2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133504
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Umami peptides screened based on peptidomics and virtual screening from Ruditapes philippinarum and Mactra veneriformis clams

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
61
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
61
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The typical docking energy of long-chain clam peptides (6-9 amino acids) was approximately −110 kcal mol −1 , whereas the clam tetrapeptide had a docking energy of −76.92 kcal mol −1 . 14 In addition, among the screened peptides, the peptide GQRPR had the lowest docking interaction energy (−89.96 kcal mol −1 ), followed by the peptides VPGR (−81.26 kcal mol −1 ), GPPPK (−71.72 kcal mol −1 ), and SPAR (−70.37 kcal mol −1 ), respectively. The average docking interaction energies for a tripeptide, tetrapeptide, and pentapeptide were −54.48, −60.67, and −65.75 kcal mol −1 , respectively, indicating that binding to T1R1/T1R3 was more easier for pentapeptides than for tetrapeptides and tripeptides.…”
Section: Paper Food and Functionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The typical docking energy of long-chain clam peptides (6-9 amino acids) was approximately −110 kcal mol −1 , whereas the clam tetrapeptide had a docking energy of −76.92 kcal mol −1 . 14 In addition, among the screened peptides, the peptide GQRPR had the lowest docking interaction energy (−89.96 kcal mol −1 ), followed by the peptides VPGR (−81.26 kcal mol −1 ), GPPPK (−71.72 kcal mol −1 ), and SPAR (−70.37 kcal mol −1 ), respectively. The average docking interaction energies for a tripeptide, tetrapeptide, and pentapeptide were −54.48, −60.67, and −65.75 kcal mol −1 , respectively, indicating that binding to T1R1/T1R3 was more easier for pentapeptides than for tetrapeptides and tripeptides.…”
Section: Paper Food and Functionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…10,18 The umami taste is significantly influenced by many types of binding force interactions. 14 Hydrogen bonding, electrostatic interactions, and hydrophobic interactions were discovered as the main types of interaction forces involved in binding, based on the 2D diagram. The GDF, GGR, DNW, RPL, DDF, QDF, ADC, GDY, AGCD, SGDAW, and NDDGW mainly had electrostatic interactions and formed hydrogen bonds with amino acid residues in the umami receptor; GDM, MDW, ICR, and DCIY, VPGR, GPPPPK, and GQRPR contacted mainly through electrostatic interactions, hydrogen bonding, and hydrophobic interactions; KPW through electrostatic interactions; and EGF, IGDM, SPAR, and QDTW through hydrogen bonding.…”
Section: Paper Food and Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The detection system was combined with the Thermoelectric Easy-nLC 1200 (Thermo Scientific, P/N LC140) and the orbital trap Exploris 480 (Thermo Scientific, P/N BRE725533) for peptide identification. All mass spectrometer parameters were followed by Zhang et al ( 22 ). The peptide was captured by a capture column (PepMap C18, 100 μm × 25 cm) for 3 min, and then the peptide was separated by gradient elution chromatography on a nano-upgrade analytical column (PepMap C18, 75 μM × 25 cm).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has both nutritional and flavor characteristics. It exists in animal products [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , plant products [9] , [10] , edible fungi [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , aquatic products [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , and fermented foods [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] . It can also interact with salt and sodium glutamate to improve the umami and mellow taste of food and enhance the richness and coordination of taste [2] , [9] , [22] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%