Practice (%)
    Breast fed, no formula 14.72 0.85 15.46 0.98 12.21 1.64 13.05 1.34
    Formula, not breast fed 33.84 0.89 22.36a,c 0.96 59.71b,e 2.6 70.64d,f 1.92
    Formula and breast fed 5.55 0.38 4.46c 0.36 6.13 1.05 10.52d 1.37
    WIC Participant (%) 48.8 1.35 48.48 1.49 46.62 2.89 52.14 2.26
    WIC Eligible (%) 58.85 1.31 59.61 1.48 54.11 2.75 58.79 2.24

    Abbreviations: SE: Standard error, WIC: Women, Infants and Children. *Sample sizes for the various variables were slightly smaller due to missing data. a,b Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and non-rice cereal consumers. c,d Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and baby rice cereal consumers. e,f Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between non-rice cereal consumers and baby rice cereal consumers.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Nutrient intake for infants 0–3 months participating in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2001–2012 by baby cereal consumption groups.
    Total Population (N=1,065)* Baby Cereal Consumption Groups
    Baby cereal non-consumers (n=859)* Non-rice baby cereal consumers (n=51)* Rice baby cereal consumers (n=155)*
    Macronutrients LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE
    Total energy (Kcal) 387 13.9 348a,c 16.2 529b 32.0 567d 31.5
    Total fat (gm) 20.1 0.1 20.5a,c 0.1 18.5b 0.5 17.7d 0.2
     SFA (gm) 8.2 0.1 8.4c 0.1 7.4 0.6 7.0d 0.2
     MUFA (gm) 6.9 0.1 7.0c 0.1 6.4 0.5 6.3d 0.2
     PUFA (gm) 4.2 0.0 4.3c 0.0 4.1 0.1 3.8d 0.1
    Cholesterol (mg) 8.3 0.3 8.8 0.4 5.4 1.4 6.1 1.1
    Total carbohydrate (gm) 43.3 0.1 42.3a,c 0.1 47.2b 1.2 48.1d 0.5
     Refined grains (oz eq) 0.1 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.0e 0.0 0.5d,f 0.0
     Whole grains (oz eq) 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0 0.3b,e 0.1 0.0f 0.0
     Dietary fiber (gm) 0.1 0.0 0.1a 0.0 1.1b,e 0.2 0.3f 0.1
     Total sugars (gm) 39.4 0.2 40.5c 0.2 37.9e 1.1 33.8d,f 0.7
     Added sugars (tsp eq) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
    Micronutrients
    Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.3 0.0 0.2c 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3d 0.0
    Vitamin D (D2+D3) (mcg) 5.6 0.1 5.6 0.1 4.7 0.6 5.5 0.2
    Vitamin E as alpha-tocopherol (mg) 4.8 0.1 4.8 0.1 4.6 0.3 4.9 0.2
    Vitamin A, RAE (mcg) 339.6 3.6 349.3a,c 4.3 277.9b 16.9 301.8d 7.8
    Calcium (mg) 345.5 2.8 332.8c 2.6 366.3 17.9 409.6d 10.3
    Iron (mg) 8.0 0.1 6.9a,c 0.1 11.3b 1.0 13.3d 0.5
    Zinc (mg) 3.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.5 0.2 3.4 0.1
    Magnesium (mg) 38.1 0.5 34.1a,c 0.4 41.7b,e 2.9 59.1d,f 2.2
    Potassium (mg) 427.8 2.4 426.5 2.9 438.4 9.3 432.7 7.8

    Abbreviations: LSM: Least square mean, SE: Standard error, SFA: Saturated fatty acids, MUFA: Monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA: Polyunsaturated fatty acids, oz eq: ounce equivalent, tsp eq: teaspoon equivalent. *Sample sizes for the various variables were slightly smaller due to missing data. a,b Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and non-rice cereal consumers. c,d Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and baby rice cereal consumers. e,f Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between non-rice cereal consumers and baby rice cereal consumers.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Nutrient intake for 4–6 months of age by baby cereal consumption groups.
    Total Population (N = 807)* Baby Cereal Consumption Groups
    Baby cereal non-consumers (n = 323)* Non-rice baby cereal consumers (n = 167)* Rice baby cereal consumers (n = 317)*
    Macronutrients LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE
    Total energy (Kcal) 569 16.1 455a,c 25.7 588b 36.0 666d 23.3
    Total fat (gm) 24.3 0.2 26.3a,c 0.3 22.9b 0.6 23.2d 0.4
     SFA (gm) 9.9 0.1 11.1a,c 0.2 8.9b 0.3 9.3d 0.2
     MUFA (gm) 8.4 0.1 8.9c 0.2 8.2 0.3 8.0d 0.2
     PUFA (gm) 5.1 0.1 5.5a,c 0.1 4.9b 0.1 5.0d 0.1
    Cholesterol (mg) 13.9 1.0 17.8c 1.7 14.1 3.1 10.0d 1.1
    Total carbohydrate (gm) 73.0 0.6 68.5a,c 0.7 76.1b 1.4 75.6d 0.9
     Refined grains (oz eq) 0.4 0.0 0.1c 0.0 0.2e 0.0 0.7d,f 0.0
     Whole grains (oz eq) 0.2 0.0 0.0a,c 0.0 0.6b,e 0.1 0.1d,f 0.0
     Dietary fiber (gm) 2.3 0.1 1.8a 0.2 3.8b,e 0.3 2.1f 0.1
     Total sugars (gm) 54.2 0.5 57.0a,c 0.9 52.7 b 1.0 52.3d 0.7
     Added sugars (tsp eq) 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1
    Micronutrients
    Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.4 0.0 0.4a,c 0.0 0.5b 0.0 0.5d 0.0
    Vitamin D (D2+D3) (mcg) 6.8 0.1 7.0 0.1 6.7 0.3 6.8 0.2
    Vitamin E as alpha-tocopherol (mg) 6.6 0.1 6.6 0.2 6.9 0.4 6.4 0.1
    Vitamin A, RAE (mcg) 508.9 10.3 526.2 14.9 500.7 24.0 497.1 14.6
    Calcium (mg) 496.8 7.7 436.5a,c 7.5 527.7b 20.7 536.4d 10.7
    Iron (mg) 14.1 0.3 9.4a,c 0.3 17.2b 0.6 16.9d 0.5
    Zinc (mg) 4.8 0.1 4.5a 0.1 5.3b,e 0.2 4.7f 0.1
    Magnesium (mg) 70.5 1.1 57.5a,c 1.0 76.4b 2.0 79.5d 1.9
    Potassium (mg) 723.2 6.4 705.8a 11.0 756.0b 14.7 721.0 12.0

    Abbreviations: LSM: Least square mean, SE: Standard error, SFA: Saturated fatty acids, MUFA: Monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA: Polyunsaturated fatty acids, oz eq: ounce equivalent, tsp eq: teaspoon equivalent. *Sample sizes for the various variables were slightly smaller due to missing data. a,b Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and non-rice cereal consumers. c,d Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and baby rice cereal consumers. e,f Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between non-rice cereal consumers and baby rice cereal consumers.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  Nutrient intake for 7–11 months of age by baby cereal consumption groups.
    Total Population (N = 1,342)* Baby Cereal Consumption Groups
    Baby cereal non-consumers (n = 633)* Non-rice baby cereal consumers (n = 338)* Rice baby cereal consumers (n = 371)*
    Macronutrients LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE
    Total energy (Kcal) 843 11.9 831 20.5 857 21.9 847 19.6
    Total fat (gm) 32.7 0.3 34.3a,c 0.4 31.5b 0.3 31.5d 0.5
     SFA (gm) 13.0 0.2 14.0a,c 0.3 12.3b 0.3 12.3d 0.2
     MUFA (gm) 11.0 0.1 11.6a,c 0.2 10.6b 0.2 10.7d 0.2
     PUFA (gm) 6.5 0.1 6.5 0.1 6.5 0.1 6.6 0.1
    Cholesterol (mg) 62.6 2.6 84.8a,c 5.2 46.4b 4.6 46.0d 2.7
    Total carbohydrate (gm) 114.7 0.7 108.8a,c 1.1 119.0b 0.9 119.0d 1.2
     Refined grains (oz eq) 1.2 0.0 1.2a 0.1 0.9b,e 0.1 1.4f 0.1
     Whole grains (oz eq) 0.4 0.0 0.2a 0.0 0.8b,e 0.0 0.3f 0.0
    Dietary fiber (gm) 5.8 0.1 5.3a 0.2 6.9b,e 0.2 5.3f 0.2
    Total sugars (gm) 72.7 0.6 71.3 1.0 75.0 1.1 72.5 1.0
     Added sugars (tsp eq) 1.7 0.1 2.3a,c 0.1 1.1b 0.1 1.2d 0.1
    Micronutrients
    Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0
    Vitamin D (D2+D3) (mcg) 7.5 0.1 7.1c 0.2 7.8 0.2 7.9d 0.2
    Vitamin E as alpha-tocopherol (mg) 6.8 0.1 5.9a,c 0.2 7.5b 0.2 7.4d 0.2
    Vitamin A, RAE (mcg) 615.0 9.9 588.7 14.5 643.5 20.1 625.2 20.7
    Calcium (mg) 673.9 8.5 630.0a,c 11.8 694.3b 13.3 717.8d 14.9
    Iron (mg) 15.6 0.3 9.6a,c 0.2 20.1b 0.6 20.1d 0.6
    Zinc (mg) 6.2 0.1 5.6a,c 0.1 7.0b,e 0.2 6.2d,f 0.1
    Magnesium (mg) 114.0 1.0 104.2a,c 1.4 117.2b 1.9 125.1d 2.5
    Potassium (mg) 1,209.4 9.3 1,208.0 17.3 1,233.1 19.6 1,188.1 13.6

