Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:54:03.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detection of proteolysis in raw milk stored at low temperature by an inhibition ELISA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Catherine Picard ,
Isabelle Plard ,
Dominique Rongdaux-Gaida  and
Jean-Claude Collin
Catherine Picard
Affiliation:
LCB Laboratoire de Chimie et de Biologie, 71260 La Salle, France
Isabelle Plard
Affiliation:
INRA Station de Recherches en Technologie et Analyses Laiti`res, BP 89, 39801 Poligny Cedex, France
Dominique Rongdaux-Gaida
Affiliation:
INRA Station de Recherches en Technologie et Analyses Laiti`res, BP 89, 39801 Poligny Cedex, France
Jean-Claude Collin
Affiliation:
INRA Station de Recherches en Technologie et Analyses Laiti`res, BP 89, 39801 Poligny Cedex, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

An inhibition ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) was developed for the determination of caseinomacropeptide (CMP) in order to estimate the proteolysis of κ-casein due to the enzymes of psychrotrophic bacteria in bulk raw milk. The CMP present in milk was quantified specifically by an antibody. The limit of detection was ∽ 0·1 μg/ml and the CV was < 10%. This method was used to study the proteolytic activity of three strains of psychrotrophic Pseudomonas fluorescens in raw milk and to analyse different raw milk samples supplied by four dairy plants. The proteolytic activity for different strains of psychrotrophs and for different milk samples varied considerably, but no correlation was established between the level of microbial flora and κ-casein proteolysis. It is thus not possible to determine the extent of proteolysis from the bacterial count alone. However, by CMP determination in bulk raw milk samples after 6 d storage at 4°C, the mean κ-casein proteolysis was ∽ 4%. Among the milk samples analysed that contained < 107 cfu psychrotrophs/ml, 30% exhibited a proteolysis of κ-casein < 0·5%, i.e. < 5μg CMP/ml.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , August 1994 , pp. 395 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, D. M., Barach, J. T. & Speck, M. L. 1976 Effect of psychrotrophic bacteria from raw milk on milk proteins and stability of milk proteins to ultrahigh temperature treatment. Journal of Dairy Science 59 823–827Google Scholar
Aschaffenburg, R. & Drewry, J. 1959 New procedure for the routine determination of the various non-casein proteins of milk. XV International Dairy Congress. London 3 1631–1637Google Scholar
Association Française Db Normalisation 1987 [Microbiology of food products. Plating out and enumeration of microorganisms by spiral plate technique.] Paris: AFNOR (Norme française NF V 08–100)Google Scholar
Auclair, J. & Lenoir, J. 1980 [Influence of on-farm refrigeration on the final processing of milk and the quality of the manufactured products.] Génie Rural no. 5 11–15Google Scholar
Briand, P., Van Dorsselaer, A., Raboy, B. & Muller, S. 1989 Total chemical synthesis of ubiquitin using BOP reagent: biochemical and immunochemical properties of purified synthetic product. Peptide Research 2 381–388Google Scholar
Dousset, X. & Levesque, A. 1986 [Effect of proteinases of milk psychrotrophic bacteria on the quality of dairy products.] Industries Alimentaires et Agricoles Mai 325–333Google Scholar
Driessen, F. M. 1983 Lipases and proteinases in milk. Occurrence, heat inactivation, and their importance for the keeping quality of milk products. Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal 37 193–196Google Scholar
Driessen, F. M. 1989 Inactivation of lipases and proteinases (indigenous and bacterial). International Dairy Federation Bulletin no. 238 71–93Google Scholar
Feuillat, M., Le Guennec, S. & Olsson, A. 1976 [Proteolysis of refrigerated milk and effects on soft cheese yield.] Lait 56 521–536Google Scholar
Green, N., Alexander, H., Olson, A., Alexander, S., Shinnick, T. M., Sutcliffe, J. G. & Lerner, R. A. 1982 Immunogenic structure of the influenza virus hemagglutinin. Cell 28 477–487CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grieve, P. A. & Kitchen, B. J. 1985 Proteolysis in milk: the significance of proteinases originating from milk leucocytes and a comparison of the action of leucocyte, bacterial and natural milk proteinases on casein. Journal of Dairy Research 52 101–112Google Scholar
