| Literature DB >> 33248633 |
Jing Yang1, Jichao Huang2, Zongshuai Zhu3, Ming Huang4.
Abstract
Duck blood is rich in protein. It is one of the main by-products in the slaughter industry. The objective of this research was to optimize and establish a method for producing duck plasma antioxidant peptides. The composition of duck plasma powder was analyzed. Protease selection experiment (Alcalase, Protamex, and Flavourzyme) and single-factor experiment were performed, and response surface methodology was used to determine the optimal hydrolysis conditions for duck plasma. Among the proteases, Alcalase hydrolysate exhibited the strongest 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl scavenging rate. The optimum enzymatic hydrolysis conditions were hydrolysis time of 6 h, temperature of 65.5°C, pH 10.0, and enzyme-to-substrate ratio of 0.3%. The 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl scavenging rate reached 64.84%, and the ratio of essential amino acids was 38.76%. Briefly, the duck plasma hydrolysate exhibited strong antioxidant properties and reasonable composition of amino acids. Thus, it may be used as a nutritional or functional ingredient in foods or medicines. This research provides a theoretical basis for comprehensive processing and high value utilization of duck plasma.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; duck blood plasma; hydrolysis; response surface methodology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33248633 PMCID: PMC7704753 DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.08.060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Poult Sci ISSN: 0032-5791 Impact factor: 3.352
Factors and design levels for the RSM-CCD independent variables.
| Factor | Code | Level | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −α | −1 | 0 | +1 | +α | ||
| Reaction temperature (°C) | X1 | 55 | 60 | 65 | 70 | 75 |
| pH | X2 | 7.5 | 8.5 | 9.5 | 10.5 | 11.5 |
| Reaction time (h) | X3 | 4.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 6 | 6.5 |
| Ratio of E/S (%, w/w) | X4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
Abbreviations: CCD, central composite design; E/S, enzyme to substrate; RSM, response surface methodology.
The CCD-RSM design for optimizing hydrolysis conditions.
| Run number | Code level of variables | Response value Y (%) | Type of point | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x1 (X1) | x2 (X2) | x3 (X3) | x4 (X4) | |||
| 1 | 60 (−1) | 8.5 (−1) | 5 (−1) | 0.2 (−1) | 37.36 | Factorial |
| 2 | 70 (+1) | 8.5 (−1) | 5 (−1) | 0.2 (−1) | 47.63 | Factorial |
| 3 | 60 (−1) | 10.5 (+1) | 5 (−1) | 0.2 (−1) | 50.8 | Factorial |
| 4 | 70 (+1) | 10.5 (+1) | 5 (−1) | 0.2 (−1) | 45.02 | Factorial |
| 5 | 60 (−1) | 8.5 (−1) | 6 (+1) | 0.2 (−1) | 39.69 | Factorial |
| 6 | 70 (+1) | 8.5 (−1) | 6 (+1) | 0.2 (−1) | 52.62 | Factorial |
| 7 | 60 (−1) | 10.5 (+1) | 6 (+1) | 0.2 (−1) | 59.69 | Factorial |
| 8 | 70 (+1) | 10.5 (+1) | 6 (+1) | 0.2 (−1) | 56.66 | Factorial |
| 9 | 60 (−1) | 8.5 (−1) | 5 (−1) | 0.4 (+1) | 38.53 | Factorial |
| 10 | 70 (+1) | 8.5 (−1) | 5 (−1) | 0.4 (+1) | 49.46 | Factorial |
| 11 | 60 (−1) | 10.5 (+1) | 5 (−1) | 0.4 (+1) | 56.26 | Factorial |
| 12 | 70 (+1) | 10.5 (+1) | 5 (−1) | 0.4 (+1) | 49.67 | Factorial |
| 13 | 60 (−1) | 8.5 (−1) | 6 (+1) | 0.4 (+1) | 38.46 | Factorial |
| 14 | 70 (+1) | 8.5 (−1) | 6 (+1) | 0.4 (+1) | 53.75 | Factorial |
| 15 | 60 (−1) | 10.5 (+1) | 6 (+1) | 0.4 (+1) | 59.28 | Factorial |
| 16 | 70 (+1) | 10.5 (+1) | 6 (+1) | 0.4 (+1) | 57.08 | Factorial |
| 17 | 55 (−α) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 44.29 | Axial |
| 18 | 75 (+α) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 52.25 | Axial |
| 19 | 65 (0) | 7.5 (−α) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 31.84 | Axial |
| 20 | 65 (0) | 11.5 (+α) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 51.58 | Axial |
| 21 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 4.5 (−α) | 0.3 (0) | 50.13 | Axial |
| 22 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 6.5 (+α) | 0.3 (0) | 62.15 | Axial |
| 23 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.1 (−α) | 50.77 | Axial |
| 24 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.5 (+α) | 53.68 | Axial |
| 25 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 62.05 | Center |
| 26 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 62.65 | Center |
| 27 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 63.33 | Center |
| 28 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 61.65 | Center |
| 29 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 63.78 | Center |
| 30 | 65 (0) | 9.5 (0) | 5.5 (0) | 0.3 (0) | 62.65 | Center |
Abbreviations: CCD, central composite design; RSM, response surface methodology; x, the actual level of variables; X, the code level of variables.
