Abstract

The effect of animal and plant proteases as well as starters, or starter cultures, on protein aggregates for- mation in raw pork and beef as well as meat products was studied. The proteomic analysis of raw meat revealed that animal proteases – pepsin and trypsin – caused the aggregation of isoform 2 of protein 1 containing 4.5 LIM domains. Vacuum packaged meat showed the same results during storage, while unpacking led to the acceleration of the aggregation process due to autolysis. In addition, mixed aggregated fragments, such as muscle creatine phos- phokinase and glutathione-S-transferase, actin and perilipin, and type II keratin appeared in those samples. Starters with Pediococcus pentosaceus 31 from the Russian National Collection of Industrial Microorganisms (VKPM-8901) caused myoglobin and troponin I aggregation, while the formation of soy proteins aggregates (glycinin G1 and glyci- nin A3B4) was detected in meat products as a result of the autolysis process and the use of cholesterol-lowering star- ters. All in all, proteases which cause protein aggregation may be less effective for raw meat tenderization, whereas the proteins identified may be used as quality biomarkers.

Keywords

Proteins, meat, proteases, aggregates, biomarkers

REFERENCES

1. Di Luca A., Elia G., Mullen A.M., and Hamill R.M. Monitoring post mortem changes in porcine muscle through 2-D DIGE proteome analysis of Longissimus muscle exudate. Proteome Science, 2013, vol. 11, no. 1. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1186/1477-5956-11-9.
2. López C.M., Sentandreu M.A., Vignolo G.M., and Fadda S.G. Proteomic and peptidomic insights on myofibrillar protein hydrolysis in a sausage model during fermentation with autochthonous starter cultures. Food Research Inter- national, 2015, vol. 78, pp. 41–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.11.009.
3. De Almeida M.A., Saldaña E., da Silva Pinto J.S., et al. A peptidomic approach of meat protein degradation in a low-sodium fermented sausage model using autochthonous starter cultures. Food Research International, 2018, vol. 109, pp. 368–379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.04.042.
4. Basso A.L., Picariello G., Coppola R., et al. Proteolytic Activity of Lactobacillus Sakei, Lactobacillus Farciminis and Lactobacillus Plantarum on Sarcoplasmic Proteins of Pork Lean. Journal of Food Biochemistry, 2004, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 195–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4514.2004.tb00066.x.
5. Mauriello G., Casaburi A. and Villani F. Proteolytic activity of Staphylococcus xylosus strains on pork myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic proteins and use of selected strains in the production of “Naples type” salami. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2002, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 482–490. DOI: https://doi.org.10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01551.x
6. Montowska M. and Pospiech E. Processed meat protein and heat-stable peptide marker identification using mi- crowave-assisted tryptic digestion. Food Technology and Biotechnology, 2016, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 482–488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.54.04.16.4540.
7. Zamaratskaia G. and Li S. Proteomics in meat science – current status and future. Theory and Practice of Meat Pro- cessing, 2017, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 18–26. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21323/2414-438X-2017-2-1-18-26.
8. Istrati D., Vizireanu C., and Dinica R. Influence of post-mortem treatment with proteolytic enzymes on tenderness ofbeef muscle. Journal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 2012, vol. 18, no 1, pp. 70–77.
9. Morzel M., Gatellier P., Sayd T., Renerre M., and Laville E. Chemical oxidation decreases proteolytic susceptibility of skeletal muscle myofibrillar protein. Meat Science, 2006, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 536–543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. meatsci.2006.02.005.
10. Lund M.N., Lametsch R., Hviid M.S., Jensen O.N., and Skibsted L.H. High-oxygen packaging atmosphere influences protein oxidation and tenderness of porcine longissimus dorsi during chill storage. Meat Science, 2007, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 295–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.03.016.
11. Moczkowska M., Półtorak A., Montowska M., Pospiech E., and Wierzbicka A. The effect of the packaging system and storage time on myofibrillar protein degradation and oxidation process in relation to beef tenderness. Meat Science, 2017, vol. 130, pp. 7–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.03.008.
12. Kim Y.H., Huff-Lonergan E., Sebranek J.G., and Lonergan S.M. High-oxygen modified atmosphere packa- ging system induces lipid and myoglobin oxidation and protein polymerization. Meat Science, 2010, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 759–767. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.001.
13. Kovalyov L.I., Shishkin S.S., Kovalyov M.A., et al. Proteomic research proteins in a sample of pork meat products.All about the meat, 2013, no. 3, pp. 32–34. (In Russ.).
14. Zvereva E.A., Kovalev L.I., Ivanov A.I., et al. Enzyme immunoassay and proteomic characterization of troponin I as a marker of mammalian muscle compounds in raw meat and some meat products. Meat Science, 2015, vol. 105, pp. 46–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.03.001.
15. Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). Available at: https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/ GRAS/ucm2006850.htm. (accessed August 2018).
16. Chen L., Zhou G.-H., and Zhang W.-G. Effects of high oxygen packaging on tenderness and water holding ca- pacity of pork through protein oxidation. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 2015, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 2287–2297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-015-1566-0.