| Literature DB >> 35158569 |
Magdalena Stobiecka1, Jolanta Król1, Aneta Brodziak1.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to present a review of literature data on the antioxidant potential of raw milk and dairy products (milk, fermented products, and cheese) and the possibility to modify its level at the milk production and processing stage. Based on the available reports, it can be concluded that the consumption of products that are a rich source of bioactive components improves the antioxidant status of the organism and reduces the risk of development of many civilization diseases. Milk and dairy products are undoubtedly rich sources of antioxidant compounds. Various methods, in particular, ABTS, FRAP, and DPPH assays, are used for the measurement of the overall antioxidant activity of milk and dairy products. Research indicates differences in the total antioxidant capacity of milk between animal species, which result from the differences in the chemical compositions of their milk. The content of antioxidant components in milk and the antioxidant potential can be modified through animal nutrition (e.g., supplementation of animal diets with various natural additives (herbal mixtures, waste from fruit and vegetable processing)). The antioxidant potential of dairy products is associated with the quality of the raw material as well as the bacterial cultures and natural plant additives used. Antioxidant peptides released during milk fermentation increase the antioxidant capacity of dairy products, and the use of probiotic strains contributes its enhancement. Investigations have shown that the antioxidant activity of dairy products can be enhanced by the addition of plant raw materials or their extracts in the production process. Natural plant additives should therefore be widely used in animal nutrition or as functional additives to dairy products.Entities:
Keywords: bioactive compounds; bioactive peptides; dairy products; milk; total antioxidant capacity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35158569 PMCID: PMC8833589 DOI: 10.3390/ani12030245
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Biologically active peptides with antioxidant properties (own work based on: [51,54,57,58,61,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92]).
| Protein Precursors | Fragment | Sequence | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Casein proteins | |||
| Goat milk casein | - | VYPE | [ |
| - | FGGMAH | ||
| - | FPYCAP | ||
| - | YVPEPF | ||
| - | YPPYETY | ||
| Cow milk casein | |||
| CGMP | - | VLPVPQK | [ |
| - | QKAVPYPQRDMPI | ||
| β-casein | 1–6 | RELEEL | [ |
| 7–16 | NVPGEIVESL | [ | |
| 60–68 | YPFPGPIN | [ | |
| 59–63 | YGFLP | ||
| 59–68 | VYPFPGPIPN | [ | |
| 84–86 | VPP | [ | |
| 106–123 | HKEMPFPKYPVEPFTESQ | [ | |
| 111–119 | FPKYPVEPF | ||
| 114–119 | YPVEPF | [ | |
| 142–154 | SWMHQPHQPLPPT | [ | |
| 166–182 | SQSKVLPVPQKAVPYPQ | ||
| 169–176 | KVLPVPQK | [ | |
| 170–176 | VLPVPQK | ||
| 177–183 | AVPYPQR | ||
| 166–175 | SQSKVLPVPQ | [ | |
| 170–175 | VLPVPQ | ||
| 176–182 | KAVPYPQ | ||
| 183–190 | RDMPIQAF | ||
| 178–183 | VPYPQR | [ | |
| 191–193 | LLY | [ | |
| 193–202 | YQEPVLGPVR | [ | |
| 199–209 | GPVRGPFPIIV | [ | |
| 98–105 | VKEAMAPK | [ | |
| 207–221 | QEPVLGPVRGPFPIL | [ | |
| 207–219 | QEPVLGPVRGPFP | [ | |
| 212–219 | GPVRGPFP | [ | |
| 209–220 | PVLGPVRGPFPI | [ | |
| 209–221 | PVLGPVRGPFPIL | ||
| 212–220 | GPVRGPFPI | [ | |
