Next Article in Journal
Nutraceutical and Pharmaceutical Behavior of Bioactive Compounds of Miracle Oilseeds: An Overview
Next Article in Special Issue
Screening and Identification of Novel Soluble Epoxide Hydrolase Inhibitors from Corn Gluten Peptides
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Hydrothermal Cooking and Germination Treatment on Functional and Physicochemical Properties of Parkia timoriana Bean Flours: An Underexplored Legume Species of Parkia Genera
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Enhancing the Biological Activities of Food Protein-Derived Peptides Using Non-Thermal Technologies: A Review

1
School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia
2
Department of Food and Microbiology, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
3
Department of Food and Human Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(13), 1823; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131823
Submission received: 27 May 2022 / Revised: 14 June 2022 / Accepted: 20 June 2022 / Published: 21 June 2022

Abstract

:
Bioactive peptides (BPs) derived from animal and plant proteins are important food functional ingredients with many promising health-promoting properties. In the food industry, enzymatic hydrolysis is the most common technique employed for the liberation of BPs from proteins in which conventional heat treatment is used as pre-treatment to enhance hydrolytic action. In recent years, application of non-thermal food processing technologies such as ultrasound (US), high-pressure processing (HPP), and pulsed electric field (PEF) as pre-treatment methods has gained considerable research attention owing to the enhancement in yield and bioactivity of resulting peptides. This review provides an overview of bioactivities of peptides obtained from animal and plant proteins and an insight into the impact of US, HPP, and PEF as non-thermal treatment prior to enzymolysis on the generation of food-derived BPs and resulting bioactivities. US, HPP, and PEF were reported to improve antioxidant, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitory, antimicrobial, and antidiabetic properties of the food-derived BPs. The primary modes of action are due to conformational changes of food proteins caused by US, HPP, and PEF, improving the susceptibility of proteins to protease cleavage and subsequent proteolysis. However, the use of other non-thermal techniques such as cold plasma, radiofrequency electric field, dense phase carbon dioxide, and oscillating magnetic fields has not been examined in the generation of BPs from food proteins.

1. Introduction

Bioactive peptides (BPs) are protein fragments that have a positive impact on body functions [1]. They play an essential role in the metabolic functions of human health, and over 1500 BPs with various health-promoting properties have been isolated and documented [2]. BPs can be incorporated directly into different foods or encapsulated using biodegradable polymers for improved bioavailability and stability [3]. BPs have been documented to possess several novel activities, including antidiabetic, antihypertensive, antimicrobial, antiviral, antioxidative, immunomodulatory, opioid, and antithrombotic properties [4]. As a panacea to serious health problems due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, BPs have evolved as a potential candidate for inhibiting bacterial proliferation, which has received a considerably large amount of research interest. Nevertheless, the production and bioactivity of BPs from different food sources depend on many factors including the source, amino acid composition, molecular weight, and most especially method of production. There has been a keen interest in the production of hydrolysates containing BPs for application in functional foods that promote health. Hence, the production of BPs with improved bioactivity and yield has become of the utmost importance to researchers. Milk, particularly bovine milk, is one of the most studied sources for the generation of BPs owing to its relative abundance, uniqueness, and several health-promoting properties of the peptides derived from its proteins [5,6]. Apart from bovine milk, proteins from other sources such as legumes [7], seafood [8], egg [9], beef muscle [10], chicken [11], camel milk [12], walnut [13], watermelon peel and seed [14], and buffalo milk [15] have been successfully used to produce BPs.
BPs can be isolated from a wide range of the aforementioned raw materials using different techniques. Generally, BPs are inactive when present in their parent proteins but become active when cleaved by chemical hydrolysis [16], in vitro enzymatic hydrolysis [17], fermentation with lactic acid bacteria [18], or DNA recombinant technology [19]. The mechanisms of action of these BP extraction or production techniques have been extensively reviewed by Daliri et al. [20]. Among these techniques, enzymatic proteolysis has several advantages such as minimal damage to the nutritional value of protein, low cost of production, process repeatability, and reproducibility, as well as flexibility in upscaling when compared to other preparation methods [21]. Hence, enzymatic hydrolysis has become the most used production method for BPs. Different enzymes (alcalase, savinase, flavourzyme, neutrase, trypsin, pepsin, and papain) have been employed to liberate BPs from food proteins [22,23]. For most proteins, the active site, a region where the enzyme binds with the substrate to catalyze the reaction, is markedly influenced by the protein conformation [24]. This, in turn, affects the efficacy of the enzymes in hydrolyzing the protein. Furthermore, the activities of the indigenous proteases in food protein contribute greatly to the yield and properties of the BPs generated [9,25]. Therefore, the pre-treatment of protein prior to enzymatic hydrolysis, either for changing protein conformation or inactivating indigenous proteases, has become essential to circumvent these limitations [26].
Conventionally, thermal processing has been employed for pre-treating proteins prior to proteolysis. Food proteins are pre-heated prior to hydrolysis to inactivate enzyme-producing microorganisms as well as indigenous enzymes, which may interfere with the hydrolysis process [3]. Additionally, food proteins are also denatured to expose the active site for enzymolysis [25]. According to Gauthier and Pouliot [27], the key factors influencing the diversity of peptides produced during hydrolysis include the protein source, specificity, and quality of enzyme used, as well as the pre-treatment methods. However, heat treatment has been associated with causing protein coagulation, resulting in less exposure or less availability of peptide bonds for enzymic cleavage [9]. Therefore, attention has been drawn to non-thermal treatments such as ultrasound, pulsed electric field, and high-pressure processing for the pre-treatment of food protein proteins prior to enzymolysis.
Ultrasonication is a technique that utilizes the frequency of sound waves above 20 kHz; a frequency higher than the detection level of human audition [3]. Ultrasound generally acts by generating acoustic cavitation in the biological matrix, and it has been found to have various effects on the bioactivity and functionality of food proteins. On the other hand, HPP, which is referred to as high hydrostatic pressure processing or ultra-high pressure (UHP), involves the exposure of food materials to pressure (100 to 1000 MPa) where instant and even transmissions of pressure throughout the sample allow inactivation of microorganism without significant changes in quality attributes and nutritional components. It modifies protein secondary structure via hydrogen ion and electrostatic interactions, the tertiary structure via hydrophobic and hydrogen bonding, as well as the quaternary structure through hydrophobic interactions [28]. PEF is based on electroporation and cell disintegration by applying repeated pulses when the food is placed between two parallel electrodes. The electromagnetic wave and electric fields generated during PEF treatment can modify the native structure of protein for the release of health-promoting peptides. All these methods have great potential in modifying protein structures, thereby exposing its active sites, which were originally hidden to proteolytic enzymes, thereby enhancing the production of BPs.
Effects of non-thermal pre-treatments on the bioactivity of peptides derived from different food proteins have been the focus of many studies. Garcia-Mora et al. [28] observed that high-pressure treatment (100–300 MPa, 15 min, 40 °C) prior to proteolysis led to complete degradation of lentil proteins which increased the yield and bioactivities of the resulting BPs. A similar study carried out on peanut protein using ultrasonic-assisted enzymolysis revealed a significant improvement in antioxidant activity of the BPs compared to untreated counterparts [29]. More recently, the impact of ultrasound as a pre-treatment in the preparation of peptide-rich hydrolysate from lupin protein revealed that application of ultrasound prior to enzymolysis with alcalase and flavourzyme improved the antioxidant, antihypertensive, and antidiabetic properties of lupin protein hydrolysates [30,31,32]. The influence of ultrasound pre-treatment on the bioactivities of BPs derived from whey protein [33], duck albumen [9], wheat gluten [34], α-lactalbumin, and β-lactoglobulin [35] have also been documented. However, the underlying mechanisms behind these technologies have not been fully elucidated. Thus, the utilization of non-thermal technologies to maximize the yield, bioactivities, and functionality of BPs derived from food protein is still a growing area of research. Therefore, this review aims to provide an overview of the effect of non-thermal processing technologies as a pre-treatment method prior to enzymolysis production of BPs from different food proteins. In addition, the opportunities for improving the bioactivities of these food-derived BPs in relation to non-thermal food processing technologies are also discussed.

2. Production and Bioactivities of BPs by Enzymatic Hydrolysis

As aforementioned, several studies have shown that enzyme hydrolysis is the most suitable method for producing BPs from food proteins [3,20,26,36]. Enzymatic hydrolysis of food proteins is the process of breaking down food proteins by the action of proteolytic enzymes (crude or purified) at a given temperature and pH, intending to apply the hydrolysate or hydrolyzed protein as a food ingredient. Proteins may be hydrolyzed with one or more proteolytic enzymes to produce a peptide-rich hydrolysate (Table 1). Enzymes used in the hydrolysis of food proteins can be classified according to their origin (plant, microbial, or animal), catalytic action (exopeptidase or endopeptidase), and the nature of the catalytic site (e.g., serine proteases, aspartic proteases, metalloproteases, cysteine proteases, and threonine proteases) [37]. Exopeptidases, on the other hand, hydrolyze proteins through cleavage of the terminal peptide bond, releasing dipeptides or single amino acids [38]. Endopeptidases hydrolyze proteins by breaking peptide bonds of non-terminal amino acids, i.e., within the protein molecule. They are the preferred enzymes for hydrolysis of food proteins due to their ability to yield low molecular weight peptides [39], which have been known to possess strong antioxidant and antihypertensive activities [40]. Proteases with the potential to yield low molecular weight peptides are useful for commercial production of antihypertensive and antioxidant peptides [41]. However, the BPs produced with endopeptidases are usually bitter due to the exposure of the hydrophobic amino acids during hydrolysis. Hydrophobic groups of amino acids responsible for bitterness are tryptophan, phenylalanine, isoleucine, threonine, valine, and leucine [8]. The application of BPs has been limited due to the intense bitterness. Several debittering methods have been applied to minimize this adverse effect on human sensorial perception. For instance, removal with alcohol, activated carbon treatment, Maillard reaction, encapsulation, the use of cyclodextrin, chromatographic separation, plastering reaction, and further enzymatic hydrolysis using exopeptidases have been developed.
The isolation of protein from its matrix to remove non-protein compounds, which may interfere with the process, is usually the first step in enzymatic hydrolysis. During enzymolysis, protons are released because of breakage of peptide bonds. This may cause fluctuations in the pH of the medium, which, if not adequately monitored, may affect the hydrolytic efficiency of enzymes, that is, the degree of hydrolysis [26]. The pH must be controlled by the addition of alkali or acid to maintain a high level of enzyme activity at the enzyme optimum pH [55]. The type of peptides generated in protein hydrolysates depends on the type of enzyme used, temperature, and time of hydrolysis [36]. These factors also affect the degree of hydrolysis (DH), which is the ratio of the number of the cleaved peptide bonds to the total peptide bonds [56]. DH is an important factor in the enzymatic hydrolysis of proteins. The influence of these key parameters in enzymatic hydrolysis of food proteins was extensively reviewed by Daliri, Oh, and Lee [20].

3. Bioactivities of BPs Derived from Food Proteins Using Enzymolysis

BPs have shown promising potential in performing several beneficial functions in the body. Figure 1 shows the various biological activities possessed by BPs generated from numerous food sources. Typically, BPs have 3 to 20 amino acid residues whose amino acid composition and sequence govern their biological activities [57]. For example, the antioxidant activity of peptides has been linked to the presence of amino acids such as lysine, valine, tyrosine, alanine, histidine, leucine, methionine, proline, cysteine, and tryptophan [58], while valine–alanine–proline epitope has been specifically linked to strong ACE-inhibitory activity [59]. The molecular weight (MW) of BPs also contributes greatly to their bioactivities, in which BPs derived from food protein with an MW below 10 kDa have been reported to possess potent biological activities [60], especially antioxidant and antihypertensive properties [41,61,62]. Hence, the production of BPs with high biological activities requires careful selection of proteolytic enzymes in combination with appropriate pre-treatment that could yield low MW peptides. The following sections focus on the mechanisms of well-documented bioactivities of food protein-derived BPs such as ACE-inhibitory, antidiabetic, antioxidant, antiproliferative, and antimicrobial properties.

