4.7 Article

Amino Acid Profile and Protein Quality Assessment of Macroalgae Produced in an Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture System

期刊

FOODS
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods9101382

关键词

seaweeds; conchocelis; amino acids; protein quality; integrated multitrophic aquaculture

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [UIDB/50006/2020, CEECIND/01120/2017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seaweeds are a recognized source of bioactive compounds and techno-functional ingredients. However, its protein fraction is still underexplored. The aim of this study was to determine the total and free amino acid profile and protein content of four seaweeds species (Porphyra dioica, Porphyra umbilicalis, Gracilaria vermiculophylla, and Ulva rigida) produced in an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture system, while assessing their protein quality. Samples were submitted to acid and alkaline hydrolysis (total amino acids) and to an aqueous extraction (free amino acids) followed by an automated online derivatization procedure, and analyzed by reverse phase-high performance liquid chromatography. Protein-, non-protein and total-nitrogen were quantified by the Kjeldahl method. Crude and true protein contents were estimated based on the nitrogen and amino acid composition. Protein quality was assessed based on the amino acids profile. Porphyra species presented the highest protein content compared to the remaining three seaweed species tested. All samples presented a complete profile of essential amino acids and a high quality protein profile, according to World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization standards. Methionine and tryptophan were the first limiting amino acids in all species. Red species (Porphyra and Gracilaria) presented high levels of free alanine, glutamic, and aspartic acids. The results highlight the potential of using seaweeds as an alternative and sustainable source of protein and amino acids for human nutrition and industrial food processing.

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