| ĸ-casein | 24–33 | KYIPIQYVLS | [ |
| 29–41 | QYVLSRYPSYGLN | ||
| 28–30 | IQY | [ | |
| 30–32 | YVL | ||
| 51–65 | INNQFLPYPYYAKPA | [ | |
| 66–77 | AVRSPAQILQWQ | ||
| 81–95 | NTVPAKSCQAQPTTM | ||
| 96–106 | ARHPHPHLSFM | ||
| 108–110 | IPP | [ | |
| 115–131 | DKTEIPTINTIASGEPT | [ | |
| αS1-casein | 1–9 | RPKHPIKHQ | [ |
| 7–21 | KHQGLPQEVLNENLL | [ | |
| 26–40 | APFPEVFGKEKVNEL | [ | |
| 27–35 | PFPEVFGKE | [ | |
| 39–40 | EL | [ | |
| 80–90 | HIQKEDVPSER | [ | |
| 90–94 | RYLGY | [ | |
| 90–96 | RYLGYLE | [ | |
| 91–96 | YLGYLE | ||
| 92–94 | LGY | ||
| 141–143 | EL | [ | |
| 143–149 | AYFYPEL | [ | |
| 143–148 | AYFYPE | [ | |
| 144–149 | YFYPEL | ||
| 145–149 | FYPEL | ||
| 146–149 | YPEL | [ | |
| 148–149 | EL | ||
| 176–192 | APSFSDIPNPIGSENSE | [ | |
| αS2-casein | 89–95 | YQKFQY | [ |
| 89–91 | YQK | [ | |
| 92–95 | FPQY | ||
| 130–138 | NAVPITPTL | [ | |
| 171–173 | YQK | [ | |
| 174–181 | FALPQYLK | [ | |
| 202–207 | PYVRYL | [ | |
| Cow milk whey proteins | |||
| α-LA | 19–29 | WYSLAMAASDI | [ |
| 50–53 | YGLF | [ | |
| 99–108 | VGINYWLAHK | [ | |
| β-LG | 15–20 | VAGTWY | [ |
| 19–29 | WYSLAMAASDI | [ | |
| 42–46 | YVEEL | ||
| 58–61 | LQKW | [ | |
| 95–101 | LDTDYKK | ||
| 72–79 | IAEKTKIP | [ | |
| 84–91 | IDALNEK | [ | |
| 92–100 | VLVLDTDYK | ||
| 102–105 | YLLF | [ | |
| 145–149 | MHIRL | [ | |
| Proteins from human milk (β-casein) | 154–160 | WSVPQPK | [ |
Selected methods for the determination of antioxidant activity (own work based on: [121,122]).
| Method | Principle | Observations |
|---|---|---|
| DPPH | In the presence of an antioxidant compound, reduction of the purple-colored stable 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical to yellow 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazine | Yellow color of the substance assessed visually or analyzed spectrophotometrically |
| ABTS | Antioxidants lead to the reduction of the cation radical ABTS. + – 2,2-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonate, causing discoloration of the blue-green solution | Discoloration of the solution assessed visually or analyzed spectrophotometrically |
| FRAP | Monitoring the antioxidant donor capacity by the measurement of the reduction of the iron(III) complex with 2,4,6-tris(2-pyridyl)-1,3,5-triazine ([Fe3+ – (TPTZ)2 ]3+) to an intense blue complex [Fe2+ – (TPTZ)2 ]2+ | Spectrophotometric analysis |
| ORAC | Antioxidants inhibit free radical-induced oxidation of a fluorescent probe, which shows a decrease in fluorescence during the reaction | Fluorimetric analysis |
Total antioxidant capacity (TAC) of raw milk (own work based on: [30,125,126,127,128,129,130]).
| Raw Material | Method | References | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS•+ | FRAP | DPPH | ORAC | ||
| Cow milk | 21.48 a | 1.41 a | 3.14 a | - | [ |
| - | - | 24.3 c | - | [ | |
| 1033.5 b | - | - | 667.4 b | [ | |
| 18,89 c | [ | ||||
| Buffalo milk | 7.38 e | 38.9 d | 31.5 c | - | [ |
| - | - | 31.8 c | - | [ | |
| 20.11 c | [ | ||||
| Goat milk | 6.80 e | 23.45–26.71 | 20.86–23.22 | - | [ |
| 74.36 | - | 19.53–23.57 c | - | [ | |
| 18.17 c | [ | ||||
| Sheep milk | 33.18 a | 5.82 a | 8.70 a | [ | |
| 7.78 e | 27.28 c | [ | |||
| Camel milk | - | - | 18.57 c | - | [ |
a Results expressed as milligrams of Trolox equivalents (TE) per 100 mL of the sample. b Result expressed in μM of Trolox equivalent mg/mL. c DPPH%. d Result expressed in µmol/L. e Result expressed in FeSO4 Eq mg/100 g.
