Advertisement

3 Biotech

, 8:372 | Cite as

Optimization of the enzymatic hydrolysis of rice protein by different enzymes using the response surface methodology

  • Jessika Gonçalves dos Santos Aguilar
  • Ruann Janser Soares de Castro
  • Helia Harumi Sato
Original Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

The optimization of the enzymatic hydrolysis of rice protein was determined using an experimental design tool. The semi-purified protease of Bacillus licheniformis LBA 46 and commercial protease Alcalase 2.4 L were used to produce rice hydrolysates using pH values ranging from 6 to 10 and enzyme concentrations varying from 50 to 150 U/mL. The optimized conditions were validated, and using the chosen conditions (pH 10 and 100 U/mL of protease), it was possible to confirm that the model was predictive for oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) responses. The experimental values for the ORAC and FRAP responses were 940 and 18.78 TE µmol/g for the rice protein hydrolysates prepared with LBA protease and 1001.94 and 19.31 TE µmol/g for the rice protein hydrolysates prepared with Alcalase 2.4 L. After optimization of the enzymatic hydrolysis conditions, the antioxidant activity values increased when compared to the values for the intact rice protein: 324.97 TE µmol/g (ORAC) and 6.14 TE µmol/g (FRAP). It was also observed that the LBA protease had an action similar to the commercial protease, showing its potential for application in protein hydrolysis.

Keywords

Optimization Contour curve Rice Antioxidant Protease 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

13205_2018_1401_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 KB)