Proximate composition of spray-dried duck blood plasma.1
| Item | Duck blood plasma |
|---|---|
| Protein (%) | 72.38 ± 4.43 |
| Lipid (%) | 1.8 ± 0.09 |
| Moisture (%) | 7.5 ± 0.52 |
| Ash (%) | 10.2 ± 0.84 |
Values represent means ± SD from triplicate measurement.
Amino acid composition of duck blood plasma (DBP) and their hydrolysates (DBPH).
| Amino acid | DBP (g/100 g) | DBPH (g/100 g) | Amino acid | DBP (g/100 g) | DBPH (g/100 g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asp | 6.23 ± 0.16 | 6.84 ± 0.21 | Ile | 3.08 ± 0.07 | 3.51 ± 0.14 |
| Thr | 3.67 ± 0.09 | 4.24 ± 0.14 | Leu | 6.18 ± 0.22 | 6.93 ± 0.26 |
| Ser | 3.50 ± 0.05 | 3.87 ± 0.09 | Tyr | 3.36 ± 0.15 | 3.80 ± 0.13 |
| Glu | 10.61 ± 0.26 | 11.53 ± 0.28 | Phe | 3.54 ± 0.06 | 3.79 ± 0.15 |
| Gly | 2.76 ± 0.14 | 3.11 ± 0.07 | Lys | 6.06 ± 0.23 | 6.57 ± 0.27 |
| Ala | 3.49 ± 0.13 | 4.21 ± 0.16 | His | 1.99 ± 0.15 | 3.04 ± 0.20 |
| Cys | 2.44 ± 0.08 | 2.68 ± 0.15 | Arg | 5.38 ± 0.21 | 6.72 ± 0.22 |
| Val | 4.32 ± 0.18 | 4.56 ± 0.19 | Pro | 4.76 ± 0.20 | 3.59 ± 0.21 |
| Met | 1.51 ± 0.12 | 1.66 ± 0.08 |
Essential amino acids.
Antioxidant amino acids.
Hydrophobic amino acids.
Figure 1Effects of protease types on the degree of hydrolysis (DH) and the DPPH scavenging abilities of duck blood plasma (DBP) hydrolysis.
Figure 2Effect of reaction time (A), ratio of E/S (B), pH (C), and temperature (D) on the DH and DPPH scavenging activity of DBPH. Abbreviations: DBPH, duck blood plasma hydrolysate; DH, degree of hydrolysis; DPPH, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl; E/S, enzyme to substrate.
ANOVA for the quadratic polynomial mode.
| Source | Sum of square | df | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 2,249.11 | 14 | 160.65 | 292.84 | <0.0001 |
| X1 | 94.96 | 1 | 94.96 | 173.10 | <0.0001 |
| X2 | 564.93 | 1 | 564.93 | 1,029.76 | 0.0015 |
| X3 | 184.48 | 1 | 184.48 | 336.28 | <0.0001 |
| X4 | 14.79 | 1 | 14.79 | 26.96 | 0.0001 |
| X1X2 | 280.83 | 1 | 280.83 | 511.72 | <0.0001 |
| X1X3 | 12.53 | 1 | 12.53 | 22.84 | 0.0025 |
| X1X4 | 0.22 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.55 | 0.3211 |
| X2X3 | 23.57 | 1 | 23.57 | 42.97 | <0.0001 |
| X2X4 | 3.26 | 1 | 3.26 | 5.94 | 0.0277 |
| X3X4 | 10.89 | 1 | 10.89 | 19.85 | 0.0153 |
| X1X1 | 359.15 | 1 | 359.15 | 654.66 | <0.0001 |
| X2X2 | 758.46 | 1 | 758.46 | 1,382.54 | 0.0003 |
| X3X3 | 74.77 | 1 | 74.77 | 136.29 | <0.0001 |
| X4X4 | 189.69 | 1 | 189.69 | 345.77 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 8.23 | 15 | 0.55 | ||
| Lack of fit | 6.14 | 10 | 0.51 | 0.83 | 0.6259 |
| Pure error | 3.09 | 5 | 0.62 | ||
| Cor total | 2,257.34 | 29 | |||
| R-Squared | 0.9964 | ||||
| Adj R-Squared | 0.9930 | ||||
| Pred | 0.9849 | ||||
| Adeq Precision | 58.689 |
Significant within a 99.9% confidence interval.
Significant within a 95% confidence interval.
Figure 3Response surface plots showing correlation of (A) ratio of E/S and hydrolysis temperature; (B) hydrolysis temperature and hydrolysis pH; (C) hydrolysis time and hydrolysis temperature; (D) ratio of E/S and hydrolysis time; (E) ratio of E/S and hydrolysis pH, and (F) hydrolysis time and hydrolysis pH on the DPPH scavenging activity. Abbreviations: DPPH, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl; E/S, enzyme to substrate.