Natural heterogeneity of chymosin and pepsin in extracts of bovine stomachs
Introduction
Bovine stomachs and the commercial extracts thereof, calf rennet and adult bovine (ox) rennet, contain three types of aspartic proteases (EC 3.4.23): chymosin, pepsin and the minor component gastricsin (Szecsi, 1992). Chymosin is the dominating enzyme in calf rennet and pepsin is the main component in adult bovine rennet, whereas gastricsin is a minor component accounting for less than 1% of the total enzymes in calf rennet up to 5% in adult bovine rennet. Gastricsin has therefore not gained much attention.
The two main enzymatic components of calf/bovine rennet show heterogeneity in electrophoretical mobility due to differences in their amino acid sequence (chymosin) or different degree of phosphorylation (pepsins), both resulting in different net charge of each subcomponent (Foltmann, Pedersen, Kauffman, & Wybrandt, 1979; Martin, Trieu-Cuot, Corre, & Ribadeau-Dumas, 1982).
For bovine chymosin, three iso-enzymatic fractions A, B and C, mentioned in the order of decreasing milk-clotting activity, have been identified (Foltmann, 1966). Other authors (Asato & Rand (1972), Asato & Rand (1977) have found four forms of (pro)chymosin named A, B, C and D, separated by their electrophoretic mobility. These four components were not well characterised and it is doubtful if they represent different genetic forms. The two major chymosins A and B have been fully characterised including analysis of amino acid and gene sequences (Foltmann, Pedersen, Kauffman, & Wybrandt, 1979; Foltmann, 1992). It is generally agreed that chymosin A and B are allelic variants of a single gene locus (Donnelly, O’Callaghan, & Carroll, 1984), which differs by only one amino acid: the A form has an Asp in position 244 (according to the natural numbering of the chymosin sequence) where chymosin B has a Gly. There has been more doubt about chymosin C. Several papers (Foltmann, 1964; Foltmann, Pedersen, Jacobsen, Kauffman, & Wybrandt, 1977) conclude that chymosin C originates, at least partly, from autolytic degradation of chymosin A and Danley and Geoghegan (1988) describe the mechanism behind the formation of chymosin C.
Donnelly, Carroll, O’Callaghan, and Walls (1986) have, however proposed, based on the extraction of a few single stomachs, that a third allelic chymosin exists. The literature on chymosin C is not clear, but it has generally been believed that the C fraction obtained by chromatography of calf rennet is mainly degraded chymosin A.
Besides this, Harboe (1992) has proposed that further microheterogeneity, which has been observed in rennets and fermentation-produced chymosin (FPC), is due to easy deamidations of a specific asparagine number 160. This observation is supported by the finding of the code for an asparagine in the gene sequence but an aspartic acid in the protein sequence. Lately, Lilla, Caira, Ferranti, and Addeo (2001) have characterised the chymosin variants in rennets and other chymosin preparations by mass spectrometry. Chymosins A and B were each found in three active forms differing at the N-terminal end, one being three residues longer and the other being two residues shorter than the published chymosin, indicating that, at least under some conditions, the splitting site between the pro-part and the active chymosin can vary. Further, two degradation fragments were found in rennet: one corresponds to the degradation of chymosin A whereas the other seems new. However, neither the genetic variant chymosin C nor the deamidated forms of chymosin were detected in this last study.
No evidences for genetic variants of bovine pepsin have been found: its heterogeneity is due to an increasing degree of phosphorylation (0–3 phosphate groups/mol) in the different fractions (Martin, 1984). In total, five components have been reported (Martin, 1984; Martin, Trieu-Cuot, Corre, & Ribadeau-Dumas, 1982), each of which differs in some aspects of activity as well as in stability.
The relative amounts of these isoenzymes in commercial rennets have been observed to change in relation to different countries or between suppliers; it seems therefore of general interest to define the causes of their natural and/or technological (work in progress) variability. The aim of the present study is to investigate the natural variability of chymosin and pepsin isoenzymes in individual abomasal extracts and commercial rennets in order to improve the knowledge about the enzymatic composition of bovine rennets.
