Synthetic astaxanthin is significantly inferior to algal-based astaxanthin as an antioxidant and may not be suitable as a human nutraceutical supplement

Abstract

Synthetic astaxanthin (S-AX) was tested against natural astaxanthin from Haematococcus pluvialis microalgae (N-AX) for antioxidant activity. In vitro studies conducted at Creighton University and Brunswick Laboratories showed N-AX to be over 50 times stronger than S-AX in singlet oxygen quenching and approximately 20 times stronger in free radical elimination. N-AX has been widely used over the last 15 years as a human nutraceutical supplement after extensive safety data and several health benefits were established. S-AX, which is synthesised from petrochemicals, has been used as a feed ingredient, primarily to pigment the flesh of salmonids. S-AX has never been demonstrated to be safe for use as a human nutraceutical supplement and has not been tested for health benefits in humans. Due to safety concerns with the use of synthetic forms of other carotenoids such as canthaxanthin and beta-carotene in humans, the authors recommend against the use of S-AX as a human nutraceutical supplement until extensive, long-term safety parameters have been established and human clinical trials have been conducted showing potential health benefits. Additionally, differences in various other properties between SAX and N-AX such as stereochemistry, esterification and the presence of supporting naturally occurring carotenoids in N-AX are discussed, all of which elicit further questions as to the safety and potential health benefits of S-AX. Ultimately, should S-AX prove safe for direct human consumption, dosage levels roughly 20–30 times greater than N-AX should be used as a result of the extreme difference in antioxidant activity between the two forms.

Full text

Original Research
Nutrafoods (2013)
DOI 10.1007/s13749-013-0051-5
Synthetic astaxanthin is significantly inferior
to algal-based astaxanthin as an antioxidant and may
not be suitable as a human nutraceutical supplement
Bob Capelli, Debasis Bagchi, Gerald R. Cysewski
Received 7 January / Accepted 3 December 2013
© Springer Healthcare – CEC Editore 2013
Abstract
Synthetic astaxanthin (S-AX) was tested against
natural astaxanthin from Haematococcus pluvialis
microalgae (N-AX) for antioxidant activity. In vitro
studies conducted at Creighton University and
Brunswick Laboratories showed N-AX to be over
50 times stronger than S-AX in singlet oxygen
quenching and approximately 20 times stronger
in free radical elimination. N-AX has been widely
used over the last 15 years as a human nutraceutical
supplement after extensive safety data and several
health benefits were established. S-AX, which is
synthesised from petrochemicals, has been used as
a feed ingredient, primarily to pigment the flesh
of salmonids. S-AX has never been demonstrated
to be safe for use as a human nutraceutical supple-
ment and has not been tested for health benefits
in humans. Due to safety concerns with the use of
synthetic forms of other carotenoids such as can-
thaxanthin and beta-carotene in humans, the au-
thors recommend against the use of S-AX as a hu-
man nutraceutical supplement until extensive,
long-term safety parameters have been established
and human clinical trials have been conducted
showing potential health benefits. Additionally,
differences in various other properties between S-
AX and N-AX such as stereochemistry, esterification
and the presence of supporting naturally occurring
carotenoids in N-AX are discussed, all of which
elicit further questions as to the safety and potential
health benefits of S-AX. Ultimately, should S-AX
prove safe for direct human consumption, dosage
levels roughly 20–30 times greater than N-AX
should be used as a result of the extreme difference
in antioxidant activity between the two forms.
Introduction
Astaxanthin is a member of the carotenoid family.
Carotenoids are divided into two groups: carotenes
such as beta-carotene and lycopene, and xantho-
phylls such as astaxanthin, lutein and canthaxan-
thin. The main structural difference between the
two groups is that xanthophylls exclusively have
hydroxyl groups at the end of the molecules. Astax-
anthin is unique in that it has more hydroxyl groups
than other xanthophylls, which may account for
Bob Capelli (•),Gerald R. Cysewski
Cyanotech Corporation
Kailua-Kona, HI, USA
tel +1-808-3261353
fax +1-808-3294533
bcapelli@cyanotech.com
Debasis Bagchi
Pharmacological and Pharmaceutical Sciences Department
University of Houston, College of Pharmacy
Houston, TX, USA
Correspondence to:
Bob Capelli
bcapelli@cyanotech.com
13
Healthcare
Keywords:
astaxanthin
synthetic astaxanthin
natural astaxanthin
antioxidant
Haematococcus

acid molecules attached to the ends of the astax-
anthin molecule). In Fig. 1, a diester of astaxanthin
is shown where R and R′are 16:0 (palmitic acid),
18:1 (oleic acid) or 18:2 (linolenic acid). Compara-
tively, S-AX is completely different from N-AX; it
is exclusively “free” astaxanthin (meaning that it
is non-esterified and has no fatty acids attached to
the ends of the molecule).
Secondly, the N-AX and S-AX molecules are shaped
differently. This difference in stereochemistry is evi-
denced by the existence of three distinct enantiomers
as seen in Fig. 2: enantiomer 1 is 3S,3′S, enantiomer
2 is 3R,3′R and enantiomer 3 is 3R,3′S (known as
“meso”). So, while natural and synthetic astaxanthin
share the same molecular formula, 75% of the mol-
ecules are shaped differently. The differences between
N-AX and S-AX are also quite profound:
its superior antioxidant activity and its more diverse
and profound health benefits in humans [1].
Natural astaxanthin (N-AX) occurs in Haematococcus
pluvialis, a ubiquitous unicellular microalgae, which
grows in fresh water throughout the world. Com-
mercially, N-AX is extracted from H. pluvialis mi-
croalgae grown in closed systems or open pond sys-
tems by several different companies. When subjected
to environmental stress, these algae hyperaccumu-
late N-AX as a survival mechanism. N-AX protects
the algae cells extremely efficiently; the algae can
live for over 40 years with no food or water and in
extreme heat or cold due to the protective effects of
N-AX. This natural form of astaxanthin was first
sold as a human nutraceutical supplement in the
late 1990s when it was allowed for sale by the US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a new di-
etary ingredient. An extensive array of human clin-
ical trials from around the world have established
health benefits for N-AX in areas such as eye and
brain health, UV protection and skin health, anti-
inflammatory activity, immune system modulation
and cardiovascular health among others [2–10].
Synthetic astaxanthin (S-AX) is produced by a
highly involved, multistep process from petro-
chemicals by a handful of large chemical compa-
nies. During the steps in this process, the molecule
assumes different forms before finally arriving at
its final stage, when it attains the same chemical
formula as N-AX. S-AX is then sold in the animal
feed market where it is added primarily to fish feeds
with the purpose of pigmenting the flesh of certain
species of commercially farmed fish, predominantly
salmonids such as Atlantic salmon and trout. S-AX
has not undergone safety testing for direct human
use and has not been documented to have any
physiological benefits in humans; it has thus never
been registered with regulatory authorities for direct
human use in any country [1].
The main differences between N-AX and S-AX are
three-fold: Firstly, N-AX is comprised of 95% ester-
ified molecules, both monoesterified and diesteri-
fied (meaning they have either one or two fatty
Nutrafoods (2013)
13
Healthcare
Figure 1 Diester of astaxanthin
11’ 3’
8’157
35
814 7’
R--
--R’O
O
O
O
Figure 2 Three different enantiomers of astaxanthin
3’
OH
O
OAstaxanthin 3R, 3’R
HO
3’
OH
O
OAstaxanthin 3R, 3’S
HO
3’
OH
O
OAstaxanthin 3S, 3’S
(3,3’-dihydroxy-4,4’-diketo-Beta-carotene)
HO

•Esterification
•Stereochemistry
•The presence of three additional, naturally oc-
curring carotenoids in N-AX [1]
For these reasons, we suggest that the synthetically
produced form must be considered unique from
other forms and should not be introduced for direct
human use until long-range safety parameters are
established and human clinical trials showing po-
tential benefits have been conducted.
Another commercial source of astaxanthin is Xan-
thophyllomyces dendrorhous. This is a species of yeast
formerly known as Phaffia rhodozyma. While the
yeast in nature produces small amounts of astaxan-
thin, commercial manufacturers use a genetically
mutated form to produce higher amounts of astax-
anthin. The astaxanthin present in this yeast is ex-
tremely different from the astaxanthin found in
the marine food chain.For example, similar to S-
AX, it has a completely different stereochemistry
from N-AX. Another key difference is that it is 100%
non-esterified. This astaxanthin product from mu-
tated yeast is allowed for human consumption in
some countries; however, due to insufficient safety
data, use is only permitted with restrictions. For ex-
ample, it is allowed by the US FDA, but with re-
strictions against long-term use, against the use in
children and, perhaps most significantly, at dosage
levels of only 2 mg/day. Generally, a 2 mg dosage
of N-AX has only been shown to be sufficient in
human clinical research in the area of immunomod-
ulation [9], one of many potential physiological
benefits of astaxanthin. The literature does not con-
tain human clinical research on this yeast form of
astaxanthin. For this reason and due to safety con-
cerns, discussion of this form of astaxanthin re-
mains outside the scope of this paper [1].
Materials and methods
The free radicals superoxide anion and hydroxyl
radical were generated in vitro:
•Superoxide anion radical: Xanthine (100 µM) in 5
•N-AX contains 100% 3S,3′S enantiomer.
•S-AX contains a combination of three different
enantiomers: It has 25% 3S,3′S (the same shaped
molecules as N-AX), but it contains primarily
molecules shaped differently from N-AX: 50% is
meso-astaxanthin comprised of the 3R,3′S enan-
tiomer. Lastly, 25% is pure “R” enantiomer 3R,3′R.
Thirdly, S-AX is exclusively synthetic astaxanthin
and contains no supporting carotenoids, while N-
AX is naturally complexed in Haematococcus mi-
croalgae with other carotenoids, as seen in Fig. 3.
When lipids are extracted from the algae, the re-
sulting extract contains primarily N-AX, but it also
contains three other naturally occurring carotenoids.
The resulting “natural carotenoid complex” contains
approximately:
•70% monoesterified astaxanthin
•10% diesterified astaxanthin
•5% free astaxanthin
•6% beta-carotene
•5% canthaxanthin
•4% lutein
Due to three clear differences between these two
forms of astaxanthin, N-AX and S-AX cannot be
considered the same molecule. While they share
the same chemical formula, there are vast differ-
ences between N-AX and S-AX in:
Nutrafoods (2013)
13
Healthcare
Figure 3 Carotenoid breakdown of N-AX
Astaxanthin
diester
Astaxanthin free
Lutein
Canthaxanthin
Beta-carotene
Astaxanthin
monoester
70
10
5
4
5
6
diester
staA
10
xanthinCantha
Lutein
xanthin freestaA
diester
xanthin sta
5
5
4
monoester
xanthin staA
70 aroteneBeta-c
xanthinCantha
6
5

#9335). N-AX proved to be 14–65 times more po-
tent at eliminating free radicals when compared
directly against these other antioxidants, including
S-AX. N-AX was approximately 20 times more po-
tent at free radical elimination than S-AX. Results
are summarised in Table 1 and Fig. 4.
Antioxidant activity of N-AX (as BioAstin®Hawai-
ian Astaxanthin by Cyanotech Corporation, Kailua-
Kona, HI) and S-AX (as Vivital™ AstaFeed by Divis
Laboratories, Morristown, NJ) was measured in a
suite of tests by Brunswick Laboratories (Southbor-
ough, MA). Results are shown in Table 2. N-AX was
mM Tris-HCl buffer was incubated with 8 mU/ml
of xanthine oxidase to generate superoxide anion.
•Hydroxyl radical: The incubation mixture to gen-
erate hydroxyl radical contained, in a total vol-
ume of 2 ml, 5 mM Tris-HCl, 100 µM FeCl3, 100
µM EDTA and 100 µM xanthine. Xanthine oxi-
dase (8 mU/ml) was added to initiate the reaction
and to produce hydroxyl radicals [11].
Chemiluminescence measurements
Chemiluminescence, as an index of reactive oxygen
species production, was measured in a Chronolog
Lumivette luminometer (Chronolog Corp., Philadel-
phia, PA). The assay was conducted in 3 ml glass
minivials. The vials were incubated at 37°C prior to
measurement and the background chemilumines-
cence of each vial was checked before use. Samples
were preincubated at 37°C for 15 min, and 4µM lu-
minol was added to enhance chemiluminescence.
All additions to the vials as well as chemilumines-
cence counting procedures were performed under
dim lighting conditions. Results were examined as
counts per unit of time minus background. Chemi-
luminescence was monitored for 6 min at continu-
ous 30-s intervals [12].
Statistical analyses
Significance between pairs of mean values was de-
termined by Student’s t-test. p<0.05 was considered
significant for analysis.
Replicates for the Creighton University free radical
inhibition research were conducted four to six
times. Replicates for the Brunswick Laboratories
analyses were conducted two to three times.
Results
In vitro work done at Creighton University School
of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions (Omaha,
NE) matched N-AX (as BioAstin®Hawaiian Astax-
anthin from Cyanotech Corporation) against sev-
eral other well known natural antioxidants such as
vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, Pycnogenol®
pine bark extract and S-AX (as Sigma catalogue
Nutrafoods (2013)
13
Healthcare
Table 1 Free radical eliminating potency of various antioxidants
(N=4–6)
Material Active Free radical Free radical N-AX relative
material inhibition inhibition performance
used (mg) in study (%) per mg active
material (%)
Vitamin C 100 19 0.19 N-AX 65×
stronger
Vitamin E 50 43 0.86 N-AX 14×
stronger
Beta-carotene 100 23 0.23 N-AX 53×
stronger
Pycnogenol 100 69 0.69 N-AX 18×
stronger
S-AX 100 59 0.59 N-AX 20×
stronger
N-AX 5 61.7 12.34 N/A
Figure 4 Free radical eliminating potency of various antioxidants
Beta-carotene
Vitamin C
Pycnogenol
Vitamin E
S-AX
N-AX
02
% Free Radical Inhibition per mg
4681012 14

Regardless of this minor issue with the ORAC test,
the outcome of this research is clear: N-AX is a su-
perior antioxidant to S-AX by more than an order
of magnitude. Results range from approximately
14 times stronger in the overall ORAC summary
score to more than 20 times stronger in free radical
elimination to as high as 55 times stronger in sin-
glet oxygen quenching.
Discussion
N-AX has proven to be exceptionally more power-
ful than other common antioxidants as well as S-
AX; tested against other commonly used antioxi-
dants, it scored a minimum of 14 to a maximum
of 65 times higher in free radical elimination. Two
separate antioxidant tests were performed directly
comparing N-AX with S-AX, one at a leading uni-
versity and the other at an independent laboratory
specialising in antioxidant testing. The results of
this testing showed that:
•N-AX is approximately 55 times stronger than S-
AX in singlet oxygen elimination.
•N-AX is approximately 20 times stronger than S-
AX in free radical elimination.
•N-AX is approximately 14 times stronger than S-
AX in the suite of antioxidant tests known as
ORAC.
For these reasons, should it be commercialised for
human use, S-AX would have to be used at a rate
14–55 times greater than N-AX to obtain the same
antioxidant protection. Current dosage recommen-
55 times stronger than S-AX in eliminating singlet
oxygen in vitro. Similar to the results at Creighton
University cited above, N-AX was over 20 times
stronger than S-AX in eliminating the superoxide
ion. N-AX was 3.5 times stronger against peroxyl
radicals. N-AX performed significantly worse than
S-AX against peroxynitrite, with only 24% of the
antioxidant power of S-AX. Peroxynitrite is pro-
duced from the diffusion-controlled reaction be-
tween nitric oxide and the superoxide anion. Per-
oxynitrite interacts with lipids, DNA and proteins
via direct oxidative reactions or via indirect, radi-
cal-mediated mechanisms. However, N-AX de-
creases nitric oxide production [7] and has very
powerful activity against the superoxide anion and
hence, would decrease the production of perox-
ynitrite, rendering this particular result less mean-
ingful. In the final survey by Brunswick Laborato-
ries, antioxidant activity against hydroxyl radicals
was measured. Unfortunately, a different procedure
from that used at Creighton University was em-
ployed, and no result was obtained for N-AX, ren-
dering this test incomparable. Brunswick Labora-
tories issues a summary score for this suite of
antioxidant tests called oxygen radical absorbance
capacity (ORAC). Including the hydroxyl test for
which the N-AX score was not determined and the
peroxynitrite test in which S-AX performed better
than N-AX, the summary result found N-AX to be
14 times stronger overall as an antioxidant than S-
AX.The results are summarised in Table 2.
Creighton University tests were carried out under
the supervision of Debasis Bagchi, the developer
of a method of free radical generation and an expert
in antioxidant research. Brunswick Laboratories is
regarded as a leading antioxidant research labora-
tory, and while it is unclear why results for hy-
droxyl radicals were unavailable for N-AX, it is clear
that this lab is a competent source for antioxidant
testing. One possible reason why the N-AX score
in the hydroxyl radical test was not determined is
that N-AX may not be soluble in the solvent used
in this ORAC test.
Nutrafoods (2013)
13
Healthcare
Test N-AX S-AX N-AX vs. S-AX
Antioxidant power against singlet oxygen 12,055 220 55× stronger
Antioxidant power against super oxide ion 5,377 258 21× stronger
Antioxidant power against peroxyl radicals 574 165 3.5× stronger
Antioxidant power against peroxynitrite 28 115 0.24× of S-AX's
activity
Antioxidant power against hydroxyl radicals Not 538 Not
determined comparable
Total ORACFN antioxidant power 18,034 1,296 14× stronge
Table 2 Antioxidant power against various oxidants of N-AX
vs. S-AX (Brunswick Laboratories antioxidant test
results; all numbers in moles TE per gram; N=2–3)

Also, synergy can play an important role in vitamin
E’s effects. In a study published in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, it was found that alpha-
tocopherol, gamma-tocopherol and selenium work
in concert to prevent prostate cancer. In other
words, benefits increased with the complete vitamin
complex versus single synthesised molecules [14].
Carotenoids in their synthetic forms in particular
yield very significant safety concerns. The most re-
searched carotenoid to date is beta-carotene. The
literature is full of studies demonstrating a variety
of health benefits for beta-carotene in areas such
as immunity, prevention of cancer and skin health
[15]. However, the differences in absorption be-
tween the synthetic and natural varieties of beta-
carotene are profound; in one study, natural beta-
carotene was absorbed ten times better than the
synthetic form by rats and chickens [16]. Not only
is absorption a concern, but also efficacy. Similar
to our results with S-AX versus N-AX in antioxidant
potential, synthetic beta-carotene does not have
the same antioxidant abilities as its natural cousin.
Synthetic beta-carotene is primarily the trans form,
while natural beta-carotene contains large amounts
of the cis form. The 9-cis beta-carotene form, which
is found in high amounts in natural beta-carotene,
is a more efficient lipophilic antioxidant than the
synthetic trans form. The stereochemistry of this
carotenoid (similar to the situation with astaxan-
thin) is important in antioxidant potential as well
as absorption and transport [17].
Perhaps the most significant difference found in
the literature between natural and synthetic forms
of beta-carotene was demonstrated in the famous
“Finnish Smokers Study” in the 1990s. After scores
of epidemiological studies, in vitro and preclinical
animal trials demonstrated that natural beta-
carotene has cancer-preventative properties [15]. A
study of men from Finland who smoked on average
three packs of cigarettes per day found an unex-
pected outcome: when supplemented with syn-
thetic beta-carotene, there was a slight increase in
cancer among the treatment group versus the
dations for humans for N-AX range from 2 to 16
mg/day based on extensive human clinical trials
showing a wide range of health benefits. Based on
this dosage range for N-AX, should S-AX be allowed
for human use, the resulting recommended range
would be a minimum of 28 mg/day to a maximum
of 880 mg/day when considering the differences in
antioxidant activity. With an average difference of
antioxidant measurements in the range of 20×–30×,
and an average human dosage of 8 mg/day, the av-
erage dose for S-AX would be in the proximity of
160–240 mg/day. Before release to human con-
sumers, long-range safety trials should be conducted
at this dosage level to ensure that, unlike synthetic
beta-carotene and synthetic canthaxanthin, there
are no concerns with S-AX in areas such as carcino-
genesis or retinal crystal formation (see below).
Other nutraceutical supplements that are available
in both synthetic and natural forms show safety
concerns with their synthetic form. This includes
molecules closely related to astaxanthin such as
the carotenoids beta-carotene and canthaxanthin
as well as other nutraceuticals such as vitamin E.
While the exact cause of the differences between
natural and synthesised forms of nutraceuticals is
not known, one logical theory is that synthesised
compounds may not be the most physiologically
valuable part of the natural nutrient complex. For
example, synthesised vitamin E is exclusively DL-
alpha tocopherol, while natural vitamin E is a com-
plex of several mixed tocopherols and tocotrienols.
Nutrients may be synergistic, meaning that they
may work best when taken in concert with other
compounds in their natural forms.
Research has shown that synthetic vitamin E may
be inferior to the natural form in its physiological
properties. Synthetic E, which is exclusively DL-
alpha tocopherol, has a limited ability to yield
health benefits. Members of the natural vitamin E
complex have essential independent functions. For
example, the alpha-tocotrienol component of the
natural E complex prevents neurodegeneration. To-
cotrienols are not found in synthetic vitamin E [13].
Nutrafoods (2013)
13
Healthcare

2011 found that complete disappearance of the
golden crystals took approximately 20 years [22].
The differences in regards to safety between natural
and synthetic forms of nutraceutical supplements
raise concern for the introduction of new synthetic
versions of supplements. Particularly worrisome are
the safety concerns with synthetic carotenoids. Syn-
thetic beta-carotene’s increase of cancer rates in
smokers and synthetic canthaxanthin causing un-
natural retinal crystallisation are clear evidence that
extensive, long-range safety testing of S-AX and
other synthetic carotenoids are necessary before re-
lease to human consumers. Additionally, serious
questions of efficacy exist with synthetic com-
pounds such as synthetic vitamin E, synthetic beta-
carotene and synthetic canthaxanthin when com-
pared to their natural forms. The lack of efficacy
and safety in synthetic supplements are most likely
due to the profound differences between syntheti-
cally produced nutraceutical compounds and their
naturally occurring counterparts. For example, in
the case of astaxanthin, far-ranging, extensive dif-
ferences in the shape of the molecule; the esterifi-
cation of the molecule; and the presence of other
naturally occurring carotenoids in their natural
form in N-AX lead us to the conclusion that S-AX
and N-AX, although both called “astaxanthin”,
must be considered completely different substances.
