4.7 Article

Integrated metabolomic and gene expression analyses to study the effects of glycerol monolaurate on flesh quality in large yellow croaker (Larimichthys crocea)

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 367, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130749

关键词

Glycerol monolaurate; Flesh quality; Large yellow croaker; Metabolomic; Myogenic regulation; Amino acid biosynthesis

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [LY18C200006]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [32001692]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that GML feed additive significantly improved the nutritional value, growth performance, muscle texture, and taste intensity of large yellow croaker. It achieved this by promoting amino acid biosynthesis and metabolism, enhancing protein and lipid synthesis, and activating myogenic-related signaling pathways, potentially leading to healthier, nutrient-rich, and tastier aquatic products.
To improve the quality of cultured large yellow croaker (Larimichthys crocea), this study was performed to study the impacts of glycerol monolaurate (GML) on the nutritional value, growth performance, muscle texture, and taste intensity of L. crocea. The results showed that GML as a feed additive significantly increased the crude lipid content and reduced the diameters of muscle fibers, which in turn markedly altered the flesh texture in terms of cohesiveness. Moreover, the taste indicators (umami and richness) and flavor-related amino acid (glutamic acid, glycine, and proline) contents of L. crocea muscle were significantly higher in the GML group. Metabolomic and gene expression analyses showed that GML supplementation could significantly improve amino acid biosynthesis and metabolism, promote protein and lipid synthesis, and activate myogenic-related signaling pathways of L. crocea. Consequently, adding an appropriate amount of GML to fish feed would be conducive to providing healthy, nutrient-rich and acceptably flavored aquatic-products.

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