    Abbreviations: LSM: Least square mean, SE: Standard error, SFA: Saturated fatty acids, MUFA: Monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA: Polyunsaturated fatty acids, oz eq: ounce equivalent, tsp eq: teaspoon equivalent. *Sample sizes for the various variables were slightly smaller due to missing data. a,b Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p <0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and non-rice cereal consumers. c,d Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p <0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and baby rice cereal consumers. e,f Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p <0.01) between non-rice cereal consumers and baby rice cereal consumers.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 5.  Nutrient intake for 12–23 months of age by baby cereal consumption groups.
    Total Population (N = 2,010)* Baby Cereal Consumption Groups
    Baby cereal non-consumers (n = 1,846)* Non-rice baby cereal consumers (n = 104)* Rice baby cereal consumers (n = 60)*
    Macronutrients LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE
    Total energy (Kcal) 1,257 16.3 1,261 17.2 1,209 47.9 1,187 81.9
    Total fat (gm) 47.0 0.3 47.4a 0.3 41.1b,e 0.9 45.9f 1.5
     SFA (gm) 19.2 0.2 19.3a 0.2 16.7b,e 0.5 20.3f 0.8
     MUFA (gm) 15.5 0.1 15.7a 0.1 13.3b 0.4 14.3 0.6
     PUFA (gm) 7.9 0.1 8.0 0.1 7.1 0.3 7.3 0.5
    Cholesterol (mg) 167.3 3.8 170.2a 4.1 124.5b 7.9 138.8 16.8
    Total carbohydrate (gm) 165.1 0.9 164.1a 0.9 182.6b 2.6 171.0 3.7
     Refined grains (oz eq) 2.7 0.1 2.8 0.1 2.5 0.2 2.3 0.2
     Whole grains (oz eq) 0.5 0.0 0.5a 0.0 1.1b,e 0.1 0.5f 0.1
    Dietary fiber (gm) 8.6 0.1 8.5a,c 0.1 10.8b,e 0.51 7.1d,f 0.4
    Total sugars (gm) 94.7 0.8 94.1c 0.8 99.8 3.5 107.2d 3.1
     Added sugars (tsp eq) 7.0 0.2 7.1 0.2 6.44 0.8 6.3 0.7
    Micronutrients
    Vitamin B6 (mg) 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.1 1.2 0.1
    Vitamin D (D2+D3) (mcg) 8.2 0.1 8.2c 0.1 8.1e 0.4 11.1d,f 0.5
    Vitamin E as alpha-tocopherol (mg) 3.8 0.1 3.7a,c 0.1 5.0b 0.3 5.7d 0.6
    Vitamin A, RAE (mcg) 545.9 9.9 544.1 10.3 546.5 42.4 629.1 43.8
    Calcium (mg) 1012.1 10.8 1007.6c 11.4 1005.7e 31.9 1236.8d,f 50.8
    Iron (mg) 9.4 0.1 8.7a,c 0.1 18.9b 1.2 17.3d 1.5
    Zinc (mg) 7.2 0.1 7.1a,c 0.1 8.1b 0.4 8.3d 0.5
    Magnesium (mg) 174.4 1.1 173.1a 1.2 190.7b 6.1 191.2 7.8
    Potassium (mg) 1916.4 12.5 1914.0 12.8 1934.6 58.9 1981.1 56.2

    Abbreviations: LSM: Least square mean, SE: Standard error, SFA: Saturated fatty acids, MUFA: Monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA: Polyunsaturated fatty acids, oz eq: ounce equivalent, tsp eq: teaspoon equivalent. *Sample sizes for the various variables were slightly smaller due to missing data. a,b Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and non-rice cereal consumers. c,d Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and baby rice cereal consumers. e,f Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between non-rice cereal consumers and baby rice cereal consumers.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The percentage of the population below the EAR for those 12–23 mos (only age group with EARs) was very low (< 2% for 13 of the nutrients evaluated (iron; zinc; copper; folate; magnesium; niacin; phosphorous; riboflavin; selenium; thiamin; and vitamins A, E, D, B6, B12, and C) (data not shown). Approximately 5.4 ± 0.8%, 3.3 ± 0.34%, 71.2 ± 1.4%, and 79.7 ± 1.8% of those 12–23 mos had intakes of calcium, iron, and vitamins D and E below the EAR, respectively. While there were no significant differences in nutrient adequacy when comparing rice baby cereal consumers with non-rice baby cereals, consumers of rice baby cereal had a significantly lower percentage of the population below the EAR for calcium (5.8 ± 0.8 v 0.0 ± 0.8) and vitamin E (81.2 ± 1.7 v 54.2 ± 7.4). Additionally, as compared to baby cereal non-consumers, both baby cereal consumption groups had significantly lower percentages of the population below the EAR for iron (3.6 ± 0.4, 0.04 ± 0.1, and 0.6 ± 0.5 % for baby cereal non-consumers, non-rice baby cereal consumers, and rice baby cereal consumer, respectively).

    Mean food group (eight FPED main food groups) consumption by age groups and by baby cereal consumption groups are presented in Tables 69. The majority of the significant differences were shown between baby cereal non-consumers and baby cereal consumers (regardless of type) across all four age groups. At 0–3 mos (Table 6), baby cereal consumers had higher mean intake of total grains than baby cereal non-consumers. At 4–6 mos (Table 7), baby cereal consumers had higher mean intake of total grains specifically whole grains, compared to baby cereal non-consumers. At 7–11 mos (Table 8), baby cereal consumers had lower mean intakes of protein foods, total dairy, solid fats and added sugars and oils compared to baby cereal non-consumers. At 12–23 mos (Table 9), the majority of the significant differences were shown between baby cereal non-consumers and the two types of baby cereal consumers (i.e. non-rice baby cereal consumers and rice baby cereal consumers). Baby cereal consumers had higher mean intakes of total dairy, solid fats, and oils compared to non-rice baby cereal non-consumers. Baby cereal consumers had lower mean intakes of protein foods and oils than rice baby cereal non-consumers. Rice baby cereal consumers had significantly lower mean intakes of vegetables and total grains (specifically whole grains) compared to non-rice baby cereal consumers.

    Mean food group (WWEIA food subetaoups and food categories) consumption by age groups and by baby cereal consumption groups are presented in Supplemental Tables 512.

    Table 6.  Food group consumption for 0–3 months of age by baby cereal consumption groups.
    Total population (N = 1,065)* Baby Cereal Consumption Groups
    Baby cereal non-consumers (n = 859)* Non-rice baby cereal consumers (n = 51)* Rice baby cereal consumers (n = 155)*
    Food Groups LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE
    Protein Foods (oz eq) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    Total dairy (cup eq) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    Total Vegetables (cup eq)** 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    Legumes (oz eq)*** 0.0 .*** 0.0 .*** 0.0 .*** 0.0 .***
    Total Fruits (cup eq) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
    Grains (oz eq) 0.1 0.0 0.0a,c 0.0 0.4b 0.1 0.6d 0.0
     Whole grains 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0 0.3b,e 0.1 0.0f 0.0
     Refined grains 0.1 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.0e 0.0 0.5d,f 0.0
    Sofas (gm) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1
    Solid fats (gm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
    Added Sugars (tsp eq) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
    Oils (gm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

    Abbreviations: LSM: Least square mean, SE: Standard error, oz eq: Ounce equivalent, cup eq: Cup equivalent, tsp eq: teaspoon equivalent. *Sample sizes for the various variables were slightly smaller due to missing data. ** Excluding legumes. ***All subjects have zero consumption and thus there are no variance estimates. a,b Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and non-rice cereal consumers. c,d Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and baby rice cereal consumers. e,f Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between non-rice cereal consumers and baby rice cereal consumers.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 7.  Food group consumption for 4-6 months of age by baby cereal consumption groups.
    Total population (N = 807)* Baby Cereal Consumption Groups
    Baby cereal non-consumers (n = 323)* Non-rice baby cereal consumers (n = 167)* Rice baby cereal consumers (n = 317)*
    Food Groups LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE
    Protein Foods (oz eq) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
    Total dairy (cup eq) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    Total Vegetables (cup eq)** 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
    Legumes (oz eq) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
    Total Fruits (cup eq) 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0
    Grains (oz eq) 0.6 0.0 0.2a,c 0.0 0.8b 0.1 0.8d 0.0
     Whole grains 0.2 0.0 0.0a,c 0.0 0.6b,e 0.1 0.1d,f 0.0
     Refined grains 0.4 0.0 0.1c 0.0 0.2e 0.0 0.7d,f 0.0
    Sofas (gm) 1.6 0.3 1.7 0.3 2.2 0.8 1.1 0.3
    Solid fats (gm) 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1
    Added Sugars (tsp eq) 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1
    Oils (gm) 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.0

    Abbreviations: LSM: Least square mean, SE: Standard error, oz eq: Ounce equivalent, cup eq: Cup equivalent, tsp eq: teaspoon equivalent. *Sample sizes for the various variables were slightly smaller due to missing data. ** Excluding legumes. a,b Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and non-rice cereal consumers. c,d Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and baby rice cereal consumers. e,f Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between non-rice cereal consumers and baby rice cereal consumers.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 8.  Food group consumption for 7–11 months of age by baby cereal consumption groups.
    Total population (N = 1,342)* Baby Cereal Consumption Groups
    Baby cereal non-consumers (n = 633)* Non-rice baby cereal consumers (n = 338)* Rice baby cereal consumers (n = 371)*
    Food Groups* LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE
    Protein Foods (oz eq) 0.7 0.0 0.9a,c 0.1 0.6b 0.0 0.6d 0.1
    Total dairy (cup eq) 0.6 0.0 0.9a,c 0.1 0.5b 0.1 0.4d 0.0
    Total Vegetables (cup eq)** 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0
    Legumes (oz eq) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
    Total Fruits (cup eq) 0.8 0.0 0.7a 0.0 0.9b 0.0 0.8 0.0
     Grains (oz eq) 1.6 0.0 1.5 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.7 0.1
     Whole grains 0.4 0.0 0.2a 0.0 0.8b,e 0.0 0.3f 0.0
    Refined grains 1.2 0.0 1.2a 0.1 0.9b,e 0.1 1.4f 0.1
    Sofas (gm) 13.7 0.4 19.1a,c 0.8 9.4b 0.8 9.8d 0.6
    Solid fats (gm) 7.0 0.3 9.8a,c 0.4 5.0b 0.4 5.0d 0.3
    Added Sugars (tsp eq) 1.7 0.1 2.3a,c 0.1 1.1b 0.1 1.2d 0.1
    Oils (gm) 2.6 0.1 3.5a,c 0.3 1.8b 0.2 1.9d 0.1

    Abbreviations: LSM: Least square mean, SE: Standard error, oz eq: Ounce equivalent, cup eq: Cup equivalent, tsp eq: teaspoon equivalent. *Sample sizes for the various variables were slightly smaller due to missing data. ** Excluding legumes. a,b Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and non-rice cereal consumers. c,d Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and baby rice cereal consumers. e,f Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between non-rice cereal consumers and baby rice cereal consumers.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 9.  Food group consumption for 12–23 months of age by baby cereal consumption groups.
    Total population (N = 2,010)* Baby Cereal Consumption Groups
    Baby cereal non-consumers (n = 1,846)* Non-rice baby cereal consumers (n = 104)* Rice baby cereal consumers (n = 60)*
    Food Groups LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE LSM SE
    Protein Foods (oz eq) 2.0 0.0 2.1c 0.1 1.7 0.2 1.3d 0.1
    Total dairy (cup eq) 2.7 0.0 2.7a 0.0 2.1b 0.2 2.8 0.3
    Total Vegetables (cup eq)** 0.5 0.0 0.5c 0.0 0.7e 0.1 0.4d,f 0.1
    Legumes (oz eq) 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
    Total Fruits (cup eq) 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.6 0.1 1.4 0.1
    Grains (oz eq) 3.2 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.6e 0.2 2.8f 0.2
     Whole grains 0.5 0.0 0.5a 0.0 1.1b,e 0.1 0.5f 0.1
     Refined grains 2.7 0.1 2.8 0.1 2.5 0.2 2.3 0.2
    Sofas (gm) 54.4 0.8 55.0a 0.9 45.7b 3.4 48.9 3.4
     Solid fats (gm) 26.3 0.3 26.6a 0.3 20.0b 1.1 23.9 1.9
     Added Sugars (tsp eq) 7.0 0.2 7.1 0.2 6.4 0.8 6.3 0.7
    Oils (gm) 8.9 0.2 9.2a,c 0.2 6.4b 0.7 4.9d 0.8

    Abbreviations: LSM: Least square mean, SE: Standard error, oz eq: Ounce equivalent, cup eq: Cup equivalent, tsp eq: teaspoon equivalent. *Sample sizes for the various variables were slightly smaller due to missing data. ** Excluding legumes. a,b Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and non-rice cereal consumers. c,d Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between baby cereal non-consumers and baby rice cereal consumers. e,f Means with different superscripts indicate significant differences (p < 0.01) between non-rice cereal consumers and baby rice cereal consumers.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    At 0–3 mos (Supplemental Table 5), baby cereal non-consumers had lower mean intakes of infant formulas and baby foods compared to the two baby cereal consumption groups. Baby cereal consumers had lower mean intake of water compared to rice baby cereal consumers. At 4–6 mos (Supplemental Table 6), baby cereal non-consumers had lower mean intakes of baby foods and water compared to the two baby cereal consumption groups. Baby cereal non-consumers had lower mean intake of infant formulas compared to rice baby cereal consumers. At 7–11 mos (Supplemental Table 7), the majority of the significant differences were found between baby cereal non-consumers and the two baby cereal consumption groups. Baby cereal non-consumers had lower mean intakes of infant formulas and baby foods than the two baby cereal consumption groups. In addition, baby cereal non-consumers had higher mean intakes of milk, yogurt, grain-based mixed dishes, fruits, eggs, poultry, cured meats/poultry, vegetables (excluding white potatoes), cooked cereals, breads, rolls, tortillas, ready-to-eat cereals, sweet bakery products, and condiments and sauces than the two baby cereal consumption groups. At 12–23 mos (Supplemental Table 8), baby cereal non-consumers had lower mean intakes of infant formulas than the two baby cereal consumption groups. Baby cereal non-consumers had higher mean intakes of cheese, pizza, sandwiches, cured meats/poultry, desserts, and fats and oils than the two baby cereal consumption groups.

    Excluding cereal classifications, significant differences in the consumption of foods by food categories only applied to the ages 7–11 mos (Supplemental Table 9) and 12–23 mos (Supplemental Table 10). At 7–11 mos, baby cereal non-consumers had lower mean intakes of baby food-fruit, baby food-meat and dinners, and baby food-vegetables than the two baby cereal consumption groups. Baby cereal non-consumers had higher mean intakes of whole milk and reduced fat milk, pasta mixed dishes (excluding macaroni and cheese), eggs and omelets, chicken-whole pieces, nuggets, patties and tenders, oatmeal, yeast breads, higher sugar (> 21 gm/100 gm) ready-to-eat cereal, and cookies and brownies. At 12–23 mos, baby cereal non-consumers had higher mean intakes of hamburgers, frankfurters, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, egg breakfast sandwiches, sausages, bacon, and ice cream and frozen dairy desserts compared to the two baby cereal consumption groups.

    Very few differences were found in intakes of nutrients and food group consumption between rice baby cereal consumers and non-rice baby cereal consumers. However there were numerous significant differences when each baby cereal group was compared to non-consumers. While there were some differences specific to certain age groups, typically intakes of carbohydrates, iron, calcium, magnesium, zinc, and vitamin E were higher in baby-cereal consumers. The higher intakes in the baby cereal consumer groups as compared to baby cereal non-consumers also led to a significantly lower percentage of the population with intakes below the EAR for iron, calcium, and vitamin E.

    The AAP has recommended exclusive breast feeding during the first 6 mos of life, and continued breast feeding with appropriate complementary food until 2 years [5],[42]. Breast milk is a nutritionally complete diet that provides adequate nutrients for infants during the first 6 mos, and if mothers cannot breast feed, iron-fortified formula is an appropriate substitute for human milk. Whole cow's milk should not be introduced during the first year of age. Introduction of complementary foods should be gradually introduced between 4–6 mos of age especially during the high risk period of 4–6 mos of life [5],[42]. Introduction of solid food prior to 4 mos has been consistently identified as contributing to later overweight. After 6 mos, developmentally appropriate complementary food should be gradually introduced in the diets of toddlers. The AAP recommends iron-fortified cereals and pureed meats as good first foods because they contain protein, iron, and zinc. By the end of the first year, a variety of foods, in no particular sequence, such as fruits, vegetables, and mixed dishes can be added to the complementary diet [5],[42] of the child. Some suggest introducing vegetables before fruits so the toddler will develop a taste for vegetables. Toddlers already have an innate sweet preference; thus, fruit is likely to be more readily accepted than vegetables, which are sometimes bitter. The increased preference for sweet taste during early development is universal [43][50].

    Key findings in this investigation, which will need to be confirmed in other studies indicated the majority of the significant differences were shown between the baby cereal non-consumers and the two baby cereal consumption groups. Baby cereal non-consumers had a significantly higher percentage exclusively breast feeding at ages 0–3 mos and a lower percentage formula feeding at all four age groups. Infants 0–3 mos and 4–6 mos in both baby cereal consumption groups consumed solid foods. These included baby foods, baby beverages, sweetened beverages, coffee and tea, 100% juice, vegetables (excluding white potatoes), fruit, sugars, milk and yogurt, and mixed dishes-soups.

    Baby cereal non-consumers had significantly lower intakes of baby foods-meat and dinners and baby-food vegetables at 7–11 mos and 12–23 mos of age. The two baby cereal consumption groups and the non-consumers had intakes aligned with the “American diet” (i.e. increased variety of foods; table and fast foods).

    For infants and toddlers, the micronutrients that are most likely to be low or deficient (depending on the developmental ages and the introduction of complementary and table foods) are dietary fiber; iron; calcium; magnesium; potassium; vitamins B6, D, E and A; as well as intakes high in SFA, added sugars, and sodium [10],[12],[13]. In this study, intake of iron (3.3%), calcium (5.4%), and vitamins D (71.2%) and E (79.7%) were below the EAR. For zinc, magnesium, phosphorous, and vitamins A and C < 1% of 12–23 mos olds were below the EAR. Demmer et al [11] reported inadequate intakes of calcium (2.3%) and vitamins D (78%) and vitamin E (66%). In both of these studies dietary supplement intake was not included in the analyses, which may have impacted nutrient adequacy. It has been reported that 18.2% of infants and toddlers used ≥ one dietary supplement in the past 30 days. Use was lower among infants than among toddlers [51]. Significant differences were shown among the baby cereal non-consumers and the two baby cereal consumption groups compared to baby cereal consumers. At 0–3 mos, baby cereal non-consumers had significantly higher intakes of vitamin A and lower intakes of iron, calcium, and magnesium. At 4–6 mos, baby cereal non-consumers had lower intakes of iron, calcium, magnesium and vitamin B6 and higher intakes of SFA compared to the two baby cereal consumption groups. At 7–11 mos, baby cereal non-consumers had lower intakes of SFA, added sugars, iron, zinc, magnesium and vitamin E, compared to the two baby cereal consumption groups. At 12–23 mos, baby cereal non-consumers had lower mean intakes of iron and zinc and vitamin E, compared to the two baby cereal consumption groups. The differences in iron and vitamin E were such as to impact the percentage of the population below the EAR the percentage of the population below the EAR. For iron and vitamin E dropped from about 3.5% to < 1% and about 80 % to about 60%, respectively. This suggests that about 140,000 infants/toddlers would no longer have inadequate intakes of iron and over 773,000 infants/toddlers would no longer have inadequate intakes of vitamin E if baby cereals were consumed. Fortification of baby cereals is likely responsible for these intake differences. The lower intakes of iron (at all four age groups) and zinc (at ages 7–11 mos and 12–23 mos) is problematic among non-consumers of baby cereal and may reflect that a higher percentage is breast feeding and had lower intakes of baby foods-meat and dinners being introduced in the diet. Given that breast milk was not quantified in the diets of the infants, the lower intake of total energy, zinc, and iron may be an under-estimation of several nutrients and is a major limitation of this study. It is important to continue monitoring intakes of nutrients and the types of complementary foods being introduced in the diet and when they are introduced. Iron and zinc deficiencies are not uncommon in older breastfed infants [5]. Thus, routine screening for anemia and zinc deficiency during the second year of life may be needed [52],[53].