3.1. Antioxidant Properties of BPs

Increased endogenous antioxidant defense mechanisms in conjunction with augmented production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the human body could cause oxidative stress, which is a major contributing factor for the development of several vascular diseases [63]. Biological macromolecules such as lipids, proteins, and DNA are easily damaged by ROS. Explicitly, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) could be modified by oxidation, resulting in increased atherogenicity of oxidized LDL. Therefore, development of severe tissue injury could be attributed to prolonged ROS production [64]. Synthetic antioxidants are often used to prevent the harmful effects of free radicals in the body. However, studies have shown that synthetic antioxidants could be toxic and unsafe for the body [65]. As such, natural antioxidants have been sourced from different food materials due to antioxidant potentials with few or no side effects. BPs are also known to possess antioxidant activity, showing excellent metal ion (Fe2+/Cu2+) chelating potential and the ability to inhibit oxidation, creating a niche for their applications as a natural antioxidant [66].
Free radicals or ROS with high energy, especially hydroxyl radicals, can interact with all 20 amino acids. However, the imidazole-containing amino acid (His), aromatic amino acids (Tyr, Phe, and Trp), and nucleophilic sulfur-containing amino acids (Met and Cys) demonstrated the most reactivity [67]. Non-enzymatic and enzymatic (lipoxygenase-mediated) peroxidation of essential fatty acids and lipids has been retarded by the different BPs derived from food [68,69]. Singlet oxygen quenching, free radical scavenging, and metal ion chelation are possible mechanisms of antioxidant properties of these peptides. Several studies have documented the antioxidative activities of BPs generated from plant- and animal-derived protein, including wheat gluten [34], peanut [29], poppy seeds and oils [68], prickly pear [69], lentil [28], and camel milk [70]. These studies demonstrate that protein isolation method, type of enzymes used, hydrophobicity, degree of hydrolysis, amino acid composition, concentration, and position of the peptide in the protein structure determine the antioxidant properties of BPs. Zheng, Li, and Li [23] reported that BPs prepared from coconut cake albumin using alcalase had higher antioxidant properties when compared to those prepared using flavourzyme, pepsin, and trypsin. Antioxidant activity was found to be enzyme/substrate-dependent as BPs prepared from kafirin using alcalase, when 0.2 Au/g enzyme-to-substrate ratio was used, had higher activities [71]. Recent advances in the antioxidant properties of BPs produced from different food proteins are shown in Table 2.

3.2. ACE-Inhibitory Properties of BPs

Hypertension is one of the leading chronic diseases in the world today. It is characterized by high systolic blood pressure value above 140 mmHg and diastolic pressure above 90 mmHg (140/90) [36]. ACE plays an essential role in the regulation of blood pressure through different reactions in the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) and kinin nitric oxide system (KNOS). However, RAAS has gained more research attention than other physiological mechanisms underlying hypertension [36]. The main enzymes involved in the RAAS system are renin and ACE [79]. Given that ACE is one of the primary regulators of blood pressure, the inhibition of this enzyme is considered as one of the best strategies for the treatment of hypertension [80]. In the human system, the regulation of blood pressure is critically controlled by ACE, which promotes the conversion of angiotensin I to the potent vasoconstrictor angiotensin II and inactivates the vasodilator bradykinin (Figure 2). ACE inhibitors could inhibit these processes; thus, they can be used as antihypertensive agents [63]. Recently, attention has been directed towards ACE-inhibitory peptides from food sources since synthetic antihypertensive drugs have been associated with several side effects, including cough, headache, renal problems, dysgeusia, and dizziness [81].
Proteins from different foods have been demonstrated to be a promising source of ACE-inhibiting peptides [82,83,84]. Table 3 shows the range of ACE-inhibitory peptides derived from different food proteins such as bovine milk proteins, non-bovine milk proteins, fish proteins, egg proteins, and plant-based proteins. These BPs have created a niche in both the treatment and prevention of hypertension [84,85]. For a BP to exert an antihypertensive effect, the peptide ingested must have resistance to further breakdown or degradation by gastrointestinal tract (GIT) enzymes, which will enable these peptides to reach target sites in an active form [86]. Hence, ACE inhibition potential is evaluated in vitro under GI conditions and expressed by the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) value. BPs (Arg–Val–Cys–Leu–Pro) obtained from lizard fish muscle protein using neutral protease had ACE-inhibitory activity with an IC50 value of 175 µM [87]. Hydrolysate obtained from barbel muscle protein by digesting the muscle with alcalase at a ratio of 1:3 protein/enzyme (mg/U) for 5 h shown high ACE inhibitory activity (IC50 = 0.92 mg mL−1) [88]. It is documented that several ACE-inhibitory peptides (IVPN, FPGPIPK, QPPQ, IPPK) can be generated from the proteolysis of buffalo milk protein [15]. In a related study, ACE-inhibitory peptides (PEQSLACQCL, ARHPHPHLSFM, QSLVYPFTGPI) with inhibitory activities (IC50 value: 4.45 µM) comparable to that of a well-known antihypertensive drug, captopril (IC50 value: 4.27 µM), were generated from goat milk casein and whey proteins hydrolyzed with gastric pepsin [89]. In the study of Darewicz et al. [51], seven potent ACE-inhibitory peptides (IVY, VW, TVY, VPW, IW, ALPHA, and IWHHT) were isolated from salmon protein hydrolysate prepared using corolase PP.
The influences of proteolytic enzymes on the ACE-inhibitory properties of BPs have been documented. Lee et al. [99] reported that ACE-inhibitory activity differs between BPs obtained from tuna frame protein using different enzymes such as pepsin, alcalase, papain, neutrase, trypsin, and α-chymotrypsin, in which BPs obtained with pepsin demonstrated the highest activity. This was attributed to the individual characteristics of the BPs generated using the aforementioned enzymes. BPs generated from rohu roe proteins using pepsin had higher ACE-inhibitory activity (47%) than that obtained with trypsin (36%) when the same concentration (mg/mL) was used [100].
The impact of the molecular weight of BPs on their ACE-inhibitory properties has also been demonstrated. Lee, Qian, and Kim [99] reported that the MW of BPs obtained from tuna frame using pepsin influenced the ACE-inhibitory activity, in which the 1–5 kDa fraction showed the highest activity as compared to <1 and 5–10 kDa fractions. Overall, the BPs with MW of 2482 Da and amino acid sequence (Gly–Asp–Leu–Gly–Lys–Thr–Thr–Thr–Val–Ser–Asn–Trp–Ser–Pro–Pro–Lys–Try–Lys–Asp–Thr–Pro) had the highest ACE-inhibitory properties (IC50 = 11.28 μm) [99]. When pepsin and trypsin (2% enzyme concentration each) were used for the preparation of ACE-inhibitory peptides from fermented bovine milk, peptide fractions below 3 kDa exhibited the highest ACE-inhibitory activity [101].
In addition to in vitro analysis under GI conditions, spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) are used to study the antihypertensive effect of BPs in vivo [102]. Geerlings et al. [92] reported the identification of three novel ACE-inhibitory peptides (SLPQ, TGPIPN, SQPR) from goat milk BPs. The effectiveness of these three peptides was tested using the SHR model system. It was shown that SHRs fed diets containing peptides for 12 weeks had lower (about 15 mmHg) systolic blood pressure compared to those fed with the control diet. In addition, salmon fish-derived peptides tended to possess a substantial ACE-inhibitory property.
Several peptides with an ACE-inhibitory property have also been generated from plant proteins such as rice bran [91], sesame [53], lentil [28], corn [72], and mung bean proteins [49]. The effectiveness of ACE-inhibitory peptides from plant proteins in blood pressure management using SHRs has also been documented. In a study by Girgih et al. [44], a strong correlation was established between synthetic drug and hemp seed protein-derived peptides in their ability to lower blood pressure after oral administration of the BPs to SHRs. In another study, a novel ACE-inhibitory peptide from bitter melon seed proteins was found to have a blood pressure-lowering effect at a concentration of 2 mg/kg body weight in SHRs [103].

3.3. Antidiabetic Properties of BPs

Diabetes is a chronic disease characterized by an elevated blood sugar level above the normal level due to inadequate secretion of insulin or failure in production of insulin [104]. It affects 463 million individuals globally, and over 10% of global health expenditure was spent on diabetes in 2019 (IDF, 2019). Diabetes may be classified into type I, type II, and gestational diabetes, depending on the underlying cause of the disease [104,105]. Globally, type II diabetes is the most common form of diabetes, with 90% of all cases reported as this type [106]. Many of the available synthetic antidiabetic drugs are not tolerated by patients due to their various side effects [107]. These side effects may include weight gain, hypoglycemia [108], gastrointestinal problems [109], and increased risk of pancreatitis [110]. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop alternative antidiabetic drugs from natural sources, particularly from food.
One of the novel approaches for managing diabetes, particularly type II diabetes, which is the most common, is the inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) enzyme. This inactivates glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), an endogenous incretin hormone, which lowers the secretion of glucagon and increases the secretion of insulin, and in doing so, reduces glucose levels [111,112]. Most potent antidiabetic synthetic drugs have been reported to inhibit DPP-IV enzymes for the management of blood sugar level [113]. Several bioactive compounds, particularly BPs, also show promising antidiabetic properties. Different food proteins have been utilized to generate peptides having DPP-IV-inhibitory properties as summarized in Table 3. Diprotin A (isoleucine–proline–proline; IPP), considered as the most potent dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitor [114], has been isolated from food proteins including chicken egg ovotransferrin and bovine milk casein (ĸ-casein) [6]. BPs isolated from camel milk using bromelain and alcalase also demonstrated DPP-IV-inhibitory potentials [115]. Amino acid sequence ATNPLF, FEELN, AKSPLF, and LSVSVL BPs isolated from black bean protein had strong antidiabetic properties [93]. In the same study, there was a 24.5% reduction in postprandial glucose in rats fed with 50 mg BPs/body weight, when the oral glucose tolerance test was taken. Similarly, GPAE and GPGA isolated from Atlantic salmon skin using flavourzyme at a 6% enzyme/substrate ratio showed potent inhibition of DPP-IV with IC50 value of 1.35 mg/mL for peptide fractions below 1 kDa [50]. Nongonierma, Paolella, Mudgil, Maqsood, and FitzGerald [6] identified two potent DPP-IV-inhibitory peptides, LPVPQ and WK, from camel milk protein prepared using trypsin, which possessed a high IC50 value (0.68 mg/mL). This value is comparable to that isolated from bovine milk protein hydrolysate (0.85 mg/mL).

3.4. Antiproliferative Properties of BPs

In economically developed and developing countries, cancer remains the first and second, respectively, leading cause of death [116]. BPs could act as an antiproliferative substance, which retard or prevent the spread of cells, particularly malignant cells, into surrounding tissues. Induction of apoptosis, immunostimulation, promotion of cell cycle arrest, attenuation of tumor angiogenesis, inhibition of tumor cell-mediated protease activity, or radical scavenging activities are possible mechanisms for suppressing tumor genesis by BPs [116].
Molecular weight, amino acid composition, hydrophobicity, and concentration are key factors affecting the antiproliferative properties of food-derived BPs. The antiproliferative properties of BPs obtained from tuna dark muscle by-product using protease XXIII and papain appear to be dependent on the size of peptides. Fractions with amino acid sequence Pro–Thr–Ala–Glu–Gly–Gly–Val–Tyr–Met–Val–Thr and Leu–Pro–His–Val–Leu–Thr–Pro–Glu–Ala–Gly–Ala–Thr having molecular weights of 1124 and 1206 Da, respectively, possessed the highest antiproliferative activity against human breast cancer cell line MCF-7 (IC50 values of 8.8 and 8.1 μM, respectively) [117]. The purified BP fractions rich in Glu–Arg–Asp–Glu, which were obtained from hydrolysate isolated from Nemipterus japonicus backbone using trypsin, had antiproliferative activity against a human hepatoblastoma cell line (Hep G2), with an IC50 value of 61.1 μg/mL [118]. Hydrolysate fractions obtained from Indian salmon using trypsin and pepsin with low molecular weight (<5 KDa) showed higher cytotoxicity and antiproliferative activity against human breast cancer MCF-7 cell lines at higher concentrations (10 and 20 µg/mL) as compared to fractions with a higher molecular weight of 5–10 and >10 kDa [119]. A study performed on the antiproliferative activity of peptides isolated from fish by-products (bones, skin, head, gills) on human colon (COLO320) and breast cancer (MCF7A) cells revealed that BPs exerted growth inhibition on the cancer cells at 1 g/L [120]. In particular, the BPs prepared from gills and skin showed growth inhibition of 28.5% and 47.1%, respectively, after 48 h, and the values recorded were in the same range as etoposide, a reference anticancer molecule.
Regarding plant protein-derived BPs, the antiproliferative properties of protein hydrolysate from soybean and mungbean have been examined. Peptide fraction >10 kDa produced from pepsin and pancreatin hydrolyzed soy protein hydrolysate showed the highest antiproliferative activity with CasKi (IC50 = 14.3 mg/mL) and HeLa (IC50 = 16.2 mg/mL) cervical cancer cells. The peptide fraction also showed the greatest sensitivity (IC50 = 15.2 mg/mL) in MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells [98] Mungbean BPs prepared using papain inhibited the proliferation of the tumor cells in mice and promoted apoptosis of HepG2 cells and arrested the cell cycle in the S phase at a low dose and G0/G1 phase at a high dose [97].

3.5. Antimicrobial Properties of BPs

Antimicrobial peptides can exert a wide range of effects (viability and growth) on viruses, bacteria, and yeast, making them promising alternatives to synthetic antimicrobials [121]. Studies have shown that the presence of hydrophobic and hydrophilic amino acids at the terminal is what enables antimicrobial peptides to interact with microbes [36]. This interaction allows the peptides to destroy bacteria either through interaction with various macromolecules within microbial cells or by perforating the bacterial cell through the cell membrane to disrupt the cellular activity and release the cell content [122,123]. The mechanism of action of antimicrobial peptides on bacterial cells has been previously investigated [124].
Numerous BPs with promising antimicrobial activity have been isolated from foods over the years [123,125]. Potent antimicrobial BPs (ELLLNPTHQIYPVTQPLAPV) generated from human colostrum using disk diffusion and flow cytometry methods inhibited Staphylococcus aureus and Yersinia enterocolitica cells through the destruction of cytoplasmic membrane and cell wall [123]. Additionally, antimicrobial BPs isolated from αs2-casein could inhibit E. coli, Micrococcus luteus, Listeria innocua, and Salmonella enteritidis. Potent antimicrobial peptides may also be generated from other sources, including mackerel by-product [126], yellowfin tuna [127], and fish skin hydrolysate [128].
In summary, BPs derived from food proteins have shown promising potential for the management of chronic and acute diseases. From a techno-functionality perspective, there is a need to explore several techniques for producing BPs with high yield and improved bioactivities. The following sections provide an insight into the intensification of production of BPs generated from food proteins using ultrasonication, high-pressure processing, and pulsed electric field (PEF), which are emerging green processing technologies. The mechanism of conformational changes in protein structure and the impact of these non-thermal technologies on the bioactivities of the generated BPs are discussed in the following sections.

4. Non-Thermal Pre-Treatments and Their Impacts on Yield and Bioactivities of BPs

Thermal treatment has been applied to food proteins before hydrolysis to enhance the hydrolytic reaction owing to the increase in susceptibility of peptide bonds to enzyme cleavage as well as inactivating indigenous enzymes [26]. However, alterations in structural configurations, particularly in the secondary structure of native proteins, usually occur when subjected to heat treatment [129]. This change might negatively influence the yield and bioactivities of BPs produced. Liu et al. [130] revealed that changes in the secondary structure of lactoferrin mediated by heat resulted in a conformational shift and molecular unfolding. Heat treatment could lead to thermal oxidation in fish muscle, which might decrease bioactivities of the resulting BPs [131]. In addition, some enzymes have high heat resistance and can only be inactivated when high temperature and longer treatment times are employed, which could negatively impact the quality of food proteins [132]. Hence, an alternative pre-treatment technique as an alternative to heat is required to maximize BP production. Ultrasonication, pulsed electric field, and high pressure are the common non-thermal processing technologies that can be applied prior to enzyme hydrolysis to enhance the yield and bioactivities of BPs generated from different food proteins [9,28,33,130,133,134]. A summary of the impact of various non-thermal technologies on bioactivity of peptides derived from food proteins is presented in Table 4.

4.1. Ultrasonication

Ultrasonication is a technique that utilizes the frequency of sound waves above 20 kHz; a frequency higher than the detection level of human audition [3]. Ultrasound generally acts by generating acoustic cavitation in the biological matrix, and it has been found to have various effects on the bioactivity and functionality of food proteins. An illustration of how the ultrasound process could modify protein structure and enhance bioactivity is presented in Figure 3. Ultrasound waves (UWs) carry high energy while traveling through a medium [140]. Alternatively, UWs compress and stretch during their movement in a medium; thereby, the build-up of localized negative pressure is formed. When the stretching phase or rarefaction occurs, the generated pressure is sufficient to overcome intermolecular binding forces, which results in the creation of cavitational bubbles or tiny cavities in the medium. This phenomenon is termed as cavitation [141]. These bubbles or cavities continue to grow bigger with successive cycles and later collapse violently; thus, a huge amount of energy is released into the system. The localized pressure can be increased to more than 400 MPa and when the bubbles collapse, it can disrupt covalent and disulfite bonds in protein, thereby promoting enzymolysis [3]. Sonication can enhance enzymatic hydrolysis of food proteins via sonochemical reactions, microstreaming, sonolysis of water, and the formation and collapse of cavitational bubbles [142]. In addition, low and high-frequency ultrasounds are also employed in peptide drug delivery applications, and their effectiveness has been documented [143,144]. The applications of ultrasound in food processing and preservation have been thoroughly described elsewhere [145,146].

4.1.1. Effect of Ultrasound on the Structure of Food Proteins

It is known that proteins possess four levels of structure (e.g., primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures) [147], which the application of ultrasound can alter [148,149,150,151]. Generally, changes in the structural configuration of proteins following ultrasound treatment may be due to the ability of ultrasound energy to disrupt the intermolecular interactions between protein chains as well as disulfide bonds in proteins [152]. The impact of ultrasound on the protein structure can be attributed to extremely (localized) high temperature (above 1000 °C) and pressures (ranging from 50 to 500 MPa) generated by cavitation, which occurs when food samples are subjected to ultrasound treatment [132,153]. This extremely high acoustic energy generated during ultrasound treatment can disrupt the non-covalent bonds (e.g., hydrogen bonds) and disulfide bonds in proteins. These disruptions play a vital role in the conformational changes in the secondary and tertiary structures of proteins [29], allowing enzymes to access the loosened structure quickly, thereby enhancing the rate of hydrolysis and degree of bioactivity [154].
Several studies have shown ultrasound to be useful in modifying the structural and functional properties of food proteins [150,155,156,157,158]. Zhao, Liu, Ding, Dong, and Wang [158] studied the impact of high-intensity ultrasound (20 kHz frequency; power from 600 to 2000 W; time from 0–30 min) on the structural properties of soy protein isolate (SPI) using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR), and fluorescence spectra analyses. They reported that ultrasound treatment altered the secondary structure of the proteins by decreasing the proportion of β-turns and α-helices and increasing the content of β-sheets and random coils. In addition, structural changes in tertiary structure due to the impact of ultrasound treatment was revealed by fluorescence spectra analysis. Xue et al. [159] also reported a reduction in α-helix and an increase in random coils in ultrasound-treated (ultrasonic intensity of 544.59 W/m2 for 80 min at 70 °C) buckwheat protein isolate in comparison to untreated samples. In another study, changes in the secondary structure of almond milk proteins were investigated using circular dichroism (CD) and FTIR. FTIR spectra indicated that ultrasound treatment caused minor relocation in the structural configuration of the proteins. Additionally, ultrasound treatment (20 kHz frequency for 16 min at 50% duty cycle duration) caused a reorganization of β-sheets and α-helices as revealed by CD spectroscopy [160]. Furthermore, Fadimu, Gill, Farahnaky, and Truong [29] studied the impact of ultrasonic pre-treatment on structural properties of lupin protein using FTIR, XRD, and circular dichroism. They observed that ultrasound treatment altered the secondary structure of the proteins.

4.1.2. Effect of Ultrasound Pre-Treatment on the Bioactivities of BPs Produced Using Enzymolysis

ACE-inhibitory properties. In general, contradictory findings were reported regarding the application of ultrasound pre-treatment on the ACE-inhibitory property of food proteins. It seems that the effects of ultrasound on the bioactivity of BPs are dependent on the enzyme type, type of protein used, sonication time, and frequency applied, which in turn influences the MW of peptide produced. For instance, the potential of ultrasound for enhancing the bioactivity of cheddar cheese during processing has been documented [161]. In the study, cheddar cheese subjected to ultrasound treatment (at 20 kHz frequency and specific energy 41 J/g) prior to ripening showed higher ACE-inhibitory activity and lower IC50 value than those of control counterparts. Jia et al. [162] reported that ultrasound treatment during enzymatic hydrolysis of wheat germ protein using alcalase (6625.4 U) for 210 min had less effect on ACE-inhibitory activity of the hydrolysate. On the contrary, it was revealed that the ACE-inhibitory property of hydrolysates prepared using bromelain increased by 13% (from 51.10% to 72.13%) after sonication for 5 min at ultrasound density of 0.092 W/mL [31]. Nevertheless, sonication did not improve the ACE-inhibitory property of papain-hydrolyzed whey protein [33]. This enzyme specificity is also documented in an earlier study by Uluko, Zhang, Liu, Chen, Sun, Su, Li, Cui, and Lv [134] where sonication was applied to milk protein hydrolysis. Dabbour et al. [163] reported that significant ACE-inhibitory activity (64.46%) was obtained in sunflower meal protein subjected to ultrasound treatment (20/40 kHz, 15 min, 220 W) prior to enzymolysis compared to the control sample (32.52%). In a related study, Fadimu et al. [30] reported a significant increase in ACE-inhibitory activity of lupin protein hydrolysate pre-treated using ultrasound in comparison to unsonicated samples.
Antioxidant activity. Ultrasonication appears to be effective in enhancing the antioxidant activity of BPs in most cases. The improvement of antioxidant properties of BPs obtained from plant protein via ultrasound pre-treatment have been documented. Sonication before enzymolysis (alcalase at 0.01 Au/g E/S ratio for 30 min) in a frequency range of 25–69 kHz tended to intensify the hydrolysis of wheat gluten, with a sample treated at the lowest frequency (25 kHz) exhibiting the lowest EC50 value of 0.279 mg/mL. This indicates higher ferrous ion chelating activity in comparison to samples obtained using a high-frequency treatment which had an EC50 value of 0.513 mg/mL [34]. In addition, the antioxidant activity of ultrasound treated papain-hydrolyzed (1:20 E/S ratio for 180 min) whey protein increased from 19.62% to 21.17%. However, sonication did not have any effect on sonicated whey protein hydrolyzed when bromelain was used for hydrolysis [27]. In another study, Fadimu et al. [32] revealed that the IC50 value of lupin protein hydrolysate was lower (3.77 mg/mL) in ultrasonicated samples in comparison to unsonicated hydrolysate (4.30 mg/mL).
In addition to plant protein, animal protein has been pre-treated with ultrasound for the improvement of the antioxidant properties of the BPs obtained via enzymatic reaction. Jovanović et al. [164] revealed that ultrasound treatment of egg white protein hydrolysate at 40 kHz frequency for 15 min yielded hydrolysate with higher DPPH (28.10%), ABTS (79.44%), and FRAP (0.097 µM/mg) than untreated hydrolysates, which had 15.8%, 7.69%, and 0.062 µM/mg for DPPH, ABTS, and FRAP, respectively. Ultrasound treatment accelerated enzymatic hydrolysis and increased yield of soluble proteins and antioxidant activity (from 19.62% to 22.31%) of hydrolysate prepared from vegetable protease-fermented whey protein [33].
To further increase the bioactivities of BPs produced from food protein, ultrasound has been combined with heat treatment (thermosonication). A combination of ultrasound (60% amplitude, 20 kHz frequency for 10 min) and heat (95 °C) enhanced the antioxidant activity of hydrolysates from duck egg albumen [9]. Despite all these advantages, the application of ultrasound as a pre-treatment method for food protein prior to enzymolysis is still in its primary state. Therefore, it is imperative for researchers to be directed towards the optimization of ultrasound process parameters for the pre-treatment of food proteins.

4.2. High-Pressure Processing (HPP)

HPP, referred to as high hydrostatic pressure processing or ultra-high pressure (UHP), involves the exposure of food materials to pressure (100 to 1000 MPa) where instant and even transmissions of pressure throughout the sample allow inactivation of microorganisms without significant changes in quality attributes and nutritional components [165]. As illustrated in Figure 4, typical HPP equipment components include a pressure vessel, high-pressure intensifier pumps, closures, and a device (e.g., yoke) to secure the pressure vessel during processing. Common pressure-transmitting fluids used in food industry are water, castor oil, ethanol, and glycol. The HPP technique has been successfully exploited to meet diverse consumer demands by generating novel foods, tastes, and textures in the last 20 years [26,165]. Lou et al. [166] and Abera [167] provided updated reviews of working principles and applications of HPP in food systems. Apart from the major applications such as improving food safety and stability, freezing, thawing, and extraction, HPP has also been used in combination with protease treatments to produce BPs from food proteins and enhance their bioactivity [37].

4.2.1. Effect of HPP on the Structure of Food Proteins

As aforementioned, proteins are stabilized in their native state by covalent bonds (including disulfide bridges), electrostatic interactions (ion pairs, polar groups), hydrogen bridges, and hydrophobic interactions. The covalent bonds in proteins are usually not affected by HPP, especially at low temperatures (0–40 °C); hence, the primary structure of proteins is intact during HPP treatment [168]. However, HPP treatments affect the secondary structure via hydrogen ion and electrostatic interactions, the tertiary structure via hydrophobic and hydrogen bonding, as well as the quaternary structure through hydrophobic interactions [168]. At a pressure <300 MPa, these changes in protein structures are reversible, but at pressures >300 MPa, an irreversible denaturation of proteins can occur. At pressure above 700 MPa, HPP may give rise to irreversible protein denaturation by disrupting the secondary structure of the proteins [169]. The conformation changes induced by HPP in food proteins can expose the active site for the proteolytic enzymes to effectively cleave the proteins. As such, HPP can be beneficial in improving the generation of bioactive peptides, as illustrated in Figure 4.
In another aspect, it is shown that HPP can inactivate indigenous enzymes in food protein prior to enzymolysis. The native state of an enzyme is stabilized by different types of interactions such as covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding, van der Waals, hydrophobic, and electrostatic interactions [170], which are susceptible to HPP treatment. HPP inactivation of enzymes involves the formation and/or disruption of numerous interactions and change in the native structure of enzymes by folding and/or unfolding, which could be reversible or irreversible depending on the applied pressure [171]. Consequently, this will lead to a change in enzyme activity as its specificity is related to the enzyme’s active site structure. Thus, the denaturation of enzymes, similar to the protein denaturation under the HPP environment, is the main inactivation mechanism for HPP for enzymes [172].

