| Literature DB >> 35282007 |
Bin Dong1, Cailing Yu1, Yanjun Lin1, Guowen Zhou1, Chunlong Sun1, Jun Wang1, Tao Wu1.
Abstract
Pork spoilage caused by foodborne bacteria contamination always leads to substantial economic loss in the meat industry. The toxicity and drug resistance of chemical preservatives have raised public concerns about their safety and stability. In this study, natto peptide from Pichia pastoris was prepared using DNA recombinant technology. It showed an excellent antibacterial effect against Gram-positive and -negative bacteria, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) ranging from 6 to 30 μg/ml. Of note, natto peptide exhibited low cytotoxicity and hemolytic activity. The application of natto peptide on pork during refrigerated storage dramatically decreased the growth of Staphylococcus spp., Escherichia spp., and Pseudomonas spp. The bactericidal properties remained in force when natto peptide was used in pork models contaminated with artificial bacteria. Moreover, the application of natto peptide (90 μg/ml) inhibited the increase in pH variation and drip loss, decreased the generation of total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N) and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), and maintained a high sensory quality score during pork storage. These results implied that P. pastoris-derived natto peptide could extend the storage time of pork, and it has the potential to be a promising antiseptic biopreservative to replace chemical preservatives.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial agents; antimicrobial peptides; antioxidant activity; natto peptide; pork; preservatives
Year: 2022 PMID: 35282007 PMCID: PMC8907714 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.2722
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Antibacterial activity of the purified natto peptide
| Bacterial species | MIC (μg/ml) |
|---|---|
| Gram‐positive | |
|
| 10 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 20 |
| Gram‐negative | |
|
| 6 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 25 |
FIGURE 1Antimicrobial property of natto peptide. (a) Time‐killing kinetic curve of purified natto peptide. (b) Biofilm formation inhibition curve. (c) Survival rate of cells analyzed through the methyl‐thiazol‐diphenyltetrazolium (MTT) assay method. (d) Hemolytic effect of natto peptide against rabbit erythrocytes. (e) Thermostability of natto peptide against Escherichia coli. (f) pH resistance of natto peptide against E. coli. (g) Saline resistance of natto peptide against E. coli. All the data are shown as the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements, n = 3. ns, nonsignificance. (h) Different superscript lowercase letters within each group represent significant difference (p < .05)
FIGURE 2Antioxidant activity of natto peptide. (a) 2,2′‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging assay. (b) 2,2′‐azino‐bis(3‐ethylbenzothiazoline‐6‐sulfonic acid) (ABTS+) radical scavenging assay. (c) Hydroxyl radical scavenging assay. (d) Superoxide anion radical scavenging assay. All the data are shown as the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements
FIGURE 3Microbial growth analysis of natto peptide used in pork storage. (a) Total bacterial growth of natto peptide treated during pork storage. (b) Staphylococcus spp. growth of natto peptide treated during pork storage. (c) Escherichia spp. growth of natto peptide treated during pork storage. (d) Pseudomonas spp. growth of natto peptide treated during pork storage
