Sensory Assessment of Fish and Chicken Protein Hydrolysates. Evaluation of NMR Metabolomics Profiling as a New Prediction Tool

Abstract

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) metabolomics profiling was evaluated as a new tool in sensory assessment of protein hydrolysates. Hydrolysates were produced on the basis of different raw materials (cod, salmon, and chicken), enzymes (Food Pro PNL and Bromelain), and hydrolysis time (10 and 50 min). The influence of raw material and hydrolysis parameters on sensory attributes was determined by traditional descriptive sensory analysis and 1H NMR spectroscopy. The raw material had a major influence on the attribute intensity and metabolite variation, followed by enzyme and hydrolysis time. However, the formation of bitter taste was not affected by the raw material. Partial least-squares regression (PLSR) on 1H NMR and sensory data provided good models (Q 2 = 0.55–0.89) for 11 of the 17 evaluated attributes, including bitterness. Significant metabolite–attribute associations were identified. The study confirms the potential prediction of the sensory properties of protein hydrolysates from cod, salmon, and chicken based on 1H NMR metabolomics profiling.

Sensory and Chemical Properties of Protein Hydrolysates Based on Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and Salmon (Salmo salar) Side Stream Materials

“…The SV product had high levels of TMA (Table 9) and did also show high-intensity score for TMA flavor, whereas the intensity score for fish flavor was average (Table 10). This hydrolysate was also perceived as the most bitter, astringent and taste intense product, possibly overshadowing the fishy flavors thus demonstrating that the formation of fish flavor is complex and not fully understood, also discussed by Steinsholm et al (2020).…”

“…Surface textural property related to perception of fat in a product salmon contained notable levels of the connective tissue amino acids glycine, proline, and hydroxyproline. The discrepancy between protein levels (Table 3) and sum of amino acids (Table 4) is mainly ascribed to the commonly used N-to protein factor of 6.25, which is inaccurate for fish substrates (about 5.2) (Steinsholm et al 2020).…”

“…Bitter taste is related to the liberation of small hydrophobic peptides in the hydrolysis process (Fu et al 2019;Kim and Li-Chan 2006). Bitterness may be reduced by proper choice of enzyme and processing conditions (Aspevik et al 2016;Steinsholm et al 2020). In addition to bitter taste, a protein hydrolysate will contain several other tastes and flavors, which are more dependent on the raw material.…”

“…In addition to bitter taste, a protein hydrolysate will contain several other tastes and flavors, which are more dependent on the raw material. Water-soluble molecules and metabolites present in the raw material will follow the aqueous hydrolysate phase and may influence the overall product sensory properties (Steinsholm et al 2020).…”

“…Several studies have addressed flavor development during protein hydrolysis of marine substrates (Aspevik et al 2016;Dauksas et al 2004;Steinsholm et al 2020). However, to our knowledge, no studies have compared the sensory attributes and chemical properties of hydrolysates based on different side stream fractions from mackerel and salmon at similar hydrolysis conditions.…”