ARTICLE

Metabolomics Analysis of the Beef Samples with Different Meat Qualities and Tastes

Jin Young Jeong1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8670-7036, Minseok Kim1,2https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8802-5661, Sang-Yun Ji1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7235-3655, Youl-Chang Baek1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4454-5339, Seul Lee1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9667-8155, Young Kyun Oh1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5817-1748, Kondreddy Eswar Reddy1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2024-7724, Hyun-Woo Seo3https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7587-0612, Soohyun Cho3https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8073-8771, Hyun-Jeong Lee1,4,*https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2312-9048
Author Information & Copyright
1Animal Nutrition & Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Wanju 55365, Korea
2Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea
3Animal Products Utilization Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Wanju 55365, Korea
4Dairy Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan 31000, Korea
*Corresponding author : Hyun-Jeong Lee, Animal Nutrition & Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science, Wanju 55365, Korea, Tel: +82-63-238-7487, Fax: +82-63-238-7497, E-mail: hyunj68@korea.kr

© Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Dec 02, 2019 ; Revised: Jul 24, 2020 ; Accepted: Jul 28, 2020

Published Online: Nov 01, 2020

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the meat metabolite profiles related to differences in beef quality attributes (i.e., high-marbled and low-marbled groups) using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The beef of different marbling scores showed significant differences in water content and fat content. High-marbled meat had mainly higher taste compounds than low-marbled meat. Metabolite analysis showed differences between two marbling groups based on partial least square discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). Metabolites identified by PLS-DA, such as N,N-dimethylglycine, creatine, lactate, carnosine, carnitine, sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, betaine, glycine, glucose, alanine, tryptophan, methionine, taurine, tyrosine, could be directly linked to marbling groups. Metabolites from variable importance in projection plots were identified and estimated high sensitivity as candidate markers for beef quality attributes. These potential markers were involved in beef taste-related pathways including carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism. Among these metabolites, carnosine, creatine, glucose, and lactate had significantly higher in high-marbled meat compared to low-marbled meat (p<0.05). Therefore, these results will provide an important understanding of the roles of taste-related metabolites in beef quality attributes. Our findings suggest that metabolomics analysis of taste compounds and meat quality may be a powerful method for the discovery of novel biomarkers underlying the quality of beef products.

Keywords: beef; metabolomics; taste; quality

Introduction

Intramuscular fat, also called marbling, in Korean cattle is an important trait that influences the beef quality grading system. Fat accumulation has been shown to be associated with the levels of genes, proteins, and metabolites (Picard et al., 2012; Picard et al., 2015; Segers et al., 2017). In particular, differences in meat quality may be related to changes in muscle metabolism.

Metabolomics is used to detect and quantify metabolites in biological samples, such as fluids, tissues, and cells (Dettmer et al., 2007). Metabolic profiles can be evaluated as output results for biological systems and used to identify potential indicators (Kosmides et al., 2013). Numerous studies have used metabolomics to screen for biomarker (Carrillo et al., 2016; Kennedy et al., 2017; Meale et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2015; Zang et al., 2014). This method has also been used to identify taste compounds in beef meat and to exploration unique biochemical molecules (Carrillo et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2018). Metabolomics has been used alone or in combination with multiplatform methods to elucidate the complex interplay of molecular systems (Tian et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016). Many metabolomics techniques have been developed, including nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). These methods can be very useful for rapid analysis of many samples and provide highly sensitive results based on multivariate analysis, pathway analysis, and correlations in food metabolomics (Bartel et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2018).

Beef taste and palatability are important factors for meat scientists and consumers. Numerous researchers have developed appropriate mechanical procedures for measuring beef taste (Gómez et al., 2014; Jeremiah et al., 2000; Silva et al., 2017). Sweetness, sourness, saltiness, bitterness, and umami tastes are associated with meat chemicals and metabolites, resulting in influence the overall acceptability (Sugimoto et al., 2017; Zou et al., 2018). Therefore, metabolites affecting beef quality attributes provide our understanding of taste mechanisms in beef.

Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate the meat metabolite profiles related to differences in beef quality attributes using NMR spectroscopy.

Materials and Methods

Animals and sample preparation

The experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Use and Care Committee of the National Institute of Animal Science (NIAS) in Korea. Twenty-one beef samples (from cattle approximately 28 months of age) were collected from steer in the NIAS livestock butchery at post-mortem day 1 and then partial stored −80°C such as NMR. Ribeye (longissimus thoracis) samples were taken from the dorsal area of the 13th rib. After slaughter and chilling at 2°C for 1 day, the extent of marbling was determined on the left side of the carcass from the first lumbar vertebra to the last rib using the beef marbling standard (BMS) score according to the Korean Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation (KAPE). The carcasses were graded as having lower marbling scores (MSs; 2–5 on the scale of 1–9) with low fat contents (FCs, 13.6± 1.14%) or higher MSs (6–9) with high FCs (18.97±1.45%). Two available beef groups (high-marbled versus low-marbled meat) were chosen based on MSs. Meat samples were frozen using liquid nitrogen and pulverised for metabolomics analysis.

