4.7 Article

Protein extraction protocols for optimal proteome measurement and arginine kinase quantitation from cricket Acheta domesticus for food safety assessment

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 348, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129110

关键词

Cricket; Protein extraction; Protocol optimisation; Proteomics; LC-MRM-MS; Allergen; Cross-reactive; Arginine kinase

资金

  1. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia) [SG-AUS2019_191D4]
  2. Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR, Singapore) [SG-AUS2019_191D4]
  3. James Cook University (Australia) [SG-AUS2019_191D4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study explored the proteome of insect products using LC-MS/MS and identified potential allergens, particularly three proteoforms of arginine kinase. A targeted MS assay was developed to detect these allergens, showing variability in abundance/detectability based on extraction and processing methods.
Insects have been consumed by people for millennia and have recently been proposed as a complementary, sustainable source of protein to feed the world's growing population. Insects and crustaceans both belong to the arthropod family. Crustacean (shellfish) allergies are common and potentially severe; hence, the cross-reactivity of the immune system with insect proteins is a potential health concern. Herein, LC-MS/MS was used to explore the proteome of whole, roasted whole and roasted powdered cricket products. Eight protein extraction protocols were compared using the total number of protein and distinct peptide identifications. Within these data, 20 putative allergens were identified, of which three were arginine kinase (AK) proteoforms. Subsequently, a multiple reaction monitoring MS assay was developed for the AK proteoforms and applied to a subset of extracts. This targeted assay demonstrated that allergen abundance/detectability varies according to the extraction method as well as the food processing method.

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