| Literature DB >> 31877971 |
Abstract
The growing interest in laver as a food product and as a source of substances beneficial to health has led to global consumer demand for laver produced in a limited area of northeastern Asia. Here we review research into the benefits of laver consumption and discuss future perspectives on the improvement of laver product quality. Variation in nutritional/functional values among product types (raw and processed (dried, roasted, or seasoned) laver) makes product-specific nutritional analysis a prerequisite for accurate prediction of health benefits. The effects of drying, roasting, and seasoning on the contents of both beneficial and harmful substances highlight the importance of managing laver processing conditions. Most research into health benefits has focused on substances present at high concentrations in laver (porphyran, Vitamin B12, taurine), with assessment of the expected effects of laver consumption. Mitigation of chemical/microbiological risks and the adoption of novel technologies to exploit under-reported biochemical characteristics of lavers are suggested as key strategies for the further improvement of laver product quality. Comprehensive analysis of the literature regarding laver as a food product and as a source of biomedical compounds highlights the possibilities and challenges for application of laver products.Entities:
Keywords: chemical risk; edible seaweed; functional substance; health functionality; microbial risk; nutritional value; omics-based technology; processed laver product; processing technology; raw laver
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31877971 PMCID: PMC7024182 DOI: 10.3390/md18010014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Global aquaculture production of the dominant production regions of the laver: (a) production quantity, (b) production value. Data (production quantity and value of ‘Laver (Nori)’ for Republic of Korea, ‘Nori nei’ for China, ‘Laver (Nori)’ for Japan) was obtained from FAO’s Fisheries and Aquaculture statistics (FishStatJ) [5].
Major species of lavers.
| Genus | Species 1 |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Species used as the target organisms from research studies cited in this review were summarized. 2 This taxonomy was based on the generic revision of laver (Porphyra and Pyropia) [1].
Nutritional values of the raw laver.
| Product Type | Raw Material | Nutritional Values from Proximate Analysis ( | Other Nutritional Substances | Reference | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbohydrate | Dietary Fiber | Protein | Lipid | Ash | Moisture | ||||
| Raw wet laver |
| 1.2–2.7 | - 1 | 3.0–5.0 | 0.5 | 3.6–4.3 | 89.2–90.5 | mineral | [ |
| - | 43.1, 38.9 | 25.6, 26.0 | - | - | - | - | [ | ||
| Raw laver |
| 38.8–60.4 | - | 12.4–20.5 | 0.2–2.7 | 3.9–7.4 | 13.6–20.7 | fatty acids | [ |
|
| 45.7–45.9 | - | 36.2–37.7 | 0.7–1.0 | 7.1–8.2 | 8.6–8.8 | mineral, amino acids | [ | |
|
| 21.7 3 | 22.9 | 33.2 | 1.0 | 21.3 | - | amino acids, fatty acids, sterol | [ | |
|
| - | 48.0 | 24.6 | 0.3 | 6.5 | 12.8 | mineral, amino acids, fatty acids, antioxidants, phenolic compounds | [ | |
|
| 51.2–57.9 | - | 36.2–39.2 | 2.3–3.1 | 3.8–7.3 | - | mineral, amino acids | [ | |
| 35.5–61.0 | - | 14.1–18.4 | 1.7–2.6 | 4.2–6.8 | 12.5–21.5 | mineral, fatty acids, | [ | ||
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | mineral, vitamin | [ | |
1 Not analyzed or not indicated. 2 Dry weight of components of raw laver. 3 Non-fibrous.
Nutritional values of processed laver products.