NMR analysis

Meat samples (25 mg) were used for 1H-NMR metabolic profiling. Briefly, samples were transferred to 4-mm NMR nanotubes with 25 μL deuterium oxide containing 2 mM 3-(trimethylsilyl) propionic-2,2,3,3-d4 acid sodium salt (TSP-d4; Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) as an internal standard. The NMR spectra for meat samples were acquired by a 600 MHz Agilent NMR spectrometer (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA) with a 4-mm gHX NanoProbe for high-resolution magic angle spinning at Pusan National University in Korea. Data were collected at a spinning rate of 2,000 Hz. A Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill pulse sequence was used to reduce the background signals of water and macromolecules in the tissues. The 1H-NMR spectra were measured using 13 μs of a 90° pulse, 0.065 s of bigtau, 2 s of relaxation delay, 1.704 s of acquisition time, and 10 min 20 s of total acquisition time. The TSP-d4 peak at 0.0 ppm was used for reference to calibrate the chemical shifts. Assignment of spectra and quantification of metabolites were accomplished by Chenomx NMR suite 7.1 software (Chenomx, Edmonton, AB, Canada).

Sensory evaluation

The sensory evaluation with minor modifications was conducted in Animal Product Utilization Division of NIAS using the method as described (Cho et al., 2016). The procedure was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of NIAS (No.11-1390744-000007-01). Panel testing of meats was performed by seven trained researchers (Korean, IRBNIAS). Meat samples were prepared by cutting parallel to the muscle fibre orientation (20×40×10 mm) and scored for color, flavour, juiciness, and tenderness. The sensory tests were graded on numerical scale ranging from 1 (e.g., not beefy, very tough, and very dry) to 7 (e.g., very beefy, very tender, and very juicy).

Taste evaluation by electronic tongue analysis

For the taste analysis of meat samples, an electronic tongue (Astree, Alpha MOS, Toulouse, France) was used with an automatic sample analyser. Taste sensor module was composed of seven sensors (Sensor array #5; Alpha MOS). The electronic tongue was equipped with a 16-position autosampler, an automatic stirrer, and an Ag/AgCl reference electrode. The assay was performed using amounts equivalent to 40 g pulverised meat dissolved into 160 mL distilled water, homogenised for 30 s, and then filtered using syringe filter (0.45 μm). Operating conditions were as follows: 25 mL sample volume, 200 s acquisition time, 10 s cleaning time, 3 min per analysis, and 5 replicates per sample. The data were expressed as means and standard errors of the means.

Chemical compositions

Meat samples were analysed for moisture, protein, lipid, and collagen contents using a Food ScanTM Lab 78810 (Foss, Hilleroed, Denmark) according to the methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 2000; Seo et al., 2015). The moisture content was measured from 5 g of meat, and samples were then dried in a conventional oven at 105°C and 100 mm Hg for 16 h. Crude FCs were determined by the Soxhlet method with petroleum ether, and protein contents were estimated using the Kjeldahl method. In addition, collagen content was assessed by calculating the hydroxyl proline content (Samuel, 2009). The samples and hydroxyl proline standards were evaluated by measuring the absorbance at 558 nm using a spectrophotometer.

pH and color measurement

The pH values were determined using a pH*K 21 (NWK-Technology, Lengenfeld, Germany) on the surface of the meat. Meat color also was measured using a Minolta Chroma Meter CR-400 (Minolta Camera, Tyoko, Japan). Color was recorded as lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*).

Water holding capacity (WHC)

WHC was determined as previously described. First, a 2-mL filter was weighed and then weighed again after placing 500 mg ground sample in the upper filter of the centrifuge tube. The surface area of the meat and the total area were measured using a planimeter (Type KP-21, Koizumi, Tokyo, Japan).

Statistical analyses

The peak areas of metabolites were subjected partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA; SIMCA version 14; Umetrics, Umea, Sweden) to visualize cluster separation between high- and low-quality groups. The statistical significance (p<0.05) of metabolite concentrations, sensory and taste evaluation, and chemical compositions was evaluated by unpaired t-tests for meat quality. To obtain meat metabolic profiles, NMR spectra were binned with a 0.001-ppm binning size. The binned spectra were normalised to the total area and aligned using the icoshift algorithm of MATLAB R2013b (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA). The binning results were imported into SIMCA 14.1 (Umetrics). PLS-DA was performed on Pareto-scaled data to visualise general clustering of all samples on the scores plot, which was defined with 95% confidence intervals. Variable importance in projection (VIP) plots were also utilised as potential indicators (Table 1). VIP values greater than 1.0 were considered important in discriminating between groups. Data analysis of the metabolites and physicochemical characterization were performed using Excel 2016 (Microsoft) and GraphPad Prism ver. 5.03 (GraphPad Software).

Table 1. Metabolites found to be responsible for the differentiation of beef samples in multivariate approaches. VIP scores and p-value of each metabolite, sorted in descending VIP score order, are presented
Significant metabolites VIP score p-value
N,N-Dimethylglycine 1.40756 <0.0001
Creatine 1.38294 <0.0001
Lactate 1.35695 <0.0001
Carnosine 1.33872 <0.0001
Carnitine 1.30707 0.0001
sn-Glycero-3-phosphocholine 1.26638 0.0002
Betaine 1.22746 0.0060
Glycine 1.13837 0.0013
Glucose 1.13473 0.0012
Alanine 1.06467 0.0036
Tryptophan 1.05851 0.0039
Methionine 1.04778 0.0035
Taurine 1.03358 0.0041
Tyrosine 1.00064 0.0158

VIP, variable importance in projection.

Download Excel Table

Results

Multivariate analysis in different meat quality groups

Meat metabolome profiling using NMR was performed between high- and low-marbled meats, as shown with regard to differences in intramuscular fat accumulation (Fig. 1A). PLS-DA score plots revealed distinct clustering of the meat quality based on qualitative and quantitative data (Fig. 1B). Several metabolomics data were quantified, with missing data of 4%–12%. The characteristics of the PLS model were sufficient, as follows: NMR (R2X=0.435, R2Y=0.726, and Q2=0.646). PLS-DA loading plots showed differences in metabolite concentrations between beef quality attributes (data not shown). A total of 28 metabolic compounds from the beef samples were identified by using NMR. Data sets were validated by cross-validated analysis of variance and the permutation test (n=200, PLS-DA validation plot; Fig. 1C). N,N-Dimethylglycine, creatine, lactate, carnosine, carnitine, sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, betaine, glycine, glucose, alanine, tryptophan, methionine, taurine, and tyrosine were representative metabolites in between high- and low quality meat. Thus, these metabolites could be representative of different marbled groups in this study. The selected metabolites, including N,N-dimethylglycine, creatine, glucose, and lactate, etc., show increased levels in the high-quality group (p<0.05; Fig. 2).

kosfa-40-6-924-g1
Fig. 1. Partial least square discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) of metabolite profiling for high- and low-marbled beef by NMR. (A) raw marbled meat, (B) PLS-DA score plot, (C) the permutation test (n=200). High-marbled groups (n=11), low-marbled groups (n=10). Variations in the score plot were defined with a 95% confidence interval. NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance.
Download Original Figure
kosfa-40-6-924-g2
Fig. 2. Boxplots with scatter for high- and low-marbled beef by NMR in beef (p<0.05). NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance.
Download Original Figure
Enrichment analysis of metabolic pathways affected by meat quality

PCA of high- and low-marbled meats and metabolite set enrichment analysis (MSEA) were performed to assess patterns of changes in various metabolic pathways for predicting important metabolic pathways. To predict meaningful metabolic pathways, enrichment analyses for 28 selected metabolites were performed based on VIP scores by NMR (Fig. 3). Protein biosynthesis and glycine, serine, and threonine metabolism were contributed in 28 selected metabolites using MSEA analysis [p<0.01, false discovery rate (FDR)<0.05]. Based on these findings, metabolic pathways affecting meat quality were ranked as follows based on enrichment in the high-versus low-marbled groups: protein biosynthesis>betaine metabolism> methionine metabolism>glycine, serine, threonine metabolism>urea cycle>glucose-alanine cycle>alanine metabolism (p<0.001, FDR<0.001). Thus, MSEA was used for searching the potential biomarkers more than general statistics.

kosfa-40-6-924-g3
Fig. 3. Metabolite set enrichment pathways determined by NMR. NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance.
Download Original Figure
Physicochemical compositions and taste scores for meat quality

Physicochemical and taste scores were determined between two marbled groups (Table 2). Improved color (p<0.05), flavour (p<0.05), juiciness (p<0.001), and tenderness (p<0.001) were determined in the high-marbled group. Sensory results showed higher scores in the high-marbled groups than these of low-marbled groups. Taste score (e.g., saltiness, umami, and sweetness scores) were higher in the high-marbled meat using an electronic tongue (p<0.05). In contrast, there were no significant differences in sourness and bitterness scores between two marble groups. Moisture and FCs were increased in high-marbled meats (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed in protein and collagen contents Lightness (p<0.001) and yellowness (p<0.01) values were significantly increased in high-marbled groups. The high-marbled groups showed lower shear force values compared with the low-marbled groups (p<0.05). The range of meat shear force obtained in this study was 33.73–49.02 N. The WHC did not differ significantly between the high- and low-marbled groups.