References

  1. Benzie IFF, Strain JJ (1996) The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “Antioxidant Power”: the FRAP assay. Anal Biochem 239:1 70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bougatef A, Hajji M, Balti R, Lassoued I, Triki-Ellouz Y, Nasri M (2009) Antioxidant and free radical-scavenging activities of smooth hound (Mustelus mustelus) muscle protein hydrolysates obtained by gastrointestinal proteases. Food Chem 114:4 1198–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burda S, Oleszek W (2001) Antioxidant and antiradical activities of flavonoids. J Agric Food Chem 49:2774–2779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao W, Zhang C, Ji H, Hao J (2012) Optimization of peptic hydrolysis parameters for the production of angiotensin I-convertingenzyme inhibitory hydrolysate from Aceteschinensis through Plackett–Burman and response surface methodological approaches. J Sci Food Agric 92:42–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro RJS, Sato HH (2014a) Advantages of an acid protease from Aspergillus oryzae over commercial preparations for production of whey protein hydrolysates with antioxidant activities. J Food Process 3:58–65Google Scholar
  6. Castro RJS, Sato HH (2014b) Comparison and synergistic effects of intact proteins and their hydrolysates on the functional properties and antioxidant activities in a simultaneous process of enzymatic hydrolysis. Food Bioprod Process 92:1 80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castro RJS, Sato HH (2015) A response surface approach on optimization of hydrolysis parameters for the production of egg white protein hydrolysates with antioxidant activities. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 4:1 55–62Google Scholar
  8. Castro RJS, Cason VG, Sato HH (2017) Binary mixture of proteases increases the antioxidant properties of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) protein-derived peptides obtained by enzymatic hydrolysis. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 10:291–297Google Scholar
  9. Charney J, Tomarelli RM (1947) A colorimetric method for the determination the proteolytic activity of duodenal juice. J Biol Chem 170:23 501–505Google Scholar
  10. Contesini FJ (2014) Production, characterization and application of proteases from Bacillus sp. Ph.D. thesis, University of CampinasGoogle Scholar
  11. Contreras MM, Hernández-Ledesma B, Amigo L, Martín-Álvarez PJ, Recio I (2011) Production of antioxidant hydrolyzates from a whey protein concentrate with thermolysin: optimization by response surface methodology. LWT Food Sci Technol 44:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dávalos A, Gómez-Cordovés C, Bartolomé B (2004) Extending applicability of the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC-fluorescein) assay. J Agric Food Chem 52:1 48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elias RJ, Kellerby SS, Decker EA (2008) Antioxidant activity of proteins and peptides. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 48:430–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartree EF (1972) Determination of protein: a modification of the Lowry methods that gives a linear photometric response. Anal Biochem 48:422–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hsu KC (2010) Purification of antioxidative peptides prepared from enzymatic hydrolysates of tuna dark muscle by-product. Food Chem 122:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kong BH, Xiong YL (2006) Antioxidant activity of zein hydrolysates in a liposome system and the possible mode of action. J Agric Food Chem 54:6059–6068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Korhonen H, Pihlanto A (2006) Bioactive peptides: production and functionality. Int Dairy J 16:9 945–960Google Scholar
  18. Madamba PS (2002) The response surface methodology: an application to optimize dehydration operations of selected agricultural crops. LWT Food Sci Technol 35:7 584–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moniruzzaman M, Khalil MI, Gan SH (2012) Advances in the analytical methods for determining the antioxidant properties of honey: a review. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med 9(1):36–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Morales-Medina R, Pérez-Gálvez R, Guadix A, Guadix EM (2017) Multiobjective optimization of the antioxidant activities of horse mackerel hydrolysates produced with protease mixtures. Process Biochem 52:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muthayya S, Sugimoto JD, Montgomery S, Maberly GF (2014) An overview of global rice production, supply, trade, and consumption. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1324:1 7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peričin D, Radulović-Popović L, Vaštag Ž, Madarev-Popović S, Trivić S (2009) Enzymatic hydrolysis of protein isolate from hull-less pumpkin oil cake: application of response surface methodology. Food Chem 115:2 753–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Phongthai S, Lim ST, Rawdkuen S (2016) Optimization of microwave-assisted extraction of rice bran protein and its hydrolysates properties. J Cereal Sci 70:146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ricci I, Artacho R, Olalla M (2010) Milk protein peptides with angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory (ACEI) activity. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 50:5 390–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Saiga A, Tanabe S, Nishimura T (2003) Antioxidant activity of peptides obtained from porcine myofibrillar proteins by protease treatment. J Agric Food Chem 51:12 3661–3667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Selamassakul O, Laohakunjit N, Kerdchoechuen O, Ratanakhanokchai K (2016) A novel multi-biofunctional protein from brown rice hydrolysed by endo/endo-exoproteases. Food Funct 7:6 2635–2644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Seo H-W, Jung E-Y, Go G, Kim G-D, Joo S-T, Yang H-S (2015) Optimization of hydrolysis conditions for bovine plasma protein using response surface methodology. Food Chem 185:106–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Solouk A, Solati-Hashjin M, Najarian S, Mirzadeh H, Seifalian AM (2011) Optimization of acrylic acid grafting onto POSS-PCU nanocomposite using response surface methodology. Iran Polym J 20:2 91–107Google Scholar
  29. Thamnarathip P, Jangchud K, Nitisinprasert S, Vardhanabhuti B (2016) Identification of peptide molecular weight from rice bran protein hydrolysate with high antioxidant activity. J Cereal Sci 69:329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vastag Z, Popovic L, Popovic S, Krimer V, Peričin D (2010) Hydrolysis of pumpkin oil cake protein isolate and free radical scavenging activity of hydrolysates: influence of temperature, enzyme/substrate ratio and time. Food Bioprod Process 88:277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang Z, Li H, Liang M, Yang L (2016) Glutelin and prolamin, different components of rice protein, exert differently in vitro antioxidant activities. J Cereal Sci 72:108–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang X, Chen H, Fu X, Li S, Wei J (2017) A novel antioxidant and ACE inhibitory peptide from rice bran protein: biochemical characterization and molecular docking study. LWT Food Sci Technol 75:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ward OP, Rao MB, Kulkarni A (2009) Proteases. In: Schaechter M (ed) Encyclopedia of microbiology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 495–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wattanasiritham L, Theerakulkait C, Wickramasekara S, Maier CS, Stevens JF (2016) Isolation and identification of antioxidant peptides from enzymatically hydrolyzed rice bran protein. Food Chem 192:156–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiriyaphan C, Chitsomboon B, Yongsawadigul J (2012) Antioxidant activity of protein hydrolysates derived from threadfin bream surimi byproducts. Food Chem 132:1 104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhao Q, Xiong H, Selomulya C, Chen XD, Zhong H, Wang S, Sun W, Zhou Q (2012) Enzymatic hydrolysis of rice dreg protein: effects of enzyme type on the functional properties and antioxidant activities of recovered proteins. Food Chem 134:3 1360–1367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhou K, Canning C, Sun S (2013) Effects of rice protein hydrolysates prepared by microbial proteases and ultrafiltration on free radicals and meat lipid oxidation. LWT Food Sci Technol 50:1 331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Food Science, School of Food EngineeringUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations