4.7 Article

High-Throughput and Rapid Screening of Novel ACE Inhibitory Peptides from Sericin Source and Inhibition Mechanism by Using in Silico and in Vitro Prescriptions

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 65, Issue 46, Pages 10020-10028

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04043

Keywords

sericin hydrolysis; in silico prediction; LC-MS; ACE-I inhibitory peptides; molecular docking; inhibitory mechanism

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31401629, 21666004, 21676059, 21606054]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China [2016GXNSFAA380229, 2017JJG120005]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation of Guangxi University [XGZ130963]
  4. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region [201610593169, 201710593185]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several novel peptides with high ACE-I inhibitory activity were successfully screened from sericin hydrolysate (SH) by coupling in silico and in vitro approaches for the first time. Most screening processes for ACE-I inhibitory peptides were achieved through high-throughput in silico simulation followed by in vitro verification. QSAR model based predicted results indicated that the ACE-I inhibitory activity of these SH peptides and six chosen peptides exhibited moderate high ACE-I inhibitory activities (log IC50 values: 1.63-2.34). Moreover, two tripeptides among the chosen six peptides were selected for ACE-I inhibition mechanism analysis which based on Lineweaver-Burk plots indicated that they behave as competitive ACE-I inhibitors. The C-terminal residues of short-chain peptides that contain more H-bond acceptor groups could easily form hydrogen bonds with ACE-I and have higher ACE-I inhibitory activity. Overall, sericin protein as a strong ACE-I inhibition source could be deemed a promising agent for antihypertension applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available