The Hydrolysates from Fish By-Product, An Opportunity Increasing

The fishery industries have continuously increased over the last decade. This growth comes accompanied by a high volume of by-products released to environment, because these industries discard between 60 and 70% of their production as waste. This waste includes fish whole or part from these such as fillet remains (15–20%), skin and fins (1–3%), bones (9–15%), heads (9–12%), viscera (12–18%) and scales (5%). This by-products are rich in proteins and lipids which of several nature, which can be recovered to obtain compounds of high added value. In this chapter, some methods to recover compounds from fish by-products will be discussed. Among others, will be discussed topics about postharvest of fish, by-product releasing, enzymatic hydrolysis of by-product and bioactive peptide obtaining from fish waste

Optimization of enzymatic hydrolysis of red tilapia scales (Oreochromis sp.) to obtain bioactive peptides

The objective of this study was to optimize the conditions of enzymatic hydrolysis (type of enzyme, pH, temperature (T), substrate (S) and enzyme concentration (E)) to increase content of soluble peptides (P), antioxidant activities and degree of hydrolysis DH (%), in hydrolysates. Also, the effect of scaling up from a 0.5 L to a 7.5 L reactor, was evaluated. Hydrolysis was carried out for 3 h in a 500 mL reactor, with Alcalase® 2.4 L and Flavourzyme® 500 L enzymes. A second experimental design was then developed with S and E as factors, where DH, P and antioxidant activity, were response variables. The Alcalase® 2.4 L was the most productive enzyme, with optimal S and E of 45 g/L and 4.4 g/L, respectively. Its hydrolysates showed antioxidant activities with IC50 of 0.76 g/L, 12 g/L and 8 g/L for ABTS, FRAP and ICA, respectively. The scale up didn’t showed negative effect on the hydrolysis

Coffee proteins: Functional food ingredients with molecular effects for sustainable health

There is a growing demand for new alternative protein sources to those of animal origin. Coffee and coffee by-products are potential sources for obtaining alternative plant-based proteins. Their application contributes to their upcycling and to the sustainability of the coffee industry, diversifying and reducing its environmental impact. This chapter presents a current literature review of the potential of green coffee beans and coffee by-products as a nutritious, safe, and sustainable source of proteins for human consumption. Green coffee beans and most of the coffee by-products (cascara, silverskin, and spent coffee grounds [SCGs]) are potential sources of proteins, essential amino acids, and bioactive peptides. In addition, coffee derivatives possess compounds of nutritional interest, such as dietary fiber. Novel ingredients obtained based on coffee proteins would be sustainable and hypoallergenic and suitable for all populations including those with special diets for health (celiac) or ideological (vegans) reasons.Peer reviewe

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially