Multispectral Analysis of Interaction Between Catechins and Egg Yolk Immunoglobulin and the Change of Bacteriostasis
ZHANG Meng-jun1, LIU Li-li1*, YANG Xie-li2, GUO Jing-fang1, WANG Hao-yang1
1. College of Food and Bioengineering, National Experimental Teaching Demonstration Center for Food Processing and Security, Food Microbiology Engineering Technology Research Center of Henan Province, Research and Utilization of Functional Food Resources Science and Technology Innovation Team of Henan Provincial Department of Education, Luoyang 471023, China
2. LIZHENG College, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471023, China
Abstract：As a Cenozoic antibody, chicken egg yolk immunoglobulin (IgY) has the characteristics of safety, stability and no drug residue. It has an inhibitory effect on a variety of pathogenic microorganisms. IgY is one of the ideal substitutes for antibiotics. However, it cannot be used on an extensive scale application to a certain extent because of its high production cost and low antibacterial activity caused by protease decomposition. Therefore, it is of great significance to improve its economic benefit and bioavailability using modification. In this study, catechin interacted with IgY to prepare its complex. It provides support for improving the antibacterial properties of IgY and preparing safer and more efficient antibacterial agents. The interaction mechanism between catechin and IgY was studied via UV-Vis, FS and FT-IR. The antibacterial properties of the IgY-catechin complex were studied by using IgY and a mixture of IgY and catechin as control. With the increase of catechin concentration, the UV-Vis absorption peak value of IgY gradually increased and showed a blue shift. The quenching type of IgY by catechins is mainly static quenching. The IgY and catechin combine to form a complex with a number of binding sites close to 1. The interaction types were van der Waals force and hydrogen bond. Compared with IgY, the content of β-folded and β-corner in the secondary structure of the IgY-catechin complex had no significant change, while the content of α-helix was increased and irregular convolution was decreased. It indicated that the conformation of protein was changed due to the introduction of catechin. Compared with IgY and a mixture of IgY and catechin, the antibacterial rate of IgY-catechin complex against Staphylococcus aureus was increased by 135.8% and 9.95% on average, respectively. When the concentration was greater than 0.05 mg·mL-1, the antibacterial rate against Escherichia coli was increased by 15.74% and 13.27%, respectively. Catechins and IgY could form a complex, which showed better antibacterial properties than IgY and mixture of IgY and catechin. This study is helpful in understanding the effects of catechins on the structure and function of IgY. It can also provide theoretical support for preparing safer and more efficient antibiotic substitutes. In addition, this study can supply theoretical guidance for the property changes of IgY during food processing.
张孟军，刘丽莉，杨协力，郭净芳，王浩阳. 儿茶素与卵黄免疫球蛋白互作的多重光谱分析及抑菌性变化[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2022, 42(07): 2297-2303.
ZHANG Meng-jun, LIU Li-li, YANG Xie-li, GUO Jing-fang, WANG Hao-yang. Multispectral Analysis of Interaction Between Catechins and Egg Yolk Immunoglobulin and the Change of Bacteriostasis. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2022, 42(07): 2297-2303.
[1] Hu B C, Yang X D, Guo E P, et al. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2019, 99(5): 2565.
[2] Abbas A T, El-Kafrawy S A, Sohrab S S, et al. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 2019, 15(1): 264.
[3] Karamzadeh D A, Towhidia1 A, Zhandia M, et al. Animal，2020, 15(2): 100124.
[4] HE Wei-chao, ZHANG Hui-yan, WANG Hao, et a1(贺维朝, 张会艳, 王 浩, 等). China Animal Husbandry &Veterinary Medicine(中国畜牧兽医), 2021, 48(2): 640.
[5] Redwan E M, Aljadawi A A, Uversky V N. Poultry Science, 2020, 100(3): 100956.
[6] YAO Qi-feng, WU Zheng-qi, CHEN Xiao-qiang, et al(姚其凤, 吴正奇, 陈小强, 等). Science and Technology of Food Industry(食品工业科技), 2019, 40(8): 337.
[7] Jia J J, Gao X, Hao M H, et al. Food Chemistry, 2017, 228: 143.
[8] Jia Z B, Zheng M, Tao F, et al. LWT—Food Science and Technology, 2016, 66: 305.
[9] ZHOU Xu-xia, CHEN Ting, LÜ Fei, et al(周绪霞, 陈 婷, 吕 飞, 等). Food Science(食品科学), 2018, 39(16): 13.
[10] ZHANG Chuan-ying, PENG Xin, RAO Heng-jun, et al(张传英, 彭 鑫, 饶恒军, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2021, 41(6): 1701.
[11] NIU Meng-xian, SUI Jian-xin, LIN Hong, et al(牛梦宪, 隋建新, 林 洪, 等). Food Science and Technology(食品科技), 2018, 43(7): 203.
[12] ZHANG Man, LIU Xi, CONG Ri-hua, et al(张 曼, 柳 溪, 丛日华). Joumal of Tianjin Agricultural University(天津农学院学报), 2020, 27(2): 56.
[13] LI Qing-shu, CHENG Lin, DENG Hong, et a1(李庆舒, 程 琳, 邓 红, 等). Food and Fermentation Industries(食品与发酵工业), 2020, 46(3): 180.
[14] JIANG Ming(蒋 鸣). China Condiment(中国调味品), 2021, 46(1): 63.
[15] NI Xiao-xia, YE Cai-fa, SHEN Qiu-lian, et a1(倪晓霞, 叶财发, 沈秋莲, 等). Guiding Journal of TCM(中医药导报), 2020, 26(15): 25.
[16] ZHU Ying, WANG Zhong-jiang, LI Yang, et al(朱 颖, 王中江, 李 杨，等). Transactions of The Chinese Society of Agricultural Machinery(农业机械学报), 2018, 49(6): 368.
[17] CHEN Shuang, WANG Xiao-dan, LI Rui, et a1(陈 爽, 王小丹, 李 瑞, 等). Food Science(食品科学), 2019, 40(23): 8.
[18] WEN Peng-cheng, JIAO Yao-yao, ZHANG Wei-bing, et al(文鹏程, 焦瑶瑶, 张卫兵, 等). Food and Fermentation Industries(食品与发酵工业), 2020, 46(8): 40.
[19] WANG Chen, XIE Yan-li, FAN Ting-ting(王 晨, 谢岩黎, 范亭亭). Food Science(食品科学), 2019, 40(20): 60.
[20] LIU Jian-lei, XING Xiao-juan, ZHOU Rui, et al(刘建垒, 邢效娟, 周 瑞, 等). Food Science(食品科学), 2017, 38(5): 7.
[21] LIU Qin-qin, ZHU Ke-xue, GUO Xiao-na, et al(刘勤勤, 朱科学, 郭晓娜, 等). Food Science(食品科学), 2015, 36(17): 43.
[22] Zhang Q, Lin H, Sui J X, et al. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture，2015, 95(1): 136.
