4.7 Article

Influence of muscle type on rheological properties of porcine myofibrillar protein during heat-induced gelation

期刊

MEAT SCIENCE
卷 72, 期 4, 页码 697-703

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.09.021

关键词

heat-induced gelation; myofibrillar protein; muscle type; pH; rheology; water-holding capacity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gelation characteristics of myofibrillar proteins are indicative of meat product texture. Defining the performance of myofibrillar proteins during gelation is beneficial in maintaining quality and developing processed meat products and processes. This study investigates the impact of pH on viscoelastic properties of porcine myofibrillar proteins prepared from different muscles (semimembranosus (SM), longissimus dorsi (LD) and psoas major (PM)) during heat-induced gelation. Dynamic rheological properties were measured while heating at 1 degrees C/min from 20 to 85 degrees C, followed by a holding phase at 85 degrees C for 3 min and a cooling phase from 85 to 5 degrees C at a rate of 5 degrees C/min. Storage modulus (G', the elastic response of the gelling material) increased as gel formation occurred, but decreased after reaching the temperature of myosin denaturation (52 degrees C) until approximately 60 degrees C when the gel strength increased again. This resulted in a peak and depression in the thermogram. Following 60 degrees C, the treatments maintained observed trends in gel strength, showing SM myofibrils produced the strongest gels. Myofibrillar protein from SM and PM formed stronger gels at pH 6.0 than at pH 6.5. Differences may be attributed to subtle variations in their protein profile related to muscle type or postmortem metabolism. Significant correlations were determined between G' at 57, 72, 85 and 5 degrees C, indicating that changes affecting gel strength took effect prior to 57 degrees C. Muscle type was found to influence water-holding capacity to a greater degree than pH. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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