    The major strengths of this study include the use of a nationally representative sample of U.S. infants and toddlers and the robust and standardized collection of dietary data within the NHANES and the use of usual intake techniques to assess nutrient adequacy. To determine food group contributions the WWEI food group categories were used. An advantage of this food group classification system is that similar foods and beverages are grouped together based on usage and nutrient content, which can be useful for providing practical advice to parents and health professionals about the types of foods that should be encouraged in the diets of infants and toddlers. Alternatively, as this food group classification system does not disagammaegate food items into ingredients, comparisons with previous work is limited [54]. Other limitations include the potential for parents/caregivers to over or under-report foods consumed by their child in addition to the exclusion of supplement intake in the analysis, which may have impacted nutrient adequacy. Comparison with other published study results [11],[14],[20],[21],[24],[42],[54] is very limited due to lack of consistency in study design, survey years, age groups used, and statistical approaches.

    In conclusion, this study provides detailed information on the introduction of baby cereals and other complementary foods and intakes of nutrients that require special attention during early life. This information can be used to inform targeted dietary strategies within public health initiatives to improve the diets of infants and toddlers and to guide parents regarding appropriate food selection. Finally, this information is useful to monitor changes in eating habits of U.S. infants and toddlers over time.



    [1] Ananth DA, Mahalakshmi V, Sivasudha T, et al. (2021) Identification and quantification of polyphenols from Cassia auriculata L. leaf, flower and flower bud using UPLC-QqQ-MS/MS. Isr J Plant Sci 68: 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1163/22238980-bja10027 doi: 10.1163/22238980-bja10027
    [2] Tietel Z, Ananth DA, Sivasudha T, et al. (2021) Metabolomics of Cassia auriculata plant parts (leaf, flower, bud) and their antidiabetic medicinal potentials. OMICS: J Integr Biol 25: 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2021.0010 doi: 10.1089/omi.2021.0010
    [3] Anitha R, Subashini R, Kumar PS (2020) In silico and in vitro approaches to evaluate the bioactivity of Cassia auriculata L extracts. IET Nanobiotechnol 14: 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-nbt.2019.0364 doi: 10.1049/iet-nbt.2019.0364
    [4] Girme A, Saste G, Ghule C, et al. (2019) Phytoanalytical profiling of Cassia auriculata by LC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS and HPTLC supporting its metabolic claims. Planta Med 85: 1439. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-3399767 doi: 10.1055/s-0039-3399767
    [5] Aye MM, Aung HT, Sein MM, et al. (2019) A review on the phytochemistry, medicinal properties and pharmacological activities of 15 selected Myanmar medicinal plants. Molecules 24: 293. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24020293 doi: 10.3390/molecules24020293
    [6] Anandan A, Eswaran R, Doss A, et al. (2011) Chemical compounds investigation of Cassia auriculata leaves–a potential folklore medicinal plant. Bull Environ, Pharm Life Sci 1: 20–23.
    [7] Meena V, Baruah H, Parveen R (2019) Cassia auriculata: A healing herb for all remedy. J Pharm Phytochem 8: 4093–4097.
    [8] Nille GC, Reddy KR (2015) A phytopharmacological review of plant–Cassia auriculata. Int J Pharm Biol Arch 6: 1–9.
    [9] Khurm M, Wang X, Zhang H, et al. (2020) The genus Cassia L.: Ethnopharmacological and phytochemical overview. Phytother Res 35: 2336–2385. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.6954 doi: 10.1002/ptr.6954
    [10] Shafeeq RS, Shekshavali T, Ahamed SSS (2018) A Review on Cassia auriculata. Res J Pharmacol Pharmacodyn 10: 141–145. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5836.2018.00026.5 doi: 10.5958/2321-5836.2018.00026.5
    [11] Wasana KGP, Attanayake AP, Arawwawala LDAM (2022) Ethnobotanical survey on medicinal plants used for the treatment of diabetes mellitus by Ayurveda and traditional medicine practitioners in Galle district of Sri Lanka. Eur J Integr Med 55: 102177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2022.102177 doi: 10.1016/j.eujim.2022.102177
    [12] Latha M, Pari L (2003) Antihyperglycaemic effect of Cassia auriculata in experimental diabetes and its effects on key metabolic enzymes involved in carbohydrate metabolism. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 30: 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1681.2003.03785.x doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1681.2003.03785.x
    [13] Nambirajan G, Karunanidhi K, Ganesan A, et al. (2018) Evaluation of antidiabetic activity of bud and flower of Avaram Senna (Cassia auriculata L.) In high fat diet and streptozotocin induced diabetic rats. Biomed Pharmacother 108: 1495–1506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2018.10.007 doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.10.007
    [14] Sathasivampillai SV, Rajamanoharan PR, Munday M, et al. (2017) Plants used to treat diabetes in Sri Lankan Siddha Medicine–An ethnopharmacological review of historical and modern sources. J Ethnopharmacol 198: 531–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2016.07.053 doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2016.07.053
    [15] Rajagopal SK, Manickam P, Periyasamy V, et al. (2003) Activity of Cassia auriculata leaf extract in rats with alcoholic liver injury. J Nutr Biochem 14: 452–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-2863(03)00053-6 doi: 10.1016/S0955-2863(03)00053-6
    [16] Nakamura S, Xu F, Ninomiya K, et al. (2014) Chemical structures and hepatoprotective effects of constituents from Cassia auriculata leaves. Chem Pharm Bull 62: 1026–1031. https://doi.org/10.1248/cpb.c14-00420 doi: 10.1248/cpb.c14-00420
    [17] Sharmila G, Nikitha V, Ilaiyarasi S, et al. (2016) Ultrasound assisted extraction of total phenolics from Cassia auriculata leaves and evaluation of its antioxidant activities. Ind Crops Prod 84: 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.01.010 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.01.010
    [18] Gunathilake K, Ranaweera K, Rupasinghe H (2018) Analysis of rutin, β‐carotene, and lutein content and evaluation of antioxidant activities of six edible leaves on free radicals and reactive oxygen species. J Food Biochem 42: e12579. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfbc.12579 doi: 10.1111/jfbc.12579
    [19] Prasathkumar M, Raja K, Vasanth K, et al. (2021) Phytochemical screening and in vitro antibacterial, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-diabetic, and wound healing attributes of Senna auriculata (L.) Roxb. leaves. Arab J Chem 14: 103345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2021.103345 doi: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2021.103345
    [20] Bandawane D, Beautikumari S, Gate S, et al. (2014) Evaluation of anti-arthritic activity of ethyl acetate fraction of Cassia auriculata Linn. leaves. Biomed Aging Pathol 4: 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomag.2013.10.009 doi: 10.1016/j.biomag.2013.10.009
    [21] Sutar S, Korpale S, Nadaf S, et al. (2023) Anti-arthritic activity of Senna auriculata leaves extract on formaldehyde-induced arthritic rats. J Res Pharm 27: 1402. https://doi.org/10.29228/jrp.427 doi: 10.29228/jrp.427
    [22] Gupta S, Sharma SB, Bansal SK, et al. (2009) Antihyperglycemic and hypolipidemic activity of aqueous extract of Cassia auriculata L. leaves in experimental diabetes. J Ethnopharmacol 123: 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2009.02.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2009.02.019
    [23] Shanmugam H, Venkatesan RS (2022) Determination of antihyperglycemic activity of ethanolic crude leaf extract of Cassia auriculata in the streptozocin induced male wistar albino rats. Int J Health Sci 6: 5617–5630. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS3.7190 doi: 10.53730/ijhs.v6nS3.7190
    [24] Khader SZA, Ahmed SSZ, Balasubramanian SK, et al. (2017) Modulatory effect of dianthrone rich alcoholic flower extract of Cassia auriculata L. on experimental diabetes. Integr Med Res 6: 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2017.01.007 doi: 10.1016/j.imr.2017.01.007
    [25] Fauzi FM, John CM, Karunanidhi A, et al. (2017) Understanding the mode-of-action of Cassia auriculata via in silico and in vivo studies towards validating it as a long term therapy for type Ⅱ diabetes. J Ethnopharmacol 197: 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2016.07.058 doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2016.07.058
    [26] Pari L, Latha M (2002) Effect of Cassia auriculata flowers on blood sugar levels, serum and tissue lipids in streptozotocin diabetic rats. Singapore Med J 43: 617–621.
    [27] Abesundara KJ, Matsui T, Matsumoto K (2004) α-Glucosidase inhibitory activity of some Sri Lanka plant extracts, one of which, Cassia auriculata, exerts a strong antihyperglycemic effect in rats comparable to the therapeutic drug acarbose. J Agric Food Chem 52: 2541–2545. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf035330s doi: 10.1021/jf035330s
    [28] Grace B, Viswanathan M, Wilson DD (2022) A new silver nano-formulation of Cassia auriculata flower extract and its anti-diabetic effects. Recent Pat Nanotechnol 16: 160–169. https://doi.org/10.2174/1872210515666210329160523 doi: 10.2174/1872210515666210329160523
    [29] Vijayakumar R, Nachiappan V (2017) Cassia auriculata flower extract attenuates hyperlipidemia in male Wistar rats by regulating the hepatic cholesterol metabolism. Biomed Pharmacother 95: 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2017.08.075 doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2017.08.075
    [30] Vijayaraj P, Muthukumar K, Sabarirajan J, et al. (2013) Antihyperlipidemic activity of Cassia auriculata flowers in triton WR 1339 induced hyperlipidemic rats. Exp Toxicol Pathol 65: 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etp.2011.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.etp.2011.07.001
    [31] Lingaiah, Mamidala E, Rao PN (2017) Modulatory effect of Cassia auriculata plant extraction on glucose metabolism in alloxan induced diabetic wistar rats. Amer J Sci Med Res 3: 8–11.
    [32] Murugan P, Sakthivel V (2021) Effect of cassia auriculata on lipid profiles in streptozotocin–nicotinamide induced type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 28: 73–79. https://doi.org/10.53555/jptcp.v28i01.2440 doi: 10.53555/jptcp.v28i01.2440