Antioxidant activity of milk after supplementation of feed with natural plant additives (own work based on: [140,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170]).
| Animal | Additives to the Diet | Method | Antioxidant Activity | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cow | Control diet (without black rice and purple corn extracted residue) | DPPH | 6.96% | [ |
| 2% black rice and purple corn extracted residue | 7.68% | |||
| 4% black rice and purple corn extracted residue | 9.76% | |||
| 6% black rice and purple corn extracted residue | 9.27% | |||
| Grape pomace extract | Folin–Ciocalteu | 16.07 GAE mg/g | [ | |
| Raw mulberry cultivars ( | DPPH | 146.04 mg of TE/g of DM | [ | |
| ABTS | 21.85 mg of TE/g of DM | |||
| FRAP | 52.71 mg of TE/g of DM | |||
| Raw mulberry cultivars ( | DPPH | 147.78 mg of TE/g of DM | ||
| ABTS | 19.62 mg of TE/g of DM | |||
| FRAP | 44.71 mg of TE/g of DM | |||
| 1% grape seed and grape marc meal extract | ABTS | 283 μmol/L | [ | |
| Grape residue silage | Reducing power | 44.6 mg GAE 1−1 | [ | |
| Sheep | Control diet | ORAC | 197.09 µmol eq. Trolox/g DM | [ |
| 5% | 201.94 µmol eq. Trolox/g DM | |||
| 5% | 222.79 µmol eq. Trolox/g DM | |||
| 5% | 255.76 µmol eq. Trolox/g DM | |||
| Control diet | ABTS | 50.97 % | [ | |
| 100 g/day per head of tomato pomace | 51.09% | |||
| 100 g/day per head of grape marc | 48.01% | |||
| 75 g/day per head of exhausted myrtle berries | 52.32% | |||
| Control diet | ABTS | 71.07% | [ | |
| 150 mg orange peel essential oil/kg concentrate | 67.79% | |||
| 300 mg orange peel essential oil/kg concentrate | 70.05% | |||
| 450 mg orange peel essential oil/kg concentrate | 76.03% | |||
| Control diet | FRAP | 3.18% | ||
| 150 mg orange peel essential oil/kg concentrate | 3.42% | |||
| 300 mg orange peel essential oil/kg concentrate | 2.54% | |||
| 450 mg orange peel essential oil/kg concentrate | 2.99% | |||
| Control diet | Commercial ELISA kits | 14.71 U/mL | [ | |
| 50 mg cinnamaldehyde, eugenol, and capsicum oleoresin/kg of diet | 20.32 U/mL | |||
| 80 mg cinnamaldehyde, eugenol, and capsicum oleoresin/kg of diet | 18.17 U/mL | |||
| Goat | Fed sticky corn | DPPH | 19.10% | [ |
| Anthocyanin-rich purple corn | 21.58% | |||
| Control diet | FRAP | 1.13 mmol/L | [ | |
| 6% date palm ( | 1.43 mmol/L | |||
| 12% date palm ( | 1.45 mmol/L | |||
| 18% date palm ( | 1.59 mmol/L | |||
| Yak | 0 g/kg of astragalus root extract | Commercial ELISA kits | 7.23 U/mL | [ |
| 20 g/kg of astragalus root extract | 7.87 U/mL | |||
| 50 g/kg of astragalus root extract | 8.04 U/mL | |||
| 80 g/kg of astragalus root extract | 8.20 U/mL |
Enrichment of milk and dairy products with natural plant additives with high antioxidant potential (own work based on: [178,213,215,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231]).
