Exploration of Foods and Foodomics

Table 3. Average root mean square deviation (RMSD), the radius of gyration (Rg), solvent accessibility surface area (SASA), volume, and density of the “glutelin type-B 5-like” protein after 1 ns simulation under different temperature and electric field conditions

Treatments	RMSD (nm)	Rg (nm)	SASA (nm²)	Vol (nm³)	Density (g/L)
300 K, 0 V/nm	0.28 ± 0.05^a1	3.25 ± 0.02^a1	495.70 ± 5.38^a1	167.02 ± 1.28^a12	829.07 ± 6.35^a12
300 K, 0.1 V/nm	0.29 ± 0.06^b2	3.22 ± 0.01^b1	490.94 ± 3.40^b1	166.69 ± 1.12^b2	830.72 ± 5.56^b1
300 K, 1 V/nm	0.32 ± 0.08^c13	3.21 ± 0.02^c1	503.71 ± 6.50^c1	167.56 ± 1.19^c2	826.44 ± 5.87^c1
300 K, 3 V/nm	0.30 ± 0.06^d23	3.23 ± 0.01^d3	492.81 ± 3.82^d1	166.28 ± 1.33^d1	832.79 ± 6.64^d12
350 K, 0 V/nm	0.40 ± 0.09^a1	3.23 ± 0.02^a1	495.55 ± 6.96^a1	167.09 ± 1.54^a12	828.75 ± 7.62^a12
350 K, 0.1 V/nm	0.46 ± 0.10^b2	3.24 ± 0.04^b1	484.91 ± 17.21^b1	166.24 ± 2.07^b2	833.07 ± 10.41^b1
350 K, 1 V/nm	0.39 ± 0.09^c13	3.18 ± 0.04^c2	471.00 ± 13.43^c1	164.72 ± 1.64^c2	840.71 ± 8.37^c1
350 K, 3 V/nm	0.45 ± 0.12^d23	3.20 ± 0.03^d3	476.08 ± 15.57^d1	164.98 ± 2.05^d1	839.41 ± 10.39^d2
400 K, 0 V/nm	0.54 ± 0.12^a1	3.23 ± 0.06^a1	462.85 ± 26.15^a1	163.65 ± 3.27^a12	846.48 ± 16.88^a12
400 K, 0.1 V/nm	0.61 ± 0.16^b2	3.22 ± 0.04^b1	479.99 ± 15.84^b1	165.33 ± 2.23^b2	837.69 ± 11.24^b1
400 K, 1 V/nm	0.57 ± 0.13^c13	3.23 ± 0.02^c3	485.62 ± 15.03^c1	166.18 ± 2.21^c2	833.38 ± 11.11^c1
400 K, 3 V/nm	0.59 ± 0.14^d23	3.30 ± 0.06^d3	483.40 ± 20.29^d1	165.57 ± 2.61^d1	836.52 ± 13.11^d32

Return to article view

For a given attribute and corresponding mean, values with different letter or number superscript are significantly different from temperature and PEF standpoint, respectively, while values with common letter or number superscript are not significantly different

Supplementary materials

The supplementary tables for this article are available at: https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/file/101088_sup_1.pdf. The supplementary figures for this article are available at: https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/file/101088_sup_2.pdf.

Declarations

Author contributions

FA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing—original draft. AS and KVK: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation. AA: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The raw 3D structure of the glutelin type-B 5-like protein used can be obtained from the protein model database (PMDB; http://srv00.recas.ba.infn.it/PMDB/main.php) with PMDB identifier PM0083241. All other data will be made available by the authors to any qualified researcher.

Funding

This work was supported by the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station (KAES), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hatch-Multistate project # [1024529]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Singh A, Orsat V, Raghavan V. Soybean Hydrophobic Protein Response to External Electric Field: A Molecular Modeling Approach. Biomolecules. 2013;3:168–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Tandang-Silvas MR, Cabanos CS, Carrazco Peña LD, De la Rosa AP, Osuna-Castro JA, Utsumi S, et al. Crystal structure of a major seed storage protein, 11S proglobulin, from Amaranthus hypochondriacus: Insight into its physico-chemical properties. Food Chem. 2012;135:819–26. [DOI] [PubMed]

Pantoja-Uceda D, Shewry PR, Bruix M, Tatham AS, Santoro J, Rico M. Solution Structure of a Methionine-Rich 2S Albumin from Sunflower Seeds: Relationship to Its Allergenic and Emulsifying Properties. Biochemistry. 2004;43:6976–86. [DOI] [PubMed]

Fukuda T, Maruyama N, Salleh MRM, Mikami B, Utsumi S. Characterization and Crystallography of Recombinant 7S Globulins of Adzuki Bean and Structure−Function Relationships with 7S Globulins of Various Crops. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56:4145–53. [DOI] [PubMed]

Vagadia BH, Vanga SK, Singh A, Raghavan V. Effects of thermal and electric fields on soybean trypsin inhibitor protein: A molecular modelling study. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2016;35:9–20. [DOI]

Marracino P, Apollonio F, Liberti M, d’Inzeo G, Amadei A. Effect of High Exogenous Electric Pulses on Protein Conformation: Myoglobin as a Case Study. J Phys Chem B. 2013;117:2273–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

Wang X, Li Y, He X, Chen S, Zhang JZH. Effect of Strong Electric Field on the Conformational Integrity of Insulin. J Phys Chem A. 2014;118:8942–52. [DOI] [PubMed]

Akharume F, Santra D, Adedeji A. Physicochemical and functional properties of proso millet storage protein fractions. Food Hydrocolloid. 2019;108:105497. [DOI]

Wouters AGB. Delcour JA. Cereal protein-based nanoparticles as agents stabilizing air-water and oil-water interfaces in food systems. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2019;25:19–27. [DOI]

10.

Akharume FU, Korotkov KK, Adedeji AA. Characterization of Recombinant Glutelin type-B 5-like Protein from Proso Millet. 2020 ASABE Annual International Virtual Meeting; 2020 July 13–15. Michigan: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers; 2020. pp. 2000272. [DOI]

11.

Akharume F, Adedeji A. Molecular dynamic (in silico) modeling of structure-function of glutelin type-B 5-like from proso millet storage protein: effects of temperature and pressure. J Food Sci Technol. 2023;60:114–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

12.

Kuroda Y, Suenaga A, Sato Y, Kosuda S, Taiji M. All-atom molecular dynamics analysis of multi-peptide systems reproduces peptide solubility in line with experimental observations. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19479. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

13.

Shi J, Ma X, Zhang J, Zhou Y, Liu M, Huang L, et al. Chromosome conformation capture resolved near complete genome assembly of broomcorn millet. Nat Commun. 2019;10:464. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

14.

Waterhouse A, Bertoni M, Bienert S, Studer G, Tauriello G, Gumienny R, et al. SWISS-MODEL: homology modelling of protein structures and complexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:W296–303. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

15.

Guex N, Peitsch MC, Schwede T. Automated comparative protein structure modeling with SWISS-MODEL and Swiss-PdbViewer: A historical perspective. Electrophoresis. 2009;30:S162–73. [DOI] [PubMed]

16.

Song Y, DiMaio F, Wang RY, Kim D, Miles C, Brunette T, et al. High-Resolution Comparative Modeling with RosettaCM. Structure. 2013;21:1735–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

17.

Kim DE, Chivian D, Baker D. Protein structure prediction and analysis using the Robetta server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:W526–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

18.

Ko J, Park H, Heo L, Seok C. GalaxyWEB server for protein structure prediction and refinement. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:W294–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

19.

Shin WH, Lee GR, Heo L, Lee H, Seok C. Prediction of Protein Structure and Interaction by GALAXY Protein Modeling Programs. Bio Design. 2014;2:1–11. Korean.

20.

Li Z, Natarajan P, Ye Y, Hrabe T, Godzik A. POSA: a user-driven, interactive multiple protein structure alignment server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:W240–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

21.

Liebschner D, Afonine PV, Baker ML, Bunkóczi G, Chen VB, Croll TI, et al. Macromolecular structure determination using X-rays, neutrons and electrons: recent developments in Phenix. Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol. 2019;75:861–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

22.

Laskowski RA, MacArthur MW, Moss DS, Thornton JM. Procheck: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures. J Appl Crystallogry. 1993;26:283–91. [DOI]

23.

Wiederstein M, Sippl MJ. ProSA-web: interactive web service for the recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:W407–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

24.

Sippl MJ. Recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Proteins. 1993;17:355–62. [DOI] [PubMed]

25.

Studer G, Rempfer C, Waterhouse AM, Gumienny R, Haas J, Schwede T. QMEANDisCo—distance constraints applied on model quality estimation. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:1765–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

26.

Van Der Spoel D, Lindahl E, Hess B, Groenhof G, Mark AE, Berendsen HJC. GROMACS: Fast, flexible, and free. J Comput Chem. 2005;26:1701–18. [DOI] [PubMed]

27.

Robertson MJ, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL. Improved Peptide and Protein Torsional Energetics with the OPLS-AA Force Field. J Chem Theory Comput. 2015;11:3499–509. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

28.

Kusalik PG, Svishchev IM. The Spatial Structure in Liquid Water. Science. 1994;265:1219–21. [DOI] [PubMed]

29.

Parrinello M, Rahman A. Crystal Structure and Pair Potentials: A Molecular-Dynamics Study. Phys Rev Lett. 1980;45:1196. [DOI]

30.

Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, van Gunsteren WF, DiNola A, Haak JR. Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J Chem Phys. 1984;81:3684–90. [DOI]

31.

Touw WG, Baakman C, Black J, te Beek TA, Krieger E, Joosten RP, et al. A series of PDB-related databanks for everyday needs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:D364–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

32.

Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers. 1983;22:2577–637. [DOI] [PubMed]

33.

Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: Visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph. 1996;14:33–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

34.

Tandang-Silvas MRG, Fukuda T, Fukuda C, Prak K, Cabanos C, Kimura A, et al. Conservation and divergence on plant seed 11S globulins based on crystal structures. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1804:1432–42. [DOI] [PubMed]

35.

Adachi M, Takenaka Y, Gidamis AB, Mikami B, Utsumi S. Crystal Structure of Soybean Proglycinin A1aB1b Homotrimer. J Mol Biol. 2001;305:291–305. [DOI] [PubMed]

36.

Benkert P, Biasini M, Schwede T. Toward the estimation of the absolute quality of individual protein structure models. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:343–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

37.

Conway P, Tyka MD, DiMaio F, Konerding DE, Baker D. Relaxation of backbone bond geometry improves protein energy landscape modeling. Protein Sci. 2014;23:47–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

38.

Vanga SK, Singh A, and Raghavan V. Effect of thermal and electric field treatment on the conformation of Ara h 6 peanut protein allergen. Innov Food Sci Emerg. 2015;30:79–88. [DOI]

39.

Li Y, Zhang C, Liang Y, Wang L, Xiong W. Solubility and conformational characterization of rice glutelin after high temperature treatment. Int J Biol Macromol. 2022;223:1720–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

40.

Heinig M, Frishman D. STRIDE: a web server for secondary structure assignment from known atomic coordinates of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:W500–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

41.

Fenwick S, Vanga SK, DiNardo A, Wang J, Raghavan V, Singh A. Computational evaluation of the effect of processing on the trypsin and alpha-amylase inhibitor from Ragi (Eleusine coracana) seed. Eng Rep. 2019;1:e12064. [DOI]

42.

Gulati P, Li A, Holding D, Santra D, Zhang Y, Rose DJ. Heating Reduces Proso Millet Protein Digestibility via Formation of Hydrophobic Aggregates. J Agric Food Chem. 2017;65:1952–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

43.

Chao D, Aluko RE. Modification of the structural, emulsifying, and foaming properties of an isolated pea protein by thermal pretreatment. J Food Sci. 2018;6:357–66.

44.

Nakai S. Structure-function relationships of food proteins: with an emphasis on the importance of protein hydrophobicity. J Agric Food Chem. 1983;31:676–83. [DOI]

45.

Gromiha MM, Nagarajan R, Selvaraj S. Protein Structural Bioinformatics: An Overview. Encyclopedia Bioinform Comput Biol. 2019;2:445–9. [DOI]