| Literature DB >> 35990341 |
Nan Zhang1, Bing Yang1, Kemin Mao1, Yuwei Liu1, Bimal Chitrakar1, Xianghong Wang1, Yaxin Sang1.
Abstract
Tricholoma mongolicum Imai is an edible fungus rich in various health-promoting compounds, such as polysaccharides, polypeptides, polyunsaturated fatty acids, etc., and among them, polysaccharides have gotten more attention in recent research trends. This study explored the extraction of polysaccharides from T. mongolicum Imai by five extraction methods, including hot water extraction, ultrasound extraction, enzyme-assisted extraction, 0.1 M HCL extraction, and 0.1 M NaOH extraction. The effects of these extraction methods on the yield, chemical structure, apparent morphology, and the antioxidant activities of Tricholoma mongolicum Imai polysaccharides (TMIPs) were investigated in this study. The data showed that 0.1 M NaOH extraction produced the highest extraction yield compared to the other extraction methods. The results of high-performance gel permeation chromatography (HPGPC) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed that different extraction methods had significant effects on the molecular weight and morphology of TMIPs. The results of Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and thermogravimetric analysis showed that the extraction methods had no significant difference in functional groups, crystal structure, and thermal stability of TMIPs. The antioxidant activity of TMIPs extracted by ultrasound extraction was more prominent among the five polysaccharides, which might be related to a large number of low-molecular-weight components in molecular weight distribution.Entities:
Keywords: Tricholoma mongolicum Imai; antioxidant activity; extraction methods; polysaccharide; structure characteristics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35990341 PMCID: PMC9389156 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.962584
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Extraction yield and chemical composition of polysaccharides from Tricholoma mongolicum Imai extracted by five different extraction methods.
| Item | Sample | ||||
| TMIPs-H | TMIPs-U | TMIPs-E | TMIPs-Ac | TMIPs-Al | |
| Yield (%) | 6.64 | 4.41 | 5.87 | 10.83 | 13.16 |
| Total sugar (%) | 36.24 ± 3.44a | 26.48 ± 0.48c | 32.96 ± 1.84a | 29.04 ± 0.56bc | 32.84 ± 0.04ab |
| Protein (%) | 4.93 ± 0.65d | 4.56 ± 0.27d | 7.67 ± 0.84c | 10.18 ± 0.33b | 16.31 ± 0.18a |
| Uronic acid (%) | 3.02 ± 0.82a | 2.95 ± 0.19a | 5.13 ± 0.24b | 2.73 ± 0.13a | 3.49 ± 0.60a |
|
| |||||
| Mannose | 16.80 | 16.08 | 15.66 | 15.03 | 16.18 |
| ribose | 6.30 | 4.03 | 4.58 | 4.50 | 5.88 |
| Glucuronic acid | 1.59 | 1.72 | 0.95 | 0.52 | 0.19 |
| Glucose | 54.65 | 51.12 | 57.66 | 59.75 | 61.36 |
| Galactose | 13.98 | 20.15 | 14.63 | 14.08 | 9.24 |
| Xylose | 2.40 | 1.65 | 1.60 | 1.38 | 2.16 |
| Fucose | 3.50 | 4.23 | 3.94 | 3.72 | 3.99 |
Different letters in the same row represent significant differences at p < 0.05.
FIGURE 1HPLC chromatograms of PMP derivatives of standard monosaccharides and TMIPs (A); 1 – mannose; 2 – ribose; 3 – rhamnose; 4 – glucuronic acid; 5 – galacturonic acid; 6 – N-acetyl-glucosamine; 7 – glucose; 8 – N-acetyl-galactosamine; 9 – galactose; 10 – xylose; 11 – arabinose; 12 – fucose. Molecular weight distribution curve of TMIPs (B).
Average molecular weight and peak area of different peaks of TMIPs.
| Sample | Molecular weight distribution | ||
| Peak number | Mv (kDa) | Peak area (%) | |
| TMIPs-H | 1 | 657.87 | 68.63 |
| 2 | 382.33 | 11.23 | |
| 3 | 289.69 | 10.91 | |
| TMIPs-U | 1 | 679.20 | 46.50 |
| 2 | 334.56 | 18.55 | |
| 3 | 224.18 | 19.47 | |
| TMIPs-E | 1 | 645.65 | 57.26 |
| 2 | 362.05 | 15.21 | |
| 3 | 260.35 | 14.77 | |
| TMIPs-Ac | 1 | 7,100.35 | 0.16 |
| 2 | 692.79 | 55.77 | |
| 3 | 167.05 | 27.70 | |
| TMIPs-Al | 1 | 695.49 | 52.39 |
| 2 | 407.35 | 11.49 | |
| 3 | 202.83 | 21.27 | |
FIGURE 2The FT-IR spectrum of TMIPs.
FIGURE 3Thermogravimetric analysis of TMIPs. (A) TG curve and (B) DSC curve.
FIGURE 4XRD analysis of different polysaccharides from TMIPs.
FIGURE 5Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrographs of TMIPs. (A) TMIPS-H; (B) TMIPS-U; (C) TMIPS-E; (D) TMIPS-Ac; (E) TMIPS-Al; a. 500 × magnification; b. 2,000 × magnification.
FIGURE 6Antioxidant activity of TMIPs. (A) DPPH free radical scavenging ability. (B) ABTS free radical scavenging ability. (C) Hydroxyl radicals scavenging ability.