Cargando…
Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies
Seaweeds are a rich source of protein and can contain up to 47% on the dry weight basis. It is challenging to extract proteins from the raw biomass of seaweed due to resilient cell-wall complexes. Four species of macroalgae were used in this study-two brown, Fucus vesiculosus and Alaria esculenta, a...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7221823/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32344706 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules25082005 |
_version_ | 1783533450387521536 |
---|---|
author | O’ Connor, Jack Meaney, Steve Williams, Gwilym A. Hayes, Maria |
author_facet | O’ Connor, Jack Meaney, Steve Williams, Gwilym A. Hayes, Maria |
author_sort | O’ Connor, Jack |
collection | PubMed |
description | Seaweeds are a rich source of protein and can contain up to 47% on the dry weight basis. It is challenging to extract proteins from the raw biomass of seaweed due to resilient cell-wall complexes. Four species of macroalgae were used in this study-two brown, Fucus vesiculosus and Alaria esculenta, and two red, Palmaria palmata and Chondrus crispus. Three treatments were applied individually to the macroalgal species: (I) high-pressure processing (HPP); (II) laboratory autoclave processing and (III) a classical sonication and salting out method. The protein, ash and lipid contents of the resulting extracts were estimated. Yields of protein recovered ranged from 3.2% for Fucus vesiculosus pre-treated with high pressure processing to 28.9% protein recovered for Chondrus crispus treated with the classical method. The yields of protein recovered using the classical, HPP and autoclave pre-treatments applied to Fucus vesiculosus were 35.1, 23.7% and 24.3%, respectively; yields from Alaria esculenta were 18.2%, 15.0% and 17.1% respectively; yields from Palmaria palmata were 12.5%, 14.9% and 21.5% respectively, and finally, yields from Chondrus crispus were 35.2%, 16.1% and 21.9%, respectively. These results demonstrate that while macroalgal proteins may be extracted using either physical or enzymatic methods, the specific extraction procedure should be tailored to individual species. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7221823 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72218232020-05-21 Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies O’ Connor, Jack Meaney, Steve Williams, Gwilym A. Hayes, Maria Molecules Article Seaweeds are a rich source of protein and can contain up to 47% on the dry weight basis. It is challenging to extract proteins from the raw biomass of seaweed due to resilient cell-wall complexes. Four species of macroalgae were used in this study-two brown, Fucus vesiculosus and Alaria esculenta, and two red, Palmaria palmata and Chondrus crispus. Three treatments were applied individually to the macroalgal species: (I) high-pressure processing (HPP); (II) laboratory autoclave processing and (III) a classical sonication and salting out method. The protein, ash and lipid contents of the resulting extracts were estimated. Yields of protein recovered ranged from 3.2% for Fucus vesiculosus pre-treated with high pressure processing to 28.9% protein recovered for Chondrus crispus treated with the classical method. The yields of protein recovered using the classical, HPP and autoclave pre-treatments applied to Fucus vesiculosus were 35.1, 23.7% and 24.3%, respectively; yields from Alaria esculenta were 18.2%, 15.0% and 17.1% respectively; yields from Palmaria palmata were 12.5%, 14.9% and 21.5% respectively, and finally, yields from Chondrus crispus were 35.2%, 16.1% and 21.9%, respectively. These results demonstrate that while macroalgal proteins may be extracted using either physical or enzymatic methods, the specific extraction procedure should be tailored to individual species. MDPI 2020-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7221823/ /pubmed/32344706 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules25082005 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article O’ Connor, Jack Meaney, Steve Williams, Gwilym A. Hayes, Maria Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies |
title | Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies |
title_full | Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies |
title_fullStr | Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies |
title_full_unstemmed | Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies |
title_short | Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies |
title_sort | extraction of protein from four different seaweeds using three different physical pre-treatment strategies |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7221823/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32344706 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules25082005 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oconnorjack extractionofproteinfromfourdifferentseaweedsusingthreedifferentphysicalpretreatmentstrategies AT meaneysteve extractionofproteinfromfourdifferentseaweedsusingthreedifferentphysicalpretreatmentstrategies AT williamsgwilyma extractionofproteinfromfourdifferentseaweedsusingthreedifferentphysicalpretreatmentstrategies AT hayesmaria extractionofproteinfromfourdifferentseaweedsusingthreedifferentphysicalpretreatmentstrategies |