| Literature DB >> 29987262 |
Parhat Rozi1,2,3, Parida Maimaiti4, Aytursun Abuduwaili5,6,7, Ahmidin Wali8,9,10, Abulimiti Yili5,6, Haji Akber Aisa11,12.
Abstract
In this work, proteins and peptides were isolated from four kinds of animal bone marrow and characterized by sodium dodecyl sulfatepolyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS). The antimicrobial and antioxidant activity of these proteins were investigated in vitro. The nutritional value was evaluated by analyzing their free amino acid composition. The results indicates that all of the extracts appeared two bands at SDS-PAGE, the peptide band at 4.1⁻10 kDa and protein band at 66 kDa, these data are consistent with LC/MS results. FT-IR analysis showed that the secondary structure of protein mainly consists of α-helix. SEM micrographs revealed that the fractions have different morphological characteristics. Horse bone marrow protein (HBMP) showed the highest antioxidant activity to DPPH free radical, IC50 value was 0.573 mg/mL. Most of the obtained fractions showed antimicrobial activities towards Escherichiacoli (EC) and Candida albicans (CA). Total free amino acid content ranged between 5.15⁻49.60 mg/g, and among them, HBMP displayed the highest abundance, 49.7 mg/g, which amino acid composition ratio approached the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) ideal amino acid pattern recommendation. This study provides fundamental knowledge and a basic study method for the research into and development of animal bone marrow proteins and peptides as functional food and drug resources.Entities:
Keywords: LC/MS; SDS-PAGE; bone marrow; nutritional evaluation; protein and peptide
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29987262 PMCID: PMC6100344 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23071673
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Comparison of water extracted proteins from different bone marrow.
| No. | Protein Content (mg/mL) | Extraction Yield (%) |
|---|---|---|
| SBMP | 20.22 | 86.85 |
| BBMP | 52.20 | 68.43 |
| HBMP | 34.60 | 90.47 |
| CBMP | 25.60 | 72.07 |
Notes: SBMP, BBMP, HBMP, CBMP indicate sheep, bovine, horse and camel bone marrow protein.
Comparison of different BMP by ammonium sulfate fractions.
| No. | Concentration | Protein Content (mg/mL) | Extraction Yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SBMP | 30% | 40.66 | 7.95 |
| 50% | 22.53 | 10.79 | |
| 70% | 25.37 | 7.38 | |
| BBMP | 30% | 35.11 | 44.14 |
| 50% | 52.35 | 52.41 | |
| 70% | 41.71 | 24.80 | |
| HBMP | 30% | 13.6 | 55.70 |
| 50% | 44.3 | 11 | |
| 70% | 25.1 | 5.5 | |
| CBMP | 30% | 17 | 15.3 |
| 50% | 56.5 | 7.50 | |
| 70% | 47.3 | 4.17 |
Notes: SBMP, BBMP, HBMP, CBMP indicate sheep, bovine, horse and camel bone marrow protein.
Comparison of antimicrobial activity from different BMPs.
| No. | Concentration | CA (mm) | EC (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| water extracted proteins | |||
| SBMP | 8 | 7 | |
| BBMP | 8 | 9 | |
| HBMP | 7 | 8 | |
| CBMP | 8 | 8 | |
| ammonium sulfate fractions | |||
| SBMP | 30% | 9 | 9 |
| 50% | 8 | - | |
| 70% | 9 | - | |
| BBMP | 30% | 9 | 9 |
| 50% | 10 | 9 | |
| 70% | 8 | 10 | |
| HBMP | 30% | 8 | - |
| 50% | 9 | 8 | |
| 70% | 7 | - | |
| CBMP | 30% | 8 | - |
| 50% | 9 | 9 | |
| 70% | 8 | - | |
Notes: CA. Candida albicans; EC. Escherichia coli.
The composition and contents of free amino acids in four kinds of water extract BMP.
| Amino Acid | SBMP | BBMP | HBMP | CBMP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content (mg/g) | ||||
| Asp d | 0.08 | 0.12 | 2.76 | 0.06 |
| Thr e | 0.08 | 0.29 | 2.18 | 0.04 |
| Glu d | 0.05 | 0.25 | 2.13 | 0.11 |
| Ser | 0.50 | 3.25 | 8.83 | 0.78 |
| Gly d | 1.26 | 1.52 | 3.21 | 1.18 |
| Ala | 0.53 | 4.94 | 6.40 | 2.15 |
| Val e | 0.44 | 5.97 | 3.61 | 1.92 |
| Met d | 0.02 | 1.70 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
| Ile e | 0.02 | 1.75 | 1.30 | 0.47 |
| Leu e,d | 0.10 | 6.94 | 4.76 | 1.71 |
| Tyr d | 0.31 | 3.10 | 2.39 | 1.17 |
| Phe e,d | 0.18 | 4.61 | 3.50 | 1.14 |
| Lys e,d | 1.13 | 4.21 | 4.26 | 1.39 |
| His | 0.09 | 2.43 | 0.47 | 0.67 |
| Arg d | 0.01 | 0.12 | 1.96 | 0.07 |
| Pro | 0.36 | 1.87 | 1.54 | 0.85 |
| Total amino acid (T) | 5.15 | 43.05 | 49.63 | 13.98 |
| Essential amino acids (E) | 1.97 | 25.45 | 19.94 | 6.95 |
| Non-essential amino acids (N) | 3.19 | 17.60 | 29.70 | 7.04 |
| Drug amino acid (D) | 3.15 | 22.57 | 25.31 | 7.10 |
| N/T (%) | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.60 | 0.50 |
| E/T (%) | 0.38 | 0.59 | 0.40 | 0.50 |
| E/N (%) | 0.62 | 1.45 | 0.67 | 0.99 |
| D/T (%) | 0.61 | 0.52 | 0.51 | 0.51 |
Notes: e: essential amino acid, d: drug amino acid.