| Category | Product Type 1 | Nutritional Values from Proximate Analysis ( | Other Nutritional Substances | Reference | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbohydrate | Dietary Fiber | Protein | Lipid | Ash | Moisture | ||||
| Processed laver products | DL ( | 36.8 | 31.6 | 43.0 | 0.5 | 10.3 | 9.4 | mineral, amino acids | [ |
| DL ( | 47.6 | 40.4 | 37.3 | 0.3 | 7.6 | 7.3 | fatty acids, pigments, antioxidants | [ | |
| DL | 43.8–46.2 | - 3 | 37.8–40.0 | 1.5–2.3 | 8.0–9.0 | 5.7–7.4 | mineral, amino acids, fatty acids, component sugar | [ | |
| DL ( | - | - | 36.9 | 2.3 | 9.1 | 3.7 | mineral, amino acids | [ | |
| DL ( | - | - | 32.16 | 1.96 | 8.78 | 6.74 | - | ||
| DL ( | 45.4–50.0 | - | 29.3–35.0 | 1.8–2.0 | 8.1–9.9 | 8.2–9.8 | mineral | [ | |
| DL | - | - | - | - | - | 8.4 | phenolic compounds | [ | |
| DL | - | - | - | - | - | 7.6 | - | ||
| RL | - | - | - | - | - | 8.7 | - | ||
| DL | - | - | - | - | - | 8.7 | - | ||
| DL ( | - | - | - | - | - | - | vitamin, organic acid, free sugar | [ | |
| DL | - | - | - | - | - | - | phenolic compounds, anion, element | [ | |
| DL | 41.7 | 33.4 | 38.4 | 0.3 | 8.0 | 11.6 | - | [ | |
| Processed laver products with other seaweeds as optional ingredients | DL combined with | 43.7 | 36.6 | 35.0 | 0.8 | 9.1 | 11.4 | - | [ |
1 DL: dried laver; RL: roasted laver. 2 Species as the raw material of the product was indicated. 3 Not analyzed. 4 Nutritional values of processed laver products composed multiple species of optional ingredients.
Major health functionality of laver products (raw laver and processed laver products).
| Health Functionality | Major Components Linked to Health Functionalities | References |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-cancer | polysaccharides (dietary fiber, porphyran), phospholipids, sterol, peptide | [ |
| Prevention of cardiovascular disease | betaine, dietary fiber, taurine, porphyran | [ |
| Antioxidant effect (e.g., Anti-ageing) | porphyran, glycoprotein, polyphenols, tocopherols, peptide | [ |
| Anti-inflammatory effect and immunomodulation | glycoprotein, porphyran | [ |
| Alcohol metabolism | glycoprotein | [ |
| Prevention of nervous diseases | taurine, porphyran | [ |
| Prevention of bone disease | porphyran, glycoprotein | [ |
| Anti-diabetes mellitus | phenolic compounds (carotenoids, anthocyanins), polysaccharides (porphyran), peptide | [ |
Research studies regarding the chemical risk of laver products.
| Category | Product Type 1 | Target | Results | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw laver | - | arsenic (As) | 9.59–34.0 | [ |
| 22.9–33.8 | [ | |||
| 0.22–0.70 | [ | |||
| 12.87 | [ | |||
| cadmium (Cd) | 0.40–1.21 | [ | ||
| 2.83–3.54 | [ | |||
| chromium (Cr) | 0.32–0.86 | [ | ||
| copper (Cu) | 7.92–16.9 | [ | ||
| 1.94–6.94 | [ | |||
| iron (Fe) | 290–723 | [ | ||
| lead (Pb) | 0.78–1.30 | [ | ||
| <LOD 3 | [ | |||
| 0.98 | [ | |||
| mercury (Hg) | 0.005–0.006 | [ | ||
| 0.03 | [ | |||
| nickel (Ni) | 0.69–1.04 | [ | ||
| 0.74–1.51 | [ | |||
| zinc (Zn) | 18.0–57.7 | [ | ||
| 21.1–70.1 | [ | |||
| Processed laver products | DL | aluminum (Al) | 388.6–623.4 | [ |
| 66–511 | [ | |||
| arsenic (As) | 13.5–32.8 | [ | ||
| <LOD–29.850 | [ | |||
| ND 4–0.303 | [ | |||
| 30.18–39.05 | [ | |||
| cadmium (Cd) | 0.69–4.73 | [ | ||
| 0.108–3.11 | [ | |||
| 0.076–0.318 | [ | |||
| 0.501–2.421 | [ | |||
| chromium (Cr) | 0.46–0.66 | [ | ||
| copper (Cu) | 5.02–8.64 | [ | ||
| iron (Fe) | 103–214 | [ | ||
| lead (Pb) | ND–0.86 | [ | ||
| ND | [ | |||
| <LOD–2.362 | [ | |||
| ND–0.208 | [ | |||
| mercury (Hg) | 0.004–0.008 | [ | ||
| 0.005–0.009 | [ | |||
| 0.002–0.050 | [ | |||
| nickel (Ni) | 0.17–1.49 | [ | ||
| zinc (Zn) | 27.1–57.7 | [ | ||
| DL, RL | arsenic (As) | 2.1–21.6 | [ | |
| - 5 | aluminum (Al) | 15.50 6 | [ | |
| arsenic (As) | 2.07 6 | [ | ||
| cadmium (Cd) | 0.109 6 | [ | ||
| lead (Pb) | 0.063 6 | [ | ||
| mercury (Hg) | <LOD | [ |
1 DL: dried laver; RL: roasted laver. 2 dw: dry weight. 3 LOD: limit of detection. 4 ND: not detected. 5 Specific product type was not indicated in the cited literature. 6 Average value.