    [33] Kumaran A, Karunakaran RJ (2007) Antioxidant activity of Cassia auriculata flowers. Fitoterapia 78: 46–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2006.09.031 doi: 10.1016/j.fitote.2006.09.031
    [34] Latha M, Pari L (2003) Preventive effects of Cassia auriculata L. flowers on brain lipid peroxidation in rats treated with streptozotocin. Mol Cell Biochem 243: 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021697311150 doi: 10.1023/A:1021697311150
    [35] Kolar FR, Gogi CL, Khudavand MM, et al. (2018) Phytochemical and antioxidant properties of some Cassia species. Nat Prod Res 32: 1324–1328. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2017.1342085 doi: 10.1080/14786419.2017.1342085
    [36] Kumar JSP, Tharaheswari M, Subhashree S, et al. (2014) Cassia auriculata flower extract articulate its antidiabetic effects by regulating antioxidant levels in plasma, liver and pancreas in T2DM rats. AJPCT 2: 705–722.
    [37] John CM, Sandrasaigaran P, Tong CK, et al. (2011) Immunomodulatory activity of polyphenols derived from Cassia auriculata flowers in aged rats. Cell Immunol 271: 474–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cellimm.2011.08.017 doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2011.08.017
    [38] Jancy VJJ, Kalaichelvan V, Balakrishnan N (2020) Phytochemical analysis and anti-oxidant activity of various extracts of plant Cassia auriculata. Res J Pharm Technol 13: 6150–6155. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2020.01073.2 doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2020.01073.2
    [39] Juan-Badaturuge M, Habtemariam S, Thomas MJ (2011) Antioxidant compounds from a South Asian beverage and medicinal plant, Cassia auriculata. Food Chem 125: 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.08.065 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.08.065
    [40] Habtemariam S (2013) Antihyperlipidemic components of Cassia auriculata aerial parts: Identification through in vitro studies. Phytother Res 27: 152–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.4711 doi: 10.1002/ptr.4711
    [41] Annie S, Rajagopal P, Malini S (2005) Effect of Cassia auriculata Linn. root extract on cisplatin and gentamicin-induced renal injury. Phytomedicine 12: 555–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2003.11.010 doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2003.11.010
    [42] Jaydeokar AV, Bandawane DD, Bibave KH, et al. (2014) Hepatoprotective potential of Cassia auriculata roots on ethanol and antitubercular drug-induced hepatotoxicity in experimental models. Pharm Biol 52: 344–355. https://doi.org/10.3109/13880209.2013.837075 doi: 10.3109/13880209.2013.837075
    [43] Deshpande S, Kewatkar SM, Paithankar VV (2013) In-vitro antioxidant activity of different fraction of roots of Cassia auriculata Linn. Drug Invent Today 5: 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2013.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.dit.2013.05.006
    [44] Salma B, Janhavi P, Muthaiah S, et al. (2020) Ameliorative efficacy of the Cassia auriculata root against high-fat-diet+ STZ-induced Type-2 diabetes in C57BL/6 mice. ACS Omega 6: 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c04940 doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c04940
    [45] Rao GN, Kumar PM, Dhandapani V, et al. (2000) Constituents of Cassia auriculata. Fitoterapia 71: 82–83. https://doi.org/10.4103/0250-474X.113546 doi: 10.4103/0250-474X.113546
    [46] Varshney S, Rizvi S, Gupta P (1973) Chemical and spectral studies of novel keto–alcohols from the leaves of Cassia auriculata. Planta Med 23: 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1099456 doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1099456
    [47] Murugan T, Wins JA, Murugan M (2013) Antimicrobial activity and phytochemical constituents of leaf extracts of Cassia auriculata. Indian J Pharm Sci 75: 122. https://doi.org/10.4103/0250-474X.113546 doi: 10.4103/0250-474X.113546
    [48] Gunathilake K, Ranaweera K, Rupasinghe H (2020) Optimization of polyphenols and carotenoids extraction from leaves of Cassia auriculata for natural health products. Asian Plant Res J 6: 14–25. https://doi.org/10.9734/APRJ/2020/v6i130118 doi: 10.9734/APRJ/2020/v6i130118
    [49] Abdulwaliyu I, Arekemase SO, Adudu JA, et al. (2019) Investigation of the medicinal significance of phytic acid as an indispensable anti-nutrient in diseases. Clin Nutr Exp 28: 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yclnex.2019.10.002 doi: 10.1016/j.yclnex.2019.10.002
    [50] Bartolome AP, Villaseñor IM, Yang WC (2013) Bidens pilosa L.(Asteraceae): Botanical properties, traditional uses, phytochemistry, and pharmacology. Evidence-based Complementary Altern Med 2013: 340215. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/340215 doi: 10.1155/2013/340215
    [51] Amsalu N, Asfaw Z (2020) Review of the antioxidant properties of wild edible plants in Ethiopia. Afr J Med Health Scis 19: 84–102. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMHS2019.0082 doi: 10.5897/AJMHS2019.0082
    [52] Nagarani G, Abirami A, Siddhuraju P (2014) Food prospects and nutraceutical attributes of Momordica species: A potential tropical bioresources–A review. Food Sci Human Wellness 3: 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2014.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.fshw.2014.07.001
    [53] Ramakrishnan P, Kalakandan S, Pakkirisamy M (2018) Studies on positive and negative ionization mode of ESI-LC-MS/MS for screening of Phytochemicals on Cassia auriculata (Aavaram Poo). Pharm J 10: 457–462. https://doi.org/10.5530/pj.2018.3.75 doi: 10.5530/pj.2018.3.75
    [54] Rajkumar P, Selvaraj S, Suganya R, et al. (2016) GC-MS characterization of the anti-diabetic compounds from the flowers of Cassia auriculata (AVARAM): A structure based molecular docking studies. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 1: 85–93.
    [55] Bargah RK, Kushwaha A, Tirkey A, et al. (2020) In vitro antioxidant and antibacterial screening of flowers extract from Cassia auriculata Linn. Res J Pharm Technol 13: 2624–2628. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00466.7 doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00466.7
    [56] Sahoo J, Kamalaja T, Devi SS, et al. (2020) Nutritional composition of Cassia auriculata flower powder. J Pharmacogn Phytochem9: 867–870.
    [57] Girme A, Saste G, Chinchansure A, et al. (2020) Simultaneous determination of anthraquinone, flavonoids, and phenolic antidiabetic compounds from Cassia auriculata seeds by validated UHPLC based MS/MS method. Mass Spectrom Lett 11: 82–89.
    [58] Zhang Y, Nakamura S, Nakashima S, et al. (2015) Chemical structures of constituents from the seeds of Cassia auriculata. Tetrahedron 71: 6727–6732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tet.2015.07.045 doi: 10.1016/j.tet.2015.07.045
    [59] Raj JY, Peter MPJ, Joy V (2012) Chemical compounds investigation of Cassia auriculata seeds: A potential folklore medicinal plant. Asian J Plant Sci Res 2: 187–192.
    [60] Dave H, Ledwani L (2012) A review on anthraquinones isolated from Cassia species and their applications. IJNPR 3: 291–319.
    [61] Sivakumar V, Ilanhtiraiyan S, Ilayaraja K, et al. (2014) Influence of ultrasound on Avaram bark (Cassia auriculata) tannin extraction and tanning. Chem Eng Res Des 92: 1827–1833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2014.04.007 doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2014.04.007
    [62] Chatterjee S, Khunti K, Davies MJ (2017) Type 2 diabetes. Lancet 389: 2239–2251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30058-2 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30058-2
    [63] Yoshinari O, Igarashi K (2011) Anti-diabetic effect of pyroglutamic acid in type 2 diabetic Goto-Kakizaki rats and KK-A y mice. Br J Nutr 106: 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114511001279 doi: 10.1017/S0007114511001279
    [64] Chou J, Liu R, Yu J, et al. (2018) Fasting serum α‑hydroxybutyrate and pyroglutamic acid as important metabolites for detecting isolated post-challenge diabetes based on organic acid profiles. J Chromatogr B 1100: 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2018.09.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2018.09.004
    [65] Grioli S, Lomeo C, Quattropani M, et al. (1990) Pyroglutamic acid improves the age associated memory impairment. Fund Clin Pharmacol 4: 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-8206.1990.tb00485.x doi: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.1990.tb00485.x
    [66] Foster AC, Kemp JA (2006) Glutamate-and GABA-based CNS therapeutics. Curr Opin Pharmacol 6: 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2005.11.005 doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2005.11.005
    [67] Gao K, Mu C-l, Farzi A, et al. (2020) Tryptophan metabolism: A link between the gut microbiota and brain. Adv Nutr 11: 709–723. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmz127 doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz127
    [68] Li P, Yin Y-L, Li D, et al. (2007) Amino acids and immune function. Br J Nutr 98: 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000711450769936X doi: 10.1017/S000711450769936X
    [69] Nimalaratne C, Lopes-Lutz D, Schieber A, et al. (2011) Free aromatic amino acids in egg yolk show antioxidant properties. Food Chem 129: 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.04.058 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.04.058
    [70] Ming X-F, Rajapakse AG, Carvas JM, et al. (2009) Inhibition of S6K1 accounts partially for the anti-inflammatory effects of the arginase inhibitor L-norvaline. BMC Cardiovasc Disor 9: 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-9-12 doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-9-12
    [71] Karak S, Nag G, De B (2017) Metabolic profile and β-glucuronidase inhibitory property of three species of Swertia. Rev Bras Farmacogn 27: 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjp.2016.07.007 doi: 10.1016/j.bjp.2016.07.007
    [72] Wakuda T, Azuma K, Saimoto H, et al. (2013) Protective effects of galacturonic acid-rich vinegar brewed from Japanese pear in a dextran sodium sulfate-induced acute colitis model. J Funct Foods 5: 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2012.10.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2012.10.010
    [73] Suzuki M, Kajuu T (1983) Suppression of hepatic lipogenesis by pectin and galacturonic acid orally-fed at the separate timing from digestion-absorption of nutrients in rat. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol 29: 553–562. https://doi.org/10.3177/jnsv.29.553 doi: 10.3177/jnsv.29.553
