4.7 Article

In-vitro binding analysis and inhibitory effect of capsaicin on lipase

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112674

关键词

Capsaicin; Capsazepine; Lipase; Binding mechanism

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21808020]
  2. Applied Basic Research Program of Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explored the binding mechanism and inhibitory effect of capsaicin on lipase, demonstrating that capsaicin has a moderate affinity to lipase and can disturb the secondary structure of the enzyme. The research also showed that capsaicin inhibits lipase activity, potentially affecting the development of weight-loss related functional foods.
Capsaicin is the main active ingredient in chilis. This study selected capsazepine as a comparative model and revealed the binding mechanism and inhibitory effect of capsaicin on lipase in vitro. Electrochemical results showed capsaicin has a moderate affinity to lipase with a 7.413 x 104 L/mol binding constant, which is higher than capsazepine (3.388 x 104 L/mol). Structural analysis displayed that capsaicin/capsazepine caused a slight disturbance (less than 1%) to the secondary structure of lipase. The capsaicin binding epitope on the lipase was characterized by nuclear magnetic resonance. H47, H48 and H49 were the protons mainly involved in the interaction. In the comparison model, the H27 and H26 were involved in the capsazepine-lipase system. Hydrogen proton binding epitope analysis combined with molecular docking showed the main elements involved in the binding details. Enzyme kinetics results showed that capsaicin could inhibit the activity of lipase, resulting in a decrease in its ability to hydrolyze the substrate varying hydrolysis rate from 0% to 33.33% in different capsaicin concentrations. The biological model in vitro established in this study will support the development of weightloss-related functional foods.

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