Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41945205›Full record

ArticleFood science of animal resources2026

Extraction and characterization of biomaterials from pork bones: a potential alternative of pineapple by-product extract for commercial proteases.

Van-Ba Hoa, Won-Seo Park, Jun-Sang Ham, In-Seon Bae

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Food science of animal resources, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Van-Ba HoaAnimal Resources Food Tech Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Wanju, Republic of Korea.
Won-Seo ParkAnimal Resources Food Tech Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Wanju, Republic of Korea.
Jun-Sang HamSubtropical Livestock Research Center, National Institute of Animal Science, Jeju 63242, Republic of Korea.
In-Seon BaeAnimal Resources Food Tech Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Wanju, Republic of Korea. bacbnu1981@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to develop cost-effective methods for extracting biomaterials from pork bones. Collagen and chondroitin sulfate (CS) were extracted from pork bones using a pineapple by-product extract (PE) at 5% (v/w) or commercial proteases (pepsin and Alcalase) under identical conditions. The use of PE resulted in a higher collagen yield than pepsin (3.77% vs. 1.42%). The CS concentration extracted with PE was comparable to that obtained using Alcalase (11.98 mg/g vs. 11.37 mg/g). Protein pattern analysis indicated that collagens extracted using either PE or pepsin were type I collagen. 1H NMR analysis showed that CS extracted using either PE or Alcalase contained both CS-C and CS-A units. Among 28 peptides identified, 7 peptides (Gly-Arg, Glu-Gly-Arg, Ala-Val-Gly, Leu-Ala, Leu-Val-Gly, Phe-Ala-Gly-Gly, and Gly-Pro-Leu-Gly-Pro-Hyp-Gly-Ala-Pro-Gly) and 4 peptides (Leu-Pro, Leu-Thr-Gly, Gly-Pro-Leu-Gly-Pro-Hyp-Gly-Ala-Pro-Gly, and Gly-Pro-Ala-Gly-Pro-Val-Gly-Pro-Val-Gly) were found only in the collagen extracted with pepsin and PE, respectively. Notably, peptide hydrolysates derived from PE-extracted collagen exhibited higher free radical scavenging and ferrous ion-chelating activities than those obtained from pepsin-extracted collagen. Overall, PE emerges as a cost-effective and efficient alternative to commercial enzymes for extracting biomaterials from pork bones.

Indexed as

BioactivityChondroitin sulfateCollagenPork bones

Identifiers

PMID41945205
PMCPMC13057105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.