Dataset Information

Analyzing pepsin degradation assay conditions used for allergenicity assessments to ensure that pepsin susceptible and pepsin resistant dietary proteins are distinguishable.

ABSTRACT: The susceptibility of a dietary protein to proteolytic degradation by digestive enzymes, such as gastric pepsin, provides information on the likelihood of systemic exposure to a structurally intact and biologically active macromolecule, thus informing on the safety of proteins for human and animal consumption. Therefore, the purpose of standardized in vitro degradation studies that are performed during protein safety assessments is to distinguish whether proteins of interest are susceptible or resistant to pepsin degradation via a study design that enables study-to-study comparison. Attempting to assess pepsin degradation under a wide-range of possible physiological conditions poses a problem because of the lack of robust and consistent data collected under a large-range of sub-optimal conditions, which undermines the needs to harmonize in vitro degradation conditions. This report systematically compares the effects of pH, incubation time, and pepsin-to-substrate protein ratio on the relative degradation of five dietary proteins: three pepsin susceptible proteins [ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase (Rubisco), horseradish peroxidase (HRP), hemoglobin (Hb)], and two pepsin resistant proteins [lipid transfer protein (LTP) and soybean trypsin inhibitor (STI)]. The results indicate that proteins susceptible to pepsin degradation are readily distinguishable from pepsin-resistant proteins when the reaction conditions are within the well-characterized optima for pepsin. The current standardized in vitro pepsin resistant assay with low pH and high pepsin-to-substrate ratio fits this purpose. Using non-optimal pH and/or pepsin-to-substrate protein ratios resulted in susceptible proteins no longer being reliably degraded by this stomach enzyme, which compromises the ability of this in vitro assay to distinguish between resistant and susceptible proteins and, therefore, no longer providing useful data to an overall weight-of-evidence approach to assessing safety of proteins.

SUBMITTER: Wang R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5312868 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analyzing pepsin degradation assay conditions used for allergenicity assessments to ensure that pepsin susceptible and pepsin resistant dietary proteins are distinguishable.

Wang Rong R Edrington Thomas C TC Storrs S Bradley SB Crowley Kathleen S KS Ward Jason M JM Lee Thomas C TC Liu Zi L ZL Li Bin B Glenn Kevin C KC

PloS one 20170216 2

The susceptibility of a dietary protein to proteolytic degradation by digestive enzymes, such as gastric pepsin, provides information on the likelihood of systemic exposure to a structurally intact and biologically active macromolecule, thus informing on the safety of proteins for human and animal consumption. Therefore, the purpose of standardized in vitro degradation studies that are performed during protein safety assessments is to distinguish whether proteins of interest are susceptible or r ...[more]

PMID: 28207780

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeptidase family A1, to which pepsin belongs, had been assumed to be restricted to eukaryotes. The tertiary structure of pepsin shows two lobes with similar folds and it has been suggested that the gene has arisen from an ancient duplication and fusion event. The only sequence similarity between the lobes is restricted to the motif around the active site aspartate and a hydrophobic-hydrophobic-Gly motif. Together, these contribute to an essential structural feature known as a psi-loop. There is one such psi-loop in each lobe, and so each lobe presents an active Asp. The human immunodeficiency virus peptidase, retropepsin, from peptidase family A2 also has a similar fold but consists of one lobe only and has to dimerize to be active. All known members of family A1 show the bilobed structure, but it is unclear if the ancestor of family A1 was similar to an A2 peptidase, or if the ancestral retropepsin was derived from a half-pepsin gene. The presence of a pepsin homologue in a prokaryote might give insights into the evolution of the pepsin family.ResultsHomologues of the aspartic peptidase pepsin have been found in the completed genomic sequences from seven species of bacteria. The bacterial homologues, unlike those from eukaryotes, do not possess signal peptides, and would therefore be intracellular acting at neutral pH. The bacterial homologues have Thr218 replaced by Asp, a change which in renin has been shown to confer activity at neutral pH. No pepsin homologues could be detected in any archaean genome.ConclusionThe peptidase family A1 is found in some species of bacteria as well as eukaryotes. The bacterial homologues fall into two groups, one from oceanic bacteria and one from plant symbionts. The bacterial homologues are all predicted to be intracellular proteins, unlike the eukaryotic enzymes. The bacterial homologues are bilobed like pepsin, implying that if no horizontal gene transfer has occurred the duplication and fusion event might be very ancient indeed, preceding the divergence of bacteria and eukaryotes. It is unclear whether all the bacterial homologues are derived from horizontal gene transfer, but those from the plant symbionts probably are. The homologues from oceanic bacteria are most closely related to memapsins (or BACE-1 and BACE-2), but are so divergent that they are close to the root of the phylogenetic tree and to the division of the A1 family into two subfamilies.

Dataset Information

Analyzing pepsin degradation assay conditions used for allergenicity assessments to ensure that pepsin susceptible and pepsin resistant dietary proteins are distinguishable.

Publications

Analyzing pepsin degradation assay conditions used for allergenicity assessments to ensure that pepsin susceptible and pepsin resistant dietary proteins are distinguishable.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets