| Literature DB >> 30960222 |
Bin Jiang1, Jiaxin Na2, Lele Wang3, Dongmei Li4, Chunhong Liu5, Zhibiao Feng6.
Abstract
For the purpose of reducing pollution and the rational use of salted egg white, which is a byproduct of the manufacturing process of salted egg yolk, an aqueous two-phase system (ATPS) composed of polyethylene glycols (PEG 1000) and (NH₄)₂SO₄ was investigated to selectively separate ovalbumin (OVA) from salted egg white. With the aim of optimizing the selective separation of OVA using ATPS, a response surface method (RSM) experiment was carried out on the basis of a single-factor experiment. The OVA was characterized by sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS⁻PAGE), reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC), liquid chromatography-nano electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (Nano LC-ESI-MS/MS), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR). Under the optimal conditions, the recovery yield of OVA through ATPS (Y) and the purity of OVA (P) could reach 89.25% and 96.28%, respectively. In conclusion, OVA was successfully separated from the salted egg white by PEG/(NH₄)₂SO₄ ATPS.Entities:
Keywords: aqueous two-phase system; liquid chromatography-nano electrospray ionization mass spectrometry; ovalbumin; polyethylene glycols; salted egg white
Year: 2019 PMID: 30960222 PMCID: PMC6419032 DOI: 10.3390/polym11020238
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Factors and levels in the response surface design used for the optimization of ovalbumin (OVA) extraction by an aqueous two-phase system (ATPS).
| Variables | Coded Variable Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 18 | 20 | 22 | |
| 14 | 16 | 18 | |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | |
Figure 1Comparison of single factor results. (a) Effect of the concentration of PEG 1000 on the extraction;(b) effect of the concentration of (NH4)2SO4on the extraction; (c) effect of pH on the extraction; (d) effect of the weight of the salted egg white solution on the extraction.
Box-Behnken (BBD) and the results (means of triplicate tests) for the recovery yield and purification factor of OVA.
| Number | Protein Recovery (%) | Purity (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 57.17 | 82.3 |
| 2 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 65.09 | 83.05 |
| 3 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 66.66 | 78.88 |
| 4 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 73.47 | 80.35 |
| 5 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 54.59 | 80.23 |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 74.82 | 78.14 |
| 7 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 56.44 | 82.25 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 88.92 | 95.01 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 89.34 | 93.56 |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 62.54 | 86 |
| 11 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 71.27 | 77.59 |
| 12 | 0 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 67.58 | 86.23 |
| 13 | 0 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 58.42 | 87.32 |
| 14 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 56.35 | 83.53 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 88.68 | 97.01 |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 58.56 | 80.42 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 74.1 | 80.23 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 89.94 | 96.21 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 87.92 | 97.25 |
| 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 71.55 | 87.65 |
| 21 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 56.95 | 88.93 |
| 22 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 69.48 | 74.92 |
| 23 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 71.38 | 78.83 |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 58.41 | 83.62 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 54.26 | 85.33 |
| 26 | −1 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 66.32 | 90.95 |
| 27 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 67.86 | 89.23 |
| 28 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 63.96 | 82.53 |
| 29 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 61.27 | 90.24 |
The variance analysis of the fitted quadratic polynomial prediction model of Y.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 3570 | 14 | 255.04 | 121.60 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 29.36 | 14 | 2.10 | ||
| Lack of fit | 27.10 | 10 | 2.71 | 4.78 | 0.0725 |
| Pure error | 2.27 | 4 | 0.57 | ||
| Cor total | 3599.95 | 28 | |||
| CV% | 2.12 | ||||
|
| 0.9918 |
The variance analysis of the fitted quadratic polynomial prediction model of P.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1046.69 | 14 | 74.76 | 21.64 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 48.36 | 14 | 3.45 | ||
| Lack of fit | 38.99 | 10 | 3.90 | 1.66 | 0.3296 |
| Pure error | 9.38 | 4 | 2.34 | ||
| Cor total | 1095.09 | 28 | |||
| CV% | 2.18 | ||||
|
| 0.9558 |
Figure 2Response surface plots for Y (a,c) and P (b,d) of OVA.
Figure 3SDS–PAGE of OVA. (A) molecular mass standards; (B) sample (10 μg) extracted by ATPS; (C) sample (20 μg) extracted by ATPS; (D) OVA standard (10 μg); (E) the salted egg white solution (10 μg).
Figure 4RP-HPLC chromatograms of the OVA standard (a) and the top phase of the ATPS (b).
The test results of the OVA sample by Nano LC-ESI-MS/MS.
| Hits | Protein Mass | No. of Peptide | Protein | UniprotKB Databases | Relative Abundance | Probability | No. of Unique Peptide |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 43195.66 | 174 | OVA of chick | P01012 | 98.4% | 99.0% | 17 |
| 2 | 22535.07 | 7 | Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein of chick | Q8JIG5 | 1.5% | 99.0% | 4 |
| 3 | 184156.91 | 1 | DNA topoisomerase 2-beta of chick | O42131| | 0.0% | 85.9% | 1 |
| 4 | 3659.67 | 1 | Ovomucoid of chick | P01005 | 0.0% | 82.1% | 1 |
The peptide of the OVA sample determined by Nano LC-ESI-MS/MS.
| Scan No. | Peptide Mass | Peptide Sequence of Protein from Chick | Peptide Probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6370 | 956.58 | TQINKVVR | 89.5% |
| 6646 | 1772.89 | ISQAVHAAHAEINEAGR | 92.6% |
| 6905 | 887.56 | IKVYLPR | 78.1% |
| 6967 | 1554.71 | AFKDEDTQAMPFR | 95.2% |
| 7040 | 1580.71 | LTEWTSSNVMEER | 93.2% |
| 7051 | 943.53 | DILNQITK | 91.3% |
| 7156 | 1686.83 | GGLEPINFQTAADQAR | 94.9% |
| 7238 | 2007.94 | EVVGSAEAGVDAASVSEEFR | 95.7% |
| 7277 | 1246.62 | ADHPFLFCIK | 83.1% |
| 7285 | 1344.73 | HIATNAVLFFGR | 95.7% |
| 7486 | 1521.79 | YPILPEYLQCVK | 90.7% |
| 7626 | 2280.17 | DILNQITKPNDVYSFSLASR | 93.4% |
| 7636 | 1481.75 | PVQMMYQIGLFR | 93.5% |
| 7746 | 2283.14 | VTEQESKPVQMMYQIGLFR | 87.9% |
| 9056 | 2459.31 | NVLQPSSVDSQTAMVLVNAIVFK | 92.9% |
| 9062 | 1857.96 | ELINSWVESQTNGIIR | 94.5% |
| 9081 | 3032.51 | VHHANENIFYCPIAIMSALAMVYLGAK | 85.1% |
Figure 5Fitting FTIR chart for the OVA standard.
Figure 6Fitting FTIR chart for OVA from the top phase of the ATPS.
Figure 7The content of the secondary structure for OVA obtained by different sources.