4.2.2. Effect of HPP Pre-Treatment on the Bioactivity of BPs Produced Using Enzymolysis

Although the bioactivities of BPs mainly depend on the properties of the BPs, the pre-treatment method prior to enzymolysis may have a significant effect on the properties of the produced BPs. The efficacy of HPP on the bioactivities of BPs from different commodities varies. Generally, it has been reported that HPP affects the bioactivities of peptides from food protein via the increased susceptibility of proteins to digestion during proteolysis [173]. HPP pre-treatment at 300 MPa on lentils prior to hydrolysis using savinase enzyme produced BPs with high ACE-inhibitory and antioxidant activities when compared to the BPs produced with the same enzymes without prior pre-treatment [28]. Quirós et al. [174] reported that pre-treatment of ovalbumin at a pressure range between 200 and 400 MPa facilitated the release of novel peptides RADHPFL, YAEERYPIL, and FRADHPFL, which showed antihypertensive activity in vitro. In another study, HPP treatment of lentil protein at a pressure above atmospheric pressure (0.1 MPa) enhanced the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) (from 36.6 to 70.77%) and ACE-inhibitory activity (from 245.16 to 360.99 µmoles TE/g) of BPs produced using savinase, corolase, and protamex [28]. According to Zhang, Jiang, Miao, Mu, and Li [38], application of HPP in a lower pressure range (between 100 and 200 MPa) to chickpea protein and hydrolysis using alcalase increased the superoxide anion capturing rate and caused a reduction in reducing power of the hydrolysates from 27.26% to 66.26% and 0.134 to 0.406, respectively. Even though HPP treatment in combination with proteases has the potential to enhance the proteolytic efficiency in terms of yield and bioactivities, it was proposed that pressurization above 1000 MPa could cause structural damage and denaturation of protein, which in turn would negatively affect the properties of the BPs produced from food proteins [28]. Hence, the parameters of HPP must be optimized to ensure the improvement of yield and bioactivities of the produced BPs.

4.3. Pulsed Electric Field (PEF)

PEF is one of the novel non-thermal technologies that can effectively inactivate microorganisms as well as enzymes in food [175]. PEF is based on electroporation and cell disintegration by applying repeated pulses when the food is placed between two parallel electrodes [176]. In PEF processing, microsecond high-voltage pulses in the range of 10 to 60 kV are employed [177]. The application of high-voltage pulses induces pores in a process named electroporation in cell membranes, initiating a loss of barrier function, intracellular content leakage, and loss of vitality [175]. PEF technology is considered superior to traditional heat treatment of foods based on food-quality attributes because it avoids, or greatly lessens, unfavorable changes in physical and sensory properties [178]. Potentially, PEF can induce conformation changes in enzymes, thereby leading to enzyme inactivation [179]. The activities of protease, lipase, and alkaline phosphatase in fresh bovine milk subjected to PEF treatment at electric field strengths ranging from 15 to 35 kV/cm were reduced to 14%, 37%, and 29%, respectively [180].

4.3.1. Effect of PEF on the Structure of Food Protein

Studies have indicated that non-thermal treatment in the form of electromagnetic wave and electric fields could modify the structure of proteins [181,182] thereby modifying the native structure of protein for optimum delivery of health-promoting peptides. Only secondary and tertiary structures of the protein are affected by the electromagnetic wave and electric fields [133]. The mechanism of the alteration of protein structure may be linked to energy absorption potential by polar groups of proteins and generation of free radicals, which causes unfolding of proteins [133] as well as protein oxidation [183]. Changes in secondary protein structure may be evaluated by qualitatively analyzing the content of α-helices, β-sheets, and β-turns using spectroscopy techniques [184]. On the other hand, changes in the intensity of intrinsic and extrinsic fluorescence may reflect alteration of tertiary structure, which is associated with the presence of aromatic amino acids including phenylalanine and tryptophan for intrinsic fluorescence. However, extrinsic fluorescence may reflect changes in hydrophobicity of proteins [185].

4.3.2. Effect of PEF on the Bioactivities of BPs Produced from Food Proteins Using Enzymolysis

Given that the exact underlying mechanism of PEF in the bioactivity of food protein-derived peptides is not fully understood, it is assumed that changes in protein structure could be responsible for improved bioactivities observed in BPs produced from food protein subjected to PEF before hydrolysis [133,186,187]. According to Lin et al. [188], treatment of egg white protein using high-intensity pulsed electric field at constant parameters of 10 kV/cm electric field strength, 3000 Hz frequency, and pulse number of 300 significantly increased (from 3.0 to 3.5%) the antioxidant activity of the fractionated hydrolysate (<1 kDa) prepared using alcalase in comparison to the untreated sample. This could be due to the breakdown of larger peptides into smaller peptides by breaking down the peptide bonds, electrostatic interactions, hydrophobic interactions, with subsequent disorganization of larger protein structure caused by the PEF pre-treatment [189]. The disorganization could have facilitated the production of smaller peptides with better activities than the larger ones [189].
Lin et al. [137] studied structural and antioxidant activities of a peptide (SHCMN) generated from PEF-treated soybean protein. It was reported that the optimum PEF conditions needed to increase the antioxidant activity of the peptides from 93.43% to 94.35% were 5 kV/cm electric field, 2400 Hz pulse frequency, and retention time of 2 h. The intensification of hydrolysis could be attributed to changes in secondary structure [137]. Apart from those studies performed on the enhancement of antioxidant activities of hydrolysates from food proteins, there is little information about the effects on PEF treatment on other bioactivities including antihypertensive, antidiabetic, antimicrobial, antiviral, opioid, and antithrombotic activities. Thus, there is a need to further explore the utilization of PEF as sole pre-treatment either individually or in combination with other technologies for food proteins prior to enzymolysis to produce BPs with improved yield and bioactivities.

5. Conclusions and Remarks

Non-thermal food processing technologies such as US, HPP, and PEF hold tremendously high potential in applications as novel alternatives to heat treatment for enzymatic hydrolysis of food proteins to produce BPs. In general, research has shown that acoustic cavitation, pressure-induced reversible/irreversible change, and high-voltage pulses in US, HPP, and PEF techniques, respectively, can cause conformational changes in food proteins. Pioneering work demonstrated that these primary modes of action contribute to the enhanced susceptibility of protein structures to enzymatic hydrolysis. However, detailed knowledge of underlying mechanisms is still lacking and there remains a need to elucidate the specific mechanisms fully. The process efficiency and bioactive properties of resulting BPs appear to be dependent on various factors, including US, HPP, PEF operating conditions, types and concentration of enzymes used, pH, and temperature. This prompts the quest for optimization of the process parameters to deliver specific functionality or bioactive properties. In addition, studies performed on plant proteins appear to be less available compared to animal proteins that are also worthy of future investigation.
To the best of our knowledge, intensification of enzymatic hydrolysis by other non-thermal food processing technologies such as cold plasma, dense phase carbon dioxide, radiofrequency electric field, and oscillating magnetic fields to generate food-derived BPs has not yet been examined. Additionally, the combination of different non-thermal processes may provide a synergistic effect in improving the pre-treatment efficiency. Thus, the utilization of non-thermal food processing technologies will provide a robust approach and competitive alternatives to the conventional thermal methods as pre-treatment in enzymatic hydrolysis of food proteins. From a scientific point of view, full elucidation of mechanisms by which non-thermal food processing technologies in combination with enzyme treatment cause the structural changes in protein is pivotal to understanding how bioactivity is enhanced.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, investigation, data curation, and writing—original draft preparation, G.J.F. and T.T.; review and editing, T.T.L., A.F., H.G. and O.O.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by RMIT University with the RMIT Research Stipend Scholarship for a PhD study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The first author acknowledges the financial support from RMIT University with the RMIT Research Stipend Scholarship for his PhD study. Additionally, we would like to acknowledge Mehran Ghasemlou for his help with the figures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Korhonen, H.; Pihlanto, A. Bioactive peptides: Production and functionality. Int. Dairy J. 2006, 16, 945–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Singh, B.P.; Vij, S.; Hati, S. Functional significance of bioactive peptides derived from soybean. Peptides 2014, 54, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kadam, S.U.; Tiwari, B.K.; Álvarez, C.; O’Donnell, C.P. Ultrasound applications for the extraction, identification and delivery of food proteins and bioactive peptides. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 46, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Möller, N.P.; Scholz-Ahrens, K.E.; Roos, N.; Schrezenmeir, J. Bioactive peptides and proteins from foods: Indication for health effects. Eur. J. Nutr. 2008, 47, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Korhonen, H. Milk-derived bioactive peptides: From science to applications. J. Funct. Foods 2009, 1, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nongonierma, A.B.; Paolella, S.; Mudgil, P.; Maqsood, S.; FitzGerald, R.J. Dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitory properties of camel milk protein hydrolysates generated with trypsin. J. Funct. Foods 2017, 34, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. García-Tejedor, A.; Castelló-Ruiz, M.; Gimeno-Alcañíz, J.V.; Manzanares, P.; Salom, J.B. In vivo antihypertensive mechanism of lactoferrin-derived peptides: Reversion of angiotensin I-and angiotensin II-induced hypertension in Wistar rats. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 15, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Idowu, A.T.; Benjakul, S.; Sinthusamran, S.; Sookchoo, P.; Kishimura, H. Protein hydrolysate from salmon frames: Production, characteristics and antioxidative activity. J. Food Biochem. 2019, 43, e12734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Quan, T.H.; Benjakul, S. Production and characterisation of duck albumen hydrolysate using enzymatic process. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 3015–3023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jang, A.; Jo, C.; Kang, K.-S.; Lee, M. Antimicrobial and human cancer cell cytotoxic effect of synthetic angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitory peptides. Food Chem. 2008, 107, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sangsawad, P.; Roytrakul, S.; Yongsawatdigul, J. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitory peptides derived from the simulated in vitro gastrointestinal digestion of cooked chicken breast. J. Funct. Foods 2017, 29, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nongonierma, A.B.; Paolella, S.; Mudgil, P.; Maqsood, S.; FitzGerald, R.J. Identification of novel dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitory peptides in camel milk protein hydrolysates. Food Chem. 2018, 244, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Wang, J.; Wu, T.; Fang, L.; Liu, C.; Liu, X.; Li, H.; Shi, J.; Li, M.; Min, W. Anti-diabetic effect by walnut (Juglans mandshurica Maxim.)-derived peptide LPLLR through inhibiting α-glucosidase and α-amylase, and alleviating insulin resistance of hepatic HepG2 cells. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 69, 103944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fadimu, G.J.; Ghafoor, K.; Babiker, E.E.; Al-Juhaimi, F.; Abdulraheem, R.A.; Adenekan, M.K. Ultrasound-assisted process for optimal recovery of phenolic compounds from watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) seed and peel. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2020, 14, 1784–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Abdel-Hamid, M.; Otte, J.; De Gobba, C.; Osman, A.; Hamad, E. Angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory activity and antioxidant capacity of bioactive peptides derived from enzymatic hydrolysis of buffalo milk proteins. Int. Dairy J. 2017, 66, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, J.; Aluko, R.E.; Muir, A.D. Production of angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptides from defatted canola meal. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5283–5287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shu, G.; Huang, J.; Bao, C.; Meng, J.; Chen, H.; Cao, J. Effect of Different Proteases on the Degree of Hydrolysis and Angiotensin I-Converting Enzyme-Inhibitory Activity in Goat and Cow Milk. Biomolecules 2018, 8, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. De Noni, I.; Cattaneo, S. Occurrence of β-casomorphins 5 and 7 in commercial dairy products and in their digests following in vitro simulated gastro-intestinal digestion. Food Chem. 2010, 119, 560–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Losacco, M.; Gallerani, R.; Gobbetti, M.; Minervini, F.; De Leo, F. Production of active angiotensin-I converting enzyme inhibitory peptides derived from bovine β-casein by recombinant DNA technologies. Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1425–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Daliri, E.B.-M.; Oh, D.H.; Lee, B.H. Bioactive peptides. Foods 2017, 6, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lee, S.Y.; Hur, S.J. Antihypertensive peptides from animal products, marine organisms, and plants. Food Chem. 2017, 228, 506–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kou, X.; Gao, J.; Xue, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, H.; Wang, X. Purification and identification of antioxidant peptides from chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) albumin hydrolysates. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 50, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zheng, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, G. ACE-inhibitory and antioxidant peptides from coconut cake albumin hydrolysates: Purification, identification and synthesis. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 5925–5936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Pravda, L.; Berka, K.; Svobodová Vařeková, R.; Sehnal, D.; Banáš, P.; Laskowski, R.A.; Koča, J.; Otyepka, M. Anatomy of enzyme channels. BMC Bioinform. 2014, 15, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Adjonu, R.; Doran, G.; Torley, P.; Agboola, S. Screening of whey protein isolate hydrolysates for their dual functionality: Influence of heat pre-treatment and enzyme specificity. Food Chem. 2013, 136, 1435–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aluko, R.E. Food protein-derived peptides: Production, isolation, and purification. In Proteins in Food Processing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 389–412. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gauthier, S.; Pouliot, Y. Functional and biological properties of peptides obtained by enzymatic hydrolysis of whey proteins. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, E78–E87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Garcia-Mora, P.; Peñas, E.; Frias, J.; Gomez, R.; Martinez-Villaluenga, C. High-pressure improves enzymatic proteolysis and the release of peptides with angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitory and antioxidant activities from lentil proteins. Food Chem. 2015, 171, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Yu, L.; Sun, J.; Liu, S.; Bi, J.; Zhang, C.; Yang, Q. Ultrasonic-assisted enzymolysis to improve the antioxidant activities of peanut (Arachin conarachin L.) antioxidant hydrolysate. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 9051–9068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Fadimu, G.J.; Farahnaky, A.; Gill, H.; Truong, T. Influence of ultrasonic pretreatment on structural properties and biological activities of lupin protein hydrolysate. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 57, 1729–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fadimu, G.J.; Gill, H.; Farahnaky, A.; Truong, T. Investigating the Impact of Ultrasound Pretreatment on the Physicochemical, Structural, and Antioxidant Properties of Lupin Protein Hydrolysates. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2021, 14, 2004–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fadimu, G.J.; Gill, H.; Farahnaky, A.; Truong, T. Improving the enzymolysis efficiency of lupin protein by ultrasound pretreatment: Effect on antihypertensive, antidiabetic and antioxidant activities of the hydrolysates. Food Chem. 2022, 383, 132457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Abadía-García, L.; Castaño-Tostado, E.; Ozimek, L.; Romero-Gómez, S.; Ozuna, C.; Amaya-Llano, S.L. Impact of ultrasound pretreatment on whey protein hydrolysis by vegetable proteases. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2016, 37, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhu, K.-X.; Su, C.-Y.; Guo, X.-N.; Peng, W.; Zhou, H.-M. Influence of ultrasound during wheat gluten hydrolysis on the antioxidant activities of the resulting hydrolysate. Int. J Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 46, 1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chandrapala, J.; Zisu, B.; Kentish, S.; Ashokkumar, M. The effects of high-intensity ultrasound on the structural and functional properties of α-Lactalbumin, β-Lactoglobulin and their mixtures. Food Res. Int. 2012, 48, 940–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Moo-Young, M. Comprehensive Biotechnology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 3, pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  37. FitzGerald, R.; O’Cuinn, G. Enzymatic debittering of food protein hydrolysates. Biotechnol. Adv. 2006, 24, 234–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, T.; Jiang, B.; Miao, M.; Mu, W.; Li, Y. Combined effects of high-pressure and enzymatic treatments on the hydrolysis of chickpea protein isolates and antioxidant activity of the hydrolysates. Food Chem. 2012, 135, 904–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ruiz-Ruiz, J.; Davila-Ortiz, G.; Chel-Guerrero, L.; Betancur-Aacona, D. Angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory and antioxidant peptide fractions from hard-to-cook bean enzymatic hydrolysates. J. Food Biochem. 2013, 37, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. García-Tejedor, A.; Saánchez-Rivera, L.; Castelló-Ruiz, M.; Recio, I.; Salom, J.B.; Manzanares, P. Novel antihypertensive lactoferrin-derived peptides produced by Kluyveromyces marxianus: Gastrointestinal stability profile and in vivo angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 1609–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. He, R.; Alashi, A.; Malomo, S.A.; Girgih, A.T.; Chao, D.; Ju, X.; Aluko, R.E. Antihypertensive and free radical scavenging properties of enzymatic rapeseed protein hydrolysates. Food Chem. 2013, 141, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xue, Z.; Wen, H.; Zhai, L.; Yu, Y.; Li, Y.; Yu, W.; Cheng, A.; Wang, C.; Kou, X. Antioxidant activity and anti-proliferative effect of a bioactive peptide from chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Food Res. Int. 2015, 77, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shazly, A.B.; He, Z.; El-Aziz, M.A.; Zeng, M.; Zhang, S.; Qin, F.; Chen, J. Fractionation and identification of novel antioxidant peptides from buffalo and bovine casein hydrolysates. Food Chem. 2017, 232, 753–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Girgih, A.T.; He, R.; Malomo, S.; Offengenden, M.; Wu, J.; Aluko, R.E. Structural and functional characterization of hemp seed (Cannabis sativa L.) protein-derived antioxidant and antihypertensive peptides. J. Funct. Foods 2014, 6, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, H.; Yokoyama, W.H.; Zhang, H. Concentration-dependent displacement of cholesterol in micelles by hydrophobic rice bran protein hydrolysates. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 1395–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, Y.; Chen, R.; Ma, H.; Chen, S. Isolation and identification of dipeptidyl peptidase IV-inhibitory peptides from trypsin/chymotrypsin-treated goat milk casein hydrolysates by 2D-TLC and LC–MS/MS. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 8819–8828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ahmed, A.S.; El-Bassiony, T.; Elmalt, L.M.; Ibrahim, H.R. Identification of potent antioxidant bioactive peptides from goat milk proteins. Food Res. Int. 2015, 74, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wali, A.; Yanhua, G.; Ishimov, U.; Yili, A.; Aisa, H.A.; Salikhov, S. Isolation and identification of three novel antioxidant peptides from the Bactrian camel milk Hydrolysates. Int J. Pept. Res. Ther. 2019, 26, 641–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sonklin, C.; Alashi, M.A.; Laohakunjit, N.; Kerdchoechuen, O.; Aluko, R.E. Identification of antihypertensive peptides from mung bean protein hydrolysate and their effects in spontaneously hypertensive rats. J. Funct Foods 2020, 64, 103635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li-Chan, E.C.; Hunag, S.-L.; Jao, C.-L.; Ho, K.-P.; Hsu, K.-C. Peptides derived from Atlantic salmon skin gelatin as dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 973–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Darewicz, M.; Borawska, J.; Vegarud, G.E.; Minkiewicz, P.; Iwaniak, A. Angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitory activity and ACE inhibitory peptides of salmon (Salmo salar) protein hydrolysates obtained by human and porcine gastrointestinal enzymes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 14077–14101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Nikoo, M.; Benjakul, S.; Xu, X. Antioxidant and cryoprotective effects of Amur sturgeon skin gelatin hydrolysate in unwashed fish mince. Food Chem. 2015, 181, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Nakano, D.; Ogura, K.; Miyakoshi, M.; ISHII, F.; Kawanishi, H.; Kurumazuka, D.; Kwak, C.