Table 2. Physicochemical analysis and taste components in high- and low-marbled groups
Parameters Low marbled group (n=10) High marbled group (n=11) p-value
Sensory characteristics
 Color 5.21 (0.13) 5.62 (0.13) 0.0281
 Flavor 4.75 (0.12) 5.37 (0.13) 0.012
 Juiciness 4.60 (0.09) 5.32 (0.12) <0.001
 Tenderness 3.71 (0.15) 4.58 (0.17) <0.001
pH and color characteristics
 pH 5.62 (0.02) 5.72 (0.06) 0.0717
 Lightness (L*) 34.12 (0.60) 39.34 (0.93) <0.001
 Redness (a*) 19.23 (0.40) 19.38 (0.55) 0.8365
 Yellowness (b*) 8.714 (0.24) 9.84 (0.28) 0.0048
 Shear force (N) 49.02 (1.71) 33.73 (1.02) <0.001
 Water holding capacity (%) 57.39 (0.73) 59.28 (1.64) 0.3436
Taste by electronic tongue
 Sourness 6.14 (0.09) 5.87 (0.15) 0.1327
 Saltiness 5.81 (6.19) 6.19 (0.14) 0.0311
 Umami 5.60 (0.15) 6.18 (0.20) 0.0352
 Sweetness 5.61 (0.23) 6.66 (0.38) 0.0259
 Bitterness 5.81 (0.34) 6.20 (0.76) 0.6436
Chemical composition
 Moisture (g/100 g) 63.65 (1.15) 58.47 (0.53) <0.001
 Fat (g/100 g) 11.60 (1.34) 16.85 (0.56) <0.001
 Protein (g/100 g) 20.45 (0.75) 20.59 (0.50) 0.8690
 Collagen (g/100 g) 2.56 (0.41) 3.28 (0.44) 0.2435

Means (SE).

Download Excel Table

Discussion

Analysis of metabolomics data has improved our understanding of metabolic networks and biological systems. In this study, beef quality attributes and taste compounds are contributed to metabolomics profiles. We estimate metabolomics analysis whether metabolites in beef quality attributes were affected levels of taste compounds, which is consumers require more information.

Our results showed that 28 metabolites were identified from 21 meat samples using NMR. The metabolites based on beef quality attributes were integrated with sensory, genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics by various methods (Carrillo et al., 2016; Jiang and Bratcher, 2016; Kodani et al., 2017; Picard et al., 2015). Thus, multivariate analysis used to elucidate a more detailed evaluation of two marbled groups. The levels of taste-related compounds, color, and sensory characteristics were also partly increased in high-marbled meat compared with that in low-marbled meat. These findings suggested that some metabolites such as sour-salty (e.g., lactic acid), sweet (e.g., alanine and glycine), bitter (e.g., creatine), and miscellaneous substances (e.g., methionine, carnosine, taurine) were related to taste differences between in high- and low-marbled groups.

The moisture content and FC of meat is affected by animal type, age, sex, feed, and muscle location and function (Nian et al., 2018; Seong et al., 2016). Young cattle have higher water levels because collagen, protein, and fat in the meat have not fully developed. Protein content is influenced by dietary factors before and during slaughtering. The high protein content of meat causes increasing WHC and decreased free water contents (den Hertog-Meischke et al., 1997; Qiaofeny et al., 2008). The average moisture content and FC of meat in this work ranged from 58.47% to 63.65% and 11.60% to 16.85%, respectively. Young animals have a higher moisture content than older animals due to increased intramuscular fat deposition in meat, accompanied by decreased water content (Ueda et al., 2007). In this study, moisture content and FC are negatively measured between two marbled groups in accordance with the accumulation of fat in muscle.

Generally, NMR analysis provides comprehensive information on glucose, amino acids, pyruvate, lactate, and other small molecules involved in numerous metabolism pathways. Here, glycine and serine metabolism, glutamate metabolism, and betaine metabolism, including betaine, creatine, dimethylglycine, alanine, creatine, methionine, glutamate were observed in high-and low-marbled meat. Therefore, the biosynthesis and degradation of proteins may differ according to beef meat attributes.

