4.6 Article

A Novel Bone Gelatin Prepared by Enzymatic Catalysis with High Crosslinking Activity of MTGase for Gelatinization Properties of Minced Pork

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr10061061

关键词

bone gelatin; microbial transglutaminase; crosslink; minced pork; thermo-reversibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel gelatin with high crosslinking activity (type-E bone gelatin) was developed using enzymatic catalysis. The study found that this type-E gelatin had higher levels of lysine and glutamine compared to traditional gelatins prepared using acid or alkali methods, making it suitable for crosslinking with microbial transglutaminase (MTGase). The crosslinking degree of type-E gelatin was significantly higher than that of type-A and type-B gelatins, and it also exhibited thermal irreversibility at higher MTGase concentrations. When applied to minced pork gel, the type-E gelatin crosslinked by MTGase improved water-holding capacity and texture properties, reducing cooking loss.
A novel gelatin prepared by enzymatic catalysis (type-E bone gelatin) was developed in our group. In this study, the high crosslinking activity of type-E bone gelatin with microbial transglutaminase (MTGase) was found and further used for the gelatinization properties of minced pork. The results showed that the contents of lysine and glutamine in type-E bone gelatin were higher than that of traditional gelatin prepared by acid (type-A gelatin) and alkali (type-B gelatin) methods, which are as action sites for MTGase. The crosslinking degree (79%) of type-E was approximately 4.9 times that of type-A and 5.6 times that of type-B at 1.44 U/g MTGase. Moreover, the type-E gel showed thermal irreversibility when the MTGase concentration was higher than 0.90 U/g due to high crosslinking activity. For minced pork gel, the water-holding capacity and texture properties of minced pork modified with type-E bone gelatin crosslinked by MTGase were improved and cooking loss was significantly reduced.

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

4.6
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