Microbial challenge test of natto peptide
| Strains | Days | Control | Bacterial counts (Log CFU/g) | Nisin | Butyl paraben | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natto peptide | |||||||
| 30 μg/ml | 60 μg/ml | 90 μg/ml | |||||
|
| 0 | 8.23 ± 0.22a | 8.14 ± 0.15a | 8.22 ± 0.11a | 8.15 ± 0.16a | 8.14 ± 0.24a | 8.16 ± 0.18a |
| 1 | 8.78 ± 0.15a | 6.71 ± 0.11b | 5.07 ± 0.15c | 4.05 ± 0.17d | 7.03 ± 0.11b | 4.53 ± 0.12d | |
| 5 | 8.95 ± 0.14a | 7.01 ± 0.15a | 5.98 ± 021b | 4.68 ± 0.26c | 8.15 ± 0.27a | 5.34 ± 0.19b | |
| 8 | 9.12 ± 0.13a | 7.66 ± 0.17b | 6.31 ± 0.18c | 5.83 ± 0.21c | 7.79 ± 0.20b | 6.16 ± 0.15c | |
|
| 0 | 7.15 ± 0.16a | 7.27 ± 0.15a | 7.17 ± 0.14a | 7.14 ± 0.19a | 7.18 ± 0.21a | 7.22 ± 0.18a |
| 1 | 7.68 ± 0.10a | 6.81 ± 0.16b | 6.07 ± 0.21c | 5.23 ± 0.17d | 6.75 ± 0.15b | 6.01 ± 0.18c | |
| 5 | 7.95 ± 0.20a | 7.12 ± 0.15b | 6.89 ± 0.11b | 6.13 ± 0.12c | 7.06 ± 0.17c | 6.87 ± 0.23b | |
| 8 | 8.23 ± 0.21a | 7.72 ± 0.21a | 7.03 ± 0.20b | 6.42 ± 0.17c | 7.57 ± 0.16a | 7.11 ± 0.14b | |
|
| 0 | 7.43 ± 0.13a | 7.56 ± 0.14a | 7.52 ± 0.18a | 7.48 ± 0.13a | 7.58 ± 0.14a | 7.46 ± 0.15a |
| 1 | 7.84 ± 0.21a | 6.92 ± 0.19b | 6.34 ± 0.14c | 5.62 ± 0.15d | 7.02 ± 0.13b | 7.03 ± 0.17b | |
| 5 | 7.90 ± 0.20a | 7.44 ± 0.14b | 7.01 ± 0.17c | 6.15 ± 0.16d | 7.36 ± 0.19b | 6.45 ± 0.12d | |
| 8 | 7.98 ± 0.11a | 7.78 ± 0.19a | 7.39 ± 0.23a | 7.23 ± 0.24b | 7.63 ± 0.15a | 7.24 ± 0.16a | |
Values are mean ± standard deviation of three replicates, different lowercase letters mean significantly different in the same row (p < .05).
Abbreviations: Log CFU, logarithms of colony‐forming units per gram.
FIGURE 4Freshness and physicochemical quality of pork during storage. (a) pH value of natto peptide treated during pork storage. (b) Drip loss of natto peptide treated during pork storage. (c) Total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB‐N) content of natto peptide treated during pork storage. (d) Thiobarbituric acid‐reactive substances (TBARS) content of natto peptide treated during pork storage
Sensory scores of the pork with different treatments
| Days | Control | Treatment groups | Nisin | Butyl paraben | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natto peptide | ||||||
| 30 μg/ml | 60 μg/ml | 90 μg/ml | ||||
| 0 | 9.76 ± 0.21a | 9.76 ± 0.21a | 9.76 ± 0.21a | 9.76 ± 0.21a | 9.76 ± 0.21a | 9.76 ± 0.21a |
| 1 | 8.23 ± 0.35a | 9.02 ± 0.24b | 9.24 ± 0.18b | 9.26 ± 0.32b | 9.12 ± 0.27b | 9.16 ± 0.29b |
| 2 | 7.11 ± 0.26a | 8.65 ± 0.25b | 8.93 ± 0.31b | 9.02 ± 0.33b | 8.75 ± 0.35b | 8.93 ± 0.18b |
| 3 | 4.89 ± 0.25a | 6.71 ± 0.19b | 7.87 ± 0.27c | 8.14 ± 0.24d | 6.89 ± 0.28b | 8.01 ± 0.16d |
| 4 | 3.87 ± 0.34a | 5.38 ± 0.37b | 6.98 ± 0.28b | 7.34 ± 0.37c | 5.54 ± 0.31b | 7.13 ± 0.36c |
| 5 | 2.79 ± 0.33a | 4.23 ± 0.24b | 5.84 ± 0.36c | 6.01 ± 0.28c | 4.13 ± 0.23b | 5.89 ± 0.29c |
| 6 | 2.02 ± 0.36a | 3.91 ± 0.16b | 4.17 ± 0.15b | 5.21 ± 0.24c | 3.96 ± 0.17b | 5.05 ± 0.32c |
| 7 | 1.65 ± 0.27a | 2.84 ± 0.24b | 3.82 ± 0.28c | 4.31 ± 0.32d | 2.90 ± 0.19b | 4.03 ± 0.25c |
| 8 | 0.64 ± 0.27a | 1.68 ± 0.23b | 1.72 ± 0.34b | 2.24 ± 0.25c | 1.89 ± 0.20b | 2.01 ± 0.28c |
Values are mean ± standard deviation of three replicates, different lowercase letters mean significantly different in the same row (p < .05).