Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of crossbreed on the degradation of myofibrillar proteins and on the cathepsin B+L activity in dry cured hams

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Enzymatic activity and proteolysis undergone by the proteins extracted from the Semimembranosus and Biceps femoris muscles using high ionic strength buffer were studied in raw hams and hams dry-cured for 11 months. The hams were taken from three different crosses of three breeding enterprises: cross A (75% Duroc-25% Landrace); cross B (50% Duroc-25% Landrace-25% Large White); and cross C (75% Duroc-25% Landrace). Higher cathepsin B+L activity levels were recorded in the Semimembranosus muscle than in the Biceps femoris muscle both in the raw hams and in the cured hams, residual enzymatic activity in the hams being 1% of the initial levels; significant differences were not found for the three crosses. The proteolysis index was higher for the Biceps femoris muscle, similar values being observed for all three crosses. The raw hams from cross A exhibited the highest relative density values for low molecular mass peptides and the lowest relative density values for high molecular mass peptides. After 11 months of curing, proteolysis levels were highest in the hams from cross B, which had the highest levels of 8, 9 and 22 kDa fragments (in the Semimembranosus muscle) and 25 and 9 kDa fragments (in the Biceps femoris muscle). This finding confirms that genetic factors have an influence on proteolysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Toldrá F, Rico E, Flores J (1993) J Sci Food Agric 62:157–161

    Google Scholar 

  2. Toldrá F, Millares MC, Flores J (1992) Food Chem 44:391–394

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tabilo G, Flores M, Fiszman SM, Toldrá F (1999) Meat Sci 51:255–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Monin G, Marinova P, Talmant A, Martin JF, Cornet M, Lanore D, Grasso F (1997) Meat Sci 47:29–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Etherington DJ, Taylor MAJ, Dransfield E (1987) Meat Sci 20:1-18

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Koohmaraie M, Kretchmar DH (1990) J Anim Sci 68:2362–2370

    Google Scholar 

  7. Barrett AJ (1980) Biochem J 187:909–912

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. AOAC (1984) Official Methods of Analysis 3. N. 24038, 436

  9. Keresse I (1984) Methods of protein analysis. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, England

  10. Helander E (1957) Acta Physiol Scand 41:Suppl 141

    Google Scholar 

  11. Toldrá F, Flores J, Voyle CA (1990) J Food Sci 55:1189–1191

    Google Scholar 

  12. Amersham Pharmacia Biotech (1986) Separation Technique. File no. 110

  13. Amersham Pharmacia Biotech (1986) Fast Coomassie staining. Development Technique. File no. 200

  14. Virgili R, Porta C, Schivazappa C (1998) Effect of raw material on the end-product characteristics. In: Simposio Especial 44th ICoMST. Barcelona, Spain, pp 26-37

  15. Virgili R, Schivazappa C, Parolari C, Soresi Bordini C, Degni M (1998) J Food Biochem 22:53–63

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Baldini P, Raczynski R (1978) The prosciutto (raw ham) of Parma and S. Danielle: changes in physico-chemical properties and microbial populations. In: Proc Int Meet Food Microbiol and Tech, Tabiano, Parma, Italy, pp 107–117

  17. Sárraga C, Gil M, Arnau J, Monfort JM (1989) Meat Sci 25:241–249

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sárraga C (1992) Meat proteinases and their relation with curing. In: Smulders FJM, Toldrá F, Flores J, Prieto M (eds) ECCAMST course: new technologies for meat and meat products. Audet Tijdschriften, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, pp 233–246

  19. Toldrá F (1992) The enzymology of dry-curing of meat products. In: Smulders FJM, Toldrá F, Flores J, Prieto M (eds) New technologies for meat and meat products. Audet Tijdschriften, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, pp 209–231

  20. Hortós M (1995) Ph.D. thesis. Free University of Barcelona

  21. Martín L (1996) Ph.D. thesis. University of Extremadura

  22. Flores J, Bermell S, Nieto P (1985) Rev Agroquim Tecnol Aliment 25:400–408

    Google Scholar 

  23. Virgili R, Parolari G, Schivazappa C, Soresi Bordini C, Borri M (1995) J Food Sci 60:1183–1186

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Weber K, Osborn M (1969) J Bio Chem 244:4406–4412

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Porzio MA, Pearson MA (1977) Bioquim Biophys Acta 490:35–43

    Google Scholar 

  26. Penny IF (1984) Enzimología de la maduración. In: Lawrie RA (ed) Avances de la ciencia de la carne. Acribia, Zaragoza, Spain, pp 148–181

  27. Salm CP, Forrest JC, Aberle ED, Mills EW, Snyder AC, Judge MD (1983) Meat Sci 8:163–183

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Córdoba JJ (1990) Ph.D. thesis. University of Extremadura

  29. Córdoba JJ, Antequera T, Ventanas J, López-Bote C, García C, Asensio MA (1994) Meat Sci 37:217–227

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hortós M, Gil M, Sárraga C (1994) Sci Aliment 14:503–515

    Google Scholar 

  31. Claeys E, Uytterhaegen L, Buts B, Demeyer D (1995) Meat Sci 39:177–193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Iversen PN (1995) Ph.D. thesis. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University of Copenhagen

  33. Negishi H, Yamamoto E, Kuwata T (1996) Meat Sci 42:289–303

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Toldrá F, Etherington DJ (1988) Meat Sci 23:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  35. Astiasarán I, Villanueva R, Bello J (1990) Meat Sci 28:111–117

    Google Scholar 

  36. Knight P, Pearson N (1988) Meat Sci 24:275–300

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Yates LD, Dutson TR, Caldwell J, Carpenter ZL (1983) Meat Sci 9:157–159

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this study provided by the company Navidul, now Campofrío Alimentación (Spain).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Analytical Chemistry and Food Technology, School of Chemistry, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario s/n, 13071 , Ciudad Real, Spain

    Almudena Soriano Pérez & Antonia García Ruiz

Authors
  1. Almudena Soriano Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonia García Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Almudena Soriano Pérez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Soriano Pérez, A., García Ruiz, A. Influence of crossbreed on the degradation of myofibrillar proteins and on the cathepsin B+L activity in dry cured hams. Eur Food Res Technol 217, 93–99 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-003-0712-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-003-0712-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation