Henle Thomas
Institute of Food Chemistry, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.
Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Sep;51(9):1075-8. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200700067.
Physiological consequences resulting from protein-bound Maillard compounds in foods must be discussed carefully. This was the idea behind the debate, which is put for discussion by the papers by Sebekova and Somoza, who argued for the motion that dietary advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are a health risk, and by Ames, who provided evidence against the motion. In this two excellent reviews, numerous arguments based on papers published in high-impact journals are given for each of the opinions. The fact that no final conclusion can be drawn, may reflect the need for a more comprehensive examination of this issue in the future. For a deeper understanding of biological consequences resulting from heated foods, the relationships between well-defined biological effects and well-characterized chemical structures must be studied. Prerequisite for this is profound chemistry--pure compounds, exact concentrations, and unambiguous analytical techniques. A real "risk assessment" is much too complex than to leave it up to one discipline alone. It must be a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach, joining the resources of biology, medicine, and chemistry.
必须谨慎讨论食物中与蛋白质结合的美拉德化合物所产生的生理后果。这就是这场辩论背后的理念，这场辩论由塞贝科娃和索莫扎的论文引发，他们主张膳食晚期糖基化终产物（AGEs）存在健康风险，而艾姆斯则提供了反对该主张的证据。在这两篇出色的综述中，针对每种观点都给出了基于发表在高影响力期刊上的论文的大量论据。无法得出最终结论这一事实，可能反映出未来需要对这个问题进行更全面的审视。为了更深入地理解加热食物所产生的生物学后果，必须研究明确的生物学效应与特征明确的化学结构之间的关系。对此的前提是深厚的化学知识——纯净化合物、精确浓度以及明确无误的分析技术。真正的“风险评估”远比仅由一个学科来完成要复杂得多。它必须是一种综合的跨学科方法，整合生物学、医学和化学的资源。
