| Literature DB >> 26760755 |
Seung-Ki Kim1, Dodan Kwon1, Da-Ae Kwon1, In Kee Paik2, Joong-Hyuck Auh1.
Abstract
Optimization of carnosine and anserine extraction from chicken breast was performed using response surface methodology (RSM) to obtain the maximized physiological activities for anti-glycation and anti-oxidation. The optimum extraction conditions were water extraction for 1.6 h in the case of the 20-wk laying hen muscle and water extraction for 2.12 h in the case of 90-wk laying hen muscle. Higher carnosine and anserine contents were measured in the 20-wk laying hen muscle, along with higher physiological activities, which increased in direct proportion with the dipeptide contents. The extracts prepared from the 20-wk laying hen under optimum conditions showed 57% inhibition of advanced glycated end-product formation, 64% inhibition of lipid peroxidation, and 61% of DPPH radical scavenging effects. On the other hand, 52% inhibition of AGE formation, 62% inhibition of lipid peroxidation, and 53% of DPPH radical scavenging effect were demonstrated within the 90-wk laying hen. In addition, the ratio of carnosine was a key indicator for the physiological activities of the extracts.Entities:
Keywords: anserine; carnosine; chicken; extraction; optimization
Year: 2014 PMID: 26760755 PMCID: PMC4597823 DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2014.34.1.127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour ISSN: 1225-8563 Impact factor: 2.622
Factors for the central composite design for response surface methodology (RSM)
| Factors | Actual | Coded | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Middle | High | Low | Middle | High | |
| Time(h) | 1 | 3 | 5 | -1 | 0 | 1 |
| Ethanol(%) | 0 | 35 | 70 | -1 | 0 | 1 |
Experimental design used in response surface analysis for optimization of extraction conditions from 20-wk chicken breast
| Run | Factor 1 Ethanol (%) | Factor 2 Time (h) | Response 1 Carnosine+ anserine (mg/kg) | Response 2 AGE inhibition (%) | Response 3 DPPH radical scavenging (%) | Response 4 Inhibition of lipid peroxidation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3733.6 | 32.8 | 48.6 | 64.1 |
| 2 | 70.0 | 3.0 | 2645.3 | 15.4 | 31.7 | 56.6 |
| 3 | 35.0 | 5.0 | 3249.8 | 16.8 | 46.1 | 56.4 |
| 4 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3733.6 | 32.8 | 48.6 | 64.1 |
| 5 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 3093.8 | 34.2 | 51.3 | 62.3 |
| 6 | 70.0 | 1.0 | 3043.1 | 22.0 | 34.3 | 57.1 |
| 7 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3733.6 | 32.8 | 48.6 | 64.1 |
| 8 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3733.6 | 32.8 | 48.6 | 64.1 |
| 9 | 35.0 | 1.0 | 3454.0 | 26.3 | 48.4 | 61.9 |
| 10 | 70.0 | 5.0 | 2581.2 | 15.7 | 30.6 | 55.2 |
| 11 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 4080.3 | 49.0 | 51.9 | 62.9 |
| 12 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 3707.9 | 53.4 | 42.9 | 63.5 |
| 13 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3733.6 | 32.8 | 48.6 | 64.1 |
Experimental design used in response surface analysis for optimization of extraction conditions from 90-wk chicken breast
| Run | Factor 1 Ethanol (%) | Factor 2 Time (h) | Response 1 Carnosine+ anserine (mg/kg) | Response 2 AGE inhibition (%) | Response 3 DPPH radical scavenging (%) | Response 4 Inhibition of lipid peroxidation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 35.0 | 5.0 | 2581.9 | 19.9 | 42.3 | 55.8 |
| 2 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 3469.1 | 52.4 | 52.9 | 68.5 |
| 3 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 2866.9 | 26.7 | 43.1 | 58.3 |
| 4 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3168.3 | 29.6 | 43.4 | 59.8 |
| 5 | 70.0 | 5.0 | 2593.9 | 9.9 | 25.3 | 48.9 |
| 6 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3168.3 | 29.6 | 43.4 | 59.8 |
| 7 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3168.3 | 29.6 | 43.4 | 59.8 |
| 8 | 35.0 | 1.0 | 3174.1 | 44.0 | 43.9 | 58.7 |
| 9 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 2940.2 | 49.3 | 45.9 | 58.4 |
| 10 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3168.3 | 29.6 | 43.4 | 59.8 |
| 11 | 35.0 | 3.0 | 3168.3 | 29.6 | 43.4 | 59.8 |
| 12 | 70.0 | 3.0 | 2629.8 | 13.7 | 23.8 | 50.2 |
| 13 | 70.0 | 1.0 | 2754.9 | 13.3 | 16.5 | 51.5 |
Fig. 1.Contour plots for simultaneous optimization of chicken breast extract with the highest physiological activities. A, 20-wk laying hen (25℃); B, 90-wk laying hen (25℃).
Comparison of estimated and experimental values under the optimized extraction conditions
| Time (h) | Ethanol (%) | Carnosine and anserine concentration(mg/kg) | AGE inhibition(%) | DPPH radical scavenging effect (%) | Inhibition of lipid peroxidation (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laying hen (20 wk) | Estimated | 1.60 | 0.00 | 3944.53±140.42b | 51.97±4.12b | 48.69±1.20a | 64.12±1.39c |
| Experimental | 1.60 | 0.00 | 4080.35±113.00b | 57.19±0.44c | 61.16±0.41b | 64.77±1.50c | |
| Laying hen (90 wk) | Estimated | 2.12 | 0.00 | 3220.98±120.87a | 47.94±1.08a | 47.60±5.33a | 56.69±0.97a |
| Experimental | 2.12 | 0.00 | 3469.09±25.82a | 52.39±3.05b | 52.86±0.43a | 62.13±0.39b |
Fig. 2.Comparison of physiological activities of chicken extracts obtained under optimized conditions. A, AGE inhibition; B, DPPH radical scavenging effect; C, inhibition of lipid peroxidation.