4.5 Article

Bone-strengthening effects and safety of compound peptides from skin of Chiloscyllium plagiosum and Mustelus griseus

期刊

FOOD SCIENCE & NUTRITION
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 1522-1533

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1438

关键词

bone trabecular; bone-strengthening effects; compound peptides; shark skin; subacute toxicity

资金

  1. Xiamen Special Fund Project for Marine Economic Development [17GYY011HJ05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fish processing produces a lot of by-products highly containing large amount of proteins which mainly consist of collagen, implying great potential value for application as nutraceutical ingredients. In present study, two kinds of sharks, Chiloscyllium plagiosum and Mustelus griseus, were used as raw material to gain three kinds of compound peptides (CPs) by enzymolysis, FCP (CPs from the flesh of C. plagiosum), SCP (CPs from the skin of C. plagiosum), and SMG (CPs from the skin of M. griseus). According to a series of constituent analysis, the molecule weights of FCP, SCP, and SMG were under 800 Da; amino acids composition analysis of FCP, SCP, and SMG showed that there were high glycine, proline, and hydroxyproline and low cysteine contents in SCP and SMG, which is the characteristic of collagen peptides; their total protein contents were 87.500%, 91.875%, and 95.625%, respectively; and heavy metal contents of CPs were all beneath national standards. After three kinds of CPs were administrated intragastrically to C57BL/6 mice at a total dosage of 15 g/kg, bone-strengthening effects of SCP and SMG were manifested by osteoblasts activity promotion, bone mineral density (BMD) increase, and marrow adipocyte number decrease, yet nonsignificant effects were shown in FCP group. No index showed toxicity of SCP and SMG in subacute toxicology trial, indicating their safety as functional foods. Herein, industrial application foundation of the skins from these two sharks was explored but more efforts should subsequently be implemented for further exploitation.

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

4.5
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