The main components affecting meat taste are chemical compounds (Bu et al., 2013). However, because many metabolites contribute to palatability, accurate prediction of taste-associated metabolites is not easy. Additionally, the metabolite composition of meat can differ owing to the quality of meat, causing changes in flavour. Meat taste is commonly a combination of five taste traditional sensations, and palatability plays a major role among them. Especially, umami tastes come primarily from free amino acids, glutamic acid, and aspartic acid, and from certain 5-ribonucleotides such as IMP, guanosine-5-monophosphate (GMP), and adenosine-5-monophosphate (AMP) (Cambero et al., 1992; Kurihara, 2015; Pal Choudhuri et al., 2015; Rotola-Pukkila et al., 2015). Palatability also arises from the synergistic effects of glutamate and free nucleotides (Yamaguchi and Ninomiya, 2000). Binding of glutamate to taste receptors in the tongue results in umami sensation, and its intensity is significantly enhanced by the presence of free nucleotides, such as IMP, AMP, and GMP (Mouritsen and Khandelia, 2012). The taste intensity of nucleotides alone is weak (Kurihara, 2015; Yamaguchi and Ninomiya, 2000). However, the major nucleotide in meat is IMP, which further degrades to inosine, ribose, and hypoxanthine (Tikk et al., 2006). In this study, umami related metabolites were not significant differences as described above. However, it was higher in high-marbled groups using electronic tongue (p<0.05).

Notably, we found that glycine associated with sweetness was significantly increased in high-marbled groups (p<0.01). Glycine stimulates the release of dopamine and acetylcholine from tissue (Hernandes et al., 2007), and increased levels of glycine were also observed in plasma (Schmidt et al., 2016), consistent with changes in glycine levels of beef observed in this study.

Creatine is a key compound that plays important roles in muscle energy metabolism (Wyss and Kaddurah-Daouk, 2000). Increased creatine content in muscles may delay postmortem lactate formation and decrease in pH, potentially improving the WHC (Nissen and Young, 2006). However, lactate formation and pH levels were not significantly different between high- and low-marbled meat, except for the WHC.

According to Susumu et al. (2020), described metabolomes with meat quality traits, metabolomics is used for the exploration to searching key compounds contributing to the physicochemical properties and sensory evaluation scores, and thereby it contributes to accounting for meat palatability and quality traits. In this study, taste by electronic tongue were higher saltiness, umami, and sweetness in the high-marbled groups than these of low-marbled groups. The relevance of the electronic tongue for more rapid and sensitive screening of meat taste has become important. Additionally, the palatability in beef also is generally attributed to tenderness, flavour, and/or juiciness. Therefore, in future studies, quantification of these potential biomarkers may have applications in the prediction of beef quality attributes and taste compounds during the growing and fattening stages. Metabolites may act as good biomarkers for these parameters. Nevertheless, we still have limited knowledge of the roles of metabolites and their regulation in beef quality and taste.

Conclusion

NMR analysis was performed to identify the metabolic biomarkers in high- and low-marbled meats. Among 28 estimated metabolites, fourteen metabolites showed significant changes in the beef quality attributes. In this study, key metabolites related to palatability (umami) taste score, including glutamate and aspartate, were not changed between in low-and high-marbled groups using NMR analysis. Sweetness, sourness, and bitterness in high-marbled meat were high levels compared with low marbled meat using electronic tongue and NMR analysis. The use of the electronic tongue for evaluating meat taste scores also improves our understanding of appropriate combinations of taste-related metabolites for developing high marbling. Our finding suggested that metabolites could serve as potential biomarkers of MS-related taste. However, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant the Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. PJ012031022018) of the National Livestock Research Institute, Rural Development Administration, Korea.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Jeong JY, Lee HJ. Data curation: Baek YC. Formal analysis: Reddy KE. Methodology: Seo HW. Software: Ji SY. Validation: Lee S. Investigation: Oh YK. Writing - original draft: Jeong JY. Writing - review & editing: Jeong JY, Kim M, Ji SY, Baek YC, Lee S, Oh YK, Reddy KE, Seo HW, Cho S, Lee HJ.

Ethics Approval

All animal experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the National Institute of Animal Science, Korea (Approval number: NIAS20191665). The sensory evaluation with minor modifications was conducted in Animal Product Utilization Division of NIAS using the method as described. The procedure was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of NIAS (No.11-1390744-000007-01).

References

1.

AOAC. 2000 Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 17th edAssociation of Official Analytical Chemists. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: .

2.

Bachmanov AA, Bosak NP, Glendinning JI, Inoue M, Li X, Manita S, Mc Caughey SA, Murata Y, Reed DR, Tordoff MG, Beauchamp GK. 2016; Genetics of amino acid taste and appetite. Adv Nutr. 7:806S-822S

3.

Bartel J, Krumsiek J, Theis FJ. 2013; Statistical methods for the analysis of high-throughput metabolomics data. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 4e201301009

4.

Binnie MA, Barlow K, Johnson V, Harrison C. 2014; Red meats: Time for a paradigm shift in dietary advice. Meat Sci. 98:445-451

5.

Bu J, Dai Z, Zhou T, Lu Y, Jiang Q. 2013; Chemical composition and flavour characteristics of a liquid extract occurring as waste in crab (Ovalipes punctatus) processing. J Sci Food Agric. 93:2267-2275

6.

Cambero MI, Seuss I, Honikel KO. 1992; Flavor compounds of beef broth as affected by cooking temperature. J Food Sci. 57:1285-1290

7.

Carrillo JA, He Y, Li Y, Liu J, Erdman RA, Sonstegard TS, Song J. 2016; Integrated metabolomic and transcriptome analyses reveal finishing forage affects metabolic pathways related to beef quality and animal welfare. Sci Rep. 6:25948

8.

Coulter AD, Godden PW, Pretorius IS. 2004; Succinic acid - How it is formed, what is its effect on titratable acidity, and what factors influence its concentration in wine?. Wine Ind J. 19:16-25.

9.

den Hertog-Meischke MJ, van Laack RJ, Smulders FJ. 1997; The water-holding capacity of fresh meat. Vet Q. 19:175-181

10.

Dettmer K, Aronov PA, Hammock BD. 2007; Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics. Mass Spectrom Rev. 26:51-78

11.

Gómez I, Beriain MJ, Sarriés MV, Insausti K, Mendizabal JA. 2014; Low-fat beef patties with augmented omega-3 fatty acid and CLA levels and influence of grape seed extract. J Food Sci. 79:S2368-S2376

12.

Hernandes MS, de Magalhães L, Troncone LR. 2007; Glycine stimulates the release of labeled acetylcholine but not dopamine nor glutamate from superfused rat striatal tissue. Brain Res. 1168:32-37

13.

Ishihara Y, Moreira R, de Souza G, Salviano A, Madruga M. 2013; Study of the Warner-Bratzler shear force, sensory analysis and sarcomere length as indicators of the tenderness of sun-dried beef. Molecules. 18:9432-9440

14.

Ito K, Koyama Y, Hanya Y. 2013; Identification of the glutaminase genes of Aspergillus sojae involved in glutamate production during soy sauce fermentation. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 77:1832-1840

15.

Jeremiah LE, Phillips DM. 2000; Evaluation of a probe for predicting beef tenderness. Meat Sci. 55:493-502

16.

Jiang T, Bratcher CL. 2016; Differentiation of commercial ground beef products and correlation between metabolites and sensory attributes: A metabolomic approach. Food Res Int. 90:298-306

17.

Jung EY, Hwang YH, Joo ST. 2016; The relationship between chemical compositions, meat quality, and palatability of the 10 primal cuts from Hanwoo steer. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 36:145-151

18.

Kennedy AD, Pappan KL, Donti TR, Evans AM, Wulff JE, Miller LAD, Reid Sutton V, Sun Q, Miller MJ, Elsea SH. 2017; Elucidation of the complex metabolic profile of cerebrospinal fluid using an untargeted biochemical profiling assay. Mol Genet Metab. 121:83-90

19.

Kodani Y, Miyakawa T, Komatsu T, Tanokura M. 2017; NMR-based metabolomics for simultaneously evaluating multiple determinants of primary beef quality in Japanese Black cattle. Sci Rep. 7:1297

20.

Kosmides AK, Kamisoglu K, Calvano SE, Corbett SA, Androulakis IP. 2013; Metabolomic fingerprinting: Challenges and opportunities. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 41:205-221

21.

Kurihara K. 2015; Umami the fifth basic taste: History of studies on receptor mechanisms and role as a food flavor. Biomed Res Int. 2015:189402

22.

Laakkonen E, Wellington GH, Skerbon JN. 1970; Low temperature long-time heating of bovine muscle 1. Changes in tenderness, water binding capacity, pH and amount of water-soluble components. J Food Sci. 35:175-177

23.

Lana A, Longo V, Dalmasso A, D’Alessandro A, Bottero MT, Zolla L. 2015; Omics integrating physical techniques: Aged piedmontese meat analysis. Food Chem. 172:731-741

24.

Listrat A, Lebret B, Louveau I, Astruc T, Bonnet M, Lefaucheur L, Picard B, Bugeon J. 2016; How muscle structure and composition influence meat and flesh quality. Sci World J. 2016:3182746

25.

Luan H, Liu LF, Tang Z, Zhang M, Chua KK, Song JX, Mok VC, Li M, Cai Z. 2015; Comprehensive urinary metabolomic profiling and identification of potential noninvasive marker for idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Sci Rep. 5:13888

26.

Ma X, Chi YH, Niu M, Zhu Y, Zhao YL, Chen Z, Wang JB, Zhang CE, Li JY, Wang LF, Gong M, Wei SZ, Chen C, Zhang L, Wu MQ, Xiao XH. 2016; Metabolomics coupled with multivariate data and pathway analysis on potential biomarkers in cholestasis and intervention effect of Paeonia lactiflora Pall. Front Pharmacol. 7:14

27.

Malaquias LFB, Sá-Barreto LCL, Freire DO, Silva ICR, Karan K, Durig T, Lima EM, Marreto RN, Gelfuso GM, Gratieri T, Cunha-Filho M. 2018; Taste masking and rheology improvement of drug complexed with beta-cyclodextrin and hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin by hot-melt extrusion. Carbohydr Polym. 185:19-26

28.

Meale SJ, Morgavi DP, Cassar-Malek I, Andueza D, Ortigues-Marty I, Robins RJ, Schiphorst AM, Migné C, Pétéra M, Laverroux S, Graulet B, Boudra H, Cantalapiedra-Hijar G. 2017; Exploration of biological markers of feed efficiency in young bulls. J Agric Food Chem. 65:9817-9827

29.

Mouritsen OG, Khandelia H. 2012; Molecular mechanism of the allosteric enhancement of the umami taste sensation. FEBS J. 279:3112-3120

30.

Nian Y, Allen P, Harrison SM, Kerry JP. 2018; Effect of castration and carcass suspension method on the quality and fatty acid profile of beef from male dairy cattle. J Sci Food Agric. 98:4339-4350

31.

Nissen PM, Young JF. 2006; Creatine monohydrate and glucose supplementation to slow- and fast-growing chickens changes the postmortem pH in pectoralis major. Poult Sci. 85:1038-1044

32.

Pal Choudhuri S, Delay RJ, Delay ER. 2015; L-Amino acids elicit diverse response patterns in taste sensory cells: A role for multiple receptors. PLOS ONE. 10e0130088

33.

Picard B, Lebret B, Cassar-Malek I, Liaubet L, Berri C, Le Bihan-Duval E, Hocquette JF, Renand G. 2015; Recent advances in omic technologies for meat quality management. Meat Sci. 109:18-26

34.

Picard B, Lefèvre F, Lebret B. 2012; Meat and fish flesh quality improvement with proteomic applications. Anim Front. 2:18-25

35.

Rotola-Pukkila MK, Pihlajaviita ST, Kaimainen MT, Hopia AI. 2015; Concentration of umami compounds in pork meat and cooking juice with different cooking times and temperatures. J Food Sci. 80:C2711-C2716

36.

Rubico SM, Mc Daniel MR. 1992; Sensory evaluation of acids by free-choice profiling. Chem Senses. 17:273-289

37.

Sager M, Lucke A, Ghareeb K, Allymehr M, Zebeli Q, Böhm J. 2018; Dietary deoxynivalenol does not affect mineral element accumulation in breast and thigh muscles of broiler chicken. Mycotoxin Res. 34:117-121

38.

Schmidt JA, Rinaldi S, Scalbert A, Ferrari P, Achaintre D, Gunter MJ, Appleby PN, Key TJ, Travis RC. 2016; Plasma concentrations and intakes of amino acids in male meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans: A cross-sectional analysis in the EPIC-Oxford cohort. Eur J Clin Nutr. 70:306-312

39.

Segers JR, Loor JJ, Moisá SJ, Gonzalez D, Shike DW. 2017; Effects of protein and fat concentration in coproduct-based growing calf diets on adipogenic and lipogenic gene expression, blood metabolites, and carcass composition. J Anim Sci. 95:2767-2781

40.

Seo HW, Kang GH, Cho SH, Ba HV, Seong PN. 2015; Quality properties of sausages made with replacement of pork with corn starch, chicken breast and surimi during refrigerated storage. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 35:638-645

41.

Seong PN, Park KM, Kang GH, Cho SH, Park BY, Chae HS, Van Ba H. 2016; The differences in chemical composition, physical quality traits and nutritional values of horse meat as affected by various retail cut types. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 29:89-99

42.

Silva DR, de Moura AP, Ramos AL, Ramos EM. 2017; Comparison of Warner-Bratzler shear force values between round and square cross-section cores for assessment of beef Longissimus tenderness. Meat Sci. 125:102-105

43.

