4.6 Article

In silico analysis of the large and small subunits of cereal RuBisCO as precursors of cryptic bioactive peptides

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 48, 期 11, 页码 1794-1799

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2013.08.013

关键词

RuBisCO; Cryptic bioactive peptides; In silico; Food proteins; Enzymatic hydrolysis

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (RuBisCO) is a plant metabolic enzyme and the most abundant protein on earth, but remains largely underutilized in the food system. Bioinformatics analysis was conducted to evaluate the prospects of RuBisCO from widely cultivated cereals (rice, barley, wheat, oat, sorghum, corn) as sources of bioactive peptides, and results were compared to commonly consumed proteins. The large and small RuBisCO subunits were found to contain several bioactive peptides with biological functions relevant to the management and treatment of diabetes, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, specifically inhibition of angiotensin converting enzyme and dipeptidyl peptidase-IV, antioxidative property and activation of ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis. Due to high sequence homology, there was negligible difference in occurrence frequency of bioactive peptides within large RuBisCO subunits unlike small subunits, which produced more diverse profiles of bioactive peptides among the cereals. The cereal RuBisCO displayed similar or better prospects as other food proteins except milk pro: teins, thereby providing cheaper and sustainable precursors of bioactive peptides. Simulated enzymatic hydrolysis of RuBisCO subunits indicated that thermolysin and papain had preferred cleavage patterns for releasing the cryptic peptides compared to gastrointestinal proteases. These findings will contribute towards utilization of RuBisCO as alternative sources of peptide-based nutraceuticals for human health promotion. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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