    [74] Nguyen NK, Nguyen PB, Nguyen HT, et al. (2015) Screening the optimal ratio of symbiosis between isolated yeast and acetic acid bacteria strain from traditional kombucha for high-level production of glucuronic acid. LWT-Food Sci Technol 64: 1149–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.07.018 doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.07.018
    [75] Biagi G, Piva A, Moschini M, et al. (2006) Effect of gluconic acid on piglet growth performance, intestinal microflora, and intestinal wall morphology. J Anim Sci 84: 370–378. https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.842370x doi: 10.2527/2006.842370x
    [76] Surman C, Vaudreuil C, Boland H, et al. (2020) L-threonic acid magnesium salt supplementation in ADHD: An open-label pilot study. J Diet Suppl 18: 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390211.2020.1731044 doi: 10.1080/19390211.2020.1731044
    [77] Banerjee S, Bhattacharjee P, Kar A, et al. (2019) LC–MS/MS analysis and network pharmacology of Trigonella foenum-graecum–A plant from Ayurveda against hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia with combination synergy. Phytomedicine 60: 152944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2019.152944 doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2019.152944
    [78] Vogt JA, Ishii-Schrade KB, Pencharz PB, et al. (2006) L-rhamnose and lactulose decrease serum triacylglycerols and their rates of synthesis, but do not affect serum cholesterol concentrations in men. J Nutr 136: 2160–2166.
    [79] Nagata Y, Mizuta N, Kanasaki A, et al. (2018) Rare sugars, d‐allulose, d‐tagatose and d‐sorbose, differently modulate lipid metabolism in rats. J Sci Food Agric 98: 2020–2026. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8687 doi: 10.1002/jsfa.8687
    [80] Oku T, Murata-Takenoshita Y, Yamazaki Y, et al. (2014) D-sorbose inhibits disaccharidase activity and demonstrates suppressive action on postprandial blood levels of glucose and insulin in the rat. Nutr Res 34: 961–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2014.09.009 doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2014.09.009
    [81] Yamada T, Hayashi N, Iida T, et al. (2014) Dietary D-sorbose decreases serum insulin levels in growing Sprague-Dawley rats. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol 60: 297–299. https://doi.org/10.3177/jnsv.60.297 doi: 10.3177/jnsv.60.297
    [82] Seri K, Sanai K, Matsuo N, et al. (1996) L-arabinose selectively inhibits intestinal sucrase in an uncompetitive manner and suppresses glycemic response after sucrose ingestion in animals. Metabolism 45: 1368–1374. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0026-0495(96)90117-1 doi: 10.1016/S0026-0495(96)90117-1
    [83] Li Y, Pan H, Liu JX, et al. (2019) L-Arabinose inhibits colitis by modulating gut microbiota in mice. J Agric Food Chem 67: 13299–13306. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b05829 doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b05829
    [84] Roy S, Chikkerur J, Roy SC, et al. (2018) Tagatose as a potential nutraceutical: Production, properties, biological roles, and applications. J Food Sci 83: 2699–2709. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.14358 doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.14358
    [85] Chen Z, Chen J, Zhang W, et al. (2018) Recent research on the physiological functions, applications, and biotechnological production of D-allose. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102: 4269–4278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-8916-6 doi: 10.1007/s00253-018-8916-6
    [86] Salkovic-Petrisic M, Osmanovic-Barilar J, Knezovic A, et al. (2014) Long-term oral galactose treatment prevents cognitive deficits in male Wistar rats treated intracerebroventricularly with streptozotocin. Neuropharmacology 77: 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.09.002 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.09.002
    [87] Park M-O, Lee B-H, Lim E, et al. (2016) Enzymatic process for high-yield turanose production and its potential property as an adipogenesis regulator. J Agric Food Chem 64: 4758–4764. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05849 doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b05849
    [88] Chung J-Y, Kim Y-S, Kim Y, et al. (2017) Regulation of inflammation by sucrose isomer, Turanose, in raw 264.7 cells. J Cancer Prev 22: 195. https://doi.org/10.15430/JCP.2017.22.3.195 doi: 10.15430/JCP.2017.22.3.195
    [89] Kim E, Bae J, Lee J, et al. (2019) Purification and characterization of turanose, a sucrose isomer and its anti-inflammatory effects in dextran sulfate sodium (DSS)-induced colitis model. J Funct Foods 63: 103570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2019.103570 doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2019.103570
    [90] Mizunoe Y, Kobayashi M, Sudo Y, et al. (2018) Trehalose protects against oxidative stress by regulating the Keap1–Nrf2 and autophagy pathways. Redox Biol 15: 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redox.2017.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2017.09.007
    [91] Laihia J, Kaarniranta K (2020) Trehalose for ocular surface health. Biomolecules 10: 809. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom10050809 doi: 10.3390/biom10050809
    [92] Thompson J, Neutel J, Homer K, et al. (2014) Evaluation of D‐ribose pharmacokinetics, dose proportionality, food effect, and pharmacodynamics after oral solution administration in healthy male and female subjects. J Clin Pharmacol 54: 546–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.241 doi: 10.1002/jcph.241
    [93] Addis P, Shecterle LM, Cyr JASt (2012) Cellular protection during oxidative stress: A potential role for D-ribose and antioxidants. J Diet Suppl 9: 178–182. https://doi.org/10.3109/19390211.2012.708715 doi: 10.3109/19390211.2012.708715
    [94] Croze ML, Soulage CO (2013) Potential role and therapeutic interests of myo-inositol in metabolic diseases. Biochimie 95: 1811–1827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2013.05.011 doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2013.05.011
    [95] Corrado F, D'Anna R, Di Vieste G, et al. (2011) The effect of myoinositol supplementation on insulin resistance in patients with gestational diabetes. Diabetic Med 28: 972–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03284.x doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03284.x
    [96] Pintaudi B, Di Vieste G, Bonomo M (2016) The effectiveness of myo-inositol and D-chiro inositol treatment in type 2 diabetes. Int J Endocrinol 2016: 9132052. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9132052 doi: 10.1155/2016/9132052
    [97] Unfer V, Facchinetti F, Orrù B, et al. (2017) Myo-inositol effects in women with PCOS: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endocr Connect 6: 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-17-0243 doi: 10.1530/EC-17-0243
    [98] Benahmed AG, Gasmi A, Arshad M, et al. (2020) Health benefits of xylitol. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 104: 109495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2019.109495 doi: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2019.109495
    [99] Ur-Rehman S, Mushtaq Z, Zahoor T, et al. (2015) Xylitol: A review on bioproduction, application, health benefits, and related safety issues. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 55: 1514–1528. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.702288 doi: 10.1080/10408398.2012.702288
    [100] Salli K, Lehtinen MJ, Tiihonen K, et al. (2019) Xylitol's health benefits beyond dental health: A comprehensive review. Nutrients 11: 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081813 doi: 10.3390/nu11081813
    [101] Ching T-L, Haenen GR, Bast A (1993) Cimetidine and other H2 receptor antagonists as powerful hydroxyl radical scavengers. Chem-Biol Interact 86: 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2797(93)90116-G doi: 10.1016/0009-2797(93)90116-G
    [102] Saha BC, Racine FM (2011) Biotechnological production of mannitol and its applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 89: 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-010-2979-3 doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-2979-3
    [103] den Hartog GJ, Boots AW, Adam-Perrot A, et al. (2010) Erythritol is a sweet antioxidant. Nutrition 26: 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2009.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2009.05.004
    [104] Flint N, Hamburg NM, Holbrook M, et al. (2014) Effects of erythritol on endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A pilot study. Acta Diabetolo 51: 513–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-013-0534-2 doi: 10.1007/s00592-013-0534-2
    [105] Wen H, Tang B, Stewart AJ, et al. (2018) Erythritol attenuates postprandial blood glucose by inhibiting α-glucosidase. J Agric Food Chem 66: 1401–1407. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b05033 doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b05033
    [106] Wölnerhanssen BK, Meyer-Gerspach AC, Beglinger C, et al. (2020) Metabolic effects of the natural sweeteners xylitol and erythritol: A comprehensive review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 60: 1986–1998. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1623757 doi: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1623757
    [107] Chauhan PS, Gupta KK, Bani S (2011) The immunosuppressive effects of Agyrolobium roseum and pinitol in experimental animals. Int Immunopharmacol 11: 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2010.11.028 doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2010.11.028
    [108] Kim HJ, Park KS, Lee SK, et al. (2012) Effects of pinitol on glycemic control, insulin resistance and adipocytokine levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Nutr Metab 60: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1159/000334834 doi: 10.1159/000334834
    [109] Dang NT, Mukai R, Yoshida K-i, et al. (2010) D-pinitol and myo-inositol stimulate translocation of glucose transporter 4 in skeletal muscle of C57BL/6 mice. Biosci, Biotechnol, Biochem 74: 1062–1067. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.90963 doi: 10.1271/bbb.90963
    [110] Hernández-Mijares A, Bañuls C, Peris JE, et al. (2013) A single acute dose of pinitol from a naturally-occurring food ingredient decreases hyperglycaemia and circulating insulin levels in healthy subjects. Food Chem 141: 1267–1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.042 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.042
