Presence of small resistant peptides from new in vitro digestion assays detected by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry: An implication of allergenicity prediction of novel proteins?

• Main Authors: Rong Wang, Yanfei Wang, Thomas C Edrington, Zhenjiu Liu, Thomas C Lee, Andre Silvanovich, Hong S Moon, Zi L Liu, Bin Li
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233745

The susceptibility of newly expressed proteins to digestion by gastrointestinal proteases (e.g., pepsin) has long been regarded as one of the important endpoints in the weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach to assess the allergenic risk of genetically modified (GM) crops. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has suggested that current digestion study protocols used for this assessment should be modified to more accurately reflect the diverse physiological conditions encountered in human populations and that the post-digestion analysis should include analytical methods to detect small peptide digestion products.The susceptibility of two allergens (beta-lactoglobin (β-Lg) and alpha-lactalbumin (α-La)) and two non-allergens (hemoglobin (Hb) and phosphofructokinase (PFK)) to proteolytic degradation was investigated under two pepsin digestion conditions (optimal pepsin digestion condition: pH 1.2, 10 U pepsin/μg test protein; sub-optimal pepsin digestion condition: pH 5.0, 1 U pepsin/10 mg test protein), followed by 34.5 U trypsin/mg test protein and 0.4 U chymotrypsin/mg test protein digestion in the absence or presence of bile salts. All samples were analyzed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) in conjunction with Coomassie Blue staining and, in parallel, liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS) detection. The results provide following insights: 1) LC-MS methodology does provide the detection of small peptides; 2) Peptides are detected in both allergens and non-allergens from all digestion conditions; 3) No clear differences among the peptides detected from allergen and non-allergens; 4) The differences observed in SDS-PAGE between the optimal and sub-optimal pepsin digestion conditions are expected and align with kinetics and properties of the specific enzymes; 5) The new methodology with new digestion conditions and LC-MS detection does not provide any differentiating information for prediction whether a protein is an allergen. The classic pepsin resistance assay remains the most useful assessment of the potential exposure of an intact newly expressed protein as part of product safety assessment within a WOE approach.