-j.; Ikemura, K.; Takaoka, M.; Moriguchi, S. Antihypertensive effect of angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory peptides from a sesame protein hydrolysate in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2006, 70, 1118–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Nimalaratne, C.; Bandara, N.; Wu, J. Purification and characterization of antioxidant peptides from enzymatically hydrolyzed chicken egg white. Food Chem. 2015, 188, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zamani, A.; Madani, R.; Rezaei, M.; Benjakul, S. Antioxidative activitiy of protein hydrolysate from the muscle of common kilka (Clupeonella cultriventris caspia) prepared using the purified trypsin from common kilka intestine. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2017, 26, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pihlanto-Leppälä, A. Bioactive peptides derived from bovine whey proteins: Opioid and ace-inhibitory peptides. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2000, 11, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sarmadi, B.H.; Ismail, A. Antioxidative peptides from food proteins: A review. Peptides 2010, 31, 1949–1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rizzello, C.; Cassone, A.; Di Cagno, R.; Gobbetti, M. Synthesis of angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitory peptides and γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) during sourdough fermentation by selected lactic acid bacteria. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 6936–6943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gan, R.Y.; Li, H.B.; Gunaratne, A.; Sui, Z.Q.; Corke, H. Effects of fermented edible seeds and their products on human health: Bioactive components and bioactivities. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. 2017, 16, 489–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fernández-Musoles, R.; Manzanares, P.; Burguete, M.C.; Alborch, E.; Salom, J.B. In vivo angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibition by long-term intake of antihypertensive lactoferrin hydrolysate in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wattanasiritham, L.; Theerakulkait, C.; Wickramasekara, S.; Maier, C.S.; Stevens, J.F. Isolation and identification of antioxidant peptides from enzymatically hydrolyzed rice bran protein. Food Chem. 2016, 192, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pihlanto, A.; Korhonen, H. Bioactive peptides from fermented foods and health promotion. In Advances in Fermented Foods and Beverages; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 39–74. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rahman, T.; Hosen, I.; Islam, M.T.; Shekhar, H.U. Oxidative stress and human health. Adv. Biosci. Biotechnol. 2012, 3, 997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Ito, N.; Fukushima, S.; Tsuda, H. Carcinogenicity and modification of the carcinogenic response by BHA, BHT, and other antioxidants. CRC Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 1985, 15, 109–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zou, T.-B.; He, T.-P.; Li, H.-B.; Tang, H.-W.; Xia, E.-Q. The structure-activity relationship of the antioxidant peptides from natural proteins. Molecules 2016, 21, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Karnjanapratum, S.; O’Callaghan, Y.C.; Benjakul, S.; O’Brien, N. Antioxidant, immunomodulatory and antiproliferative effects of gelatin hydrolysate from unicorn leatherjacket skin. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 3220–3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sae-leaw, T.; O’Callaghan, Y.C.; Benjakul, S.; O’Brien, N.M. Antioxidant, immunomodulatory and antiproliferative effects of gelatin hydrolysates from seabass (Lates calcarifer) skins. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 1545–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ghafoor, K.; Özcan, M.M.; Al-Juhaimi, F.; Babiker, E.E.; Fadimu, G.J. Changes in quality, bioactive compounds, fatty acids, tocopherols, and phenolic composition in oven- and microwave-roasted poppy seeds and oil. LWT 2019, 99, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Juhaimi, F.A.; Ghafoor, K.; Uslu, N.; Mohamed Ahmed, I.A.; Babiker, E.E.; Özcan, M.M.; Fadimu, G.J. The effect of harvest times on bioactive properties and fatty acid compositions of prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-barbarica A. Berger) fruits. Food Chem. 2020, 303, 125387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Al-Shamsi, K.A.; Mudgil, P.; Hassan, H.M.; Maqsood, S. Camel milk protein hydrolysates with improved technofunctional properties and enhanced antioxidant potential in in vitro and in food model systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Xu, S.; Shen, Y.; Li, Y. Antioxidant activities of sorghum kafirin alcalase hydrolysates and membrane/gel filtrated fractions. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Liang, Q.; Ren, X.; Ma, H.; Li, S.; Xu, K.; Oladejo, A.O. Effect of low-frequency ultrasonic-assisted enzymolysis on the physicochemical and antioxidant properties of corn protein hydrolysates. J. Food Qual. 2017, 2017, 2784146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Liu, J.; Jin, Y.; Lin, S.; Jones, G.S.; Chen, F. Purification and identification of novel antioxidant peptides from egg white protein and their antioxidant activities. Food Chem. 2015, 175, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Cai, L.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Ma, S.; Li, J. Purification and characterization of three antioxidant peptides from protein hydrolysate of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) skin. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 16, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chi, C.-F.; Hu, F.-Y.; Wang, B.; Ren, X.-J.; Deng, S.-G.; Wu, C.-W. Purification and characterization of three antioxidant peptides from protein hydrolyzate of croceine croaker (Pseudosciaena crocea) muscle. Food Chem. 2015, 168, 662–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tkaczewska, J.; Bukowski, M.; Mak, P. Identification of antioxidant peptides in enzymatic hydrolysates of carp (Cyprinus carpio) skin gelatin. Molecules 2019, 24, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Wu, W.; Li, B.; Hou, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, X. Identification of iron-chelating peptides from Pacific cod skin gelatin and the possible binding mode. J. Funct. Foods 2017, 35, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chi, C.F.; Wang, B.; Hu, F.Y.; Wang, Y.M.; Zhang, B.; Deng, S.G.; Wu, C.W. Purification and identification of three novel antioxidant peptides from protein hydrolysate of bluefin leatherjacket (Navodon septentrionalis) skin. Food Res. Int. 2015, 73, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Guang, C.; Phillips, R.D.; Jiang, B.; Milani, F. Three key proteases–angiotensin-I-converting enzyme (ACE), ACE2 and renin–within and beyond the renin-angiotensin system. Arch. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2012, 105, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Hong, F.; Ming, L.; Yi, S.; Zhanxia, L.; Yongquan, W.; Chi, L. The antihypertensive effect of peptides: A novel alternative to drugs? Peptides 2008, 29, 1062–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Daliri, E.B.-M.; Lee, B.H.; Oh, D.H. Current perspectives on antihypertensive probiotics. Probiotics Antimicrob. 2017, 9, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ichimura, T.; Hu, J.; Aita, D.Q.; Maruyama, S. Angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory activity and insulin secretion stimulative activity of fermented fish sauce. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2003, 96, 496–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Martinez-Villaluenga, C.; Torino, M.I.; Martin, V.; Arroyo, R.; Garcia-Mora, P.; Estrella Pedrola, I.; Vidal-Valverde, C.; Rodriguez, J.M.; Frias, J. Multifunctional properties of soy milk fermented by Enterococcus faecium strains isolated from raw soy milk. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 10235–10244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Phelan, M.; Kerins, D. The potential role of milk-derived peptides in cardiovascular disease. Food Funct. 2011, 2, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ono, S.; Hosokawa, M.; Miyashita, K.; Takahashi, K. Isolation of peptides with angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory effect derived from hydrolysate of upstream chum salmon muscle. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 1611–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Miner-Williams, W.M.; Stevens, B.R.; Moughan, P.J. Are intact peptides absorbed from the healthy gut in the adult human? Nutr. Res. Rev. 2014, 27, 308–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Wu, S.; Feng, X.; Lan, X.; Xu, Y.; Liao, D. Purification and identification of Angiotensin-I Converting Enzyme (ACE) inhibitory peptide from lizard fish (Saurida elongata) hydrolysate. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 13, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sila, A.; Haddar, A.; Martinez-Alvarez, O.; Bougatef, A. Angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitory and antioxidant activities of protein hydrolysate from muscle of barbel (Barbus callensis). J. Chem. 2013, 2013, 545303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Ibrahim, H.R.; Ahmed, A.S.; Miyata, T. Novel angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitory peptides from caseins and whey proteins of goat milk. J. Adv. Res. 2017, 8, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Alhaj, O.A. Identification of potential ACE-inhibitory peptides from dromedary fermented camel milk. CyTA J. Food 2017, 15, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Suwannapan, O.; Wachirattanapongmetee, K.; Thawornchinsombut, S.; Katekaew, S. Angiotensin I converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitory peptides from Thai jasmine rice bran protein hydrolysates. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 55, 2441–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Geerlings, A.; Villar, I.; Zarco, F.H.; Sánchez, M.; Vera, R.; Gomez, A.Z.; Boza, J.; Duarte, J. Identification and characterization of novel angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors obtained from goat milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 3326–3335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mojica, L.; de Mejia, E.G.; Granados-Silvestre, M.Á.; Menjivar, M. Evaluation of the hypoglycemic potential of a black bean hydrolyzed protein isolate and its pure peptides using in silico, in vitro and in vivo approaches. J. Funct. Foods 2017, 31, 274–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ennaas, N.; Hammami, R.; Beaulieu, L.; Fliss, I. Purification and characterization of four antibacterial peptides from protamex hydrolysate of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) by-products. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2015, 462, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tang, W.; Zhang, H.; Wang, L.; Qian, H.; Qi, X. Targeted separation of antibacterial peptide from protein hydrolysate of anchovy cooking wastewater by equilibrium dialysis. Food Chem. 2015, 168, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Théolier, J.; Hammami, R.; Labelle, P.; Fliss, I.; Jean, J. Isolation and identification of antimicrobial peptides derived by peptic cleavage of whey protein isolate. J. Funct. Foods 2013, 5, 706–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Li, M.; Zhang, Y.; Xia, S.; Ding, X. Finding and isolation of novel peptides with anti-proliferation ability of hepatocellular carcinoma cells from mung bean protein hydrolysates. J. Funct. Foods 2019, 62, 103557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Marcela, G.-M.; Eva, R.-G.; Del Carmen, R.-R.M.; Rosalva, M.-E. Evaluation of the antioxidant and antiproliferative effects of three peptide fractions of germinated soybeans on breast and cervical cancer cell lines. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2016, 71, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lee, S.H.; Qian, Z.J.; Kim, S.K. A novel angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitory peptide from tuna frame protein hydrolysate and its antihypertensive effect in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Food Chem. 2010, 118, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chalamaiah, M.; Jyothirmayi, T.; Diwan, P.V.; Kumar, B.D. Antiproliferative, ACE-inhibitory and functional properties of protein hydrolysates from rohu (Labeo rohita) roe (egg) prepared by gastrointestinal proteases. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 8300–8307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Li, J.; Zhao, J.; Wang, X.; Qayum, A.; Hussain, M.A.; Liang, G.; Hou, J.; Jiang, Z. Novel angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitory peptides from fermented bovine milk started by Lactobacillus helveticus KLDS. 31 and Lactobacillus casei KLDS. 105: Purification, identification and interaction mechanism. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Stadnik, J.; Kęska, P. Meat and fermented meat products as a source of bioactive peptides. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2015, 14, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Priyanto, A.D.; Doerksen, R.J.; Chang, C.-I.; Sung, W.-C.; Widjanarko, S.B.; Kusnadi, J.; Lin, Y.-C.; Wang, T.-C.; Hsu, J.-L. Screening, discovery, and characterization of angiotensin-I converting enzyme inhibitory peptides derived from proteolytic hydrolysate of bitter melon seed proteins. J. Proteom. 2015, 128, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tan, S.Y.; Wong, J.L.M.; Sim, Y.J.; Wong, S.S.; Elhassan, S.A.M.; Tan, S.H.; Lim, G.P.L.; Tay, N.W.R.; Annan, N.C.; Bhattamisra, S.K. Type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: A review on current treatment approach and gene therapy as potential intervention. Diabetes Metab Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2019, 13, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Gharravi, A.M.; Jafar, A.; Ebrahimi, M.; Mahmodi, A.; Pourhashemi, E.; Haseli, N.; Talaie, N.; Hajiasgarli, P. Current status of stem cell therapy, scaffolds for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2018, 12, 1133–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2009, 33, S62–S67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Dujic, T.; Causevic, A.; Bego, T.; Malenica, M.; Velija-Asimi, Z.; Pearson, E.; Semiz, S. Organic cation transporter 1 variants and gastrointestinal side effects of metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Diabet. Med. 2016, 33, 511–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Thulé, P.M.; Umpierrez, G. Sulfonylureas: A new look at old therapy. Curr. Diabetes Rep. 2014, 14, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Thong, K.; Gupta, P.S.; Blann, A.; Ryder, R. The influence of age and metformin treatment status on reported gastrointestinal side effects with liraglutide treatment in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2015, 109, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Meier, J.J.; Nauck, M.A. Risk of pancreatitis in patients treated with incretin-based therapies. Diabetologia 2014, 57, 1320–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Ahrén, B. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: Clinical data and clinical implications. Diabetes Care 2007, 30, 1344–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Lacroix, I.M.; Li-Chan, E.C. Food-derived dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors as a potential approach for glycemic regulation—Current knowledge and future research considerations. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 54, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Zhao, J.-Y.; Wang, H.-P.; Wang, H.-J.; Yao, J.-M.; Wu, X.-Y.; Dong, J.-J.; Liao, L. Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2016, 9, 11202–11210. [Google Scholar]