For these reasons, the authors recommend against
the use of S-AX in human nutraceutical supple-
ments until extensive, long-range safety parameters
are established and human clinical trials showing
health benefits are conducted. In the event that S-
AX attains these two milestones, due to the exten-
sive differences between the two molecules, it
should be distinctly labelled as “synthetic astaxan-
thin” on consumer product labels, and dosage levels
should be approximately 20–30 times those of N-
AX in order to obtain similar antioxidant activity.
Acknowledgement
This research was made possible by grants from Cyanotech Cor-
poration, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, USA.
placebo group [18]. This study was very troubling
to many consumers who were taking beta-carotene
as a cancer preventative supplement. Further re-
search comparing synthetic beta-carotene with nat-
ural beta-carotene extracted from Dunaliella salina
microalgae found that synthetic beta-carotene may
be involved in the formation of cancer. This same
study concluded that natural beta-carotene could
be valuable in tumour prevention and supplemen-
tary treatment [19]. The possibility that synthetic
beta-carotene may cause cancer while natural beta-
carotene may prevent cancer is the most grave con-
cern of all when considering the introduction of S-
AX, a related carotenoid, as a supplement for
human use.
Synthetic canthaxanthin taken as a supplement
has also yielded grave concerns. This is particularly
relevant to our discussion in this paper since can-
thaxanthin is in the same carotenoid family as
beta-carotene and astaxanthin, but is even more
closely related to astaxanthin than beta-carotene
is. Canthaxanthin, like astaxanthin, falls into the
xanthophyll subgroup since it has hydroxyl groups
attached to its molecules. Natural canthaxanthin
is not currently available commercially since
sources for the natural form are limited. Canthax-
anthin is, however, available in its synthetic form,
and is used as an addition to animal feeds similar
to S-AX. It is important to note that governments
around the world consider synthetic canthaxanthin
a safety concern, and limit or prohibit its use in
animal feeds [20,21]. The safety concern centres
on crystallisation in the retina due to supplemen-
tation with synthetic canthaxanthin. In the late
1980s, synthetic canthaxanthin was marketed as
an internal tanning pill for people who wished to
appear sun-tanned without going out in the sun.
The product was abruptly taken off the market
when golden crystals were found in consumers’
retinas. The crystallisation disappeared over time
after discontinuing consumption of synthetic can-
thaxanthin. But it is disconcerting to note how
long reversal took: follow-up research published in
Nutrafoods (2013)
13
Healthcare

9. Park JS, Chyun JH, Kim YK, Line LL, Chew BP (2010) As-
taxanthin decreased oxidative stress and inflammation and
enhanced immune response in humans. Nutr Metab (Lond)
7:18
10. Yoshida H, Yanai H, Ito K, Tomono Y, Koikeda T, Tsukahara
H, Tada N (2010) Administration of natural astaxanthin
increases serum HDL-cholesterol and adiponectin in sub-
jects with mild hyperlipidemia. Atherosclerosis 209:520–
523
11. Bagchi D, Das DK, Engelman RM, Prasad MR, Subramanian
R (1990) Polymorphonuclear leucocytes as potential source
of free radicals in the ischaemic-reperfused myocardium.
