4.7 Article

Glycation with uronic acid-type reducing sugar enhances the anti-inflammatory activity of fish myofibrillar protein via the Maillard reaction

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 407, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.135162

关键词

Fish myofibrillar protein; Anti-inflammatory activity; Glycation; Maillard reaction; Uronic acid; Carboxyl group

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the role of carboxyl group in uronic acid in enhancing the anti-inflammatory activity of fish myofibrillar protein. Lyophilized Mf was reacted with various reducing sugars through the Maillard reaction, and the anti-inflammatory activity was evaluated. The results showed that glycation with uronic acid-type reducing sugars greatly enhanced the anti-inflammatory activity of Mf, while glycation with glucose or galactose had no significant effect. The study also suggested that the number of carboxyl group in bound reducing sugar could be a determining factor for the enhanced effect.
The role of carboxyl group in uronic acid in enhancing the anti-inflammatory activity of fish myofibrillar protein (Mf) was investigated, when lyophilized Mf was reacted with various reducing sugars at 60 degrees C and 35% relative humidity through the Maillard reaction. After pepsin and trypsin digestion, the anti-inflammatory activity was evaluated by measuring the secretions of tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-6, interleukin-10, and nitric oxide in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated RAW 264.7 macrophage. The anti-inflammatory activity of Mf was not affected by glycation with glucose or galactose, whereas strongly enhanced by glycation with uronic acid-type reducing sugars: glucuronic acid, galacturonic acid, and alginate oligosaccharide. These results indicate that the presence of carboxyl group in reducing sugar is important for enhancing the anti-inflammatory activity of Mf. This study also shows that the enhanced effect could depend upon the number of carboxyl group in bound reducing sugar.

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