↓ Skip to main content

Covalent binding of food-derived blue pigment phycocyanobilin to bovine β-lactoglobulin under physiological conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Food Chemistry, December 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Covalent binding of food-derived blue pigment phycocyanobilin to bovine β-lactoglobulin under physiological conditions
Published in
Food Chemistry, December 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.06.138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simeon Minic, Mirjana Radomirovic, Nina Savkovic, Milica Radibratovic, Jelena Mihailovic, Tamara Vasovic, Milan Nikolic, Milos Milcic, Dragana Stanic-Vucinic, Tanja Cirkovic Velickovic

Abstract

In this study, we investigated structural aspects of covalent binding of food derived blue pigment phycocyanobilin (PCB) to bovine β-lactoglobulin (BLG), major whey protein, by spectroscopic, electrophoretic, mass spectrometry and computational methods. At physiological pH (7.2), we found that covalent pigment binding via free cysteine residue is slow (ka = 0.065 min-1), of moderate affinity (Ka = 4 × 104 M-1), and stereo-selective. Binding also occurs at a broad pH range and under simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Adduct formation rises with pH, and in concentrated urea (ka = 0.101 min-1). The BLG-PCB adduct has slightly altered secondary and tertiary protein structure, and bound PCB has higher fluorescence and more stretched conformation than free chromophore. Combination of steered molecular dynamic for disulfide exchange, non-covalent and covalent docking, favours Cys119 residue in protein calyx as target for covalent BLG-PCB adduct formation. Our results suggest that this adduct can serve as delivery system of bioactive PCB.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 29%
Student > Bachelor 4 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Librarian 1 5%
Researcher 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 24%
Chemistry 3 14%
Engineering 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2018.
All research outputs
#11,687,843
of 13,160,482 outputs
Outputs from Food Chemistry
#4,585
of 5,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,011
of 268,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Food Chemistry
#81
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,160,482 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,950 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.