Immunomodulatory effects of protein hydrolysates from rohu (Labeo rohita) egg (roe) in BALB/c mice.
IR@CSIR-CFTRI
View Archive InfoField | Value | |
Relation |
http://ir.cftri.com/11612/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.05.050 |
|
Title |
Immunomodulatory effects of protein hydrolysates from rohu (Labeo rohita) egg (roe) in BALB/c mice. |
|
Creator |
Chalamaiah, M.
Hemalatha, R. Jyothirmayi, T. |
|
Subject |
03 Proteins
Fish |
|
Description |
Protein hydrolysates prepared from underutilized rohu (Labeo rohita) egg (roe), by enzymatic hydrolysis using pepsin, trypsin and Alcalase, were evaluated for their immunomodulatory effects in BALB/c mice. The female BALB/c mice (4–6 weeks, 18–20 g) were administered with the rohu egg protein hydrolysates (REPHs) daily for a period of forty five days with concentration of 0.25, 0.5 and 1 g/kg body weight. Both innate and adaptive immune responses were studied. Pepsin hydrolysate significantly increased the splenic NK cell cytotoxicity, macrophage phagocytosis and level of serum immunoglobulin A (IgA). The mucosal immunity (S-IgA) in the gutwas significantly enhanced by pepsin and Alcalase hydrolysates.Whereas trypsin hydrolysate induced significant increases in the percentages of CD4+ and CD8+ cells inthe spleen. This study confirms that REPHs are able to modulate immune function and further reveals that different rohu egg protein hydrolysates may exert differential influences on the immune system. These results suggest that REPHs contain immunostimulatory peptides that could be useful in pharmaceutical, health food or nutraceutical industry for various applications. |
|
Date |
2014
|
|
Type |
Article
PeerReviewed |
|
Format |
application/pdf
|
|
Language |
en
|
|
Rights |
—
|
|
Identifier |
http://ir.cftri.com/11612/1/Food%20Research%20International%2C%20Volume%2062%2C%20August%202014%2C%20Pages%201054-1061.pdf
Chalamaiah, M. and Hemalatha, R. and Jyothirmayi, T. (2014) Immunomodulatory effects of protein hydrolysates from rohu (Labeo rohita) egg (roe) in BALB/c mice. Food Research International, 62. pp. 1054-1061. |
|