| Literature DB >> 36147550 |
Fengxue Zhang1, Yining Xu1, Baohua Kong1, Qian Chen1, Fangda Sun1, Hongwei Zhang1, Qian Liu1,2.
Abstract
Microwave drying (MD) or freeze drying (FD) was commonly used as a drying treatment prior to the extraction of edible insect proteins. However, some quality defects (e.g., lipid oxidation or protein denaturation) were probably occurred via the drying step. To this end, the effect of drying or non-drying treatments (ND) after slaughtering by liquid nitrogen freezing on the physicochemical characteristics, structural and functional properties of Tenebrio molitor larvae protein (TMP) was investigated. The results indicate that TMP extracted from the ND group showed higher essential/total amino acid content, total/free sulfhydryl content, surface hydrophobicity, solubility, water/oil holding capacities, and emulsifying/foaming properties than those extracted from the MD or FD groups (P < 0.05). Moreover, the ND group had minimal impact on the structural changes of TMP which was associated with protein denaturation. Therefore, it can be concluded that a non-drying strategy prior to TMP extraction can improve functional properties and retard protein denaturation, while also conserving energy.Entities:
Keywords: Functional properties; Insect protein; Pre-extraction treatment; Structural properties; Tenebrio molitor larvae
Year: 2022 PMID: 36147550 PMCID: PMC9486610 DOI: 10.1016/j.crfs.2022.09.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Res Food Sci ISSN: 2665-9271
Fig. 1The flow chart of protein extraction from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments.
Protein yield and proximate compositions (dry basis) of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments.
| ND | MD | FD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein yield (%) | 34.01 ± 0.67A | 12.89 ± 0.43B | 33.82 ± 0.75A |
| Protein content (%) | 84.91 ± 0.91AB | 86.21 ± 1.71A | 83.31 ± 1.21B |
| Fat content (%) | 6.75 ± 0.19B | 9.07 ± 0.95A | 6.43 ± 0.02B |
| Ash content (%) | 3.85 ± 0.08B | 4.76 ± 0.56A | 4.21 ± 0.13AB |
Values are given as means ± SD from triplicate determinations. Different rows (A-B) in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
Amino acid profiles and protein quality of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments.
| Unit (g/100 g protein) | ND | MD | FD | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential amino acids (EAA) | ||||
| Histidine (His) | 2.29 | 1.67 | 2.19 | 1.5 |
| Isoleucine (Ile) | 3.90 | 3.19 | 3.81 | 3.0 |
| Leucine (Leu) | 6.50 | 5.08 | 6.41 | 5.9 |
| Lysine (Lys) | 5.24 | 3.31 | 5.02 | 4.5 |
| Methionine + Cysteine (Met + Cys) | 1.70 | 0.51 | 1.84 | 2.2 |
| Phenyl-alanine + Tyrosine (Phe + Tyr) | 8.50 | 6.06 | 8.31 | 3.8 |
| Threonine (Thr) | 3.70 | 2.68 | 3.61 | 2.3 |
| Valine (Val) | 4.65 | 3.72 | 4.39 | 3.9 |
| Sum of EAA | 36.48 | 26.22 | 35.58 | 27.1 |
| Alanine (Ala) | 3.53 | 2.95 | 3.50 | |
| Arginine (Arg) | 4.25 | 3.23 | 4.19 | |
| Aspartic acid (Asp) | 8.83 | 6.34 | 8.51 | |
| Glutamic acid (Glu) | 9.70 | 12.0 | 10.4 | |
| Glycine (Gly) | 3.69 | 5.43 | 3.60 | |
| Proline (Pro) | 3.49 | 2.84 | 3.25 | |
| Serine (Ser) | 3.34 | 3.14 | 3.24 | |
| Sum of total AA | 73.31 | 62.15 | 72.27 | |
| EAAI | 1.15 | 1.10 | 1.14 | |
Reference from FAO/WHO/UNU (1985).
Fig. 2Particle size distribution of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments.
Fig. 3The appearance and color parameters of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 4SDS-PAGE patterns of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments. (−) represents the electrophoresis samples prepared without β-mercaptoethanol. (+) represents the electrophoresis samples prepared with β-mercaptoethanol.
Sulfhydryl contents, disulfide bond contents and surface hydrophobicity of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments.
| Treatments | Total sulfhydryl (μmol/g) | Free sulfhydryl (μmol/g) | Disulfide bond (μmol/g) | Surface hydrophobicity (μg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND | 41.34 ± 0.11A | 39.16 ± 0.21A | 3.06 ± 0.35C | 34.96 ± 0.51A |
| MD | 27.40 ± 0.18C | 26.32 ± 0.44C | 5.21 ± 0.16A | 18.68 ± 1.18C |
| FD | 30.71 ± 0.12B | 28.11 ± 0.23B | 3.88 ± 0.02B | 30.33 ± 2.24B |
Values are given as means ± SD from triplicate determinations. Different letters (A-C) in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
Fig. 5FTIR spectroscopy of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments.
Percentage of secondary structures of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments.
| Treatments | α-helix (%) | β-sheet (%) | β-turns (%) | Random coil (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND | 14.74 ± 0.20A | 34.60 ± 0.12B | 28.56 ± 0.51A | 25.23 ± 0.35A |
| MD | 13.10 ± 0.43B | 43.03 ± 0.50A | 23.16 ± 0.10B | 21.50 ± 0.14B |
| FD | 14.42 ± 0.35A | 35.90 ± 0.33B | 28.90 ± 0.11A | 25.80 ± 0.40A |
Values are given as means ± SD from triplicate determinations. Different letters (A-B) in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
Fig. 6Intrinsic fluorescence of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments.
Fig. 7The solubility of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments as a function of various pH values.
Fig. 8Water holding capacity (WHC) and oil holding capacity (OHC) of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pre-extraction treatments. The different uppercase letters (A–B) indicate significant differences of WHC among different groups, and the different lowercase letters (a–b) indicate significant differences of OHC among different groups (P < 0.05).
Emulsifying and foaming properties of TMP extracted from Tenebrio molitor larvae with different pretreatment methods.
| Treatments | EAI (m2/g) | ESI (%) | Foaming capacity (%) | Foam stability (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND | 45.10 ± 0.46A | 57.85 ± 1.49A | 4577.33 ± 7.02A | 166.20 ± 1.73A |
| MD | 22.10 ± 0.53C | 40.78 ± 2.71B | 3816.53 ± 8.18C | 115.34 ± 0.57C |
| FD | 25.62 ± 0.56B | 39.17 ± 2.05B | 4296.78 ± 7.93B | 138.67 ± 2.08B |
Values are given as means ± SD from triplicate determinations. Different letters (A-C) in the same column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).