Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:21:57.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A method for the quantitative analysis of the enzyme complement of commercial rennets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

P. A. O'Leary  and
P. F. Fox
P. A. O'Leary
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy and Food Chemistry, University College, Cork, Irish Republic
P. F. Fox
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy and Food Chemistry, University College, Cork, Irish Republic
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A method by which it is possible to quantify with very high accuracy the levels of rennin, bovine pepsin, porcine pepsin and proteases from Mucor miehei (fromase) or M. pusillus (emporase) in a ‘commercial rennet’ containing some or all of these enzymes is described. The method employs chromatography on DEAE cellulose in piperazine buffer (0·02M, pH 5·3) to fractionate the enzymes into 2 groups: (peak A) rennin, emporase, and fromase, eluted at ∼0·2 m-NaCl and (peak B) bovine and porcine pepsins eluted at ∼0·4 m-NaCl. The rennin in peak A is selectively denatured at pH 9·0, 20°C for 60 min and the rennin plus emporase at pH 6·0, 60°C for 20 min, permitting the quantification of emporase and fromase (and rennin by difference) and fromase, respectively. The porcine pepsin content of peak B is quantified by selective denaturation at pH 7·0, 30°C for 3 min. A number of commercial rennet preparations were analysed using this method: full rennet contained 45–60% bovine pepsin and ‘half and half’ contained 20–25% rennin, 25–30% bovine pepsin and 50% porcine pepsin.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , October 1974 , pp. 381 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1974

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

Bang-Jensen, V., Foltmann, B. & Rombauts, W. (1964). Comptes Rendus des Travaux du Laboratoire Carlsberg 34, 326.Google Scholar
Behnke, U. (1967). Milchwissenchaft 22, 563.Google Scholar
de Koning, P. J. (1973).International Dairy Federation Document 17.Google Scholar
de Koning, P. J. & Draaisma, J. Th. M. (1973). Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal 27, 368.Google Scholar
de Koning, P. J., Van Rooijen, P. J. & Kok, A. (1969). Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal 23, 55.Google Scholar
Emmons, D. B. & Elliott, J. A. (1971).Paper presented at Annual Conference of Canadian Institute of Food Technology, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Cited from: de Koning, P. J. (1973).Google Scholar
Ganguli, N. C. & Bhalerao, V. R. (1965). Journal of Dairy Science 48, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnot, P., Thapon, J. L., Mathieu, C. M., Maubois, J. L. & Ribadeau Dumas, B. (1972). Journal of Dairy Science 55, 1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, R. S. & Dinesen, N. (1973). Journal of Dairy Science 56, 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Leary, P. A. & Fox, P. F. (1971). Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 10, Supplement p.vi.Google Scholar
O'Leary, P. A. & Fox, P. F. (1973). FEBS, Special Meeting, Dublin, p.83.Google Scholar
Pedersen, A. H..Møller-Madsen, A. & Hansen, K. (1973). Cited from: de Koning, P. J. (1973).Google Scholar
Raymond, M. N., Brica, E., Salesse, R., Garnier, J., Garnot, P. & Ribadeau Dumas, B. (1973). Journal of Dairy Science 56, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shovers, J., Fossum, G. & Neal, A. (1972). Journal of Dairy Science 55, 1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shovers, J. & Kornowski, R. (1968). Journal of Dairy Science 51, 937.Google Scholar