Research studies regarding the microbiological risk of laver products.
| Category | Target Microorganisms | Product Type 1 | Results | References 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Processed laver products | Mesophilic bacteria | Standard | 4.48 log CFU/g | [ |
| DL | 6.5 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| DL | 7.6 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| RL | 7.5 log CFU/g | |||
| DL | 6.9 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| RL | 3.4 log CFU/g | |||
| SL | 4.9 log CFU/g | |||
| DL | 5.6–7.2 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| RL | 3.6 log CFU/g | |||
| SL | 4.3–6.0 log CFU/g | |||
| Coliforms | Standard | 30 MPN 3/100 g | [ | |
| DL | 3.2 MPN/ 100 g | [ | ||
| RL | 3.7 MPN/ 100 g | |||
| DL | 2.1 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| RL | 1.6 log CFU/g | |||
| SL | 1.0 log CFU/g | |||
| DL | 1.9–2.2 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| Yeast/mold | Standard | 2.48 log CFU/g | [ | |
| DL | 4.3–4.9 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| RL | 2.1 log CFU/g | |||
| SL | 2.1–4.7 log CFU/g | |||
|
| DL | 2.3 log CFU/g | [ | |
| Raw materials of food products using laver | Mesophilic bacteria | Standard | 4.48 log CFU/g | [ |
| DL | 8.8 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| DL | [ | |||
| RL | ||||
| DL | 5.3 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| Coliforms | Standard | 30 MPN/100 g | [ | |
| DL | [ | |||
| RL | ||||
| DL | detection rate 6% | [ | ||
|
| DL | detection rate 12% | [ | |
|
| DL | detection rate 3% | [ | |
| Work-in-process and end-products from manufacturing plants | Mesophilic bacteria | Standard | 4.48 log CFU/g | [ |
| DL | 5.6–8.0 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| DL | 4.4–7.8 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| SL | 1.3–5.9 log CFU/g | |||
| DL | 4.7–4.8 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| SL | ND 4–1.0 log CFU/g | |||
| DL | 3.4–3.6 log CFU/g | [ | ||
| SL | 1.4–2.8 log CFU/g | |||
| Coliforms | Standard | 30 MPN/100 g | [ | |
| DL | 54–27,600 MPN/100 g | [ |
1 DL: dried laver; RL: roasted laver; Standard: permitted values standardized by China which has strict regulations (GB 2733-2005) were indicated as reference data [113]. 2 This table is adapted and modified from [91].3 MPN: Most probable number.4 ND: Not detectable.
Intervention methods for microbial potential risks of processed laver products.
| Target Product | Treatment Methods | Target Microorganisms | Treatment Conditions | Microbial Reduction | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw harvested laver | NaOCl + ultrasound |
| 200 ppm, 60 min | 2.6 | [ |
|
| Gamma irradiation | Mesophilic bacteria | 1–3 kGy, 24 h | 1.0–2.0 | [ |
|
| Gamma irradiation | 1–3 kGy, 24 h | 1.3–ND 1 | [ | |
| DL 2 | UV | Mesophilic bacteria | 20 W, 20 min | 1.0 | [ |
| DL | Gamma irradiation | 1–3 kGy, 24 h | 2.7–ND | [ | |
| DL | Corona discharge plasma | Mesophilic bacteria | 3312 rpm, 58Hz, | 2.0 | [ |
| DL | Low–pressure air plasma | Mesophilic bacteria | 20 min | 1.5–2.0 | |
| DL | e-beam | Mesophilic bacteria | 4 kGy | 1.4 | [ |
| DL | Heat-assisted e-beam irradiation | Mesophilic bacteria | 1.8–3.0 kGy, 154–170 °C, | > 2.0 3 | [ |
| DL | Heat-assisted e-beam irradiation | Coliform | 4 kGy, | > 1.5 4 | [ |
| DL | Heat-assisted low-dosee-beam irradiation | Coliform | 1 kGy, | > 1.4 5 | [ |
1 ND: not detected. 2 DL: dried laver. 3 Microbial reduction was calculated from the control group of this study (no treatment of e-beam irradiation) as heating 160 °C for 14 sec without e-beam irradiation. 4 Initial population level of coliform was 2.5 log CFU/g and the irradiation reduced coliform to undetectable levels with the detection limit as 1 log CFU/g. 5 Initial population level of coliform was 2.4 log CFU/g and the irradiation reduced coliform to undetectable levels with the detection limit as 1 log CFU/g.