Figure 1SDS-PAGE (12%) analysis of BMP from four kinds of animals. 1: 30% of ammonium sulphate precipitation part; 2: 50% of ammonium sulphate precipitation part; 3: 70% of ammonium sulphate precipitation part; 4: water extract; M: Marker (4.1–66 kDa).
Figure 2FT-IR spectra of four types of BMP from water extract. (A, B, I, II, III indicate amide A, B, I, II, III band).
Peak positions and assignment of BBM in FT-IR spectra.
| Assignment | SBMP | BBMP | HBMP | CBMP | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency (cm−1) | |||||
| Amide A band | 3282.45 | 3284.47 | 3274.05 | 3282.45 | N–H stretching vibration |
| Amide B band | 2923.21 | 2923.48 | 2924.20 | 2920.44 | C–N stretching vibration |
| Amide I band | 1647.12 | 1650.28 | 1648.48 | 1652.02 | C=O stretching vibration |
| Amide II band | 1539.53 | 1540.17 | 1540.04 | 1540.52 | N–H bending vibration |
| 1460.20 | 1456.41 | 1456.54 | 1464.63 | C–N stretching vibration | |
| Amide III band | 1399.49 | 1397.13 | 1397.72 | 1398.50 | C–N stretching vibration |
| 1239.42 | 1238.59 | 1238.79 | 1240.55 | N–H bending vibration | |
| β-Sheet | - | - | - | - | 1616–1637 cm−1, 1681–1700 cm−1 |
| Random coil | - | - | - | - | 1638–1645 cm−1 |
| α-Helix | √ | √ | √ | √ | 1646–1664 cm−1 |
| β-Turn | - | - | - | - | 1665–1681 cm−1 |
Figure 3The SEM images of four types of BMP from water extract. (A) SBMP; (B) BBMP; (C) HBMP; (D) CBMP.
Figure 4EDX of four kinds BMP.
Results of elemental analysis.
| Weight/% | C | O | Na | Cl | Ca | P | K | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBMP | 70.27 | 24.29 | 1.89 | 1.09 | 0.88 | 0.99 | 0.36 | 0.31 |
| BBMP | 78.71 | 19.33 | 0.72 | 0.31 | 0.17 | 0.49 | 0.11 | 0.15 |
| HBMP | 73.09 | 23.03 | 0.80 | 0.54 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.62 | - |
| CBMP | 81.70 | 18.10 | - | - | 0.12 | - | - | 0.08 |
Figure 5LC-MS chart of SBMP from water extract.
Figure 6LC-MS chart of BBMP from water extract.
Figure 7LC-MS chart of CBMP from 50% ammonium sulfate precipitation part.
LC–MS data analysis of four extraction parts.
| Sample | Time (min) | Molecular Mass (Da), Charge |
|---|---|---|
| Water extracted SBMP | 8.437 | 3916.1385 (+5), 3916.1356 (+4); |
| 9.074 | 1190.8024, 1309.4977, 1454.9223, 1636.6824; | |
| 9.369 | 1571.6103; | |
| 9.509 | 1071.9013; | |
| 9.607 | 2196.2814 (+3), 2720.9205 (+3), 1079.2666, 1309.5326, 1473.1616; | |
| 9.764 | 1055.2924, 1205.9512; | |
| 9.776 | 4821.01, 6024.33, 8434.93, 10,845.85, 12,029.26, 13,254.79, 15,265.12, 15,902.83, 16,869.74; | |
| 9.879 | 8673.46, 18,567.53, 16,118.62, 12,207.23; | |
| 9.891 | 1240.1513, 1446.6508; | |
| 10.018 | 1273.3925; | |
| 10.244 | 3387.9831 (+3); | |
| 10.852 | 1053.4627, 2357.9774; | |
| 11.176 | 1059.5252, 1756.9654, 2880.9894; | |
| Water extracted BBMP | 5.471 | 1138.7220 (+5), 1215.6066 (+3), 4947.5178 (+9), 4974.0250 (+7), 4972.0210 (+5), 2073.2722; |
| 5.930 | 4598.4259 (+7), 4596.64 (+6), 2757.38 (+3); | |
| 5.187–5.634 | 6589.66, 7487.97, 7787.89; 9916.3219; | |
| 8.916 | 1044.7616, 1145.2224, 1272.0502, 1422.0194; | |
| 9.491 | 1138.8300, 1035.7773, 1139.2317; | |
| 10.476 | 7599.0611; | |
| 10.742 | 1027.8437, 1116.4654, 1152.2774; | |
| 50% part of CBMP | 8.689 | 2776.4385 (+5), 2775.4276 (+4); |
| 9.720 | 1040.35, 11,430.35; | |
| 9.991 | 3986.6528 (+8), 3985.6285 (+7), 3774.3756 (+6), 3773.3610 (+5), 3617.2236 (+6), 3616.2045 (+5); | |
| 10.697 | 15,178.48; |
Figure 8DPPH radical scavenging activity.