  114. Jao, C.-L.; Hung, C.-C.; Tung, Y.-S.; Lin, P.-Y.; Chen, M.-C.; Hsu, K.-C. The development of bioactive peptides from dietary proteins as a dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor for the management of type 2 diabetes. Biomedicine 2015, 5, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Mudgil, P.; Kamal, H.; Yuen, G.C.; Maqsood, S. Characterization and identification of novel antidiabetic and anti-obesity peptides from camel milk protein hydrolysates. Food Chem. 2018, 259, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. You, L.; Zhao, M.; Liu, R.H.; Regenstein, J.M. Antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) peptides prepared by papain digestion. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 7948–7953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Hsu, K.-C.; Li-Chan, E.C.; Jao, C.-L. Antiproliferative activity of peptides prepared from enzymatic hydrolysates of tuna dark muscle on human breast cancer cell line MCF-7. Food Chem. 2011, 126, 617–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Naqash, S.Y.; Nazeer, R. In vitro antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of bioactive peptide isolated from Nemipterus Japonicus Backbone. Int. J. Food Prop. 2012, 15, 1200–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Gashti, A.B.; Prakash, H. Characterization of antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of indian salmon (eleutheronema tetradactylum) protein hydrolysates. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 8, 102–108. [Google Scholar]
  120. Kandyliari, A.; Golla, J.P.; Chen, Y.; Papandroulakis, N.; Kapsokefalou, M.; Vasiliou, V. Antiproliferative activity of protein hydrolysates derived from fish by-products on human colon and breast cancer cells. In Proceedings of the Nutrition Society; Cambridge Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  121. Rai, M.; Pandit, R.; Gaikwad, S.; Kövics, G. Antimicrobial peptides as natural bio-preservative to enhance the shelf-life of food. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 3381–3394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Zhang, F.; Cui, X.; Fu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Liu, Q.; Chen, T. Antimicrobial activity and mechanism of the human milk-sourced peptide casein201. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2017, 485, 698–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Olatunde, O.O.; Benjakul, S. Natural preservatives for extending the shelf-life of seafood: A revisit. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 1595–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Floris, R.; Recio, I.; Berkhout, B.; Visser, S. Antibacterial and antiviral effects of milk proteins and derivatives thereof. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2003, 9, 1257–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Piotto, S.P.; Sessa, L.; Concilio, S.; Iannelli, P. YADAMP: Yet another database of antimicrobial peptides. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2012, 39, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Guinane, C.M.; Kent, R.M.; Norberg, S.; O’Connor, P.M.; Cotter, P.D.; Hill, C.; Fitzgerald, G.F.; Stanton, C.; Ross, R.P. Generation of the antimicrobial peptide caseicin A from casein by hydrolysis with thermolysin enzymes. Int. Dairy J. 2015, 49, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Seo, J.-K.; Lee, M.J.; Go, H.-J.; Kim, Y.J.; Park, N.G. Antimicrobial function of the GAPDH-related antimicrobial peptide in the skin of skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2014, 36, 571–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Abuine, R.; Rathnayake, A.U.; Byun, H.-G. Biological activity of peptides purified from fish skin hydrolysates. Fish Aquat. Sci. 2019, 22, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Dissanayake, M.; Vasiljevic, T. Functional properties of whey proteins affected by heat treatment and hydrodynamic high-pressure shearing. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 1387–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Liu, J.; Yang, J.; Abliz, A.; Yuan, F.; Gao, Y. Influence of thermal treatment on physical, structural characteristics and stability of lactoferrin, EGCG and high methoxylated pectin aggregates. LWT 2020, 125, 109221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Korczek, K.R.; Tkaczewska, J.; Duda, I.; Migdał, W. Effect of Heat Treatment on the Antioxidant and Antihypertensive Activity as Well as in vitro Digestion Stability of Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Protein Hydrolysates. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2020, 29, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Islam, M.N.; Zhang, M.; Adhikari, B. The inactivation of enzymes by ultrasound—A review of potential mechanisms. Food Rev. Int. 2014, 30, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Han, Z.; Cai, M.-J.; Cheng, J.-H.; Sun, D.-W. Effects of electric fields and electromagnetic wave on food protein structure and functionality: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 75, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Uluko, H.; Zhang, S.; Liu, L.; Chen, J.; Sun, Y.; Su, Y.; Li, H.; Cui, W.; Lv, J. Effects of microwave and ultrasound pretreatments on enzymolysis of milk protein concentrate with different enzymes. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 48, 2250–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Guerra-Almonacid, C.M.; Torruco-Uco, J.G.; Murillo-Arango, W.; Méndez-Arteaga, J.J.; Rodríguez-Miranda, J. Effect of ultrasound pretreatment on the antioxidant capacity and antihypertensive activity of bioactive peptides obtained from the protein hydrolysates of Erythrina edulis. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2019, 31, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Wali, A.; Ma, H.; Shahnawaz, M.; Hayat, K.; Xiaong, J.; Jing, L. Impact of Power Ultrasound on Antihypertensive Activity, Functional Properties, and Thermal Stability of Rapeseed Protein Hydrolysates. J. Chem. 2017, 2017, 4373859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Lin, S.; Liang, R.; Li, X.; Xing, J.; Yuan, Y. Effect of pulsed electric field (PEF) on structures and antioxidant activity of soybean source peptides-SHCMN. Food Chem. 2016, 213, 588–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Lin, S.; Liang, R.; Xue, P.; Zhang, S.; Liu, Z.; Dong, X. Antioxidant activity improvement of identified pine nut peptides by pulsed electric field (PEF) and the mechanism exploration. LWT 2017, 75, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Koirala, S.; Prathumpai, W.; Anal, A.K. Effect of ultrasonication pretreatment followed by enzymatic hydrolysis of caprine milk proteins on peptide antioxidant and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitory activity. Int. Dairy J. 2021, 118, 105026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Mason, T.J.; Riera, E.; Vercet, A.; Lopez-Buesa, P. Application of ultrasound. In Emerging Technologies for Food Processing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 323–351. [Google Scholar]
  141. Gulzar, S.; Raju, N.; Nagarajarao, R.C.; Benjakul, S. Oil and pigments from shrimp processing by-products: Extraction, composition, bioactivities and its application-A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 100, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. O’Donnell, C.; Tiwari, B.; Bourke, P.; Cullen, P. Effect of ultrasonic processing on food enzymes of industrial importance. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 21, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Mitragotri, S.; Blankschtein, D.; Langer, R. Ultrasound-mediated transdermal protein delivery. Science 1995, 269, 850–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Park, D.; Park, H.; Seo, J.; Lee, S. Sonophoresis in transdermal drug deliverys. Ultrasonics 2014, 54, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Gallo, M.; Ferrara, L.; Naviglio, D. Application of ultrasound in food science and technology: A perspective. Foods 2018, 7, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  146. Torley, P.J.; Truong, T.T.; Bhandari, B. Ultrasound in Food Processing and Preservation. In Handbook of Food Preservation, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; p. 1072. [Google Scholar]
  147. Branden, C.; Tooze, J. Introduction to Protein Structure; Garland Science: New York, NY, USA, 1999; Volume 54, pp. 905–921. [Google Scholar]
  148. Jiang, L.; Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Liang, J.; Wang, R.; Chen, Y.; Ma, W.; Qi, B.; Zhang, M. Effects of ultrasound on the structure and physical properties of black bean protein isolates. Food Res. Int. 2014, 62, 595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Saleem, R.; Ahmad, R. Effect of ultrasonication on secondary structure and heat induced gelation of chicken myofibrils. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 3340–3348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Vidal, A.R.; da Fonseca Cechin, C.; Cansian, R.L.; de Oliveira Mello, R.; Schmidt, M.M.; Demiate, I.M.; Kempka, A.P.; Dornelles, R.C.P. Enzymatic hydrolysis (pepsin) assisted by ultrasound in the functional Properties of hydrolyzates from different collagens. Ciênc. Rural 2018, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Yuanqing, H.; Min, C.; Lingling, S.; Quancai, S.; Pengyao, Y.; Rui, G.; Sijia, W.; Yuqing, D.; Haihui, Z.; Haile, M. Ultrasound Pretreatment Increases the Bioavailability of Dietary Proteins by Dissociating Protein Structure and Composition. Food Biophys. 2020, 15, 409–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Jin, J.; Ma, H.; Wang, K.; Yagoub, A.E.-G.A.; Owusu, J.; Qu, W.; He, R.; Zhou, C.; Ye, X. Effects of multi-frequency power ultrasound on the enzymolysis and structural characteristics of corn gluten meal. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2015, 24, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Tao, Y.; Sun, D.-W. Enhancement of food processes by ultrasound: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 55, 570–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ozuna, C.; Paniagua-Martínez, I.; Castaño-Tostado, E.; Ozimek, L.; Amaya-Llano, S.L. Innovative applications of high-intensity ultrasound in the development of functional food ingredients: Production of protein hydrolysates and bioactive peptides. Food Res. Int. 2015, 77, 685–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Ashokkumar, M. Applications of ultrasound in food and bioprocessing. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2015, 25, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Flores-Jiménez, N.T.; Ulloa, J.A.; Silvas, J.E.U.; Ramírez, J.C.R.; Ulloa, P.R.; Rosales, P.U.B.; Carrillo, Y.S.; Leyva, R.G. Effect of high-intensity ultrasound on the compositional, physicochemical, biochemical, functional and structural properties of canola (Brassica napus L.) protein isolate. Food Res. Int. 2019, 121, 947–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. O’Sullivan, J.; Murray, B.; Flynn, C.; Norton, I. The effect of ultrasound treatment on the structural, physical and emulsifying properties of animal and vegetable proteins. Food Hydrocoll. 2016, 53, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Zhao, F.; Liu, X.; Ding, X.; Dong, H.; Wang, W. Effects of High-Intensity Ultrasound Pretreatment on Structure, Properties, and Enzymolysis of Soy Protein Isolate. Molecules 2019, 24, 3637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Xue, F.; Wu, Z.; Tong, J.; Zheng, J.; Li, C. Effect of combination of high-intensity ultrasound treatment and dextran glycosylation on structural and interfacial properties of buckwheat protein isolates. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2017, 81, 1891–1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  160. Vanga, S.K.; Wang, J.; Orsat, V.; Raghavan, V. Effect of pulsed ultrasound, a green food processing technique, on the secondary structure and in-vitro digestibility of almond milk protein. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Munir, M.; Nadeem, M.; Qureshi, T.M.; Gamlath, C.J.; Martin, G.J.; Hemar, Y.; Ashokkumar, M. Effect of sonication, microwaves and high-pressure processing on ACE-inhibitory activity and antioxidant potential of Cheddar cheese during ripening. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 47, 105140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Jia, J.; Ma, H.; Zhao, W.; Wang, Z.; Tian, W.; Luo, L.; He, R. The use of ultrasound for enzymatic preparation of ACE-inhibitory peptides from wheat germ protein. Food Chem. 2010, 119, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Dabbour, M.; He, R.; Mintah, B.; Golly, M.K.; Ma, H. Ultrasound pretreatment of sunflower protein: Impact on enzymolysis, ACE-inhibition activity, and structure characterization. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Jovanović, J.; Stefanović, A.; Žuža, M.; Jakovetić, S.; Šekuljica, N.; Bugarski, B.; Knežević-Jugović, Z. Improvement of antioxidant properties of egg white protein enzymatic hydrolysates by membrane ultrafiltration. Hem. Ind. 2016, 70, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Norton, T.; Sun, D.-W. Recent advances in the use of high pressure as an effective processing technique in the food industry. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2008, 1, 2–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Lou, F.; Neetoo, H.; Chen, H.; Li, J. High hydrostatic pressure processing: A promising nonthermal technology to inactivate viruses in high-risk foods. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 6, 389–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Abera, G. Review on high-pressure processing of foods. Cogent Food Agric. 2019, 5, 1568725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Goyal, A.; Sharma, V.; Upadhyay, N.; Sihag, M.; Kaushik, R. High pressure processing and its impact on milk proteins: A review. J. Dairy Sci. Technol. 2018, 2, 12–20. [Google Scholar]
  169. Balny, C.; Masson, P. Effects of high pressure on proteins. Food Rev. Int. 1993, 9, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Messens, W.; Van Camp, J.; Huyghebaert, A. The use of high pressure to modify the functionality of food proteins. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 1997, 8, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Chakraborty, S.; Kaushik, N.; Rao, P.S.; Mishra, H. High-pressure inactivation of enzymes: A review on its recent applications on fruit purees and juices. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2014, 13, 578–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Hendrickx, M.E.; Knorr, D. Ultra High Pressure Treatment of Foods; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  173. Chicón, R.; Belloque, J.; Recio, I.; López-Fandiño, R. Influence of high hydrostatic pressure on the proteolysis of [Beta]-lactoglobulin A by trypsin. J. Dairy Res. 2006, 73, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Quirós, A.; Chichón, R.; Recio, I.; López-Fandiño, R. The use of high hydrostatic pressure to promote the proteolysis and release of bioactive peptides from ovalbumin. Food Chem. 2007, 104, 1734–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Olatunde, O.O.; Benjakul, S. Nonthermal Processes for Shelf-Life Extension of Seafoods: A Revisit. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 892–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  176. Shiekh, K.A.; Benjakul, S. Effect of pulsed electric field treatments on melanosis and quality changes of Pacific white shrimp during refrigerated storage. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Kumar, D.; Chatli, M.K.; Singh, R.; Mehta, N.; Kumar, P. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of camel milk casein hydrolysates and its fractions. Small Rumin. Res. 2016, 139, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Eissa, A.A. Structure and Function of Food Engineering; BoD–Books on Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  179. Zhong, K.; Hu, X.; Zhao, G.; Chen, F.; Liao, X. Inactivation and conformational change of horseradish peroxidase induced by pulsed electric field. Food Chem. 2005, 92, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Riener, J.; Noci, F.; Cronin, D.A.; Morgan, D.J.; Lyng, J.G. Effect of high intensity pulsed electric fields on enzymes and vitamins in bovine raw milk. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2009, 62, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Gomaa, A.; Sedman, J.; Ismail, A. An investigation of the effect of microwave treatment on the structure and unfolding pathways of β-lactoglobulin using FTIR spectroscopy with the application of two-dimensional correlation spectroscopy (2D-COS). Vib. Spectrosc. 2013, 65, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Li, Y.-Q. Structure changes of soybean protein isolates by pulsed electric fields. Phys. Procedia 2012, 33, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  183. Olatunde, O.O.; Singh, A.; Shiekh, K.A.; Nuthong, P.; Benjakul, S. Effect of High Voltage Cold Plasma on Oxidation, Physiochemical, and Gelling Properties of Myofibrillar Protein Isolate from Asian Sea Bass (Lates calcarifer). Foods 2021, 10, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Battisti, A.; Ciasca, G.; Grottesi, A.; Tenenbaum, A. Thermal compaction of the intrinsically disordered protein tau: Entropic, structural, and hydrophobic factors. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2017, 19, 8435–8446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Karoui, R.; Blecker, C. Fluorescence spectroscopy measurement for quality assessment of food systems—A review. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2011, 4, 364–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Qian, J.-Y.; Ma, L.-J.; Wang, L.-J.; Jiang, W. Effect of pulsed electric field on structural properties of protein in solid state. LWT 2016, 74, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Xiang, B.Y.; Ngadi, M.O.; Ochoa-Martinez, L.A.; Simpson, M.V. Pulsed electric field-induced structural modification of whey protein isolate. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2011, 4, 1341–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Lin, S.; Guo, Y.; You, Q.; Yin, Y.; Liu, J. Preparation of antioxidant peptide from egg white protein and improvement of its activities assisted by high-intensity pulsed electric field. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 1554–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Perez, O.E.; Pilosof, A.M. Pulsed electric fields effects on the molecular structure and gelation of β-lactoglobulin concentrate and egg white. Food Res. Int. 2004, 37, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Schematic representation of various types of bioactive peptides from food proteins.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of various types of bioactive peptides from food proteins.