Eur Heart J 11(9):800–813
12. Bagchi M., Hassoun EA, Bagchi D, Stohs SJ (1993) Produc-
tion of reactive oxygen species by peritoneal macrophages
and hepatic mitochondria and microsomes from endrin-
treated rats. Free Radic Biol Med 14:149
13. Sen CK, Khanna S, Roy S (2006) Tocotrienols: vitamin E
beyond tocopherols. Life Sci 78(18):2088–2098
14. Helzlsouer K, Huang H-Y, Alberg A, Hoffman S, Burke A,
Norkus E, Morris J, Comstock G (2000) Association between
α-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, selenium, and subsequent
prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(24):2018–2023
15. Moorhead K, Capelli B, Cysewski G (2005) Nature’s super-
food: spirulina. Cyanotech Corporation, Kailua-Kona, HI,
USA. ISBN #0-9637511-3-1
16. Ben-Amotz A, Mokady S, Edelstein A, Avron M (1989)
Bioavailability of a natural isomer mixture as compared
with synthetic all-trans-beta-carotene in rats and chicks. J
Nutr 119(7):1013
17. Ben-Amotz A, Levy Y (1996) Bioavailability of a natural
isomer mixture compared with synthetic all-trans beta-
carotene in human serum. Am J Clin Nutr 63(5):729–734
18. Heinonen OP, Albanes D (1994) The effect of vitamin E and
beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other
cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med 330:1029–1035
19. Xue KX, Wu JZ, Ma GJ, Yuan S, Qin HL (1998) Comparative
studies on genotoxicity and antigenotoxicity of natural
and synthetic beta-carotene stereoisomers. Mutat Res
418(2–3):73–78
20. European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Di-
rectorate-General (2002) Opinion of the Scientific Commit-
tee on Animal Nutrition on the use of canthaxanthin in
feeding stuffs for salmon and trout, laying hens, and other
poultry. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/
sc/scan/out81_en.pdf. Accessed 20 December 2012
21. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (2011) Standard
1.2.4: Labelling of ingredients. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/De-
tails/F2011C00827. Australian Government. Accessed 27 Oc-
tober 2011
22. Hueber A, Rosentreter A, Severin M (2011) Canthaxanthin
retinopathy: long-term observations. Ophthalmic Res
46(2):103–106
Conflict of interest
Bob Capelli and Gerald R. Cysewski are employees and stock-
holders of Cyanotech Corporation, the company that sponsored
this research. Debasis Bagchi is a professor at the University of
Houston College of Pharmacy and was formerly a professor at
Creighton University where he oversaw research described
herein. He is independent and has no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal
subjects performed by any of the authors.
An extensive compilation of published research on astaxanthin
is available from the authors. Please contact us at info@cyan-
otech.com.
References
1. Capelli B, Cysewski G (2012) The world’s best kept health
secret: natural astaxanthin. Cyanotech Corporation, Kailua-
Kona, HI
2. Shiratori K, Ogami K, Nitta T (2005) The effects of astaxanthin
on accommodation and asthenopia: efficacy identification
study in healthy volunteers. J Clin Med 21(6):637–650
3. Satoh A, Tsuji S, Okada Y, Murakami N, Urami M, Nakagawa
K, Ishikura M, Katagiri M, Koga Y, Shirasawa T (2009) Pre-
liminary clinical evaluation of toxicity and efficacy of a
new astaxanthin-rich Haematococcus pluvialis extract. J Clin
Biochem Nutr 44(3):280–284
4. Nakagawa K, Kiko T, Miyazawa T, Carpentero Burdeos G,
Kimura F, Satoh A (2011) Antioxidant effect of astaxanthin
on phospholipid peroxidation in human erythrocytes. Br J
Nutr 105(11):1563–1571
5. Savouré N, Briand G, Amory-Touz M, Combre A, Maudet M
(1995) Vitamin A status and metabolism of cutaneous
polyamines in the hairless mouse after UV irradiation: action
of beta-carotene and astaxanthin. Int J Vitam Nutr Res
65(2):79–86
6. Yamashita E (2006) The effects of a dietary supplement con-
taining astaxanthin on skin condition. Carotenoid Sci
(10):91–95
7. Lee S, Bai S, Lee K, Namkoong S, Na H, Ha K, Han J, Yim S,
Chang K, Kwon Y, Lee S, Kim Y (2003) Astaxanthin inhibits
nitric oxide production and inflammatory gene expression
by suppressing IkB kinase-dependent NFR-kB activation.
Mol Cells 16(1):97–105
8. Ohgami K, Shiratori K, Kotake S, Nishida T, Mizuki N, Yazawa
K, Ohno S (2003) Effects of astaxanthin on lipopolysaccha-
ride-induced inflammation in vitro and in vivo. Invest
Opthalmol Vis Sci 44(6):2694–2701
Nutrafoods (2013)
13
Healthcare