| Literature DB >> 32944716 |
Daniel R Flores1, Luz E Casados2, Sandra F Velasco1, Ana C Ramírez1, Gilberto Velázquez1.
Abstract
In the case of Tenebrionidae family insects, studies focus on larval stage, leaving a lack of information regarding other stages. Therefore, this study was performed in order to understand the differences between the nutritional composition and the bioactivity of two species of this family in their adult stage, fed with a specific diet. Adult beetles of both species were defatted, lyophilized and protein extracted with buffer. Proximal and phytochemical analysis of the extracts of each insect were performed, along with protein extract and hydrolysis analysis by Tris-Tricine and Tris Glycine SDS PAGE. This analysis showed that T. molitor contained more protein and fat than U. dermestoides but contained less crude fiber. The protein extraction was made with PBS, where 130 and 45 kDa bands showed predominant for U. dermestoides, and less protein was present for T. molitor. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of the enzymatic protein hydrolysates and protein crude extracts were determined. Presence of protein associated with the antioxidant activity were found in both insects. Nonetheless U. dermestoides had a higher antioxidant activity with the protein extract in contrast with the higher antioxidant activity shown by U. dermestoides once the extracts were digested. After proteolysis, protein extracts showed an increasing antioxidant activity, plus, the ability to inhibit microbial growth of Proteus, Shigella and Bacillus. Insect protein hydrolysates with protease open the possibility for the use of these beetles as new sources of encrypted peptides for microbiological control once characterized.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial activity; Antioxidant activity; Protein hydrolysates; T. molitor; U. dermestoides
Year: 2020 PMID: 32944716 PMCID: PMC7488255 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-020-00707-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Chem ISSN: 2661-801X
Physicochemical composition of Tenebroideae beetles T. molitor and U.dermestoides
| Ash | 2.12 ± 0.71 | 3.24 ± 1.48 |
| Protein (N × 6.25) | 40.36 ± 0.79 * | 54.86 ± 1.70 ** |
| Fat | 8.33 ± 0.69 * | 12.50 ± 1.46 ** |
| Crude fiber | 49.17 ± 0.32 * | 26.63 ± 0.69 ** |
| NFE | 0.02 ± 1.38 | 2.77 ± 0.94 |
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). All data are expressed as g/100 g dry mass, N: Nitrogen
*At the exponential, in the same row, show there are significant differences (p-value < 0.05)
Qualitative phytochemical results of Tenebroideae beetles T.molitor and U. dermestoides
| Phytochemical constituents | Test performed | Insect aqueous extract | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tannins | − | − | |
| Saponins | Superficial foam | ++ | + |
| Glucosides | Keller-Kiliani | − | − |
| Borntrager’s | − | − | |
| Carbohydrates | Molisch’s | + | + |
| Benedict’s | + | + | |
| Fehling’s | + | + | |
| Flavonoids | Lead acetate | − | − |
| Salkowski’s: | − | − | |
| Shinoda | − | − | |
| Proteins | Bradford | + | ++ |
| Alkaloids | Dragendorff’s: | − | − |
| Mayer’s | − | − | |
| Wagner’s | − | − | |
| Hager’s: | − | − | |
| Steroids | Liebermann Burchard’s | − | − |
| Anthraquinones | − | − | |
Values are expressed as positive (+), very clear result (++), negative (−); not applicable (NA). Acidic extraction and alkaline extraction were used for alkaloids and steroids (nevertheless, no positive results were detected)
Fig. 1SDS-PAGE of protein extracts from T. molitor and U. dermestoides adult insects. A 15% of Tris Tricine SDS-PAGE gel is presented. There was no significant difference among the buffers tested in terms of protein band detection. Elecrophoresis shows better resolution of the bands for U. dermestoides extract in comparison with T. molitor’s. Protein extracts show that the number of peptides present in the direct extraction is practically absent. MW: Protein Molecular Weight Marker in KDa
Fig. 2Tris Tricine SDS-Gel with the hydrolysate U. dermestoides and T. molitor extract with A. oryzae protease. MW1. Protein marker (numbers indicate KDa). Lane 1. Control of autoproteolysis with A. oryzae protease under the same conditions of digested extracts. Lane 2. Digested extract of U. dermestodies with A. oryzae protease. Lane 3. Non-digested extract of U. dermestoides in PBS. Lane 4. Digested extract of T. molitor with A. oryzae protease. Lane 5. Non-digested extract of T. molitor with PBS. MW2. Peptide protein marker (numbers indicate KDa)
Fig. 3Total antioxidant activity of the protein extract from U. dermestoides and T. molitor. a Comparison of the antioxidant activity of protein extracts before and after digestion with protease. The asterisks show that there is a statistical difference between the protein digested extract at 95% of confidence. b Inhibition of ABTS radical assay with the non-digested and digested protein extract
Antimicrobial activity of the enzymatic hydrolysates of protein extract from U. dermestoides and T. molitor against selected microorganisms
| Protein digested extract | Diameter of growth inhibition zone (mm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enzymatic control | |||||
| 9 (+++) | 11 (++++) | 13.5 (++++) | 7.7 (+++) | < 1 (−) | |
| 7.5 (+++) | 12 (++++) | 8.5 (+++) | 5.5 (++) | < 1 (−) | |
Each value is expressed as mean (n = 3) and standard deviations were less than 5%. No antimicrobial activity (−), inhibition zone < 1 mm. Slight antimicrobial activity (+), inhibition zone 2–3 mm. Moderate antimicrobial activity (++), inhibition zone 4–5 mm. High antimicrobial activity (+++), inhibition zone 6–9 mm. Strong antimicrobial activity (++++), inhibition zone > 9 mm. Standard deviation ± 0.4 mm. The protein crude extracts showed no inhibition zone