4.6 Article

An evaluation of methods for extraction and quantification of protein from marine macro- and microalgae

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 447-460

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10811-005-1641-4

关键词

amino acids; marine macroalgae; marine microalgae; nitrogen; protein determination; seaweeds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparison of data of protein content in algae is very difficult, primarily due to differences in the analytical methods employed. The different extraction procedures (exposure to water, grinding, etc.), protein precipitation using different amounts of 25% trichloroacetic acid and quantification of protein by two different methods and using two protein standards were evaluated. All procedures were tested using freeze-dried samples of three macroalgae: Porphyra acanthophora var. acanthophora, Sargassum vulgare and Ulva fasciata. Based on these results, a protocol for protein extraction was developed, involving the immersion of samples in 4.0 mL ultra-pure water for 12 h, followed by complete grinding of the samples with a Potter homogeniser. The precipitation of protein should be done with 2.5:1 25% TCA:homogenate (v/v). The protocol for extraction and precipitation of protein developed in this study was tested with other macroalgae (Aglaothamnion uruguayense, Caulerpa fastigiata, Chnoospora minima, Codium decorticatum, Dictyota menstrualis, Padina gymnospora and Pterocladiella capillacea) and microalgae (Amphidinium carterae, Dunaliella tertiolecta, Hillea sp., Isochrysis galbana and Skeletonema costatum). Comparison with the actual protein content determined from the sum of amino acid residues, suggests that Lowry's method should be used instead of Bradford's using bovine serum albumin (BSA) as protein standard instead of casein. This may be related to the reactivity of the protein standards and the greater similarity in the amino acid composition of BSA and algae. The current results should contribute to more accurate protein determinations in marine algae.

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