| Literature DB >> 36211777 |
Dan Lei1,2, Junsheng Li2, Chao Zhang1,2, Shuyi Li1, Zhenzhou Zhu1, Feifei Wang1, Qianchun Deng3, Nabil Grimi4.
Abstract
The complexation of soybean protein isolate (SPI) with β-glucan (DG) and myricetin (MC) was focused in this study. UV-Vis, circular dichroism and 3D fluorescence analysis jointly proved that interaction with DG and MC altered the structures of SPI, whose β-sheet decreased to 29 % and random coil increased to 35 %, respectively. Moreover, the microenvironment of tryptophan and tyrosine from protein were changed. The ternary complex performed a different molecular weight distribution, showing a larger molecular weight of 1.17×106 g/mol compared with SPI verified by gel permeation chromatography (GPC). And it was further evidenced by Quartz Crystal Microbalance with Dissipation (QCM-D) and molecular docking that glycinin (11S) possessed a better affinity toward DG and MC compared with β-conglycinin (7S), which indicated stronger binding ability through hydrogen bonds. The successful preparation of SPI-DG-MC complex will advance the application of soybean resource as a functional food ingredient.Entities:
Keywords: Interaction mechanism; Myricetin; Soybean protein isolate; Ternary complex; β-Glucan
Year: 2022 PMID: 36211777 PMCID: PMC9532785 DOI: 10.1016/j.fochx.2022.100426
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Chem X ISSN: 2590-1575
Fig. 1UV–vis scanning results of SPI, MC, SPI-DG-MC mixture and complex (A). Far-UV CD spectra of SPI, SPI-DG-MC mixture and complex (B). Secondary structure of SPI, SPI-DG-MC mixture and complex (C). Different letters above each column represent that data are significantly different (p < 0.05). Three-dimensional (3D) fluorescence spectra of SPI (D), SPI-DG-MC mixture (E) SPI-DG-MC complex (F).
Fig. 2FESEM pictures of SPI (A), SPI-DG-MC mixture (B), and SPI-DG-MC complex (C).
Fig. 3Molecular weight distribution of different SPI complexes. SDS-PAGE profiles of SPI and SPI-DG-MC conjugates (A): Lane (1) molecular weight standard; lane (2) SPI, lane (3) SPI-DG complex, lane (4) SPI- MC complex, and lane (5) SPI-DG-MC complex; GPC of different SPI complexes (B).
Fig. 4QCM-D monitoring for testing the selectivity of SPI (A), 11S (B), 7S (C) against on (Ⅰ) GM and (Ⅱ) DG and MC. The thickness of GM, DG and MC adsorbed on SPI, 11S, 7S (D). Different letters above each column represent that data are significantly different (p < 0.05).
The binding energy of DG and MC with 11S and 7S protein.
| Type of complex | Binding energy (kcal/mol) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11S-MC | −8.5 | −8.1 | −7.8 | −7.5 | −7.3 | −7.0 | −7.0 | −6.9 | −6.8 | −6.8 |
| 11S-MC-DG | −7.9 | −7.4 | −7.3 | −7.2 | −6.6 | −6.3 | −6.3 | −6.3 | −6.2 | −6.1 |
| 7S-MC | −8.2 | −8.1 | −7.7 | −7.5 | −7.5 | −7.3 | −7.3 | −7.1 | −7.1 | −6.8 |
| 7S-MC-DG | −6.6 | −6.5 | −6.5 | −6.4 | −6.2 | −6.2 | −6.1 | −5.9 | −5.9 | −5.9 |
Fig. 5The docking structures of DG and MC with 7S(A) and 11S(B) protein.