Spurvey S, Pan BS, Shahidi F. 1998; Flavour of shellfish. In Flavor of meat, meat products, and seafoods. 2nd ed In: Shahidi F, editor.(ed)Springer Nature. London, UK: pp p. 159-196.

44.

Steinfeld H. 2003; Economic constraints on production and consumption of animal source foods for nutrition in developing countries. J Nutr. 133:4054S-4061S

45.

Sugimoto M, Obiya S, Kaneko M, Enomoto A, Honma M, Wakayama M, Soga T, Tomita M. 2017; Metabolomic profiling as a possible reverse engineering tool for estimating processing conditions of dry-cured hams. J Agric Food Chem. 65:402-410

46.

Susumu M, Shuji U, Tomohiko K, Takuya M, Per Ertbjerg. 2020; MEATabolomics: Muscle and meat metabolomics in domestic animals. Metabolites. 10:E188

47.

Tan B, Yin Y, Liu Z, Li X, Xu H, Kong X, Huang R, Tang W, Shinzato I, Smith SB, Wu G. 2009; Dietary L-arginine supplementation increases muscle gain and reduces body fat mass in growing-finishing pigs. Amino Acids. 37:169-175

48.

Tian H, Zheng N, Wang W, Cheng J, Li S, Zhang Y, Wang J. 2016; Integrated metabolomics study of the milk of heat-stressed lactating dairy cows. Sci Rep. 6:24208

49.

Tikk M, Tikk K, Tørngren MA, Meinert L, Aaslyng MD, Karlsson AH, Andersen HJ. 2006; Development of inosine monophosphate and its degradation products during aging of pork of different qualities in relation to basic taste and retronasal flavor perception of the meat. J Agric Food Chem. 54:7769-7777

50.

Tizioto PC, Taylor JF, Decker JE, Gromboni CF, Mudadu MA, Schnabel RD, Coutinho LL, Mourão GB, Oliveira PS, Souza MM, Reecy JM, Nassu RT, Bressani FA, Tholon P, Sonstegard TS, Alencar MM, Tullio RR, Nogueira AR, Regitano LC. 2015; Detection of quantitative trait loci for mineral content of Nelore longissimus dorsi muscle. Genet Sel Evol. 47:15

51.

Ueda Y, Watanabe A, Higuchi M, Shingu H, Kushibiki S, Shinoda M. 2007; Effects of intramuscular fat deposition on the beef traits of Japanese Black steers (Wagyu). Anim Sci J. 78:189-194

52.

Wei Z, Xi J, Gao S, You X, Li N, Cao Y, Wang L, Luan Y, Dong X. 2018; Metabolomics coupled with pathway analysis characterizes metabolic changes in response to BDE-3 induced reproductive toxicity in mice. Sci Rep. 8:5423

53.

Williams MD, Zhang X, Park JJ, Siems WF, Gang DR, Resar LM, Reeves R, Hill HH. 2015; Characterizing metabolic changes in human colorectal cancer. Anal Bioanal Chem. 407:4581-4595

54.

Wyss M, Kaddurah-Daouk R. 2000; Creatine and creatinine metabolism. Physiol Rev. 80:1107-1213

55.

Yamaguchi S, Ninomiya K. 2000; Umami and food palatability. J Nutr. 130:921S-926S

56.

Yang C, Hu Z, Lu M, Li P, Tan J, Chen M, Lv H, Zhu Y, Zhang Y, Guo L, Peng Q, Dai W, Lin Z. 2018; Application of metabolomics profiling in the analysis of metabolites and taste quality in different subtypes of white tea. Food Res Int. 106:909-919

57.

Yang Y, Zheng N, Zhao X, Zhang Y, Han R, Yang J, Zhao S, Li S, Guo T, Zang C, Wang J. 2016; Metabolomic biomarkers identify differences in milk produced by Holstein cows and other minor dairy animals. J Proteomics. 136:174-182

58.

Zang X, Jones CM, Long TQ, Monge ME, Zhou M, Walker LD, Mezencev R, Gray A, Mc Donald JF, Fernández FM. 2014; Feasibility of detecting prostate cancer by ultraperformance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry serum metabolomics. J Proteome Res. 13:3444-3454

59.

Zou Y, Kang D, Liu R, Qi J, Zhou G, Zhang W. 2018; Effects of ultrasonic assisted cooking on the chemical profiles of taste and flavor of spiced beef. Ultrason Sonochem. 46:36-45

Journal Title Change

The name of the journal has been changed from Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources to Food Science of Animal Resources from January 2019.

Clarivate Analytics, which manages SCIE, acknowledges that the journal has been renamed, and below is a screenshot of the journal name change in Journal Citation Reports.

Thank you for your interest in our journal.




Download Screenshot
I don't want to open this window for a day.