| Samples | Additives | Method | Antioxidant Activity | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yogurt | Control (without plain | DPPH | 26.4 ± 0.7% | [ |
| Plain | 37.9 ± 0.8% | |||
| Fermented milk | Control (without herbal extract/sweet potato pulp) | FRAP | 31.40 ± 1.40 mg AAE/100 g | [ |
| The optimized herbal extract—containing 87.5% clove ( | 289.96 ± 46.26 mg AAE/100 g | |||
| The optimized herbal extract (1 g/100 g) and sweet potato pulp (15 g/100 g) | 224.95 ± 3.29 mg AAE 100 g | |||
| Sweet potato pulp (15 g/100 g) | 24.51 ± 0.85 mg AAE 100 g | |||
| Milk | Control (without red ginseng extract) | DPPH | 11.8 ± 0.00 μg/mL | [ |
| Milk + red ginseng extract (100 μg/mL) | 15.1 ± 0.5 μg/mL | |||
| Yogurt | Control (without red ginseng extract) | DPPH | 5.8 ± 0.5 μg/mL | |
| Yogurt + red ginseng extract (100 μg/mL) | 18.7 ± 1.1 μg/mL | |||
| Fresh cheese | Control (without yerba mate) | ABTS | 14.59 ± 0.57% | [ |
| 1% yerba mate | 38.76 ± 2.18% | |||
| Control (without yerba mate) | DPPH | 2.93 ± 0.10% | ||
| 1% yerba mate | 67.30 ± 1.35% | |||
| Control (without yerba mate) | FRAP | 0.14 ± 0.01 mg GAE/g | ||
| 1% yerba mate | 0.66 ± 0.11 mg GAE/g | |||
| Yogurt | Natural yoghurt (without green tea infusion) | FRAP | 1.04 mmol Fe2+ EL −1 | [ |
| 10% green tea infusion | 8.98 mmol Fe2+ EL −1 | |||
| Control (without | FRAP | 0.07 ± 0.02 mM Trolox/L | [ | |
| 0.2% | 2.45 ± 0.02 mM Trolox/L | |||
| Control (without | DPPH | 0.86 ± 0.02 mM Trolox/L | ||
| 0.2% | 0.86 ± 0.03 mM Trolox/L | |||
| Control (without | ABTS | 3.18 ± 0.07 mM Trolox/L | ||
| 0.2% | 3.33 ± 0.06 mM Trolox/L | |||
| Control (without Argel leaf extract) | DPPH | 32.60 ± 0.20% | [ | |
| 0.1 g/100 mL Argel leaf extract | 47.22 ± 0.02% | |||
| Control (without aronia juice) | DPPH | 59.47 ± 0.31% | [ | |
| 3% aronia ( | 77.87 ± 0.44% | |||
| Control (without aronia juice) | ABTS | 45.96 ± 0.55% | ||
| 3% aronia ( | 70.90 ± 0.26% | |||
| Control (without riceberry rice extract) | FRAP | 5.26 ± 0.52 mmol FeSO4/100 g | [ | |
| 0.125% riceberry rice extract | 17.42 ± 0.43 mmol FeSO4/100 g | |||
| 0.25% riceberry rice extract | 25.64 ± 0.96 mmol FeSO4/100 g | |||
| 0.5% riceberry rice extract | 41.06 ± 2.60 mmol FeSO4/100 g | |||
| Control (without purple basil in water extract) | ABTS | 0.67 ± 0.01 mmol TE/kg | [ | |
| 0.4% purple basil in water extract | 1.17 ± 0.01 mmol TE/kg | |||
| 1% purple basil in water extract | 1.76 ± 0.01 mmol TE/kg | |||
| 0.4% purple basil in powder form | 1.42 ± 0.02 mmol TE/kg | |||
| 1% purple basil in powder form | 2.94 ± 0.04 mmol TE/kg | |||
| Control (without purple basil in water extract) | DPPH | 10.66 ± 0.26% | ||
| 0.4% purple basil in water extract | 33.16 ± 0.17% | |||
| 1% purple basil in water extract | 41.92 ± 0.09% | |||
| 0.4% purple basil in powder form | 25.32 ± 0.17% | |||
| 1% purple basil in powder form | 43.42 ± 0.17% | |||
| Control (without red ginseng extract) | DPPH | 62.50 ± 4.82% | [ | |
| 0.5% red ginseng extract | 94.46 ± 2.34% | |||
| 1% red ginseng extract | 94.85 ± 0.11% | |||
| 1.5% red ginseng extract | 94.85 ± 0.07% | |||
| 2% red ginseng extract | 94.26 ± 0.31% | |||
| 0 % safflower petal ethanol extract | DPPH | 3.24 ± 0.62% | [ | |
| 1% safflower petal ethanol extract | 2.79 ± 0.85% | |||
| 0 % safflower petal hot water extract | 5.81 ± 0.61% | |||
| 1% safflower petal hot water extract | 10.66 ± 1.21% |