| Literature DB >> 35539616 |
Xueqin Wang1,2, Huahua Yu1,2, Ronge Xing1,2, Song Liu1,2, Xiaolin Chen1,2, Pengcheng Li1,2.
Abstract
Oysters (Crassostrea talienwhanensis) contain large amounts of protein and exhibit many biological activities. This study was aimed at preparing oyster protein hydrolysates (OPH) and evaluating the OPH based on a spatial learning and memory capacity. A response surface methodology was employed to optimize hydrolysis conditions to determine the OPH with the highest AChE inhibitory activity, and the optimum extraction conditions were as follows: enzyme concentration of 1444.88 U g-1, pH of 7.38, extraction temperature of 45 °C, extraction time of 5.56 h and a water/material ratio of 2.45 : 1, and the minimum acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity was 0.069 mM min-1. The spatial memory and learning abilities and passive avoidance in mice were determined by using the Morris water maze test and a dark/light avoidance test. Furthermore, the OPH group could relieve oxidative stress, reduce AChE levels, increase choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) levels and alleviate inflammatory reaction through reduction of interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) levels. Additionally, up-regulated expressions of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and neural cell adhesion molecules (NCAM) were observed in mice treated with OPH. These findings suggested that OPH could be a functional food candidate to improve the learning and memory ability associated with oxidative stress and inflammatory reactions. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 35539616 PMCID: PMC9078276 DOI: 10.1039/c7ra13139a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
The soluble peptide content, radical scavenging activities and AChE activity of OPH prepared by different proteasesa
| Protease | Soluble peptide content (g/100 mL) | Hydroxyl radical scavenge activity (%) | DPPH radical scavenging activity (%) | Superoxide-radical scavenging (%) | AChE activity (U mL−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protamex | 5.86 ± 0.04a | 70.78 ± 0.30a | 83.41 ± 0.92a | 62.53 ± 0.48a | 0.080 ± 0.01c |
| Trypsin | 4.26 ± 0.01b | 64.93 ± 0.70b | 77.42 ± 0.46c | 46.83 ± 0.28c | 0.086 ± 0.01b |
| Papain | 4.04 ± 0.12c | 60.89 ± 1.08e | 77.11 ± 0.70c | 31.04 ± 1.88e | 0.085 ± 0.01b |
| Flavourzyme | 2.42 ± 0.06d | 62.87 ± 0.93 cd | 80.03 ± 0.96b | 40.13 ± 0.69d | 0.085 ± 0.01b |
| Neutrase | 4.25 ± 0.09b | 64.34 ± 0.80bc | 68.97 ± 0.96e | 25.34 ± 1.65f | 0.088 ± 0.01a |
| Vc | 62.46 ± 1.05d | 71.88 ± 0.67d | 55.09 ± 0.61b |
Data were presented as means ± SD. Values followed by different superscript in the same columns were significantly different (P < 0.05) according to variance analysis (ANOVA) using the SPSS software and means were compared by Duncan's multiple comparison post-test. Statistical differences were considered to be significant at p < 0.05.
Experimental design and result of response surface
| Run numbers |
|
|
|
|
| AChE activity (mM min−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 800 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.074 |
| 2 | 1600 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 3 | 800 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 4 | 1600 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 5 | 1200 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 55 | 0.071 |
| 6 | 1200 | 5 | 9 | 1 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 7 | 1200 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 8 | 1200 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 9 | 1200 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 45 | 0.072 |
| 10 | 1200 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 45 | 0.070 |
| 11 | 1200 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 65 | 0.073 |
| 12 | 1200 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 65 | 0.071 |
| 13 | 800 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 14 | 1600 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 15 | 800 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 16 | 1600 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 17 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 45 | 0.070 |
| 18 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 45 | 0.069 |
| 19 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 65 | 0.072 |
| 20 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 65 | 0.070 |
| 21 | 1200 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 22 | 1200 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 23 | 1200 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 24 | 1200 | 7 | 9 | 2 | 55 | 0.071 |
| 25 | 800 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 26 | 1600 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 55 | 0.071 |
| 27 | 800 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 55 | 0.071 |
| 28 | 1600 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 29 | 1200 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 45 | 0.070 |
| 30 | 1200 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 45 | 0.070 |
| 31 | 1200 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 65 | 0.070 |
| 32 | 1200 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 65 | 0.070 |
| 33 | 800 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 45 | 0.071 |
| 34 | 1600 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 45 | 0.069 |
| 35 | 800 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 65 | 0.072 |
| 36 | 1600 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 65 | 0.071 |
| 37 | 1200 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 38 | 1200 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 55 | 0.071 |
| 39 | 1200 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 55 | 0.072 |
| 40 | 1200 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 41 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 42 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 43 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.069 |
| 44 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.069 |
| 45 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.070 |
| 46 | 1200 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 55 | 0.070 |
ANOVA for response surface quadratic model
| Variables | Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 5.19 × 10−5 | 20 | 2.59 × 10−6 | 11.99 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 5.41 × 10−6 | 25 | 2.16 × 10−7 | ||
| Lack of fit | 4.53 × 10−6 | 20 | 2.27 × 10−7 | 1.30 | 0.4180 |
| Pure error | 8.73 × 10−7 | 5 | 1.75 × 10−7 | ||
| Cor. total | 5.73 × 10−5 | 45 | |||
|
| 0.9056 | ||||
| Adj. | 0.8300 | ||||
| Pred. | 0.6613 | ||||
| Adeq. precision | 13.421 | ||||
| CV% | 0.66 |
Effect of OPH on the body weight and viscera indexes of micea
| Groups | Body weight (g) | Viscera indexes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beginning | Ending | Brain | Spleen | Thymus | |
| NC | 21.45 ± 1.97 | 32.53 ± 2.34 | 12.85 ± 1.29 | 2.26 ± 0.40 | 2.56 ± 0.51b |
| PC | 19.83 ± 2.02 | 32.46 ± 2.40 | 13.28 ± 1.23 | 2.23 ± 0.48 | 2.98 ± 0.69ab |
| MPH-L | 20.33 ± 1.56 | 32.89 ± 2.65 | 12.65 ± 1.27 | 2.51 ± 0.51 | 2.71 ± 0.49b |
| MPH-M | 20.33 ± 1.83 | 31.33 ± 3.01 | 13.62 ± 1.82 | 2.36 ± 0.61 | 2.65 ± 0.68b |
| MPH-H | 20.04 ± 1.96 | 33.76 ± 2.98 | 12.72 ± 0.91 | 2.33 ± 0.56 | 3.44 ± 1.01a |
Data were presented as means ± SD. Mean values within the same column with different superscript were significantly different according to variance analysis (ANOVA) using the SPSS software and means were compared by Duncan's multiple comparison post-test. Statistical differences were considered to be significant at p < 0.05.
Viscera indexes = weight of brain, spleen or thymus (mg)/weight of mice (g) × 10.
Fig. 1Effect of OPH on performance in the training trials of reference memory task. After daily oral administration with normal saline (NC group), huperzine (PC group) or OPH (OPH-L, OPH-M and OPH-H groups) for 30 days, animals were test in Morris water maze task. Values were presented as means ± SD.
Fig. 2Effect of OPH on performance in the probe trial of the water maze task. (A) Comparison of total swimming distance of each group. (B) The time of each group in the target quadrant in the probe trial. (C) The swimming pathway of each group in the probe trial. Data were presented as means ± SD. Bar graphs followed by different letters were significantly different according to variance analysis (ANOVA) using the SPSS software and means were compared by Duncan's multiple comparison post-test. Statistical differences were considered to be significant at p < 0.05.
Fig. 3Effect of OPH on step-through latency of dark/light avoidance test. The latency of five groups in the first trial showed no significant difference, and bar graphs followed no letters. In the second trial and reappearance trial, the same letters between the two groups meant no significant difference. Data were presented as means ± SD. Bar graphs followed by different letters were significantly different (P < 0.05) according to variance analysis (ANOVA) using the SPSS software and means were compared by Duncan's multiple comparison post-test. Statistical differences were considered to be significant at p < 0.05.
Fig. 4Effect of OPH on indicators related to oxidative stress of mice. The vertical units of groups were %, U mg−1, U mg−1 and mmol mg−1, respectively. Data were presented as means ± SD. Bar graphs followed by different letters were significantly different (P < 0.05) according to variance analysis (ANOVA) using the SPSS software and means were compared by Duncan's multiple comparison post-test. Statistical differences were considered to be significant at p < 0.05.
Effect of OPH on AChE, ChAT, IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α of micea
| Group | AChE (mM min−1) | ChAT (mM min−1) | IL-1β (pg mL−1) | IL-6 (pg mL−1) | TNF-α (pg mL−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC | 28.89 ± 3.88a | 37.97 ± 2.14d | 66.19 ± 11.17c | 81.33 ± 4.02b | 388.72 ± 29.32b |
| PC | 28.51 ± 3.71a | 44.94 ± 4.13c | 84.64 ± 2.89b | 127.74 ± 6.21a | 475.90 ± 20.76a |
| OPH-L | 30.13 ± 4.04a | 53.77 ± 2.89b | 97.31 ± 6.81a | 89.15 ± 4.15b | 399.54 ± 32.26b |
| OPH-M | 26.19 ± 3.07a | 65.54 ± 2.16a | 86.97 ± 7.30b | 77.39 ± 5.46c | 359.29 ± 73.56c |
| OPH-H | 13.88 ± 3.82b | 38.68 ± 2.18d | 52.31 ± 7.44d | 77.01 ± 5.94c | 338.05 ± 13.71d |
Data were presented as means ± SD. Values followed by different superscript in the same columns were significantly different according to variance analysis (ANOVA) using the SPSS software and means were compared by Duncan's multiple comparison post-test. Statistical differences were considered to be significant at p < 0.05.
Fig. 5Immunoblot analysis of BDNF and NCAM in the hippocampus of the OPH, PC and NC treated mice. (A) Quantitative analysis showed that the hippocampal levels of BDNF and NCAM of the OPH group were obviously higher than that of the NC group. (B) Western blot from the NC and PC groups showed weak hippocampal BDNF and NCAM compared with the OPH group. The OPH group data and NC and PC group's data were spliced together because there were other data between them in the initial gel. (C) Gray value of BDNF and NCAM in the hippocampus of mice treated with the OPH, PC and NC. Data were presented as means ± SD. Bar graphs followed by different letters were significantly different (P < 0.05) according to variance analysis (ANOVA) using the SPSS software and means were compared by Duncan's multiple comparison post-test. Statistical differences were considered to be significant at p < 0.05.