    [111] Gao Y, Zhang M, Wu T, et al. (2015) Effects of D-pinitol on insulin resistance through the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway in type 2 diabetes mellitus rats. J Agric Food Chem 63: 6019–6026. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b01238 doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b01238
    [112] Geethan PA, Prince PSM (2008) Antihyperlipidemic effect of D‐pinitol on streptozotocin‐induced diabetic wistar rats. J Biochem Mol Toxicol 22: 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbt.20218 doi: 10.1002/jbt.20218
    [113] Choi MS, Lee MK, Jung UJ, et al. (2009) Metabolic response of soy pinitol on lipid‐lowering, antioxidant and hepatoprotective action in hamsters fed‐high fat and high cholesterol diet. Mol Nutr Food Res 53: 751–759. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200800241 doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200800241
    [114] Sousa LGF, de Souza Cortez LUA, Evangelista JSAM, et al. (2020) Renal protective effect of pinitol in experimental diabetes. Eur J Pharmacol 880: 173130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173130 doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173130
    [115] Lee E, Lim Y, Kwon SW, et al. (2019) Pinitol consumption improves liver health status by reducing oxidative stress and fatty acid accumulation in subjects with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Nutr Biochem 68: 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2019.03.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2019.03.006
    [116] Vasaikar N, Mahajan U, Patil KR, et al. (2018) D-pinitol attenuates cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats: Impact on pro-inflammatory cytokines. Chem-Biol Interact 290: 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2018.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2018.05.003
    [117] Sivakumar S, Palsamy P, Subramanian SP (2010) Attenuation of oxidative stress and alteration of hepatic tissue ultrastructure by D-pinitol in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. Free Radical Res 44: 668–678. https://doi.org/10.3109/10715761003733901 doi: 10.3109/10715761003733901
    [118] López-Domènech S, Bañuls C, de Marañón AM, et al. (2018) Pinitol alleviates systemic inflammatory cytokines in human obesity by a mechanism involving unfolded protein response and sirtuin 1. Clin Nutr 37: 2036–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2017.09.015 doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.09.015
    [119] Kim JC, Shin JY, Shin DH, et al. (2005) Synergistic antiinflammatory effects of pinitol and glucosamine in rats. Phytother Res 19: 1048–1051. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.1788 doi: 10.1002/ptr.1788
    [120] Su H, Liu R, Chang M, et al. (2018) Effect of dietary alpha-linolenic acid on blood inflammatory markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Nutr 57: 877–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-017-1386-2 doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1386-2
    [121] Yue H, Qiu B, Jia M, et al. (2020) Effects of α-linolenic acid intake on blood lipid profiles: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 61: 2894–2910. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1790496 doi: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1790496
    [122] Yoshida Y, Niki E (2003) Antioxidant effects of phytosterol and its components. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol 49: 277–280. https://doi.org/10.3177/jnsv.49.277 doi: 10.3177/jnsv.49.277
    [123] Fatahi S, Kord-Varkaneh H, Talaei S, et al. (2019) Impact of phytosterol supplementation on plasma lipoprotein (a) and free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr, Metab Cardiovas Dis 29: 1168–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2019.07.011 doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2019.07.011
    [124] Umeno A, Horie M, Murotomi K, et al. (2016) Antioxidative and antidiabetic effects of natural polyphenols and isoflavones. Molecules 21: 708. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules21060708 doi: 10.3390/molecules21060708
    [125] Habtemariam S, Varghese GK (2014) The antidiabetic therapeutic potential of dietary polyphenols. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 15: 391–400.
    [126] Vinayagam R, Jayachandran M, Xu B (2016) Antidiabetic effects of simple phenolic acids: A comprehensive review. Phytother Res 30: 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.5528 doi: 10.1002/ptr.5528
    [127] Dludla PV, Nkambule BB, Jack B, et al. (2019) Inflammation and oxidative stress in an obese state and the protective effects of gallic acid. Nutrients 11: 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11010023 doi: 10.3390/nu11010023
    [128] Kahkeshani N, Farzaei F, Fotouhi M, et al. (2019) Pharmacological effects of gallic acid in health and diseases: A mechanistic review. Iran J Basic Med Sci 22: 225. https://doi.org/10.22038/ijbms.2019.32806.7897 doi: 10.22038/ijbms.2019.32806.7897
    [129] Badhani B, Sharma N, Kakkar R (2015) Gallic acid: A versatile antioxidant with promising therapeutic and industrial applications. RSC Adv 5: 27540–27557. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA01911G doi: 10.1039/C5RA01911G
    [130] Serra A, Macià A, Romero M-P, et al. (2012) Metabolic pathways of the colonic metabolism of flavonoids (flavonols, flavones and flavanones) and phenolic acids. Food Chem 130: 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.07.055 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.07.055
    [131] Kumar N, Goel N (2019) Phenolic acids: Natural versatile molecules with promising therapeutic applications. Biotechnol Rep 24: e00370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00370 doi: 10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00370
    [132] Abd El-Aziz TA, Mohamed RH, Pasha HF, et al. (2012) Catechin protects against oxidative stress and inflammatory-mediated cardiotoxicity in adriamycin-treated rats. Clin Exper Med 12: 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-011-0165-2 doi: 10.1007/s10238-011-0165-2
    [133] Shafabakhsh R, Milajerdi A, Reiner Ž, et al. (2020) The effects of catechin on endothelial function: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 60: 2369–2378. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1639037 doi: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1639037
    [134] Pedro AC, Maciel GM, Rampazzo Ribeiro V, et al. (2020) Fundamental and applied aspects of catechins from different sources: A review. Int J Food Sci Tech 55: 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14371 doi: 10.1111/ijfs.14371
    [135] Guo T, Song D, Cheng L, et al. (2019) Interactions of tea catechins with intestinal microbiota and their implication for human health. Food Sci Biotechnol 28: 1617–1625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-019-00656-y doi: 10.1007/s10068-019-00656-y
    [136] Márquez Campos E, Jakobs L, Simon M-C (2020) Antidiabetic effects of flavan-3-ols and their microbial metabolites. Nutrients 12: 1592. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12061592 doi: 10.3390/nu12061592
    [137] Bai L, Li X, He L, et al. (2019) Antidiabetic potential of flavonoids from traditional Chinese medicine: a review. Amer J Chin Med 47: 933–957. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0192415X19500496 doi: 10.1142/S0192415X19500496
    [138] Takahashi M, Miyashita M, Suzuki K, et al. (2014) Acute ingestion of catechin-rich green tea improves postprandial glucose status and increases serum thioredoxin concentrations in postmenopausal women. Br J Nutr 112: 1542–1550. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114514002530 doi: 10.1017/S0007114514002530
    [139] Eid HM, Ouchfoun M, Saleem A, et al. (2016) A combination of (+)-catechin and (−)-epicatechin underlies the in vitro adipogenic action of Labrador tea (Rhododendron groenlandicum), an antidiabetic medicinal plant of the Eastern James Bay Cree pharmacopeia. J Ethnopharmacol 178: 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2015.12.021 doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2015.12.021
    [140] Mrabti HN, Jaradat N, Fichtali I, et al. (2018) Separation, identification, and antidiabetic activity of catechin isolated from Arbutus unedo L. plant roots. Plants 7: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants7020031 doi: 10.3390/plants7020031
    [141] Wang W, Sun C, Mao L, et al. (2016) The biological activities, chemical stability, metabolism and delivery systems of quercetin: A review. Trends Food Sci Technol 56: 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.07.004
    [142] D'Andrea G (2015) Quercetin: A flavonol with multifaceted therapeutic applications? Fitoterapia 106: 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2015.09.018 doi: 10.1016/j.fitote.2015.09.018
    [143] Lesjak M, Beara I, Simin N, et al. (2018) Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of quercetin and its derivatives. J Funct Foods 40: 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2017.10.047 doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2017.10.047
    [144] Xu D, Hu M-J, Wang Y-Q, et al. (2019) Antioxidant activities of quercetin and its complexes for medicinal application. Molecules 24: 1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24061123 doi: 10.3390/molecules24061123
    [145] Zaplatic E, Bule M, Shah SZA, et al. (2019) Molecular mechanisms underlying protective role of quercetin in attenuating Alzheimer's disease. Life Sci 224: 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2019.03.055 doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.03.055
    [146] Patel RV, Mistry BM, Shinde SK, et al. (2018) Therapeutic potential of quercetin as a cardiovascular agent. Eur J Med Chem 155: 889–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2018.06.053 doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2018.06.053
    [147] Dabeek WM, Marra MV (2019) Dietary quercetin and kaempferol: Bioavailability and potential cardiovascular-related bioactivity in humans. Nutrients 11: 2288. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102288 doi: 10.3390/nu11102288
    [148] Bule M, Abdurahman A, Nikfar S, et al. (2019) Antidiabetic effect of quercetin: A systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies. Food Chem Toxicol 125: 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.01.037 doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.01.037
