18 proteomics: methodology and application in fish...
TRANSCRIPT
18Proteomics: Methodology andApplication in Fish Processing
O. T. Vilhelmsson*, S. A. M. Martin, B. M. Poli, and D. F. Houlihan
401
IntroductionProteomics Methodology
Two-Dimensional ElectrophoresisSome Problems and Their Solutions
Identification by Peptide Mass FingerprintingSeafood Proteomics and Their Relevance to Processing and
QualityTracking Quality Changes Using ProteomicsAntemortem Effects on Quality and Processability
Antemortem Metabolism and Postmortem Qualityin Trout
Potential for Further Antemortem ProteinDegradation Studies
Can Antemortem Proteomics Shed Light on GapingTendency?
Species AuthenticationIdentification and Characterization of AllergensReferences
INTRODUCTION
Proteomics is most succinctly defined as “the studyof the entire proteome or a subset thereof,” the pro-teome being the expressed protein complement ofthe genome. Unlike the genome, the proteome variesamong tissues, as well as with time, in reflection ofthe organism’s environment and its adaptation there-to. Proteomics can therefore give a snapshot of theorganism’s state of being and, in principle at least,map the entirety of its adaptive potential and mecha-nisms. As with all living matter, foodstuffs are inlarge part made up of proteins. This is especially
true of fish and meat, where the bulk of the foodmatrix is constructed from proteins. Furthermore,the construction of the food matrix, both on the cel-lular and tissuewide levels, is regulated and broughtabout by proteins. It stands to reason, then, that pro-teomics is a tool that can be of great value to thefood scientist, giving valuable insight into the composition of the raw materials; quality involutionwithin the product before, during, and after process-ing or storage; and the interactions of the proteinswith one another, with other food components, orwith the human immune system after consumption.In this chapter, a brief overview of “classical” pro-teomics methodology is presented, and present andfuture applications in relation to fish and seafoodprocessing and quality are discussed.
PROTEOMICS METHODOLOGY
Unlike nucleic acids, proteins are an extremely var-iegated group of compounds in terms of their chem-ical and physical properties. It is not surprising,then, that a field that concerns itself with “the sys-tematic identification and characterization of pro-teins for their structure, function, activity and mo-lecular interactions” (Peng et al. 2003) shouldpossess a toolkit containing a wide spectrum ofmethods that continue to be developed at a briskpace. While high-throughput, gel-free methods, forexample, those based on liquid chromatography tan-dem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) (Peng et al.2003), surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization(Hogstrand et al. 2002), or protein arrays (Lee and*Corresponding author.
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 401
402 Part III: Muscle Foods
Figure 18.1. An overview over the ‘classic approach’ in proteomics. First, a protein extract (crude or fractionated)from the tissue of choice is subjected to two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Once a protein of inter-est has been identified, it is excised from the gel and subjected to degradation by trypsin (or other suitable protease).The resulting peptides are analyzed by mass spectrometry, yielding a peptide mass fingerprint. In many cases this issufficient for identification purposes, but if needed, peptides can be dissociated into smaller fragments, and smallpartial sequences can be obtained by tandem mass spectrometry. See text for further details.
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 402
18 Proteomics in Fish Processing 403
Nagamune 2004), hold great promise and are de-serving of discussion in their own right, the classicprocess of two-dimensional electrophoresis (2DE)followed by protein identification via peptide massfingerprinting of trypsin digests (Fig. 18.1) remainsthe workhorse of most proteomics work, largelybecause of its high resolution, simplicity, and massaccuracy. This “classic approach” will therefore bethe main focus of this chapter. A number of reviewson the advances and prospects of proteomics withinvarious fields of study are available. Some recentones include Aebersold and Mann (2003), Cash(2002), Cash and Kroll (2003), Graves and Haystead(2003), Huber et al. (2003), Kvasnicka (2003), Phi-zicky et al. (2003), Piñeiro et al. (2003), Pusch et al.(2003), Takahashi et al. (2003), and Tyers and Mann(2003).
TWO-DIMENSIONAL ELECTROPHORESIS
Two-dimensional electrophoresis (2DE), the corner-stone of most proteomics research, is the simultane-ous separation of hundreds, or even thousands, ofproteins on a 2D polyacrylamide slab gel. The po-tential of a 2D protein separation technique wasrealized early on, and considerable developmentefforts took place in the 1960s (Kaltschmidt andWittmann 1970, Margolis and Kenrick 1969). Themethod most commonly used today was developedby Patrick O’Farrell and is described in his seminaland thorough 1975 paper (O’Farrell 1975). O’Far-rell’s method first applies a process called isoelectricfocusing, where an electric field is applied to a tubegel on which the protein sample and carrier am-pholytes have been deposited. This separates theproteins according to their molecular charge. Thetube gel is then transferred onto a polyacrylamideslab gel, and the isoelectrically focused proteins arefurther separated according to their molecular massby conventional sodium dodecyl sulfate–polyacry-lamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), yielding atwo-dimensional map (Fig. 18.2) rather than the fa-miliar banding pattern observed in one-dimensionalSDS-PAGE. The map can be visualized and individ-ual proteins quantified by radiolabeling or by usingany of a host of protein dyes and stains, such asCoomassie blue, silver stains, or fluorescent dyes.By comparing the abundance of individual proteinson a number of gels (Fig. 18.3), up- or downregula-tion of these proteins can be inferred. It is worth
emphasizing that great care must be taken that theproteome under investigation is reproducibly repre-sented on the 2DE gels, and that individual variationin specific protein abundance is taken into consider-ation by running gels from a sufficient number ofsamples and performing the appropriate statistics.Pooling samples may also be an option, dependingon the type of experiment. Although a number ofrefinements have been made to 2DE since O’Far-rell’s paper was published, most notably the intro-duction of immobilized pH gradients (IPGs) for iso-electrofocusing (Görg et al. 1988), the procedureremains essentially as outlined above. For more de-tailed, up-to-date descriptions of methods, the read-er is referred to any of a number of excellent booksand laboratory manuals, such as Berkelman andStenstedt (1998), Link (1999), Walker (2002), andWestermeier and Naven (2002).
Some Problems and Their Solutions
The high resolution and good sensitivity of 2DE are what make it the method of choice for most pro-teomics work, but the method nevertheless has
Figure 18.2. A 2DE protein map of rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss) liver proteins with pH between4 and 7 and molecular mass about 10–100 (S. Martin,unpublished). The proteins are separated according totheir pH in the horizontal dimension and according totheir mass in the vertical dimension. Isoelectrofocusingwas by pH 4–7 immobilized pH gradient (IPG) strip, andthe second dimension was in a 10–15% gradient poly-acrylamide slab gel.
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 403
404 Part III: Muscle Foods
several drawbacks. The most significant of thesehave to do with the diversity of proteins and theirexpression levels. For example, hydrophobic pro-teins do not readily dissolve in the buffers used forisoelectrofocusing. This problem can be overcome,though, using nonionic or zwitterionic detergents,allowing for 2DE of membrane and membrane-associated proteins (Babu et al. 2004, Chevallet etal. 1998, Henningsen et al. 2002, Herbert 1999).Vilhelmsson and Miller (2002), for example, wereable to use “membrane protein proteomics” to de-monstrate the involvement of membrane-associatedmetabolic enzymes in the osmoadaptive response ofthe foodborne pathogen Staphylococcus aureus. A2DE gel image of S. aureus membrane-associatedgels is shown in Figure 18.4.
Similarly, resolving alkaline proteins, particularlythose with pH above 10, on 2D gels has been prob-lematic in the past. Although the development ofhighly alkaline, narrow-range IPGs (Bossi et al.1994) allowed reproducible two-dimensional reso-lution of alkaline proteins (Guorg et al. 1997), theirrepresentation on wide-range 2DE of complex mix-tures such as cell extracts remained poor. Improve-ments in resolution and representation of alkalineproteins on wide-range gels have been made (Guorg
Figure 18.3. A screenshot from the 2DE analysis program Phoretix 2-D (NonLinear Dynamics, Gateshead, Tyne andWear, United Kingdom) showing some steps in the analysis of a two-dimensional protein map. Variations in abun-dance of individual proteins, as compared with a reference gel, can be observed and quantified.
Figure 18.4. A 2DE membrane proteome map fromStaphylococcus aureus, showing proteins with pHbetween 3 and 10 and molecular mass about 15–100(O. Vilhelmsson and K. Miller, unpublished).Isoelectrofocusing was in the presence of a mixture ofpH 5–7 and pH 3–10 carrier ampholytes, and the sec-ond dimension was in a 10% polyacrylamide slab gelwith a 4% polyacrylamide stacker.
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 404
18 Proteomics in Fish Processing 405
et al. 1999); nevertheless an approach that involvesseveral gels, each of a different pH range, from thesame sample is advocated for representative inclu-sion of alkaline proteins when studying entire pro-teomes (Cordwell et al. 2000). Indeed, Cordwell etal. were able to significantly improve the representa-tion of alkaline proteins in their study on the rela-tively highly alkaline Helicobacter pylori proteomeby using both pH 6–11 and pH 9–12 IPGs (Bae et al.2003).
A second drawback of 2DE has to do with theextreme difference in expression levels of the cell’svarious proteins, which can be as much as 10,000-fold. This leads to swamping of low abundance pro-teins by high abundance ones on the two-dimensionalmap, rendering analysis of low abundance proteinsdifficult or impossible. For applications such as spe-cies identification or the study of major biochemicalpathways, where the proteins of interest are presentin relatively high abundance, this does not present aproblem. However, when investigating, for example,regulatory cascades, the proteins of interest are likelyto be present in very low abundance and may at timesbe undetectable because of the dominance of highabundance proteins. Simply increasing the amount ofsample is usually not an option, as it will give rise tooverloading artifacts in the gels (O’Farrell 1975). Intranscriptomic studies, where a similar disparity canbe seen in the abundance of RNA transcripts present,this problem can be overcome by amplifying the lowabundance transcripts using the polymerase chainreaction (PCR), but no such technique is available forproteins. The remaining option, then, is fractionationof the protein sample in order to weed out the highabundance proteins, allowing a larger sample of theremaining proteins to be analyzed. A large number offractionation protocols, both specific and general, areavailable. Thus, Østergaard et al. used acetone pre-cipitation to reduce the abundance of hordeins pres-ent in barley (Hordeum vulgare) extracts (Østergaardet al. 2002), whereas Locke et al. used preparativeisoelectrofocusing to fractionate Chinese snow pea(Pisum sativum macrocarpon) lysates into fractionscovering three pH regions (Locke et al. 2002). Thefractionation method of choice will depend on thespecific requirements of the study and on the tis-sue being studied. Discussion of some fractionationmethods can be found in Butt et al. (2001), Corthalset al. (1997), Dreger (2003), Issaq et al. (2002), Lo-pez et al. (2000), Millea and Krull (2003), Pieper etal. (2003), and Rothemund et al. (2003).
IDENTIFICATION BY PEPTIDE MASS
FINGERPRINTING
Identification of proteins on 2DE gels is most com-monly achieved via mass spectrometry of trypsindigests. Briefly, the spot of interest is excised fromthe gel and digested with trypsin (or another pro-tease), and the resulting peptide mixture is analyzedby mass spectrometry. The most popular mass spec-trometry method is matrix-assisted laser desorp-tion/ionization –time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) massspectrometry (Courchesne and Patterson 1999),where peptides are suspended in a matrix of small,organic, UV-absorbing molecules (such as 2,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid), followed by ionization by alaser at the excitation wavelength of the matrix mol-ecules and acceleration of the ionized peptides in anelectrostatic field into a flight tube where the time offlight of each peptide is measured, giving its expect-ed mass.
The resulting spectrum of peptide masses (Fig.18.5) is then used for protein identification by search-ing against expected peptide masses calculated fromdata in protein sequence databases, such as SwissProt or the National Center for Biotechnology In-formation (NCBI) nonredundant protein sequencesdata base, using the appropriate software. Severalprograms are available, many with a web-basedopen-access interface. The ExPASy Tools website(http://www.expasy.org/tools) contains links to mostof the available software for protein identificationand several other tools. Attaining a high identifica-tion rate is problematic in fish and seafood pro-teomics due to the relative paucity of available pro-tein sequence data for these animals. As can be seenin Table 18.1, this problem is surprisingly acute forspecies of commercial importance. To circumventthis problem, it is possible to take advantage of theavailable nucleotide sequences, which in many cas-es are more extensive than the protein sequencesavailable, to obtain a tentative identity. How usefulthis method is will depend on the length and qualityof the available nucleotide sequences. It is importantto realize, however, that an identity obtained in thismanner is less reliable than that obtained throughprotein sequences and should be regarded only astentative in the absence of corroborating evidence(such as two-dimensional immunoblots, correlatedactivity measurements, or transcript abundance). Intheir work on the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) liver proteome, Martin et al. (2003b) and
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 405
406 Part III: Muscle Foods
Vilhelmsson et al. (2004) were able to attain anidentification rate of about 80% using a combinationof search algorithms that included the open-accessMascot program (Perkins et al. 1999) and a licensedversion of Protein Prospector MS-Fit (Clauser et al.1999), searching against both protein databases anda database containing all salmonid nucleotide se-quences. In those cases where both the protein andnucleotide databases yielded results, a 100% agree-ment was observed between the two methods.
A more direct, if rather more time consuming,way of obtaining protein identities is by direct se-quence comparison. Until recently, this was accom-plished by N-terminal or internal (after proteolysis)sequencing by Edman degradation of eluted or elec-troblotted protein spots (Erdjument-Bromage et al.1999, Kamo and Tsugita 1999). Today, the methodof choice is tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). Inthe peptide mass fingerprinting discussed above,each peptide mass can potentially represent any of alarge number of possible amino acid sequence com-binations. The larger the mass (and longer the se-quence), the higher is the number of possible combi-
nations. In MS/MS one or several peptides are sepa-rated from the mixture and dissociated into frag-ments that then are subjected to a second round ofmass spectrometry, yielding a second layer of infor-mation. Correlating this spectrum with the candidatepeptides identified in the first round narrows downthe number of candidates. Furthermore, several shortstretches of amino acid sequence will be obtainedfor each peptide, which, when combined with thepeptide and fragment masses obtained, enhances thespecificity of the method even further (Chelius et al.2003, Wilm et al. 1996, Yu et al. 2003b). Mass spec-trometry methods in proteomics are reviewed inYates (1998).
SEAFOOD PROTEOMICS ANDTHEIR RELEVANCE TOPROCESSING AND QUALITY
Two-dimensional electrophoresis–based proteomicshave found a number of applications within food sci-ence. Among early examples are such applicationsas characterization of bovine caseins (Zeece et al.
Figure 18.5. A trypsin digest mass spectrometry fingerprint of a rainbow trout liver protein spot, identified asapolipoprotein A I-1 (S. Martin, unpublished). The open arrows indicate mass peaks corresponding to trypsin self-digestion products and were, therefore, excluded from the analysis. The solid arrows indicate the peaks that werefound to correspond to expected apolipoprotein A I-1 peptides.
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 406
407
Tab
le 1
8.1.
Som
e C
omm
erci
ally
or
Sci
entifi
cally
Impo
rtan
t Fis
h an
d S
eafo
od S
peci
es a
nd th
e A
vaila
bilit
y of
Pro
tein
and
Nuc
leot
ide
Seq
uenc
e D
ata
as o
f Jun
e 7,
200
4
Prot
ein
Nuc
leot
ide
Prot
ein
Nuc
leot
ide
Sequ
ence
sSe
quen
ces
Sequ
ence
sSe
quen
ces
Act
inop
tery
gii(
ray-
finne
d fis
hes)
77,3
961,
586,
862
Tetr
aodo
ntif
orm
es(p
uffe
rs a
nd
29,3
8730
5,44
9fil
efish
es)
Elo
pom
orph
a1,
215
1,47
3Pu
ffer
fish
(Tak
ifug
u ru
brip
es)
948
89,9
01A
ngui
llif
orm
es(e
els
and
mor
ays)
966
1,35
4G
reen
puf
ferfi
sh(T
etra
odon
28
,149
215,
158
nigr
ovir
idis
)E
urop
ean
eel (
Ang
uill
a an
guil
la)
114
199
Zei
form
es(d
orie
s)17
157
Clu
peom
orph
a18
033
7Jo
hn D
ory
(Zeu
s fa
ber)
3429
Clu
peif
orm
es(h
erri
ngs)
180
337
Scor
paen
ifor
mes
(sco
rpio
nfish
es/
634
1,38
8fla
thea
ds)
Atla
ntic
her
ring
(C
lupe
a ha
reng
us)
2935
Red
fish
(Seb
aste
s m
arin
es)
37
Eur
opea
n pi
lcha
rd (
Sard
ina
1744
Lum
psuc
ker
(Cyc
lopt
erus
lum
pus)
314
pilc
hard
us)
Ost
ario
phys
ii21
,562
771,
661
Cyp
rini
form
es(c
arps
)18
,890
722,
727
Cho
ndri
chth
yes
(car
tila
geno
us
2,38
92,
224
fishe
s)Z
ebra
fish
(Dan
io r
erio
)13
,659
704,
204
Car
char
hini
form
es(g
roun
d sh
arks
)48
039
9Si
luri
form
es(c
atfis
hes)
1,67
447
,635
Les
ser
spot
ted
dogfi
sh (
Scyl
iorh
inus
208
104
cani
cula
)C
hann
el c
atfis
h (I
ctal
urus
pun
ctat
us)
532
35,2
40B
lue
shar
k (P
rion
ace
glau
ca)
84
Pro
taca
ntho
pter
ygii
4,39
225
7,95
3L
amni
form
es(m
ackr
el s
hark
s)17
823
9Sa
lmon
ifor
mes
(sal
mon
s)4,
230
257,
923
Bas
king
sha
rk (
Cet
orhi
nus
max
imus
)16
16A
tlant
ic s
alm
on (
Salm
o sa
lar)
686
90,5
77R
ajif
orm
es(s
kate
s)27
530
4R
ainb
ow tr
out (
Onc
orhy
nchu
s m
ykis
s)1,
480
159,
907
Tho
rny
skat
e (R
aja
radi
ata)
396
Arc
tic c
harr
(Sa
lvel
inus
alp
inus
)90
251
Blu
e sk
ate
(Raj
a ba
tis)
10
Para
cant
hopt
eryg
ii1,
880
2,33
5L
ittle
ska
te (
Raj
a er
inac
ea)
162
152
Gad
ifor
mes
(cod
s)1,
445
1,52
8A
tlant
ic c
od (
Gad
us m
orhu
a)90
593
6M
ollu
sca
(mol
lusk
s)11
,229
35,1
87A
lask
a po
llock
(T
hera
gra
124
136
Biv
alvi
a3,
072
15,9
26ch
alco
gram
ma)
Saith
e (P
olla
chiu
s vi
rens
)16
26B
lue
mus
sel (
Myt
ilus
edu
lis)
535
591
(Con
tinue
s)
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 407
408
Tab
le 1
8.1.
(Con
tinue
d)
Prot
ein
Nuc
leot
ide
Prot
ein
Nuc
leot
ide
Sequ
ence
sSe
quen
ces
Sequ
ence
sSe
quen
ces
Had
dock
(M
elan
ogra
mm
us a
egle
finus
)56
61B
ay s
callo
p (A
rgop
ecte
n ir
radi
ans)
992,
106
Lop
hiif
orm
es(a
ngle
rfish
es)
197
82G
astr
opod
a7,
036
17,4
84M
onkfi
sh (
Lop
hius
pis
cato
rius
)6
9C
omm
on w
helk
(B
ucci
num
und
atum
)4
15A
cant
hopt
eryg
ii45
,732
550,
100
Aba
lone
(H
alio
tis
tube
rcul
ata)
1115
8Pe
rcif
orm
es(p
erch
-lik
es)
9,53
260
,715
Cep
halo
poda
931
1,49
0G
ilthe
ad s
ea b
ream
(Sp
arus
aur
ata)
139
325
Nor
ther
n E
urop
ean
squi
d (L
olig
o 30
39fo
rbes
i)E
urop
ean
sea
bass
(D
icen
trac
hus
150
264
Com
mon
cut
tlefis
h (S
epia
offi
cina
lis)
5244
labr
ax)
Atla
ntic
mac
krel
(Sc
ombe
r sc
ombr
us)
823
Com
mon
oct
opus
(O
ctop
us v
ulga
ris)
5879
Alb
acor
e (T
hunn
us a
lalu
nga)
4012
4B
luefi
n tu
na (
Thu
nnus
thyn
nus)
8517
8C
rust
acea
(cru
stac
eans
)6,
295
24,6
38Sp
otte
d w
olffi
sh (
Ana
rhic
has
min
or)
3016
Car
idea
689
916
Ber
ycif
orm
es (
saw
bell
ies)
345
181
Nor
ther
n sh
rim
p (P
anda
lus
bore
alis
)11
8O
rang
e ro
ughy
(H
oplo
stet
hus
012
Ast
acid
ea(l
obst
ers
and
cray
fishe
s)64
63,
507
atla
ntic
us)
Ple
uron
ecti
form
es(fl
atfis
hes)
957
7,39
2A
mer
ican
lobs
ter
(Hom
erus
16
02,
140
amer
ican
us)
Atla
ntic
hal
ibut
(H
ippo
glos
sus
3869
9E
urop
ean
cray
fish
(Ast
acus
ast
acus
)26
11hi
ppog
loss
us)
Witc
h (G
lypt
ocep
halu
s cy
nogl
ossu
s)5
22L
ango
ustin
e (N
ephr
ops
norv
egic
us)
1818
Plai
ce (
Ple
uron
ecte
s pl
ates
sa)
5021
6B
rach
yura
(sho
rt-t
aile
d cr
abs)
556
1,21
3W
inte
r flo
unde
r (P
seud
ople
uron
ecte
s 13
11,
347
Edi
ble
crab
(C
ance
r pa
guru
s)34
7am
eric
anus
)T
urbo
t (Sc
opht
halm
us m
axim
us)
4911
2B
lue
crab
(C
alli
nect
es s
apid
us)
4530
Sour
ce:
NC
BI
TaxB
row
ser
(http
://w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.gov
/Tax
onom
y/ta
xono
myh
ome.
htm
l/).
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 408
18 Proteomics in Fish Processing 409
1989), wheat flour baking quality factors (Dough-erty et al. 1990), and soybean protein bodies (Leiand Reeck 1987). In recent years, proteomic investi-gations on fish and seafood products, as well as infish physiology, have gained considerable momen-tum, as can be seen in recent reviews (Parringtonand Coward 2002, Piñeiro et al. 2003). Herein, re-cent and future developments in fish and seafoodproteomics as relates to issues of concern in fishprocessing or other quality considerations are dis-cussed, paying particular attention to the as yet littleexploited potential for investigating the antemortemproteome for the benefit of postmortem quality invo-lution.
TRACKING QUALITY CHANGES USING
PROTEOMICS
A persistent problem in the seafood industry is post-mortem degradation of fish muscle during chilledstorage, which has deleterious effects on the fishflesh texture, yielding a tenderized muscle. Thisphenomenon is thought to be primarily due to autol-ysis of muscle proteins, but the details of this proteindegradation are still somewhat in the dark. However,degradation of myofibrillar proteins by calpains andcathepsins (Ladrat et al. 2000, Ogata et al. 1998) anddegradation of the extracellular matrix by the matrixmetalloproteases and matrix serine proteases, whichare capable of degrading collagens, proteoglycans,and other matrix components (Lødemel and Olsen2003, Woessner 1991), are thought to be among themain culprits. Whatever the mechanism, it is clearthat these quality changes are species dependent(Papa et al. 1996, Verrez-Bagnis et al. 1999) and,furthermore, appear to display seasonal variations(Ingólfsdóttir et al. 1998, Ladrat et al. 2000). Forexample, whereas desmin is degraded postmortemin sardine and turbot, no desmin degradation wasobserved in sea bass and brown trout (Verrez-Bagniset al. 1999). Of further concern is the fact that sever-al commercially important fish muscle processingtechniques, such as curing, fermentation, and pro-duction of surimi and conserves, occur under condi-tions conducive to endogenous proteolysis (Pérez-Borla et al. 2002). As with postmortem proteindegradation during storage, autolysis during pro-cessing seems to be somewhat specific. Indeed, themyosin heavy chain of the Atlantic cod was shownto be significantly degraded during processing of
“salt fish” (bachalhau), whereas actin was lessaffected (Thorarinsdottir et al. 2002). Problems ofthis kind, where differences are expected to occur inthe number, molecular mass, and pH of the proteinspresent in a tissue, are well suited to investigationusing 2DE-based proteomics. It is also worth notingthat protein isoforms other than proteolytic ones,whether they be encoded in structural genes orbrought about by posttranslational modification,usually have a different molecular weight or pH andcan, therefore, be distinguished on 2DE gels. Thus,specific isoforms of myofibrillar proteins, many ofwhich are correlated with specific textural propertiesin seafood products, can be observed using 2DE orother proteomic methods (Martinez et al. 1990,Piñeiro et al. 2003).
Several 2DE studies have been performed onpostmortem changes in seafood flesh (Kjærsgårdand Jessen 2003, Martinez and Jakobsen Friis 2004,Martinez et al. 2001a, Martinez et al. 1990, Mor-zel et al. 2000, Verrez-Bagnis et al. 1999) and havedemonstrated the importance and complexity of pro-teolysis in seafood during storage and processing.For example, Martinez et al. (1992) used a 2DEapproach to demonstrate different protein composi-tions of surimi made from prerigor versus postrigorcod, and they found that 2DE could distinguish be-tween the two. Kjærsgård and Jessen, who used2DE to study changes in the abundance of severalmuscle proteins during storage of the Atlantic cod(Gadus morhua), proposed a general model for post-mortem protein degradation in fish flesh in whichinitially calpains are activated due to the increase incalcium levels in the muscle tissue. Later, as pHdecreases and ATP is depleted, with the consequentonset of rigor mortis, cathepsins and the proteasomeare activated sequentially (Kjærsgård and Jessen2003).
ANTEMORTEM EFFECTS ON QUALITY AND
PROCESSABILITY
Malcolm Love started his 1980 review paper on bio-logical factors affecting fish processing (Love 1980)with a lament for the easy life of poultry processorswho, he said, had the good fortune to work on aproduct reared from hatching under strictly con-trolled environmental and dietary conditions “so thatplastic bundles of almost identical foodstuff for mancan be lined up on the shelf of a shop.” Since the
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 409
410 Part III: Muscle Foods
time of Love’s review, the advent of aquaculture hasmade attainable, in theory at least, just such a utopi-an vision. As every food processor knows, the quali-ty of the raw material is among the most crucialvariables that affect the quality of the final product.In fish processing, therefore, the animal’s own indi-vidual physiological status will to a large extent dic-tate where quality characteristics will fall within theconstraints set by the species’ physical and bio-chemical makeup. It is well known that an organ-ism’s phenotype, including quality characteristics, isdetermined by environmental as well as genetic fac-tors. Indeed, Huss noted in his review (Huss 1995)that product quality differences within the same fishspecies can depend on feeding and rearing condi-tions, differences wherein can affect postmortembiochemical processes in the product, which in turn,affect the involution of quality characteristics in thefish product. The practice of rearing fish in aquacul-ture, as opposed to catching wild fish, therefore raisesthe tantalizing prospect of managing the qualitycharacteristics of the fish flesh antemortem, whereindividual physiological characteristics, such as thosegoverning gaping tendency, flesh softening duringstorage, and so on, are optimized. To achieve thatgoal, the interplay between these physiological para-meters and environmental and dietary variablesneeds to be understood in detail. With the ever-increasing resolving power of molecular techniques,such as proteomics, this is fast becoming feasible.
Antemortem Metabolism and PostmortemQuality in Trout
In mammals, antemortem protease activities havebeen shown to affect meat quality and texture (Kris-tensen et al. 2002, Vaneenaeme et al. 1994). Forexample, an antemortem upregulation of calpainactivity in swine (Sus scrofa) will affect postmortemproteolysis and, hence, meat tenderization (Kris-tensen et al. 2002). In beef (Bos taurus), a correla-tion was found between ante- and postmortem activ-ities of some proteases, but not others (Vaneenaemeet al. 1994). As discussed in the above section, post-mortem proteolysis is a matter of considerable im-portance in the fish and seafood industry, and anyantemortem effects thereon are surely worth investi-gating.
In a recent study on the feasibility of substitutingfishmeal in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
diets with protein from plant sources, 2DE-basedproteomics were among techniques used (Martin etal. 2003a,b; Vilhelmsson et al. 2004). Concomit-antly, various quality characteristics of fillet and bodywere also measured (De Francesco et al. 2004, Parisiet al. 2004). Among the findings was that, accordingto a triangular sensory test using a trained panel,cooked trout that had been fed the plant protein diethad higher hardness, lower juiciness, and lower odorintensity than those fed the fishmeal-containing diet,indicating an effect of antemortem metabolism onproduct texture. Furthermore, the amount and com-position of free amino acids in the fish flesh was sig-nificantly affected by the diet, as was the post-mortem development of the free amino acid pool.For example, while abundance of arginine was foundto decrease during storage of flesh from fishmeal-fed fish, it increased during storage of plant protein–fed fish (Table 18.2). The diets had been formulatedto have a nearly identical amino acid composition,and therefore these results may be taken to indicatealtered postmortem proteolytic activity in the plantprotein–fed fish as compared with the fishmeal-fedones.
In the proteomics part of the study, the liver pro-teome was chosen for investigation, since the liver isthe primary seat of many of the fish’s key metabolicpathways. This makes a direct comparison of theproteomic and quality characteristics results diffi-cult; nevertheless, some interesting observations canbe made. The study identified a number of metabol-ic pathways sensitive to plant protein substitution inrainbow trout feed, for example, pathways involvedin cellular protein degradation, fatty acid break-down, and NADPH metabolism (Table 18.3). In thecontext of this chapter, the effects on the proteasomeare particularly noteworthy. The proteasome is amultisubunit enzyme complex that catalyzes prote-olysis via the ATP-dependent ubiquitin-proteasomepathway, which in mammals, is thought to be re-sponsible for a large fraction of cellular proteolysis(Craiu et al. 1997, Rock et al. 1994). In rainbowtrout, the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway has beenshown to be downregulated in response to starvation(Martin et al. 2002) and to have a role in regulatingprotein deposition efficiency (Dobly et al. 2004).
Correlating the findings of these two parts of thestudy, it seems likely that the difference in textureand postmortem free amino acid pool developmentare affected by antemortem proteasome activity,
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 410
18 Proteomics in Fish Processing 411
Table 18.2. Free Amino Acids and NH3 Levels in Muscle of Trout Fed a Fishmeal–ContainingDiet (FM) or a Plant Protein–Containing Diet (PP) at 0 and 9 Days after Death
0 d FM 9 d FM 0 d PP 9 d PPFAA � NH3 (n � 3) (n � 3) (n � 3) (n � 3)
(mg/100 g fresh muscle) (Mean � SD) (Mean � SD) (Mean � SD) (Mean � SD)
D,O-phosphoserine 0.52�0.19 0.47�0.22 0.49�0.05 1.10�0.25O-phosphoethanolamine NDa 0.22�0.44 ND NDTaurine 91.05�48.32 96.68�26.21 66.01�22.48 95.00�27.40Aspartic acid 0.52�0.30 0.32�0.18 0.21�0.22 0.74�0.30Threonine 6.36�1.24 6.81�1.37 6.94�2.65 11.94�1.91Serine 4.57�1.66 6.41�2.03 2.92�1.39 4.00�0.40Asparagine 7.33�2.43 ND 5.03�0.83 NDGlutamic acid 8.61�2.87 13.03�2.61 6.41�1.33 13.92�5.51Glutamine 22.74�2.51 3.24�3.78 14.79�3.27 NDProline 2.03�0.90 5.12�2.27 17.10�2.14 14.59�10.11Glycine 61.18�7.43 93.99�21.81 76.50�42.51 81.85�30.06Alanine 11.48�6.80 16.88�2.18 13.33�1.73 24.33�5.14Citrulline 0.22�0.30 0.22�0.26 1.76�0.94 0.19�0.242-amino-n-butyric acid 0.21�0.08 0.19�0.06 0.41�0.12 0.38�0.06Valine 3.55�0.85 4.35�1.02 3.84�0.62 5.64�1.08Cystine ND 0.03�0.06 ND NDMethionine 1.99�0.63 2.60�0.67 1.82�0.21 2.16�0.26Cystathionine ND 0.17�0.06 0.13�0.05 0.17�0.02Leucine 1.79�0.54 2.35�0.61 1.67�0.37 2.88�0.65Isoleucine 2.88�0.55 3.72�0.77 2.81�0.43 4.49�0.68Phenylalanine 1.06�0.45 1.89�0.72 1.26�0.15 2.02�0.28Tyrosine 1.65�0.74 2.11�060 1.46�0.75 2.03�0.23�-alanine 3.03�1.72 4.09�0.88 5.64�2.29 8.63�3.78D-2-amino-isobutyric acid 0.09�0.16 ND 0.06�0.11 0.12�0.21D-homocystine 0.02�0.03 0.03�0.06 0.15�0.15 0.09�0.08D-4-amino-butyric acid 1.65�0.12 1.36�0.38 4.10�3.92 5.22�1.30Tryptophane ND ND ND NDEthanolamine ND ND ND NDAllo-hyd ND ND ND NDD-hydroxylysine ND ND ND NDNH3 43.48�1.34 47.68�5.12 47.16�5.17 52.33�1.37Ornithine 2.74�1.29 1.55�0.66 1.85�0.53 5.08�5.00Lysine 31.54�24.53 18.17�6.74 15.43�5.37 22.46�3.09Histidine 32.03�15.42 39.29�3.91 147.49�15.71 127.40�21.453-methyhistidyne 0.06�0.02 0.06�0.05 0.14�0.25 0.08�0.141-methyhistidyne 0.57�0.35 3.88�1.25 0.39�0.20 5.58�2.34Anserine�L-carnosine 466.46�50.44 398.46�23.85 515.03�132.25 451.93�21.90Arginine 9.50�4.64 5.60�2.68 4.77�1.20 7.86�1.35� 873.62 834.55 1022.85 1013.70aND � identity not determined.
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 411
412
Tab
le 1
8.3.
Pro
tein
Spo
ts A
ffect
ed b
y D
ieta
ry P
lant
Pro
tein
Sub
stitu
tion
in R
ainb
ow T
rout
as
Judg
ed b
y 2D
E a
nd T
heir
Iden
titie
s as
Det
erm
ined
by
Tryp
sin
Dig
est M
ass
Fin
gerp
rintin
g
Spot
Nor
mal
ized
Nor
mal
ized
Ref
eren
ceM
WV
olum
eV
olum
eFo
ldN
o.pH
(kD
a)D
iet F
Ma
Die
t PP1
00a
Dif
fere
nce
P
Dow
nreg
ulat
ed12
86.
366
303
�57
60 �
19V
acuo
lar A
TPa
se
50.
026
�-s
ubun
it29
16.
442
521
�37
273
�30
�-u
reid
opro
pion
ase
20.
004
356
6.3
3816
1 �
3744
�19
Tra
nsal
dola
se4
0.03
174
75.
643
101
�19
19 �
11�
-act
in2
0.04
076
06.
339
41 �
621
�5
ND
b2
0.04
076
64.
827
12 �
16
�1
ND
20.
004
Upr
egul
ated
804.
482
9 �
447
�8
“Unk
now
n pr
otei
n”5
0.00
787
5.7
7558
�14
262
�21
Tra
nsfe
rrin
5�
0.00
113
85.
567
99 �
1626
7 �
39H
emop
exin
-lik
e3
0.00
914
45.
463
26 �
626
5 �
66L
-Pla
stin
100.
018
190
5.9
546
�2
50 �
9M
alic
enz
yme
90.
018
199
5.9
5360
�16
156
�13
Thy
roid
hor
mon
e 3
0.02
0re
cept
or27
56.
145
1 �
0.6
11 �
0.6
NSH
b9
�0.
001
387
5.6
3597
�3
251
�49
Ele
ctro
n tr
ansf
erri
ng
30.
035
flavo
prot
ein
389
5.8
3519
2 �
4541
4 �
54E
lect
ron
tran
sfer
ring
2
0.02
7fla
vopr
otei
n39
96.
833
59 �
1213
0 �
10A
ldol
ase
B2
0.02
845
74.
729
26 �
757
�5
14-3
-3 B
2 pr
otei
n2
0.02
146
14.
727
75 �
919
0 �
12Pr
otea
som
e al
pha
23
0.00
451
74.
422
15 �
613
5 �
29C
ytoc
hrom
e c
oxid
ase
90.
013
539
4.9
197
�3
18 �
3N
D3
0.03
355
14.
117
40 �
1114
3 �
28N
D4
0.01
856
35.
215
814
�19
837
62 �
984
Fatty
aci
d bi
ndin
g 5
0.03
9pr
otei
n
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 412
413
639
6.4
8410
�6
28 �
5N
SH3
0.04
764
86.
155
17 �
515
4 �
46H
ydro
xym
ethy
lglu
tary
l-9
0.04
0C
oA s
ynth
ase
678
5.3
4826
�7
69 �
15Pr
otea
som
e 26
S3
0.04
4A
TPa
se s
ubun
it 4
746
4.4
4645
�13
107
�15
“sim
ilar
to c
aten
in”
20.
012
754
4.1
156
�2
36 �
4N
D7
�0.
001
761
6.1
3644
�21
204
�34
Tra
nsal
dola
se5
0.00
676
46.
265
010
2 �
17N
SH�
10N
/A77
05.
021
4 �
118
�4
ND
40.
026
a Val
ues
are
mea
n no
rmal
ized
pro
tein
abu
ndan
ce (
�SE
). D
ata
wer
e an
alyz
ed b
y th
e St
uden
t’s t
test
(n
�5)
. In
diet
FM
, pro
tein
was
pro
vide
d in
the
form
of
fishm
eal;
in d
iet P
P100
, pro
tein
was
pro
vide
d by
a c
ockt
ail o
f pl
ant p
rodu
ct w
ith a
n eq
uiva
lent
am
ino
acid
com
posi
tion
to fi
shm
eal.
b NSH
�no
sig
nific
ant h
omol
ogy
dete
cted
; ND
�id
entit
y no
t det
erm
ined
.
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 413
414 Part III: Muscle Foods
although further studies are needed to verify thatstatement.
Potential for Further Antemortem ProteinDegradation Studies
We are not aware of any proteomic studies, otherthan that discussed above, into the link between an-temortem protein metabolism and postmortem qual-ity in fish and seafood. However, given the substan-tial importance of protein degradation to the qualityand processability of fish and seafood, it may beworthwhile to consider the potential for applicationof proteomics within this field of study. In additionto having a hand in controlling autolysis determi-nants, protein turnover is a major regulatory engineof cellular structure, function, and biochemistry.Cellular protein turnover involves at least two majorsystems: the lysosomal system and the ubiquitin-proteasome system (Hershko and Ciechanover 1986,Mortimore et al. 1989). The 20S proteasome hasbeen found to have a role in regulating the efficiencywith which rainbow trout deposit protein (Dobly etal. 2004). It seems likely that the manner in whichprotein deposition is regulated, particularly in mus-cle tissue, has profound implications for the qualityand processability of the fish flesh.
Protein turnover systems, such as the ubiquitin-proteasome or the lysosome systems, are suitable forrigorous investigation using proteomic methods. Forexample, lysosomes can be isolated and the lyso-some subproteome queried to answer the question ofwhether and to what extent lysosome compositionvaries among fish expected to yield flesh of differentquality characteristics. Proteomic analysis on lyso-somes has been successfully performed in mam-malian (human) systems (Journet et al. 2000, Journetet al. 2002).
An exploitable property of proteasome-mediatedprotein degradation is the phenomenon of polyubiq-uitination, whereby proteins are targeted for destruc-tion by the proteasome by covalent binding to multi-ple copies of ubiquitin (Ciechanover 1994, Hershkoand Ciechanover 1986). By targeting these ubiquitin-labeledproteins, it ispossible toobserve theubiquitin-proteasome “degradome,” that is, to observe whichproteins are being degraded by the proteasome at agiven time or under given conditions. Gygi et al.have developed methods to study the ubiquitin-pro-teasome degradome in the yeast Saccharomyces
cerevisiae using multidimensional LC-MS/MS (Penget al. 2003).
Some proteolysis systems, such as that of thematrix metalloproteases, may be less directly amen-able to proteomic study. Activity of matrix metallo-proteases is regulated via a complex network of spe-cific proteases (Brown et al. 1993, Okumura et al.1997, Wang and Lakatta 2002). Monitoring of theexpression levels of these regulatory enzymes andhow they vary with environmental or dietary vari-ables may be more conveniently carried out usingtranscriptomic methods.
Can Antemortem Proteomics Shed Light onGaping Tendency?
A well-known quality issue when farmed fish arecompared with wild catch is that of gaping, a phe-nomenon caused by cleavage by matrix proteases ofmyocommatal collagen cross-links, which results inweakening and rupturing of connective tissue (Bør-resen 1992, Foegeding et al. 1996). Gaping can be aserious quality issue in the fish processing industryas, apart from the obvious visual defect, it causesdifficulties in mechanical skinning and slicing (Love1992) of the fish. Weakening of collagen, and hence,gaping, is facilitated by low pH. Well-fed fish, suchas those reared in aquaculture, tend to yield flesh ofcomparatively low pH, which thus tends to gape(Einen et al. 1999, Foegeding et al. 1996). Gaping istherefore a cause for concern with aquaculture-reared fish, particularly of species with high naturalgaping tendency, such as the Atlantic cod. Gapingtendency varies considerably among wild fishcaught in different areas (Love et al. 1974), and thus,it is conceivable that gaping tendency can be con-trolled with dietary or other environmental manip-ulations. Proteomics and transcriptomics, with theircapacity to monitor multiple biochemical processessimultaneously, are methodologies eminently suit-able to finding biochemical or metabolic markersthat can be used for predicting features such as gap-ing tendendency of different stocks reared under dif-ferent dietary or environmental conditions.
SPECIES AUTHENTICATION
Food authentication is an area of increasing impor-tance, both economically and from a public healthstandpoint. Taking into account the large differences
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 414
18 Proteomics in Fish Processing 415
in the market value of different fish species and theincreased prevalence of processed product on themarket, it is perhaps not surprising that speciesauthentication is fast becoming an issue of supremecommercial importance. Along with other moleculartechniques, such as DNA-based species identifica-tion (Mackie et al. 1999, Martinez et al. 2001b,Sotelo et al. 1993) and isotope distribution tech-niques for determining geographical origin (Cam-pana and Thorrold 2001), proteomics are proving tobe a powerful tool in this area, particularly foraddressing questions on the health status of theorganism, stresses or contamination levels at theplace of breeding, and postmortem treatment (Mar-tinez and Jakobsen Friis 2004). Martinez et al.
(2003) recently reviewed proteomic and other meth-ods for species authentication in foodstuffs. Since,unlike the genome, the proteome is not a static enti-ty, but changes between tissues and with environ-mental conditions, proteomics can potentially yieldmore information than genomic methods, possiblyindicating freshness and tissue information in addi-tion to species. Therefore, although it is likely thatDNA-based methods will remain the methods ofchoice for species authentication in the near term,proteomic methods are likely to develop rapidly andfind commercial uses within this field. In many cases,the proteomes of even closely related fish speciescan be easily distinguishable by eye from one anoth-er on 2D gels (Fig. 18.6), indicating that diagnostic
Figure 18.6. 2DE liver proteome maps of four salmonid fish (S. Martin and O. Vilhelmsson, unpublished). Runningconditions are as in Figure 18.2. A. Brown trout (Salmo trutta), B. Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus), C. rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss), D. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).
A
B
C D
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 415
416 Part III: Muscle Foods
protein spots may be used to distinguish closelyrelated species.
From early on, proteomic methods have been rec-ognized as a potential method of fish species identi-fication. During the 1960s one-dimensional electro-phoretic techniques were developed to identify theraw flesh of various species (Cowie 1968, Mackie1969, Tsuyuki et al. 1966); this was soon followedby methods to identify species in processed orcooked products (Mackie 1972, Mackie and Taylor1972). These early efforts were reviewed in 1980(Hume and Mackie 1980, Mackie 1980).
More recently, 2DE-based methods have beendeveloped to distinguish various closely relatedspecies, such as the gadoids or several flat fishes(Piñeiro et al. 1999, Piñeiro et al. 1998, Piñeiro et al.2001). Piñeiro et al. have found that Cape hake(Merluccius capensis) and European hake (Merluc-cius merluccius) can be distinguished on 2D gelsfrom other closely related species by the presence ofa particular protein spot that they identified, usingnanoelectrospray ionization mass spectrometry, asnucleoside diphosphate kinase (Piñeiro et al. 2001).Lopez et al., studying three species of Europeanmussels, Mytilus edulis, Mytilus galloprovincialisand Mytilus trossulus, found that M. trossulus couldbe distinguished from the other two species on footextract 2D gels by a difference in a tropomyosinspot. They found the difference to be due to a singleT to D amino acid substitution (Lopez et al. 2002).Recently, Martinez and Jakobsen Friis went furtherand attempted to identify not only the species pres-ent, but also their relative ratios in mixtures of sever-al fish species and muscle types (Martinez andJakobsen Friis 2004). They concluded that such astrategy would become viable once a suitable num-ber of markers have been identified, although detec-tion of species present in very different ratios isproblematic.
IDENTIFICATION ANDCHARACTERIZATION OFALLERGENS
Food safety is a matter of increasing concern to foodproducers and should be included in any considera-tion of product quality. Among issues within thisfield that are of particular concern to the seafoodproducer is that of allergenic potential. Allergic re-actions to seafood affect a significant part of the
population: about 0.5% of young adults are allergicto shrimp (Woods et al. 2002). Seafood allergies arecaused by an immunoglobulin E–mediated responseto particular proteins, including structural proteinssuch as tropomyosin (Lehrer et al. 2003). Proteo-mics provide a highly versatile toolkit to identifyand characterize allergens. As yet, these have seenlittle use in the study of seafood allergies, althoughan interesting and elegant approach has been report-ed by Yu et al. (Yu et al. 2003a) at National TaiwanUniversity. These authors, studying the cause ofshrimp allergy in humans, performed 2DE on crudeprotein extracts from the tiger prawn, Penaeus mon-odon, blotted the 2D gel onto a polyvinyl difluoride(PVDF) membrane, and probed the membranes withserum from confirmed shrimp allergic patients. Theallergens were then identified by MALDI-TOF massspectrometry of tryptic digests. The allergen wasidentified as a protein with close similarity to argi-nine kinase. The identity was further corroboratedby cloning and sequencing the relevant cDNA. Afinal proof was obtained by purifying the protein,demonstrating that it had arginine kinase activityand reacted to serum IgE from shrimp allergicpatients and, furthermore, induced skin reactions insensitized shrimp allergic patients.
REFERENCESAebersold R, Mann M. 2003. Mass spectrometry-based
proteomics. Nature 422:198–207.Babu GJ, Wheeler D, Alzate O, Periasamy M. 2004.
Solubilization of membrane proteins for two-dimensional gel electrophoresis: identification of sar-coplasmic reticulum membrane proteins. Anal Bio-chem 325:121–125.
Bae SH, Harris AG, Hains PG, Chen H, Garfin DE,Hazell SL, Paik YK, Walsh BJ, Cordwell SJ. 2003.Strategies for the enrichment and identification ofbasic proteins in proteome projects. Proteomics 3:569–579.
Berkelman T, Stenstedt T 1998. 2-D ElectrophoresisUsing Immobilized pH Gradients: Principles andMethods. Uppsala, Sweden: Amersham Biosciences.104 pp.
Børresen T. 1992. Quality aspects of wild and rearedfish. In: HH Huss, M Jakobsen, J Liston, editors.Quality Assurance in the Fish Industry, pp. 1–17.Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Bossi A, Righetti PG, Vecchio G and Severinsen S.1994. Focusing of alkaline proteases (subtilisins) in
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 416
18 Proteomics in Fish Processing 417
pH 10–12 immobilized pH gradients. Electro-phoresis 15:1535–1540.
Brown PD, Kleiner DE, Unsworth EJ, Stetler-StevensonWG. 1993. Cellular activation of the 72 kDa type IVprocollagenase/TIMP-2 complex. Kidney Int 43:163–170.
Butt A, Davison MD, Smith GJ, Young JA, Gaskell SJ,Oliver SG, Beynon RJ. 2001. Chromatographic sep-arations as a prelude to two-dimensional elec-trophoresis in proteomics analysis. Proteomics 1:42–53.
Campana SE, Thorrold SR. 2001. Otoliths, increments,an elements: Keys to a comprehensive understandingof fish populations? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:30–38.
Cash P. 2002. Proteomics: The protein revolution.Biologist 49:58–62.
Cash P, Kroll JS. 2003. Protein characterization bytwo-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Meth Mol Med71:101–118.
Chelius D, Zhang T, Wang GH, Shen RF. 2003. Globalprotein identification and quantification technologyusing two-dimensional liquid chromatography nano-spray mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 75:6658–6665.
Chevallet M, Santoni V, Poinas A, Rouquie D, Fuchs A,Kieffer S, Rossignol M, Lunardi J, Garin J, Rabil-loudT. 1998. New zwitterionic detergents improve theanalysis of membrane proteins by two-dimensionalelectrophoresis. Electrophoresis 19:1901–1909.
Ciechanover A. 1994. The ubiquitin-proteasome prote-olytic pathway. Cell 79:13–21.
Clauser KR, Baker PR and Burlingame AL. 1999. Roleof accurate measurement (� 10 ppm) in proteinidentification strategies employing MS or MS/MSand database searching. Anal Chem 71:2871–2882.
Cordwell SJ, Nouwens AS, Verrills NM, Basseal DJ,Walsh BJ. 2000. Subproteomics based upon proteincellular location and relative solubilities in conjunc-tion with composite two-dimensional electrophore-sis gels. Electrophoresis 21:1094–1103.
Corthals GL, Molloy MP, Herbert BR, Williams KL,Gooley AA. 1997. Prefractionation of protein sam-ples prior to two-dimensional electrophoresis. Elec-trophoresis 18:317–323.
Courchesne PL, Patterson SD. 1999. Identification ofproteins by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ioniza-tion mass spectrometry using peptide and fragmention masses. In: AJ Link, editor. 2-D Proteome Ana-lysis Protocols, pp. 487–511. Totowa, New Jersey:Humana Press.
Cowie WP. 1968. Identification of fish species by thinslab polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. J Sci FoodAgric 19:226–229.
Craiu A, Akopian T, Goldberg A, Rock KL. 1997. Twodistinct proteolytic processes in the generation of amajor histocompatibility complex class I-presentedpeptide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:10850–10855.
De Francesco M, Parisi G, Médale F, Lupi P, KaushikSJ, Poli BM. 2004. Effect of long-term feeding witha plant protein mixture based diet on growth andbody/fillet quality traits of large rainbow trout (On-corhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture. (In press)
Dobly A, Martin SAM, Blaney S and Houlihan DF.2004. Efficiency of conversion of ingested proteinsinto growth; protein degradation assessed by 20Sproteasome activity in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchusmykiss. Comp Biochem Physiol A 137:75–85.
Dougherty DA, Wehling RL, Zeece MG, Partridge JE.1990. Evaluation of selected baking quality factorsof hard red winter wheat flours by two-dimensionalelectrophoresis. Cereal Chem 67:564–569.
Dreger M. 2003. Subcellular proteomics. Mass Spec-trometry Reviews 22:27–56.
Einen O, Mørkøre T, Rørå AMB and Thomassen MS.1999. Feed ration prior to slaughter—A potentialtool for managing product quality of Atlantic salmon(Salmo salar). Aquaculture 178:149–169.
Erdjument-Bromage H, Lui M, Lacomis L, Tempst P.1999. Characterizing proteins from 2-DE gels byinternal sequence analysis of peptide fragments. In:AJ Link, editor. 2-D Proteome Analysis Protocols,pp. 467–472. Totowa, New Jersey: Humana Press.
Foegeding EA, Lanier TC, Hultin HO. 1996. Char-acteristics of edible muscle tissues. In: OR Fennema,editor. Food Chemistry, pp. 879–942. New York:Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Görg A, Obermaier C, Boguth G, Csordas A, Diaz J-J,Madjar J-J. 1997. Very alkaline immobilized pH gra-dients for two-dimensional electrophoresis of ribo-somal and nuclear proteins. Electrophoresis 18:328–337.
Görg A, Obermaier C, Boguth G, Weiss W. 1999. Re-cent developments in two-dimensional gel electro-phoresis with immobilized pH gradients: Wide pHgradients up to pH 12, longer separation distancesand simplified procedures. Electrophoresis 20:712–717.
Görg A, Postel W, Gunther S. 1988. The current state oftwo-dimensional electrophoresis with immobilizedpH gradients. Electrophoresis 9:531–546.
Graves PR, Haystead TA. 2003. A functional pro-teomics approach to signal transduction. RecentProg Horm Res 58:1–24.
Henningsen R, Gale BL, Straub KM, DeNagel DC.2002. Application of zwitterionic detergents to the
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 417
418 Part III: Muscle Foods
solubilization of integral membrane proteins fortwo-dimensional gel electrophoresis and mass spec-trometry. Proteomics 2:1479–1488.
Herbert B. 1999. Advances in protein solubilization fortwo-dimensional electrophoresis. Electrophoresis 20:660–663.
Hershko A, Ciechanover A. 1986. The ubiquitin path-way for the degradation of intracellular proteins.Prog Nucl Acid Res Mol Biol 33:19–56.
Hogstrand C, Balesaria S, Glover CN. 2002. Appli-cation of genomics and proteomics for study of theintegrated response to zinc exposure in a non-modelfish species, the rainbow trout. Comp BiochemPhysiol B 133:523–535.
Huber LA, Pfaller K, Vietor I. 2003. Organelle pro-teomics: Implications for subcellular fractionation inproteomics. Circulation Res 16:962–968.
Hume A, Mackie I. 1980. The use of electrophoresis ofthe water-soluble muscle proteins in the quantitativeanalysis of the species components of a fish mincemixture. In: JJ Connell, editor. Advances in Fish Sci-ence and Technology. Aberdeen, United Kingdom:Fishing News Books, Ltd.
Huss HH. 1995. Quality and Quality Changes in FreshFish. Rome: FAO. 195 pp.
Ingólfsdóttir S, Stefánsson G, Kristbergsson K. 1998.Seasonal variations in physicochemical and texturalproperties of North Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)mince. J. Aquat Food Prod Technol 7:39–61.
Issaq HJ, Conrads TP, Janini GM, Veenstra TD. 2002.Methods for fractionation, separation and profilingof proteins and peptides. Electrophoresis 23:3048–3061.
Journet A, Chapel A, Kieffer S, Louwagie M, Luche S,Garin J. 2000. Towards a human repertoire of mono-cytic lysosomal proteins. Electrophoresis 21:3411–3419.
Journet A, Chapel A, Kieffer S, Roux F, Garin J. 2002.Proteomic analysis of human lysosomes: Appli-cation to monocytic and breast cancer cells. Pro-teomics 2:1026–1040.
Kaltschmidt E, Wittmann H-G. 1970. Ribosomal pro-teins. VII. Two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel elec-trophoresis for fingerprinting of ribosomal proteins.Anal Biochem 36:401–412.
Kamo M, Tsugita A. 1999. N-terminal amino acidsequencing of 2-DE spots. In: AJ Link, editor. 2-DProteome Analysis Protocols, pp. 461–466. Totowa,New Jersey: Humana Press.
Kjærsgård IVH and Jessen F. 2003. Proteome analysiselucidating post-mortem changes in cod (Gadus
morhua) muscle proteins. J. Agric Food Chem 51:3985–3991.
Kristensen L, Therkildsen M, Riis B, Sørensen MT,Oksbjerg N, Purslow PP, Ertbjerg P. 2002. Dietary-induced changes of muscle growth rate in pigs:Effects on in vivo and postmortem muscle proteoly-sis and meat quality. J Anim Sci 80:2862–2871.
Kvasnicka F. 2003. Proteomics: General strategies and application to nutritionally relevant proteins. J Chromatogr B 787:77–89.
Ladrat C, Chaplet M, Verrez-Bagnis V, Noël J,Fleurence J. 2000. Neutral calcium-activated pro-teases from European sea bass (Dicentrachus labraxL.) muscle: Polymorphism and biochemical studies.Comp Biochem Physiol B 125:83–95.
Lee BH, Nagamune T. 2004. Protein microarrays andtheir applications. Biotechnol Bioproc Eng 9:69–75.
Lehrer SB, Ayuso R, Reese G. 2003. Seafood allergyand allergens: a review. Marine Biotechnology 5:339–348.
Lei MG, Reeck GR. 1987. Two dimensional elec-trophoretic analysis of isolated soybean protein bod-ies and of the glycosylation of soybean proteins. J Agric Food Chem 35:296–300.
Link AJ (ed.). 1999 2-D proteome analysis protocols.Totowa: New Jersey Humana Press. 601 pp.
Locke VL, Gibson TS, Thomas TM, Corthals GL,Rylatt DB. 2002. Gradiflow as a prefractionationtool for two-dimensional electrophoresis. Proteo-mics 2:1254–1260.
Lødemel JB, Olsen RL. 2003. Gelatinolytic activitiesin muscle of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), spottedwolffish (Anarhichas minor) and Atlantic salmon(Salmo salar). J Sci Food Agric 83:1031–1036.
Lopez JL, Marina A, Alvarez G, Vazquez J. 2002.Application of proteomics for fast identification ofspecies-specific peptides from marine species. Pro-teomics 2:1658–1665.
Lopez MF, Kristal BS, Chernokalskaya E, Lazarev A,Shestopalov AI, Bogdanova A, Robinson M. 2000.High-throughput profiling of the mitochondrial pro-teome using affinity fractionation and automation.Electrophoresis 21:3427–3440.
Love RM. 1980. Biological factors affecting process-ing and utilization. In: JJ Connell, editor. Advancesin Fish Science and Technology, pp. 130–138. Aber-deen: Fishing News Books, Ltd.
———. 1992. Biochemical dynamics and the qualityof fresh and frozen fish. In: GM Hall, editor. FishProcessing Technology. London: Blackie Academicand Professional.
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 418
18 Proteomics in Fish Processing 419
Love RM, Robertson G, Smith GL, Whittle KJ. 1974.The texture of cod muscle. J Texture Stud 5:201–212.
Mackie I. 1980. A review of some recent applicationsof electrophoresis and isoelectric focusing in theidentification of species of fish in fish and fish prod-ucts. In: JJ Connell, editor. Advances in Fish Scienceand Technology. Aberdeen, United Kingdom: Fish-ing News Books, Ltd.
Mackie IM. 1969. Identification of fish species by amodified polyacrylamide disc electrophoresis tech-nique. J Assoc Public Anal 5:83–87.
———. 1972. Some improvements in the polyacry-lamide disc electrophoretic method of identifyingspecies of cooked fish. J Assoc Public Anal 8:18–20.
Mackie IM, Pryde SE, Gonzales-Sotelo C, Medina I,Pérez-Martín R, Quinteiro J, Rey-Mendez M andRehbein H. 1999. Challenges in the identification ofspecies of canned fish. Trends Food Sci Technol10:9-14
Mackie IM and Taylor T. 1972. Identification ofspecies of heat-sterilized canned fish by polyacry-lamide disc electrophoresis. Analyst 97:609–611.
Margolis J, Kenrick KG. 1969. Two-dimensional reso-lution of plasma proteins by combination of poly-acrylamide disc and gradient gel electrophoresis.Nature 221:1056–1057.
Martin SA, Blaney S, Bowman AS, Houlihan DF.2002. Ubiquitin-proteasome-dependent proteolysisin rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Effect offood deprivation. Pflugers Arch 445:257–266.
Martin SAM, Vilhelmsson O, Houlihan DF. 2003a.Rainbow trout liver proteome—Dietary manipula-tion and protein metabolism. In: WB Souffrant, CCMetges, editors. Progress in Research on Energy andProtein Metabolism, pp. 57–60. Wageningen, TheNetherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Martin SAM, Vilhelmsson O, Médale F, Watt P,Kaushik S, Houlihan DF. 2003b. Proteomic sensitiv-ity to dietary manipulations in rainbow trout. Bio-chim Biophys Acta 1651:17–29.
Martinez I, Aursand M, Erikson U, Singstad TE,Veliyulin E, van den Zwaag C. 2003. Destructive andnon-destructive analytical techniques for authentica-tionand composition analyses of foodstuffs. TrendsFood Sci Technol 14:489–498.
Martinez I, Jakobsen Friis T. 2004. Application of pro-teome analysis to seafood authentication. Proteo-mics 4:347–354.
Martinez I, Jakobsen Friis T, Careche M. 2001a. Postmortem muscle protein degradation during ice-
storage of Arctic (Pandalus borealis) and tropical(Penaeus japonicus and Penaeus monodon) shrimps:A comparative electrophoretic and immunologicalstudy. J Sci Food Agric 81:1199–1208.
Martinez I, Jakobsen Friis T, Seppola M. 2001b. Re-quirements for the application of protein sodiumdedecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresisand randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysesto product speciation. Electrophoresis 22:1526–1533.
Martinez I, Ofstad R, Olsen RI. 1990. Electrophoreticstudy of myosin isoforms in white muscles of someteleost fishes. Comp Biochem Physiol B 96:221–227.
Martinez I, Solberg C, Lauritzen C, Ofstad R. 1992.Two-dimensional electrophoretic analyses of cod(Gadus morhua, L.) whole muscle proteins, watersoluble fraction and surimi. Effect of the addition ofCaCl2 and MgCl2 during the washing procedure.Appl Theor Electrophoresis 2:201–206.
Millea KM, Krull IS. 2003. Subproteomics in analyti-cal chemistry: Chromatographic fractionation tech-niques in the characterization of proteins and pep-tides. J Liq Chromatogr R T 26:2195–2224.
Mortimore GE, Pösö AR, Lardeaux BR. 1989. Mech-anism and regulation of protein degradation in liver.Diabetes Metab Rev 5:49–70.
Morzel M, Verrez-Bagnis V, Arendt EK, Fleurence J.2000. Use of two-dimensional electrophoresis toevaluate proteolysis in salmon (Salmo salar) muscleas affected by a lactic fermentation. J Agric FoodChem 48:239–244.
O’Farrell PH. 1975. High resolution two-dimensionalelectrophoresis of proteins. J Biol Chem 250:4007–4021.
Ogata H, Aranishi F, Hara K, Osatomi K and IshiharaT. 1998. Proteolytic degradation of myofibrillar com-ponents by carp cathepsin L. J Sci Food Agric 76:499–504.
Okumura Y, Sato H, Seiki M, Kido H. 1997. Proteolyticactivation of the precursor of membrane type 1matrix metalloproteinase by human plasmin. A pos-sible cell surface activator. FEBS Lett 402:181–184.
Østergaard O, Melchior S, Roepstorff P, Svensson B.2002. Initial proteome analysis of mature barleyseeds and malt. Proteomics 2:733–739.
Papa I, Alvarez C, Verrez-Bagnis V, Fleurence J,Benyamin Y. 1996. Post mortem release of fish whitemuscle a-actinin as a marker of disorganisation. J SciFood Agric 72:63–70.
Parisi G, De Francesco M, Médale F, Scappini F,Mecatti M, Kaushik SJ, Poli BM. 2004. Effect of
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 419
420 Part III: Muscle Foods
total replacement of dietary fish meal by plant pro-tein sources on early post mortem changes in thebiochemical and physical parameters of rainbowtrout. Vet Res Comm. (In press.)
Parrington J, Coward K. 2002. Use of emerginggenomic and proteomic technologies in fish physiol-ogy. Aquat Living Resour 15:193–196.
Peng J, Elias JE, Schwartz D, Thoreen CC, Cheng D,Marsischky G, Roelofs J, Finley D, Gygi SP. 2003. Aproteomics approach to understanding protein ubiq-uitination. Nature Biotechnol 21:921–926.
Pérez-Borla O, Roura SI, Montecchia CL, Roldán H,Crupkin M. 2002. Proteolytic activity of muscle inpre-andpost-spawninghake (MerlucciushubbsiMar-ini) after frozen storage. Lebensm-Wiss u-Technol35:325–330.
Perkins DN, Pappin DJC, Creasy DM, Cottrell JS.1999. Probability-based protein identification bysearching sequence databases using mass spectrome-try data. Electrophoresis 20:3551–3567.
Phizicky E, Bastiaens PIH, Zhu H, Snyder M, Fields S.2003. Protein analysis on a proteomic scale. Nature422:208–215.
Pieper R, Su Q, Gatlin CL, Huang ST, Anderson NL,Steiner S. 2003. Multi-component immunoaffinitysubtraction chromatography: An innovative steptowards a comprehensive survey of the human plas-ma proteome. Proteomics 3:422–432.
Piñeiro C, Barros-Velázquez J, Sotelo CG, GallardoJM. 1999. The use of two-dimensional electrophore-sis for the identification of commercial flat fishspecies. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 208:342–348.
Piñeiro C, Barros-Velázquez J, Sotelo CG, Pérez-Martín R, Gallardo JM. 1998. Two-dimensionalelectrophoretic study of the water-soluble proteinfraction in white muscle of gadoid fish species. J Agric Food Chem 46:3991–3997.
Piñeiro C, Barros-Velázquez J, Vázquez J, Figueras A,Gallardo JM. 2003. Proteomics as a tool for theinvestigation of seafood and other marine products. J Proteome Res 2:127–135.
Piñeiro C, Vázquez J, Marina AI, Barros-Velázquez J,Gallardo JM. 2001. Characterization and partialsequencing of species-specific sarcoplasmic poly-peptides from commercial hake species by massspectrometry following two-dimensional electro-phoresis. Electrophoresis 22:1545–1552.
Pusch W, Flocco MT, Leung SM, Thiele H, KostrzewaM. 2003. Mass spectrometry-based clinical pro-teomics. Pharmacogenomics 4:463–476.
Rock KL, Gramm C, Rothstein L, Clark K, Stein R,Dick L, Hwang D, Goldberg AL. 1994. Inhibitors of
the proteasome block the degradation of most cellproteins and the generation of peptides presented onMHC class I molecules. Cell 78:761–771.
Rothemund DL, Locke VL, Liew A, Thomas TM,Wasinger V, Rylatt DB. 2003. Depletion of the highlyabundant protein albumin from human plasma usingthe Gradiflow. Proteomics 3:279–287.
Sotelo CG, Piñeiro C, Gallardo JM, Pérez-Martín RI.1993. Fish species identification in seafood products.Trends Food Sci Technol 4:395–401.
Takahashi N, Kaji H,Yanagida M, Hayano T and Isobe T.2003. Proteomics: Advanced technology for the ana-lysis of cellular function. J Nutr 133:2090S–2096S.
Thorarinsdottir KA, Arason S, Geirsdottir M, BogasonSG, Kristbergsson K. 2002. Changes in myofibrillarproteins during processing of salted cod (Gadusmorhua) as determined by electrophoresis and differ-ential scanning calorimetry. Food Chem 77:377–385.
Tsuyuki H, Uthe JF, Roberts E, Clarke LW. 1966.Comparative electropherograms of Coregonis clupe-oformis, Salvelinus namaycush, S. alpinus, S. malmaand S. fontinalis from the family Salmonidae. J FishRes Board Can 23:1599–1606.
Tyers M, Mann M. 2003. From genomics to pro-teomics. Nature 422:193–197.
Vaneenaeme C, Clinquart A, Uytterhaegen L, HornickJL, Demeyer D, Istasse L. 1994. Postmortem pro-teases activity in relation to muscle protein-turnoverin Belgian Blue bulls with different growth-rates. SciAlim 14:475–483.
Verrez-Bagnis V, Noël J, Sautereau C, Fleurence J.1999. Desmin degradation in postmortem fish mus-cle. J Food Sci 64:240–242.
Vilhelmsson O, Miller KJ. 2002. Synthesis of pyruvatedehydrogenase in Staphylococcus aureus is stimulat-ed by osmotic stress Appl Environ Microbiol 68:2353–2358.
Vilhelmsson OT, Martin SAM, Médale F, Kaushik SJ,Houlihan DF. 2004. Dietary plant protein substitu-tion affects hepatic metabolism, but does not invokea stress response, in rainbow trout. Br J Nutr 92:71–80.
Walker JM (ed.). 2002. The Protein Protocols Hand-book. Totowa: New Jersey Humana Press. 1176 pp.
Wang M, Lakatta EG. 2002. Altered regulation ofmatrix metalloproteinase-2 in aortic remodeling dur-ing aging. Hypertension 39:865–873.
Westermeier R, Naven T (ed.). 2002. Proteomics inPractice. Weinheim Wiley-VCH. 318 pp.
Wilm M, Shevchenko A, Houthaeve T, Breit S,Schweigerer L, Fotsis T, Mann M. 1996. Femtomolesequencing of proteins from polyacrylamide gels by
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 420
18 Proteomics in Fish Processing 421
nano-electrospray mass spectrometry Nature 379:466–469.
Woessner JF. 1991. Matrix metalloproteases and theirinhibitors in connective-tissue remodelling. FASEBJ. 5:2145–2154.
Woods RK, Thien F, Raven J, Walters EH, AbramsonM. 2002. Prevalence of food allergies in youngadults and their relationship to asthma, nasal aller-gies, and eczema. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol 88:183–189.
Yates JR. 1998. Mass spectrometry and the age of theproteome. J Mass Spectrom 33:1–19.
Yu C-J, Lin Y-F, Chiang B-L, Chow L-P. 2003a.Proteomics and immunological analysis of a novelshrimp allergen, pen m 2. J Immunol 170:445–453.
Yu YL, Huang ZY, Yang PY, Rui YC, Yang PY. 2003b.Proteomic studies of macrophage-derived foam cellfrom human U937 cell line using two-dimensionalgel electrophoresis and tandem mass spectrometry. JCardiovasc Pharmacol 42:782–789.
Zeece MG, Holt DL, Wehling RL, Liewen MB, BushLR. 1989. High-resolution two-dimensional elec-trophoresis of bovine caseins. J Agric Food Chem37:378–383.
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 421
18CH_Hui_277065 8/22/05 9:37 AM Page 422