4.7 Article

Angiotensin I-Converting Enzyme Inhibitory Peptides Generated from in Vitro Gastrointestinal Digestion of Pork Meat

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 58, 期 5, 页码 2895-2901

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf904204n

关键词

Angiotensin I-converting enzyme; pork meat; skeletal muscle; peptides; mass spectrometry; protein digestion; hypertension; proteomics

资金

  1. Fundacion Vaquero (Madrid, Spain)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main purpose of this work was to study the generation of Angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory (ACEI) peptides after gastrointestinal digestion of pork meat by the action of pepsin and pancreatin at simulated gut conditions. The hydrolysate was further subjected to reverse phase chromatography in order to separate the fractions with ACEI activity. Using MALDI-TOF/TOF mass spectrometry, 12 peptides were identified in these fractions. It is worth highlighting the novel peptides ER, KLP, and RPR with IC50 values of 667 mu M, 500 mu M, and 382,mu M, respectively. Results obtained by MALDI-TOF/TOF mass spectrometry were complemented by a second approach consisting of the analysis of the hydrolysate directly by nanoLC-ESI-MS/MS followed by a study of the obtained sequences and comparison with known ACEI peptide sequences, By using these two approaches, a total of 22 peptides were selected for its synthesis and further in vitro assay of ACEI activity. The strongest ACE inhibition was observed for peptide KAPVA (IC50 = 46.56 mu M) followed by the sequence PTPVP (IC50 = 256.41 mu M). Sequence similarity searches revealed that these two peptides derive from muscle titin, constituting the first identified ACEI peptides coming from this protein, This is also the first time that ACEI sequences MYPGIA and VIPEL have been reported. Other identified and synthesized sequences showed less ACEI activity, The obtained results evidence the potential of pork meat proteins as a source of antihypertensive peptides after gastrointestinal digestion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据