Foods 11 01823 g001
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of preparation and mechanism of action of ACE-inhibitory peptides.
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of preparation and mechanism of action of ACE-inhibitory peptides.
Foods 11 01823 g002
Figure 3. Schematic illustration of ultrasound-assisted proteolysis of food proteins.
Figure 3. Schematic illustration of ultrasound-assisted proteolysis of food proteins.
Foods 11 01823 g003
Figure 4. Schematic illustration of HPP-assisted proteolysis of food proteins.
Figure 4. Schematic illustration of HPP-assisted proteolysis of food proteins.
Foods 11 01823 g004
Table 1. Proteases commonly used for the production of peptide-rich hydrolysates.
Table 1. Proteases commonly used for the production of peptide-rich hydrolysates.
ProteasesReferences
Flavourzyme[22,23]
Trypsin[23,42]
Chymotrypsin[43]
Alcalase[13,22,43,44,45]
Flavorase[45]
Papain[15,45]
Protamex[30,46]
Pepsin[15,23,47,48]
Neutrase[43]
Bromelain[33,49,50]
Corolase[28,51]
Neutral protease[52]
Savinase[28]
Thermolysin[53]
Protease P[54]
Table 2. Antioxidant peptides from food proteins.
Table 2. Antioxidant peptides from food proteins.
GroupSourceMethod of PreparationAmino Acid SequenceMajor FindingsReferences
Plant proteinCorn proteinHydrolysis using alcalaseSGV, LLPH, NGGGAPeptides identified in the study showed strong antioxidant activityLiang, Ren, Ma, Li, Xu, and Oladejo [72]
Chickpea albumin Hydrolysis using flavourzyme and alcalaseRQSHFANAQPStrongest antioxidative peptides were identified in the fractionated chickpea hydrolysateKou, Gao, Xue, Zhang, Wang, and Wang [22]
Coconut cake albumin hydrolysateHydrolysis using alcalase, trypsin, pepsin, and flavourzymeKAQYPYV, KIIIYN, KILIYGIdentified peptides showed strong ion chelating ability and substantial superoxide radical scavenging activityZheng, Li, and Li [23]
Rice endosperm proteinHydrolysis using alcalase, neutrase, papain, flavorase, and chymotrypsin FRDEHKK, KHDRGDEFMost potent antioxidant peptides were released by neutraseZhang et al. [45]
Animal proteinGoat milk caseinHydrolysis using pepsinTVNREQL, VNQELAYFYPQLFRQ, DMESTEVF, QSLVYPFTGPIProtein hydrolysates showed strong antioxidant activity. Four potent antioxidant peptides were identifiedAhmed et al. [47]
Buffalo milkHydrolysis using papain, pepsin, and trypsinKFQ, YPSG, HPFAAntioxidant peptides were identified in papain hydrolysatesAbdel-Hamid, Otte, De Gobba, Osman, and Hamad [15]
Buffalo caseinHydrolysis using alcalase and trypsinRELEE, TVA, MEDNKQ, EQLPeptides with molecular weight below 1 KDa exhibited strongest antioxidant activityShazly et al. [43]
Egg white proteinHydrolysis using alcalase FFGFN, DHTKE, MPDAHLOut of the three identified peptides, DHTKE showed highest ORAC Liu et al. [73]
Chicken egg whiteHydrolysis using protease PDEDTQAMP, AEERYPOnly two of the sixteen identified peptides showed very strong oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) Nimalaratne et al. [54]
Camel milkHydrolysis using papain, trypsin, alcalase, and pepsinRLDGQGRPRVWLGR, TPDNIDIWLGGIAEPQVKR, VAYSDDGENWTEYRDQGAVEGKPeptides showed strong DPPH and ABTS activitiesWali et al. [48]
Fish and fish productsSeabass skinHydrolysis using alcalaseGLPGPA, GATGPGGPLGPA, VLGPP, GLGPLGPVHydrolysates showed strong DPPH radical scavenging activitySae-leaw et al. [67]
Grass carpHydrolysis using alcalasePYSFK, GFGPEL, GGRPThree isolated peptides exhibited high ABTS, DPPH, and hydroxyl radical activities in a dose-dependent mannerCai et al. [74]
Unicorn leatherjacket-GPGPVG, LPGPAG, LAGPVG, GGPLGIsolated peptides showed cellular antioxidant activity by protecting H2O2-induced DNA damageKarnjanapratum et al. [66]
Croceine croaker
muscle
Hydrolysis using alcalaseVLYEE, YLMSR, MILMRYLMSR exhibited highest DPPH, superoxide, and ABTS activityChi et al. [75]
Carp skin gelatinHydrolysis using protamexAYPeptide identified is responsible for high antioxidant activity recordedTkaczewska et al. [76]
Pacific codHydrolysis using trypsinAGPAGPAGAR,
GPAGPHGPPGKDGR, AGPHGPPGKDGR
Identified peptide exhibited high iron chelating activityWu et al. [77]
Bluefin leatherjacket (Navodon septentrionalis)Hydrolysis using alcalase, neutrase, and flavourzymeFIGP, GPGGFI, GSGGLAll identified peptides contributed to the DPPH and hydroxyl radical scavenging activity of the hydrolysateChi et al. [78]
Amur sturgeonHydrolysis using alcalase and flavourzymePAGTThe peptide exhibited DPPH, ABTS, and hydroxyl radical scavenging abilitiesNikoo et al. [52]
Table 3. ACE-inhibitory, antimicrobial, and antiproliferative peptides from food proteins.
Table 3. ACE-inhibitory, antimicrobial, and antiproliferative peptides from food proteins.
Biological ActivityFood SourceMethod of PreparationPeptide SequenceMajor FindingsReferences
ACE-inhibitory peptidesFermented camel milkFermentation using L. helveticus and L. acidophilusLSLSQF, KVLVPQ, FQEPVPDPVR, LENLHLPLPL, KVLPVPQQMVPYPQ, VMVPFLQPKSeven ACE-inhibitory peptides identified in L. helveticus sample and 3 from L. acidophilus sampleAlhaj [90]
Sesame protein powderEnzymatic hydrolysis using thermolysinLVY, LSA, LKY, IVY, MLPAYIdentified peptides had strong antihypertensive effect on spontaneously hypertensive ratsNakano, Ogura, Miyakoshi, ISHII, Kawanishi, Kurumazuka, Kwak, Ikemura, Takaoka, and Moriguchi [53]
Mung bean proteinEnzymatic hydrolysis using bromelainLRLESF, LPRL, HLNVVHEN, YADLVF, PGSGCAGTDLFive ACE-inhibitory peptides identified from molecular weight fraction below 1 KDa and LRLESF was the most potent peptideSonklin, Alashi, Laohakunjit, Kerdchoechuen, and Aluko [49]
Salmon proteinEnzymatic hydrolysis using corolaseIWHHT, ALPHA, IVY, VW, VPW, TVY, IW, IYEleven ACE-inhibitory peptides identified from in vitro, ex vivo, and in silico studies of salmon protein hydrolysateDarewicz, Borawska, Vegarud, Minkiewicz, and Iwaniak [51]
Rice bran proteinEnzymatic fermentation using protease G6GSGYFIdentified peptide showed strong ACE-inhibitory activity with IC50 value close to that of captoprilSuwannapan, Wachirattanapongmetee, Thawornchinsombut, and Katekaew [91]
Buffalo milkEnzymatic hydrolysis using pepsin, papain, and trypsinIPPK, QPPQ, FPGPIPK, IVPNACE-inhibitory peptides were identified only in papain hydrolysatesAbdel-Hamid, Otte, De Gobba, Osman, and Hamad [15]
Coconut cake albumin hydrolysateEnzymatic hydrolysis using alcalase, trypsin, and pepsinKAQYPYV, KIIIYN, KILIYGIdentified peptides showed strong ACE-inhibitory potential and KAQYPYV was stable against gastrointestinal digestion enzymesZheng, Li, and Li [23]
Goat milkEnzymatic hydrolysis using alcalaseSLPQ, TGPIPN, SQPKACE-inhibitory peptides identified had high IC50 values and TGPIPN passed monolayer of Caco-2 cells intact in small quantityGeerlings, Villar, Zarco, Sánchez, Vera, Gomez, Boza, and Duarte [92]
Antidiabetic peptidesCamel milk proteinEnzymatic hydrolysis using trypsinLPVPQWKPotent and unique peptide with DPP-IV-inhibitory activity was identified in camel milk protein hydrolysate for the first timeNongonierma, Paolella, Mudgil, Maqsood, and FitzGerald [6]
Black beanEnzymatic hydrolysis using alcalaseAKSPLF, ATNPLF, FEELN, LSVSVLProtein hydrolysate from black bean caused a reduction in blood glucose of hyperglycemic ratMojica, de Mejia, Granados-Silvestre, and Menjivar [93]
Atlantic salmon skin gelatinEnzymatic hydrolysis using bromelain, flavourzyme, and alcalaseGPGA, GPAEFlavourzyme hydrolysate at 6% enzyme substrate ratio showed higher dipeptidyl peptidase activity than alcalase and bromelain hydrolysateLi-Chan, Hunag, Jao, Ho, and Hsu [50]
Camel milk proteinEnzymatic hydrolysis using trypsinLPVP, MPVQANine novel DPP-IV peptides were identified in the hydrolysate and the most potent two had IC50 values comparable to that of pure peptidesNongonierma, Paolella, Mudgil, Maqsood, and FitzGerald [12]
Goat milk caseinEnzymatic hydrolysis using trypsinAWPQYL, SPTVMFPPQSVL, MHQPPQPL, VMFPPQSVL, INNQFLPYPYFive new peptides with DPP-IV-inhibitory activity were identified and isolated using 2D-TLC. One of the peptides (INNQFLPYPY) showed remarkable IC50Zhang et al. [46]
Walnut protein Enzymatic hydrolysis using alcalaseLPLLRThe identified peptide showed strong inhibitory action against α-glucosidase and α-amylaseWang, Wu, Fang, Liu, Liu, Li, Shi, Li, and Min [13]
Antimicrobial peptidesMackerel hydrolysateEnzymatic hydrolysis using protamexSIFIQRFTTAll four identified peptides partially inhibited Gram positive (Listeria innocua) and Gram negative (Escherichia coli) bacterial strains while SIFIQRFTT totally inhibited both strainsEnnaas et al. [94]
Anchovy cooking wasteEnzymatic hydrolysis using protamexGLSRLFTALKIdentified peptide showed no hemolytic activity and exhibited bactericidal effect in reconstituted milkTang et al. [95]
Whey proteinEnzymatic hydrolysis using pepsin, chymotrypsin, and trypsinVRT, KVGIN, PGDL, KVAGT, EKF, LPMHTrypsin and chymotryptic hydrolysates did not exhibit antibacterial activity; only hydrolysate from pepsin showed significant activityThéolier et al. [96]
Antiproliferative peptidesMung bean proteinEnzymatic hydrolysis using papainPQG, LAF, EGA, VEGIdentified peptides exhibited in vitro and in vivo anticancer activitiesLi, Zhang, Xia, and Ding [97]
Chickpea proteinEnzymatic hydrolysis using trypsin and pepsinRQSHFANAQPIdentified peptide inhibited breast cancer cellsXue et al. [42]
Germinated soybeanEnzymatic hydrolysis using pepsin-Inhibited cervical and breast cancer cellsMarcela, Eva, Del Carmen, and Rosalva [98]
Table 4. Impact of different non-thermal treatments on biological activities of peptides derived from food proteins.
Table 4. Impact of different non-thermal treatments on biological activities of peptides derived from food proteins.
Source of PeptidesNon-Thermal TreatmentEnzyme Used for PreparationMajor FindingsReference
Lentil protein hydrolysateHigh-pressure processing (HPP); 100 to 300 MPa at 40 °C for 15 minAlcalase,
protamex,
savinase,
corolase
HPP increased ACE-inhibitory activity of hydrolysates from all the enzymes when compared with control, with exception of alcalase
In comparison to control, HPP increased oxygen radical absorbance capacity of all hydrolysate samples
Garcia-Mora, Peñas, Frias, Gomez, and Martinez-Villaluenga [28]
Lupin protein hydrolysateUltrasound (ultrasonic power: 400 W, frequency: 20 kHz, time: 10 min)Flavourzyme (pH: 6.0 at 60 °C), alcalase (pH: 8.0 at 50 °C), protamex (pH: 8.0 at 50 °C) for 4 hUltrasound increased antioxidant, antihypertensive, α-amylase, and α-glucosidase activities when compared with controlFadimu, Gill, Farahnaky and Truong [31], Fadimu, Gill, Farahnaky, and Truong [32], Fadimu, Farahnaky, Gill, and Truong [30]
Peanut protein hydrolysateUltrasound (ultrasonic power: 150 W, time: 25 min)Alcalase (pH: 8.5 at 60 °C)DPPH radical scavenging activity increased up to 90% after ultrasonic treatmentYu et al. [29]
Wheat gluten hydrolysateUltrasound (ultrasonic frequency: 25–69 kHz, ultrasound intensity: 0.707 W/cm2)Alcalase (pH: 9.0; temperature: 50 °C for 30 min)Hydrolysate obtained under ultrasound treatment exhibited highest iron chelating and reducing power in a dose-dependent mannerZhu, Su, Guo, Peng, and Zhou [34]
Whey protein hydrolysateUltrasound (ultrasound density: 0.092 W/mL, time: 5 min)Bromelain (pH 7.0 at 50 °C);
papain (pH 7.0 at 60 °C for 180 min)
ACE-inhibitory activity increased from 13 to 95% in bromelain hydrolysate, but did not improve in papain hydrolysate
Ultrasound treatment did not improve antioxidant activity
Abadía-García, Castaño-Tostado, Ozimek, Romero-Gómez, Ozuna, and Amaya-Llano [33]
Duck albumen hydrolysateUltrasound (amplitude: 60%, time: 10 min, power: 750 W)Papain,
alcalase (pH 8.0 at 50 °C for 4 h)
Ultrasound pre-treatment improved the antioxidant activity after 90 min of hydrolysisQuan and Benjakul [9]
Corn protein hydrolysateUltrasound (frequency: 28 kHz, time: 25 min, power: 65 W/L)Alcalase (pH 9.0 at 50 °C) Sonication treatment increased antioxidant activity from 60 to 65%Liang, Ren, Ma, Li, Xu, and Oladejo [72]
Erythrina edulis hydrolysateUltrasound (amplitude: 100%, time: 10 min, frequency: 80 kHz)Flavourzyme,
alcalase
DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging activity significantly increased following ultrasonic pre-treatment in comparison to untreated hydrolysates
ACE-inhibitory activity increased in a dose-dependent manner after ultrasonic treatment
Guerra-Almonacid et al. [135]
Rapeseed protein hydrolysateUltrasound (power: 600 W, time: 12 min)Alcalase (pH 9.0 at 50 °C for 120 min)Ultrasonic treatment increased ACE inhibitory activity from 51.10 to 72.13%Wali et al. [136]
Egg white proteinPulse electric field (electric field: 10 kV/cm, frequency: 3000 Hz, pulse number: 300)Alcalase,
pepsin,
trypsin
PEF treatment increased antioxidant activity from 3.0 to 3.5%, with alcalase hydrolysate having highest activityLin, Guo, You, Yin, and Liu [137]
Pine nut proteinPulse electric field (frequency: 1800 Hz, electric field: 15 kV/cm)-PEF increased DPPH scavenging activity from 89.10 to 93.22%.Lin et al. [138]
Caprine milk proteinUltrasound (power: 200 W, amplitude: 80%, time: 20 min)Neutral protease (50 °C for 6 h), pepsin (37 °C for 6 h)Ultrasound pre-treatment caused significant increase in DPPH and ACE-inhibitory activityKoirala et al. [139]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fadimu, G.J.; Le, T.T.; Gill, H.; Farahnaky, A.; Olatunde, O.O.; Truong, T. Enhancing the Biological Activities of Food Protein-Derived Peptides Using Non-Thermal Technologies: A Review. Foods 2022, 11, 1823. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131823

AMA Style

Fadimu GJ, Le TT, Gill H, Farahnaky A, Olatunde OO, Truong T. Enhancing the Biological Activities of Food Protein-Derived Peptides Using Non-Thermal Technologies: A Review. Foods. 2022; 11(13):1823. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131823

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fadimu, Gbemisola J., Thao T. Le, Harsharn Gill, Asgar Farahnaky, Oladipupo Odunayo Olatunde, and Tuyen Truong. 2022. "Enhancing the Biological Activities of Food Protein-Derived Peptides Using Non-Thermal Technologies: A Review" Foods 11, no. 13: 1823. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131823

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop