Biophysical and in vitro wound healing assessment of collagen peptides processed from fish skin waste
Source abstract
Abstract
The present study was conducted to examine the bioactive and wound healing properties of collagen hydrolysate derived from Piaractus brachypomus (pacu) fish skin waste. Collagen type I (P coll.) yielding 72.25% was isolated from skin waste by following acid-soluble collagen extraction method. Further, collagen was fragmented using bacterial collagenase and the processed collagen hydrolysate (peptides) was in the range of 10–15 kDa that was further purified using ion-exchange chromatography. The FTIR spectra of both P coll. and collagen hydrolysate (PSCH) were nearly similar showing that PSCH retained the structural and chemical composition similar to its parent molecule (P coll.). Solubility analysis revealed that PSCH has slightly better solubility compared to P coll. Similarly, scanning electron micrographs also exhibited more uniform and porous microstructure of PSCH compared to P coll. Further, PSCH was found to be efficient in peroxide quenching (64.5%) and radical scavenging activities (85.74%). MTT studies confirmed PSCH to be non-toxic displaying 84.68% cell viability at the highest concentration (3 mg/ml) and hemocompatibility test revealed PSCH to be non-hemolytic with minimal lysis of only 2.1% of human RBCs. In addition, PSCH also displayed a remarkable wound closure ability of more than 80% at 12 h and 100% within 24 h. Hence, these findings suggest that recycled PSCH has potent wound healing ability and can be produced economically on a large scale for possible biological applications in regenerative medicine.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Collagen: Extraction and Characterization · Protein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides · Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Basic and Applied Sciences, Dayananda Sagar University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.3389/fmars.2021.72333310.3389/fmars.2021.723333 ↗
2. 10.3390/md2001006110.3390/md20010061 ↗
3. 10.1002/bip.2248610.1002/bip.22486 ↗
4. Mian M · Int J Tissue React · 1992 · 14 · 1
5. 10.1016/j.cps.2017.05.00610.1016/j.cps.2017.05.006 ↗
6. 10.3390/bioengineering805006310.3390/bioengineering8050063 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.10.02610.1016/j.foodchem.2004.10.026 ↗
8. 10.3390/molecules2422403110.3390/molecules24224031 ↗
9. 10.1080/10408398.2018.143603810.1080/10408398.2018.1436038 ↗
10. 10.3390/polym1324436810.3390/polym13244368 ↗
11. Zhang Z · J Sci Food Agric · 2011 · 91 · 2173
12. 10.3390/md1612049510.3390/md16120495 ↗
13. 10.1016/S0021-9258(19)52451-610.1016/S0021-9258(19)52451-6 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.09.04510.1016/j.foodchem.2017.09.045 ↗
15. 10.3390/md1111464110.3390/md11114641 ↗
16. 10.1088/1755-1315/278/1/01204010.1088/1755-1315/278/1/012040 ↗
17. 10.3390/jfb902003210.3390/jfb9020032 ↗
18. 10.1007/978-1-61779-207-6_210.1007/978-1-61779-207-6_2 ↗
19. Laxmappa B. Weighing the risks of farming non-native fish species in India - responsible seafood advocate. Global Seafood Alliance, 2016. https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/weighing-the-risks-of-farming-non-native-fish-species-in-india/(accessed 15 February 2022).
20. 10.1080/10498850.2021.188437410.1080/10498850.2021.1884374 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.07.01810.1016/j.foodres.2015.07.018 ↗
22. 10.15244/pjoes/9374210.15244/pjoes/93742 ↗
23. 10.3390/ijms2016393110.3390/ijms20163931 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.jphs.2018.12.00110.1016/j.jphs.2018.12.001 ↗
25. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.032207.12083310.1146/annurev.biochem.77.032207.120833 ↗
26. Cheng X · PLoS One · 2017 · 12 · e016973110.1371/journal.pone.0169731 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e0126010.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01260 ↗
28. 10.1128/AEM.00883-1510.1128/AEM.00883-15 ↗
29. Bousopha S · Chiang Mai Univ J Nat Sci · 2016 · 16 · 151
30. 10.1038/sj.emboj.760031810.1038/sj.emboj.7600318 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.cjtee.2018.10.00410.1016/j.cjtee.2018.10.004 ↗
32. 10.9755/ejfa.2016-09-131610.9755/ejfa.2016-09-1316 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.micron.2010.09.01010.1016/j.micron.2010.09.010 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.msec.2008.03.01210.1016/j.msec.2008.03.012 ↗
35. 10.1111/j.1745-7270.2007.00320.x10.1111/j.1745-7270.2007.00320.x ↗
36. 10.1080/05704928.2018.142659510.1080/05704928.2018.1426595 ↗
37. 10.1002/jbio.20180043610.1002/jbio.201800436 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.08.04710.1016/j.msec.2016.08.047 ↗
39. 10.3390/md1911059710.3390/md19110597 ↗
40. 10.1021/jf990447v10.1021/jf990447v ↗
41. Liu J · J Food Nutr Res · 2015 · 3 · 471
42. Zhao Y · Rana chensinensis. 3 Biotech · 2018 · 8 · 181
43. 10.1039/D0RA00425A10.1039/D0RA00425A ↗
44. 10.3390/foods1103046810.3390/foods11030468 ↗
45. 10.1002/jps.2121010.1002/jps.21210 ↗
46. Baehaki A. · J Chem Pharm Res · 2015 · 7 · 131
47. 10.1016/j.foodres.2012.12.03110.1016/j.foodres.2012.12.031 ↗
48. 10.1590/1678-457X.665810.1590/1678-457X.6658 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.08.05810.1016/j.foodchem.2010.08.058 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2010.01.06010.1016/j.apsusc.2010.01.060 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.scp.2020.10031510.1016/j.scp.2020.100315 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.fsi.2016.09.06110.1016/j.fsi.2016.09.061 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.12.03510.1016/j.foodchem.2017.12.035 ↗
54. 10.3389/fcell.2020.54897510.3389/fcell.2020.548975 ↗