4.7 Article

What are the ideal properties for functional food peptides with antihypertensive effect? A computational peptidology approach

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 141, 期 3, 页码 2967-2973

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.05.140

关键词

Functional food; Peptide; Bioactivity; Computational peptidology

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31200993]
  2. Young Teacher Doctoral Discipline Fund of Ministry of Education of China [20120185120025]
  3. Fundamental Funds for the Central Universities [ZYGX2012J111]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peptides with antihypertensive potency have long been attractive to the medical and food communities. However, serving as food additives, rather than therapeutic agents, peptides should have a good taste. In the present study, we explore the intrinsic relationship between the angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition and bitterness of short peptides in the framework of computational peptidology, attempting to find out the appropriate properties for functional food peptides with satisfactory bioactivities. As might be expected, quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling reveals a significant positive correlation between the ACE inhibition and bitterness of dipeptides, but this correlation is quite modest for tripeptides and, particularly, tetrapeptides. Moreover, quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics analysis of the structural basis and energetic profile involved in ACE-peptide complexes unravels that peptides of up to 4 amino acids long are sufficient to have efficient binding to ACE, and more additional residues do not bring with substantial enhance in their ACE-binding affinity and, thus, antihypertensive capability. All of above, it is coming together to suggest that the tripeptides and tetrapeptides could be considered as ideal candidates for seeking potential functional food additives with both high antihypertensive activity and low bitterness. (C) 2013 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