4.7 Article

Influence of ultrasound pretreatment on the subsequent glycation of dietary proteins

期刊

ULTRASONICS SONOCHEMISTRY
卷 63, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2019.104910

关键词

Ultrasound pretreatment; Protein glycation; Unfolding; Aggregation

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFD0400203]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31671961, 31701727]
  3. Key Projects of Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [2017A030311021]
  4. Key Project of Guangzhou ST Program [201904020005]
  5. Start-up Fund of Natural Sciences Foundation of Guangdong Province [2015A030310189]
  6. CIUC of Zhongshan [2016C1013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influence of ultrasound treatment on the subsequent glycation process of proteins is controversial. Glycation behaviors of bovine serum albumin (BSA), beta-lactoglobulin (beta-Lg) and beta-casein (beta-CN) after ultrasound pre-treatment (UP) were compared by both evaluating glycation kinetics and analyzing structural changes of proteins. UP resulted in both unfolding and aggregation behavior in protein samples, which altered the accessibility of the Lys and Arg. Five cycles of UP up-regulated the glycation degree of BSA and beta-Lg, possibly due to the unfolding behavior induced by UP, which exposed additional glycation sites. In contrast, 30 cycles of UP induced a dramatic increase (by 97.9 nm) in particle size of BSA, thus burying portions of glycation sites and suppressing the glycation process. Notably, UP had minimal influence on glycation kinetics of beta-CN, due to its intrinsic disordered structure. Based on proteomics analysis, the preference of Lys and Arg during glycation was found to be changed by UP in BSA and beta-Lg. Four, 3 and 3 unique carboxyethylated lysine residues were identified in glycated BSA after 0, 5 and 30 cycles of UP, respectively. This study suggests that the protein glycation can be affected by UP, depending on the ultrasonication duration and native structure of the protein.

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