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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O’ Connor, Jack, Meaney, Steve, Williams, Gwilym A., Hayes, Maria
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