Cripon, J.-C. 1983 [Electrophoretic methods for measuring hydrolysis of milk proteins by psychrotrophic bacteria.] Technique Laitière no. 974 31–34Google Scholar
Guillou, H., Miranda, G. & Pelissier, J.-P. 1987 [Quantitative analysis of cows' milk caseins by fast protein liquid chromatography.] Lait 67 135–148Google Scholar
International Dairy Federation 1964 Determination of the casein content of milk. Brussels: IDF (F1L-IDF Standard no. 29)Google Scholar
International Dairy Federation 1986 Milk. Determination of nitrogen content (Kjeldahl method) and calculation of crude protein content. Brussels: IDF (FIL-IDF Standard no. 209)Google Scholar
International Dairy Federation 1991 Milk. Enumeration of psychrotrophic microorganisms. Colony count technique at 6·5°C. Brussels: IDF (FIL-IDF Standard no. 101 A)Google Scholar
Law, B. A. 1979 Reviews of the progress of dairy science. Enzymes of psychrotrophic bacteria and their effects on milk and milk products. Journal of Dairy Research 46 573–588Google Scholar
Liu, F.-T., Zinnecker, M., Hamaoka, T. & Katz, D. H. 1979 New procedures for preparation and isolation of conjugates of proteins and a synthetic copolymer of D-amino acids and immunochemical characterization of such conjugates. Biochemistry 18 690–697Google Scholar
McKellar, R. C. 1989 Regulation and control of synthesis. In Enzymes of Psychrotrophs in Raw Food, pp. 153–172 (Ed. McKellar, R. C.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
Marchal, N., Bourdon, J. L. & Richard, Cl. 1982 [Culture broths for biochemical isolation and identification of bacteria], p. 123. Paris: DoinGoogle Scholar
Merrifield, R. B. 1963 Solid phase peptide synthesis. I. The synthesis of a tetrapeptide. Journal of the American Chemical Society 85 2149–2154Google Scholar
Miranda, G. & Gripon, J.-C. 1986. [Cause, nature and technological consequences of proteolysis in milk.] Lait 66 1–18Google Scholar
Mitchell, G. E., Symons, M. H. & Ewings, K. N. 1989 Quantification of bacterial proteolysis in milk. Effects of added and secreted protease in pasteurized milk. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 44 70–73Google Scholar
Mottar, J. 1981 Heat resistant enzymes in UHT milk and their influence on sensoric changes during uncooled storage. Milchwissenschaft 36 87–91Google Scholar
Mottar, J. 1984 [Heat resistance of psychrotrophs and their proteinases in raw milk.] Lait 64 356–367Google Scholar
Mottar, J., Van Renterghem, R. & De Vilder, J. 1985 Evaluation of the raw material for UHT milk by determining the degree of protein breakdown through HPLC. Milchwissenschaft 40 717–721Google Scholar
Muir, D. D., Phillips, J. D. & Dalgleish, D. G. 1979 The lipolytic and proteolytic activity of bacteria isolated from blended raw milk. Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology 32 19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pâquet, D., Driou, A., Bracquart, P. & Linden, G. 1987 Effect of refrigerated storage of milk on proteolysis. Relationship to the proteose-peptone content. Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal 41 81–92Google Scholar
Picard, C. 1993 [Production of Synthetic Anti-peptide Antibodies for the Determination of Bovine Caseinomacropeptide by an Inhibition ELISA Method. Application to the evaluation of cows' milk proteolysis.] PhD Thesis, Université de Bourgogne, France.Google Scholar
Richard, J. 1981 [Adansonian classification and identification of psychrotrophic Pseudomonas spp. isolated from raw milk stored at low temperature.] Annales de Microbiologie 132A 171–182Google Scholar
Richard, J., Krebs, C., Walter, J. & Grappin, R. 1981 [Comparison of different methods of shaking raw milk samples before enumeration by the plate loop method.] Lait 61 250–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, M. & Gilmour, A. 1985 The present and future importance of psychrotrophic bacteria. Dairy Industries International 50(11) 14–15, 17, 19Google Scholar
Suhren, G. 1983 Occurrence and levels of heat-resistant proteinases and their effects on UHT-treated dairy products. International Dairy Federation Bulletin no. 157 17–25Google Scholar
Visser, S. 1981 Proteolytic enzymes and their action on milk proteins. A review. Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal 35 65–88Google Scholar