EFFECT OF GROWTH PROMOTERS ON PIG MUSCLE STRUCTURAL PROTEIN AND PROTEOLYTIC-ENZYME LEVELS IN-VIVO AND IN-VITRO

被引:29
作者
BLANCHARD, P
ELLIS, M
MALTIN, C
FALKOUS, G
HARRIS, JB
MANTLE, D
机构
[1] UNIV NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE,SCH NEUROSCI,DIV NEUROBIOL,NEWCASTLE TYNE NE1 7RU,TYNE & WEAR,ENGLAND
[2] UNIV ILLINOIS,DEPT ANIM SCI,URBANA,IL 61801
[3] ROWETT RES INST,BUCKSBURN AB2 9SB,ABERDEEN,SCOTLAND
关键词
PIG MUSCLE; PROTEASES; GROWTH HORMONE; BETA-AGONISTS;
D O I
10.1016/0300-9084(93)90037-S
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
To elucidate the biochemical mechanism by which the growth hormone porcine somatotrophin (PST) promotes skeletal muscle growth, we have determined the activity of a comprehensive range of protein catabolizing proteolytic enzymes and structural proteins (determined by analytical electrophoresis, SDS-PAGE) in longissimus dorsi muscle from control and PST treated pigs. There was no significant difference in the levels of muscle structural proteins, or in the activity of muscle proteolytic enzymes at point of slaughter in control or PST treated animals. Similarly, in post-mortem muscle proteolysis time course experiments at pH 5.5 or pH 7.5, there was no significant difference in the rate of structural protein degradation by endogenous muscle proteases (determined via SDS-PAGE) using muscle from control or PST treated animals. In addition, investigation of a range of beta-agonist related drugs (clenbuterol, salbutamol, pirbuterol, fenoterol) showed no effect (10(-4)-10(-8) M) in vitro on the activity of individual protease types in control muscle, or on the degradation rate of muscle structural proteins by endogenous proteases in time course experiments at pH 5.5 or pH 7.5. We conclude that: i) the anabolic action of growth promoters such as PST in promoting skeletal muscle growth in vivo does not occur via simple down-regulation of muscle protease activities, or by alteration in the levels of individual muscle structural proteins; this is supported by the finding that beta-agonist drugs do not have any direct effect on the activity of muscle proteases in vitro; ii) PST treatment in vivo does not significantly alter subsequent degradation of structural proteins by endogenous proteases in vitro; similarly the latter process is unaltered in the presence of beta-agonist drugs in vitro, suggesting that the potential effect of growth promoters on subsequent meat quality does not operate via the mechanism of post-mortem proteolysis.
引用
收藏
页码:839 / 847
页数:9
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
BEERMANN DH, 1990, J ANIM SCI, V68, P2690
[2]   SENSORY, PHYSICAL, AND CHEMICAL-PROPERTIES OF PORK LOIN CHOPS FROM SOMATOTROPIN-TREATED PIGS OF 3 STRESS CLASSIFICATIONS [J].
BOLES, JA ;
PARRISH, FC ;
SKAGGS, CL ;
CHRISTIAN, LL .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 1992, 70 (10) :3066-3070
[3]  
Boyd R. D., 1986, In 'Proceedings of the 1986 Cornell nutrition conference for feed manufacturers' [see FSTA (1987) 19 4A8]., P24
[4]   INFLUENCE OF THE BETA-ADRENERGIC AGONIST CIMATEROL ON BODY-COMPOSITION AND WHOLE-BODY SYNTHESIS AND DEGRADATION OF PROTEIN IN GROWING LAMBS [J].
CAINE, WR ;
MATHISON, GW .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 1992, 72 (03) :569-587
[5]  
DEMEYER D, 1989, BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR CONTROL OF GROWTH AND PRODUCT QUALITY IN SWINE, P191
[6]   STIMULATION OF PIG GROWTH-PERFORMANCE BY PORCINE GROWTH-HORMONE - DETERMINATION OF THE DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP [J].
ETHERTON, TD ;
WIGGINS, JP ;
EVOCK, CM ;
CHUNG, CS ;
REBHUN, JF ;
WALTON, PE ;
STEELE, NC .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 1987, 64 (02) :433-443
[7]  
EVOCK CM, 1991, J ANIM SCI, V69, P2243
[8]   EFFECT OF A BETA-AGONIST ON MEAT QUALITY AND MYOFIBRILLAR PROTEIN FRAGMENTATION IN BULLS [J].
FIEMS, LO ;
BUTS, B ;
BOUCQUE, CV ;
DEMEYER, DI ;
COTTYN, BG .
MEAT SCIENCE, 1990, 27 (01) :29-39
[9]  
GOLDBERG AL, 1980, FED PROC, V39, P31
[10]   THE RELATION BETWEEN DIETARY RESTRICTION OR CLENBUTEROL (A SELECTIVE BETA-2 AGONIST) TREATMENT ON MUSCLE GROWTH AND CALPAIN PROTEINASE (EC3.4.22.17) AND CALPASTATIN ACTIVITIES IN LAMBS [J].
HIGGINS, JA ;
LASSLETT, YV ;
BARDSLEY, RG ;
BUTTERY, PJ .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION, 1988, 60 (03) :645-652