4.6 Article

Isolation and Characterisation of in Vitro and Cellular Free Radical Scavenging Peptides from Corn Peptide Fractions

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 3221-3237

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/molecules20023221

关键词

-

资金

  1. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20130061110088]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31271907, 31471597]
  3. Project of National Key Technology Research and Development Program [2012BAD33B03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Corn gluten meal, a corn processing industry by-product, is a good source for the preparation of bioactive peptides due to its special amino acid composition. In the present study, the in vitro and cellular free radical scavenging activities of corn peptide fractions (CPFs) were investigated. Results indicated that CPF1 (molecular weight less than 1 kDa) and CPF2 (molecular weight between 1 and 3 kDa) exhibited good hydroxyl radical, superoxide anion radical and 2,2'-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonicacid) diammonium salt (ABTS) radical scavenging activity and oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC). Meanwhile, the in vitro radical scavenging activity of CPF1 was slightly higher than that of CPF2. Both CPF1 and CPF2 also exhibited significant cytoprotective effects and intracellular reactive oxygen species scavenging activity in Caco-2 cells exposed to hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The amino acid composition analysis revealed that the CPF were rich in hydrophobic amino acids, which comprised of more than 45% of total amino acids. An antioxidant peptide sequence of Tyr-Phe-Cys-Leu-Thr (YFCLT) was identified from CPF1 using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight/time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI TOF/TOF MS). The YFCLT exhibited excellent ABTS radical scavenging activity with a 50% effective concentration (EC50) value of 37.63 mu M, which was much lower than that of Trolox. In conclusion, corn gluten meal might be a good source to prepare antioxidant peptides.

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