Section snippets
Preparation of stomach extract
Ninety frozen bovine abomasa were purchased from different countries and individually ground and extracted, activated and clarified by the following procedure. Mucosa, cut off from whole stomach, were mixed with equal amounts (by weight) of Milli-Q water and minced by blending for 1 min. The extract was centrifuged 15 min at 5000 g and the proenzymes in the supernatant were activated at pH 2.0 by sulphuric acid. After centrifugation for 15 min at 5000 g, pH in the supernatant was raised to 5.8 and
Results and discussion
In the HPLC ion-exchange chromatographic profile of a commercial calf rennet, as shown in Fig. 1, four isoenzyme fractions for chymosin and four–five fractions for pepsin can normally be distinguished. The comparison with the HPLC profiles of two fermentation-produced chymosin A and B allows identifying these two chymosin fractions in calf rennet (RT=18.6 and 17.4 min for A and B, respectively).
The two minor peaks eluted earlier (RT=15.9 and 15.0 min) could be the chymosin named C in the
Conclusions
A consistent and surprising variability has been observed in individual bovine stomachs, either in qualitative or quantitative distribution of chymosin and pepsin fractions. Three allelic forms A, B and C of chymosin exist and not only A and B as earlier believed. Their combinations follow a Mendelian model where six possible phenotypes were found. Two chymosin alleles are co-dominantly expressed in each single stomach. A degradation product of chymosin A, named A2, can be distinguished from
Acknowledgements
We thank Nadia Rossi, Instituto Sperimentale Lattiero Caseario, Lodi, Italy and Sari Charlotte Eltong, Chr. Hansen, Hoersholm, Denmark for very competent technical assistance.
References (21)
- et al.
Structure and mechanism of formation of recombinant-derived chymosin C
The Journal of Biological Chemistry
(1988) - et al.
The primary structure of calf chymosin
The Journal of Biological Chemistry
(1979) Influence du degré de phosphorylation de la pepsine A bovine sur son activité enzymatique
Biochimie
(1984)- et al.
Study of the heterogeneity of bovine pepsin A by pseudo isoelectric focusing
Biochimie
(1982) - et al.
Fractionation and isolation of the multiple forms of prorennin (prochymosin)
Biochemical Journal
(1972) - et al.
Activation studies of the multiple forms of prochymosin (prorennin)
Biochemical Journal
(1977) - Collin, J.C., Cornee, R., & Besaut J.M. (1990). Quantification des chymosines A et B dans les présures animales. Brief...
- et al.
Genetic polymorphism of bovine chymosin
Journal of Dairy Research
(1986) - et al.
Multiple forms of calf prochymosin and chymosin
Biochemical Society Transactions
(1984) Studies on rennin
Comptes Rendus des Travaux du Laboratoire CarlsbergOn the limited proteolysis of A-rennin and the proteolytic activity of chromatographically purified fractions of rennin
(1964)
Cited by (24)
Biochemical characterization, and anti-inflammatory and antitumor activities of glycoprotein from lamb abomasum
2023, Journal of EthnopharmacologyA novel electrochemical assay for chymosin determination using a label-free peptide as a substrate
2021, Journal of Dairy ScienceCitation Excerpt :Additionally, Visser et al. (1988) described an assay for chymosin determination with a spectrophotometric method using a synthetic peptide as a substrate. Methods including ELISA (Rolet- Répécaud et al., 2015), HPLC (Rampilli et al., 2005), and MS (Lilla et al., 2001) have also been developed for chymosin quantification. Although chymosin can be efficiently determined using these methods, they have some limitations, such as the subjective nature of the observation, costly instruments, inefficiency, or tedious pretreatment, preventing analytical applications in a real sample.
Rennets: Applied Aspects
2017, Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology: Fourth EditionChymosin, Pepsins and Other Aspartyl Proteinases: Structures, Functions, Catalytic Mechanism and Milk-Clotting Properties
2017, Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology: Fourth EditionRennet-Induced Coagulation of Milk
2017, Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology: Fourth EditionQuantification of pepsin in rennet using a monoclonal antibody-based inhibition ELISA
2017, LWTCitation Excerpt :Degraded chymosin was identified in calf rennets (Rampilli, Larsen, & Harboe, 2005;; Rolet-Répécaud et al., 2013) and possible degraded pepsin may be present as well. Pepsin heterogeneity has been evidenced in bovine abomasa extracts using HPLC (Rampilli et al., 2005) and pseudo isoelectric focusing (Martin, Trieu-Cuot, Corre, & Ribadeau Dumas, 1982) and has been related to the degree of phosphorylation of pepsin. SPR was used to investigate the binding affinities of selected mAbs to pepsin.