Omics-based studies linked to the health functionality and the processing of lavers.
| Omics Technology | Topic | Species | Major Findings | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genome | Whole genome sequencing and genomic feature |
| - Genome governing nutritional/functional values linked to the growth and survival strategy of laver under stressful condition of natural habitat (intertidal zone) | [ |
|
| - First report on the genome sequence of nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA) cistron | [ | ||
|
| - Genome sequence and annotated functional genes from | [ | ||
| Genome-wide identification of functional genes |
| - Gene structure associated with mitogen-activated protein kinases from | [ | |
| Comparative genomics |
| - Reliable analytical method for the genomes of laver by the destructive sampling of type specimen | [ | |
|
| - Recognition of new red algal species | [ | ||
|
| - Supportive data for the phylogenic differences between | [ | ||
|
| - Supportive data for the phylogenic differences between | [ | ||
|
| - Different genomic structure of strains according to the regions of cultivars (Korea and China) | [ | ||
| - Biodiversity and distinct phylogenies of laver compared with other red algae | [ | |||
| Transcriptome | Analytical techniques |
| - Selection of housekeeping gene mostly adequate for the designation of internal control based on the stability under abiotic stresses | [ |
| Unique life cycle |
| -Transition observed in the life cycle with apospory | [ | |
|
| - Evolutionary analysis for the growth and development of laver | [ | ||
|
| -Transcriptomic profile under different physiological conditions | [ | ||
|
| - Impact of ethylene precursor treatment to the regulation of gene expression governing reproduction | [ | ||
| Stress response |
| - Stress response of PyMAPK gene family | [ | |
|
| - Identification of key response genes expressed under various abiotic stresses | [ | ||
|
| - Role of heat shock proteins against the abiotic stresses | [ | ||
|
| - Distinct transcriptional characteristics of gametophyte thalli by high-temperature stresses | [ | ||
|
| - Transcriptomic profiles in response to stresses associated with temperature | [ | ||
|
| - Identification of key response genes expressed under thermal stresses | [ | ||
|
| - Identification of mechanisms on resistance and key response genes expressed under stresses from desiccation-hydration cycles in natural habitat | [ | ||
|
| - Identification of mechanisms on resistance and key response genes expressed under desiccation | [ | ||
|
| - Identification of mechanisms on resistance and maintenance of homeostasis under stresses from hypersaline conditions | [ | ||
| Biosynthesis |
| - Role of glycine-betaine (GB) capable of maintenance of osmotic balance in response to desiccation stresses | [ | |
| Microbiome | Diversity in the microbiota |
| - Seasonal variation to the microbial community in laver | [ |
|
| - Seasonal variation and the effects of the yellow spot disease outbreaks to the microbial community in the seawater of laver seedling pools | [ | ||
| Analytical techniques |
| - Microbial communities affected by the sampling position of laver and the stabilization techniques applied for the microbiome analysis | [ | |
| Influencing factor |
| - Alterations of bacterial community by red dot disease | [ | |
| Proteome | Mechanism of stress-tolerance |
| - Investigation on the key metabolisms elucidating the mechanisms of resistance to high-temperature | [ |
|
| - Investigation on the key metabolisms elucidating the mechanisms of resistance to desiccation | [ | ||
|
| ||||
| Mechanism of infection resistance |
| - Investigation on the pathogen-responsive proteins elucidating the mechanisms of responses against the infection | [ | |
| Identification of key functional protein |
| - Identification of major protein [ | [ | |
| Mutation of laver strain |
| - Induction of high-growth-rate mutation by the exposure to ethyl methane sulfonate | [ | |
|
| - Induction of thermo-tolerance mutation by the exposure to gamma-irradiation | [ | ||
| Lipidome | Lipidomic |
| - Identification of lipid biomarkers distinctly expressed under elevated temperatures | [ |
|
| - Differences in composition of major lipid molecular species according to the life cycle stages between the blade and conchocelis | [ | ||
| Metabolome | Metabolomic variations |
| - Changes in the nutrient composition according to the harvest time | [ |
|
| - Changes in the nutrient composition which can determine the taste of laver by the food processing steps not only for seasoning but also washing, cutting, and roasting | [ | ||
| Metabolite profile |
| - Distinctive characteristics of metabolites among species of edible seaweeds (brown, red, and green algae) and sorbitol as the major sugar metabolite in laver | [ |