    [149] Ahn J, Lee H, Kim S, et al. (2008) The anti-obesity effect of quercetin is mediated by the AMPK and MAPK signaling pathways. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 373: 545–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.06.077 doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.06.077
    [150] Nabavi SF, Russo GL, Daglia M, et al. (2015) Role of quercetin as an alternative for obesity treatment: you are what you eat! Food Chem 179: 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.02.006 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.02.006
    [151] Mohammadi A, Kazemi S, Hosseini M, et al. (2019) Chrysin effect in prevention of acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity in rat. Chem Res Toxicol 32: 2329–2337. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00332 doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00332
    [152] Zhang Z, Li G, Szeto SS, et al. (2015) Examining the neuroprotective effects of protocatechuic acid and chrysin on in vitro and in vivo models of Parkinson disease. Free Radical Biol Med 84: 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.02.030 doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2015.02.030
    [153] Ramírez-Espinosa JJ, Saldaña-Ríos J, García-Jiménez S, et al. (2018) Chrysin induces antidiabetic, antidyslipidemic and anti-inflammatory effects in athymic nude diabetic mice. Molecules 23: 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23010067 doi: 10.3390/molecules23010067
    [154] Taslimi P, Kandemir FM, Demir Y, et al. (2019) The antidiabetic and anticholinergic effects of chrysin on cyclophosphamide‐induced multiple organ toxicity in rats: Pharmacological evaluation of some metabolic enzyme activities. J Biochem Mol Toxicol 33: e22313. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbt.22313 doi: 10.1002/jbt.22313
    [155] Malik EM, Müller CE (2016) Anthraquinones as pharmacological tools and drugs. Med Res Rev 36: 705–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/med.21391 doi: 10.1002/med.21391
    [156] Duval J, Pecher V, Poujol M, et al. (2016) Research advances for the extraction, analysis and uses of anthraquinones: A review. Ind Crop Prod 94: 812–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.09.056 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.09.056
    [157] Fouillaud M, Caro Y, Venkatachalam M, et al. (2018) Anthraquinones, In: Nollet L, Gutierrez-Uribe J (Eds.), Phenolic compounds in food, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 131–172.
    [158] Li Y, Jiang J-G (2018) Health functions and structure–activity relationships of natural anthraquinones from plants. Food Funct 9: 6063–6080. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8FO01569D doi: 10.1039/C8FO01569D
    [159] Yen G-C, Duh P-D, Chuang D-Y (2000) Antioxidant activity of anthraquinones and anthrone. Food Chem 70: 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(00)00108-4 doi: 10.1016/S0308-8146(00)00108-4
    [160] Li X, Chu S, Liu Y, et al. (2019) Neuroprotective effects of anthraquinones from rhubarb in central nervous system diseases. Evidence-Based Complementary Altern Med 2019: 3790728. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3790728 doi: 10.1155/2019/3790728
    [161] Chen Db, Gao Hw, Peng C, et al. (2020) Quinones as preventive agents in Alzheimer's diseases: Focus on NLRP3 inflammasomes. J Pharm Pharmacol 72: 1481–1490. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphp.13332 doi: 10.1111/jphp.13332
    [162] Chien S-C, Wu Y-C, Chen Z-W, et al. (2015) Naturally occurring anthraquinones: Chemistry and therapeutic potential in autoimmune diabetes. Evidence-Based Complementary Altern Med 2015: 357357. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/357357 doi: 10.1155/2015/357357
    [163] Zhao XY, Qiao GF, Li BX, et al. (2009) Hypoglycaemic and hypolipidaemic effects of emodin and its effect on L-type calcium channnels in dyslipidaemic-diabetic rats. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 36: 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1681.2008.05051.x doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2008.05051.x
    [164] Mishra SK, Tiwari S, Shrivastava A, et al. (2014) Antidyslipidemic effect and antioxidant activity of anthraquinone derivatives from Rheum emodi rhizomes in dyslipidemic rats. J Nat Med 68: 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11418-013-0810-z doi: 10.1007/s11418-013-0810-z
    [165] Li P, Lu Q, Jiang W, et al. (2017) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rhubarb anthraquinones extract in normal and disease rats. Biomed Pharmacother 91: 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2017.04.109 doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2017.04.109
    [166] Dalirfardouei R, Karimi G, Jamialahmadi K (2016) Molecular mechanisms and biomedical applications of glucosamine as a potential multifunctional therapeutic agent. Life Sci 152: 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2016.03.028 doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2016.03.028
    [167] Shintani T, Yamazaki F, Katoh T, et al. (2010) Glucosamine induces autophagy via an mTOR-independent pathway. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 391: 1775–1779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.12.154 doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.12.154
    [168] Lee JH, Jia Y, Thach TT, et al. (2017) Hexacosanol reduces plasma and hepatic cholesterol by activation of AMP-activated protein kinase and suppression of sterol regulatory element-binding protein-2 in HepG2 and C57BL/6J mice. Nutr Res 43: 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2017.05.013 doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2017.05.013
    [169] Hsu C, Shih H, Chang Y, et al. (2015) The beneficial effects of tetracosanol on insulin-resistance by insulin receptor kinase sensibilisation. J Funct Foods 14: 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2015.01.033 doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2015.01.033
    [170] Ninh The S (2017) A review on the medicinal plant Dalbergia odorifera species: Phytochemistry and biological activity. Evidence-Based Complementary Altern Med 2017: 7142370. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7142370 doi: 10.1155/2017/7142370
    [171] Lee D-S, Jeong G-S (2014) Arylbenzofuran isolated from Dalbergia odorifera suppresses lipopolysaccharide-induced mouse BV2 microglial cell activation, which protects mouse hippocampal HT22 cells death from neuroinflammation-mediated toxicity. Eur J Pharmacol 728: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2013.12.041 doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2013.12.041
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Rafaella Alves SILVA, Jacqueline Pontes MONTEIRO, Claudia Benedita dos SANTOS, Marta Angélica Iossi SILVA, Miriane Lucindo ZUCOLOTO, Maria Cândida de Carvalho FURTADO, Cultural adaptation of the Child Feeding Questionnaire for use in Brazil, 2021, 34, 1678-9865, 10.1590/1678-9865202134e190241
    2. Erika K. Osborn, Sudarshan R. Jadcherla, Developing a Quality Improvement Feeding Program for NICU Patients, 2022, 23, 1526-9906, e23, 10.1542/neo.23-1-e23
    3. Alberto Prieto-Patron, Patrick Detzel, Rita Ramayulis, Yulianti Wibowo, Impact of Fortified Infant Cereals on the Burden of Iron Deficiency Anemia in 6- to 23-Month-Old Indonesian Infants and Young Children: A Health Economic Simulation Model, 2022, 19, 1660-4601, 5416, 10.3390/ijerph19095416
    4. Kristen Finn, Sarah Quick, Andrea Anater, Joel Hampton, Brian Kineman, William Klish, Breastfed and mixed fed infants who do not consume infant cereal are at risk for inadequate iron intake:data from the feeding infants and toddlers study 2016, a cross-sectional survey, 2022, 22, 1471-2431, 10.1186/s12887-022-03104-9
    5. Abdoulie Jallow, Huali Xie, Xiaoqian Tang, Zhang Qi, Peiwu Li, Worldwide aflatoxin contamination of agricultural products and foods: From occurrence to control, 2021, 20, 1541-4337, 2332, 10.1111/1541-4337.12734
    6. Jorge Beltrán, Camilo Zurita, Patricio Romero, Factores de riesgo socioambientales asociados a la presencia de síntomas de atopias en niños menores de 3 años, 2021, 30, 1405-1699, 13, 10.35366/100112
    7. Jiahui An, Zhao Liu, Gang Xie, Yi Zhu, Determination and evaluation of 26 toxic, potentially toxic and essential elements in infant cereals in Chinese market, 2023, 123, 08891575, 105498, 10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105498
    8. Yudong Shi, Ran Yin, Jinzhu Pang, Yun Chen, Zhouyong Li, Shengpeng Su, Yongping Wen, Impact of complementary feeding on infant gut microbiome, metabolites and early development, 2024, 15, 2042-6496, 10663, 10.1039/D4FO03948C
    9. Mom TatahMentan, Syprose Nyachoti, Tewodros Rango Godebo, Elemental composition of toxic and essential elements in rice-based baby foods from the United States and other countries: A probabilistic risk analysis, 2024, 188, 02786915, 114677, 10.1016/j.fct.2024.114677
    10. Eleonora Bassetti, Jessica Blankenship, Jessica M. White, Lara Sweet, Diane Threapleton, Alissa M. Pries, Benchmarking the nutrient composition and labelling practices of dry or instant cereals for older infants and young children across seven Southeast Asian countries, 2023, 19, 1740-8695, 10.1111/mcn.13603
    11. Tilakavati Karupaiah, Monitoring commercially available complementary foods for the infant and young child in Southeast Asia: accountability and the way forward, 2024, 120, 00029165, 281, 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.05.005
    12. Susan Pac, Lyndsey R. Huss, Joel C. Hampton, Cheryl Callen, Alison L. Eldridge, Rice Intake Among Infants and Toddlers from the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2016, 2025, 22122672, 10.1016/j.jand.2025.01.015
    13. Lynda O’Neill, Maria F. Vasiloglou, Fanny Salesse, Regan Bailey, Carlos Alberto Nogueira-de-Almeida, Ayesha Al Dhaheri, Leila Cheikh Ismail, Nahla Hwalla, Tsz Ning Mak, Impact of Fortified Whole Grain Infant Cereal on the Nutrient Density of the Diet in Brazil, the UAE, and the USA: A Dietary Modeling Study, 2025, 12, 2227-9067, 384, 10.3390/children12030384
    14. Hasa Ali Abdulla, Mohammad A. Al-Ghouti, Lama Soubra, Arsenic contamination in rice: a DPSIR analysis with a focus on top rice producers, 2025, 978, 00489697, 179425, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179425
    15. A.N. Nwosu, E.N. Aniagor, E.E. Emojorho, J.C. Ani, Effect of Processing Method of Millet on Proximate Composition and Sensory Evaluation of Complementary Food Produced from Blends of Millet, Cowpea and Unripe Plantain Flours, 2025, 24, 16805194, 1, 10.3923/pjn.2025.1.6
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3459) PDF downloads(235) Cited by(0)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog