Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Science & Nutrition logoLink to Food Science & Nutrition
. 2021 Aug 10;9(10):5352–5360. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.2457

Chemical and quality evaluation of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei: Influence of strains on flesh nutrition

Xiao Li 1,2, Ying Wang 1,2,✉, Hongyan Li 1,2, Xiaodong Jiang 1,2, Lei Ji 1,2, Tianhong Liu 1,2, Yuanqin Sun 1,2
PMCID: PMC8498051  PMID: 34646507

Abstract

The Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, is an important fisheries resource in China. To investigate the differences in nutritional quality among strains, we analyzed and compared the basic muscle nutritional components, amino acid (hydrolyzed and free) compositions, and fatty acid compositions among four L. vannamei strains (Universal, KH‐1, Syaqua, and common). The result showed that under an efficiency aquaculture model, all four strains had high protein (21.1%‐22.3%) and low fat (0.8%‐1.1%). The Universal strain was highest in protein and fat as well as essential amino acid score (147.97). The Syaqua strain had the highest levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (44.88%). The KH‐1 strain had the highest free amino acid content (2.68%), which contributes to the taste. Our findings revealed that strain‐specific variability exists in chemical composition of the shrimp L. vannamei under controlled condition, which may provide buying reference for consumers.

Keywords: amino acid, fat acid, Litopenaeus vannamei, nutritional component, strains

1. INTRODUCTION

The Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, is the dominant farmed shrimp worldwide, representing one of the most common aquaculture species (Zhang et al., 2014). L. vannamei is an important commercial species in China, with a catch volume exceeding 114,370 tons in 2019 (FBMA, 2020). Pacific white shrimp is widely favored due to its superior flesh quality, delicious taste, and nutritional properties, and ease of cooking. Given the high market value, L. vannamei has emerged as one of the most valuable globally traded seafood products (Blythe et al., 2015).

L. vannamei is a euryhaline shrimp that is suitable for high‐density cultivation in seawater and salt‐fresh water. Suitable aquaculture species possess the characteristics of stress resistance, strong disease resistance, rapid growth, low cost, and high benefit (Li et al., 2016). China depends on imported shrimp, such as Syaqua from Thailand and Universal from Indonesia to obtain improved parent varieties (Li et al., 2016). However, some new strains have been bred in China, such as Kehai No.1 (KH‐1) and Zhongke No.1 (Chen et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2010). At present, research is mainly focused on germplasm selection (Hu et al., 2015; Luan et al., 2013). Few studies have documented the nutritional components of different L. vannamei strains.

Nutritional composition is an important index of germplasm evaluation for shrimp, providing a basis for resource development and genetic improvement (Ma et al., 2018). Different specifications, salinity conditions, aquaculture environment, and model have been reported to affect the nutritional composition and quality of L. vannamei (Li et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2015; Duan et al., 2017). However, these studies evaluated the same shrimp varieties under different conditions. Determining the nutritional components of different strains under the same cultivated condition can provide novel nutritional information to consumers.

The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the basic muscle nutritional components, amino acid (hydrolyzed and free) compositions, and fatty acid compositions of four L. vannamei strains (Universal, KH‐1, Syaqua, and common) under the efficiency aquaculture model. Our findings will provide essential information for the comprehensive development, utilization, and promotion of L. vannamei strains.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Experimental design

The 90‐day feeding trial was performed from May 2020 to August 2020. The experiment was conducted in a shrimp cultural farm (Binzhou, China). Prior to the experiment, juvenile shrimps (Universal, KH‐1, Syaqua, and common) with initial weights of 0.63 ± 0.02 g were temporarily reared for seven days to acclimate. Next, the shrimps were placed into 12 experimental ponds (30 m3) to constitute four groups in triplicate. The stocking density was about 300 individuals per square meter. There were no significant differences in survival rate among the group (78.42% ± 1.29%).

The seawater used in the experiment was filtered using a composite sand filter. The chamfer was shaded to preserve temperature and control light. The culture conditions were maintained at 29℃ ± 1℃, pH 7.5–8.0, dissolved oxygen >5.0 mg/L, salinity 29 –31. Biological preparations, such as photosynthetic bacteria, were added to the aquaria ponds every seven days (Li et al., 2016).

The special formula feed for shrimp (contain 40% crude protein, 8% crude lipid) was purchased from a local commercial feed company. This feed was mainly made of fish meal, fermented soybean meal, vitamin, etc. All shrimp groups were fed daily at a rate of 6%‐10% of body weight, divided into two equal (at time 8:30 and 16:30). The daily feeding dose was recalculated and adjusted every 15 d. The feeding experiment lasted for 90 days. Diets were hand‐fed until apparent satiation. The feeding rates were selected to assure apparent satiation was reached without overfeeding (Zhou et al., 2013). Sewage was discharged from the central sump 2 hr after feeding, followed by the addition of 10% fresh seawater.

2.2. Sample collection

After the 90‐day feeding trial, shrimps in each pond were sampled 24 hr after the last feeding. 30 shrimps from each pond (20.10 ± 2.30 g) were randomly selected to analyze approximate meat composition. All samples were kept on ice until they reached the laboratory. The abdominal meat was obtained from the shell, got rid of the intestinal tract, pooled in triplicate, and homogenized using a grinder. The samples were stored in PE bags in the dark at 20℃ until analysis (within 2 w).

All chemicals and solvents used were analytical grade (Sinopharm, China). Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME, purity≥98%) and mixed standards of amino acids (purity≥99%) were purchased from Sigma‐Aldrich.

2.3. The determination of proximate composition

Crude protein, crude lipid, moisture, and ash content in the shrimp meat were determined following the procedures of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 1995). First, the samples were oven‐dried until a constant weight was reached at 105℃ to determine the moisture content. Crude protein content was estimated using the Kjeldahl method (Nitrogen Analyzer 8,400, Foss, Denmark), and a conversion factor of 6.25 was used to convert total nitrogen to crude protein. Crude lipid was assayed by ether extraction method using the Soxhlet extraction method (Sotex‐8000, Foss, Denmark). The ash content was determined by dry ashing in a muffle oven at 550℃ for 24 hr.

2.4. The determination of hydrolyzed amino acid (HAA) and free amino acid (FAA)

HAA content was measured according to the GB/T 5,009.124–2016 in China (2016). The sample was hydrolyzed with 6 mol L mol/L HCl at 110℃ for 24 hr in sealed glass tubes filled with nitrogen; then, 1 ml of hydrolysate was evaporated to dryness at 45℃ to remove the HCl. The hydrolysate was dissolved in 5 ml of 0.02 mol/L HCl, centrifuged (5,000 rpm, 10 min, 4℃), and then filtered. 1 µl aliquot of the supernatant was used for the amino acid analysis. Cysteine and methionine were determined as cysteic acid and methionine sulfone, respectively, by performic acid oxidation prior to their digestion in 6 N HCl. The content of tryptophan was determined after alkaline hydrolysis (5 mol/L NaOH) of each sample. All determinations were performed in triplicate.

Free amino acid (FAA) was carried out using the method of Li et al., (2014) with some modification. The sample was mixed with 0.01 mol/L HCl, supersonic extracted for 30 min, and then filtered. 1 µl aliquot of the supernatant was used for the amino acid analysis.

The amino acid composition was analyzed using an automatic amino acid analyzer (LA‐8080, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a 4.6 mm ×60 mm Hitachi 2,622 column. The identity and quantity of the amino acids were assessed by comparison with the retention times and peak areas of amino acid standards. Each sample was measured thrice and presented as the average of three replicates.

The essential amino acid score was calculated with respect to the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization reference amino acid pattern of the preschool child (FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985) using the following equation:

Amino acid score =sample amino acid/reference amino acid ×100.

2.5. The determination of fatty acid

Fatty acids were extracted from the shrimp samples and analyzed according to the ISO 5509 method (2000) involving Soxhlet extraction, saponification, esterification, and finally fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) extraction in hexane. Gas chromatography was performed using an Agilent Technologies 6,890 gas chromatograph equipped with an HP‐5 cross‐linked methyl silicone‐fused‐silica capillary column (30 m × 0.32 mm I.D., 0.5 µm film thickness). Individual components were identified by comparing the mass spectral data and retention time data with those obtained for authentic and laboratory standards. Each sample value represents the mean of three measurements.

2.6. Statistical analysis

All results were expressed as mean ± SD, and one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using statistical analysis software (SPSS Version 16.0). Differences in the concentration of nutritional elements among shrimp strains were tested with ANOVA followed by a multiple comparison test (Tukey's HSD). Differences were considered to be significant at p <.05.

2.7. Ethical statement

The Pacific white shrimp is an aquaculture species. All experiments in this study were approved by the Animal Care and Use guideline of the Marine Science Research Institute of Shandong Province.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Proximate composition of four shrimp strains

The proximate composition of each strain is shown in Table 1. Crude protein content ranged from 21.1% to 22.3%, crude fat content ranged from 0.8% to 1.1%, and the crude ash did not differ among strains. These results are consistent with Ma et al. (2018) who found that crude protein and fat content were relatively uniform among shrimp strains. Among the four strains examined in the present study, crude protein content was the highest in Universal (22.3%). Crude fat content was the lowest in common shrimp, and crude ash content was the lowest in KH‐1 and common shrimp. The samples came from the same culture area, but results were found to be comparable. A similar crude protein content was found in Aristaeomorpha foliacea (Bonoet al., 2012) and Penaeus monodon (Sriket et al., 2007) (87.7 g 100g‐ 1 dry matter), while Fenneropenaeus chinensis had a low crude protein content of 20.60% (Wang et al., 2013). Shrimp cultured in pond had higher values of crude fat, as reported by Sriket et al. (2007). In general, the chemical composition analyses confirmed that the four strains were to be excellent food resources, with good balance of nutrients and good level of protein.

TABLE 1.

Proximate composition of four shrimp strains (mean±SD) (g 100g‐1 wet weight)

Strains Moisture Protein Fat Ash Energy
Universal 74.6 ± 0.51b 22.3 ± 0.30a 1.1 ± 0.02a 1.7 ± 0.02a 425 ± 1.2a
KH−1 75.4 ± 0.39b 21.8 ± 0.31ab 1.0 ± 0.01b 1.6 ± 0.03a 411 ± 0.9b
Syaqua 75.2 ± 0.43ab 21.7 ± 0.29ab 1.0 ± 0.02b 1.7 ± 0.02a 413 ± 1.5b
Common 76.5 ± 0.41a 21.1 ± 0.34b 0.8 ± 0.01c 1.6 ± 0.03a 388 ± 1.4c
Open in a new tab

Values in the same column bearing different letters are significantly different (p <.05).

3.2. HAA profiles of four shrimp strains

The hydrolyzed amino acid profiles (HAA) of four shrimp strains are presented in Table 2. In all strains, glutamic acid was the most abundant amino acid, followed by lysine, aspartic acid, and leucine. These four amino acids constituted 41.34%‐42.64% of the total amino acids (TAA). The KH‐1 had the highest TAA amounts at 82.07 g 100g‐ 1 (DW). Additionally, the essential amino acid (EAA) was high. The ratio of EAA/TAA ranged from 38.22% (common) to 38.79% (Syaqua). The ratio of DAA/TAA ranged from 8.13% (Universal) to 8.90% (common). The ratio of EAA/NEAA ranged from 61.52% (KH‐1) to 63.38% (Syaqua).

TABLE 2.

Amino acid composition (hydrolyzed and free) of four shrimp strains (mean±SD) (g 100g‐1 dry weight)

Amino acid Hydrolyzed amino acid Free amino acid
Universal KH−1 Syaqua Common Universal KH−1 Syaqua Common
Aspartic acid # 6.16 ± 0.01b 6.50 ± 0.01c 6.73 ± 0.02b 6.90 ± 0.01a 0.201 ± 0.001b 0.203 ± 0.001a 0.161 ± 0.001b 0.128 ± 0.000c
Threonine * 3.14 ± 0.01a 3.21 ± 0.01a 3.27 ± 0.03a 3.06 ± 0.02a 0.406 ± 0.002a 0.447 ± 0.009a 0.403 ± 0.009a 0.170 ± 0.001a
Serine 2.71 ± 0.02ab 2.80 ± 0.02b 2.74 ± 0.02ab 2.86 ± 0.01a 0.051 ± 0.00b 0.122 ± 0.002a 0.040 ± 0.001b 0.043 ± 0.001b
Glutamine # 13.98 ± 0.01ab 14.19 ± 0.02b 14.40 ± 0.05a 13.88 ± 0.01ab 2.028 ± 0.010b 1.748 ± 0.009a 1.573 ± 0.010b 0.468 ± 0.009c
Glycine # 5.47 ± 0.02c 6.38 ± 0.01b 5.65 ± 0.01c 7.10 ± 0.01a 1.976 ± 0.018c 1.951 ± 0.015b 1.855 ± 0.012b 2.638 ± 0.014a
Alanine # 5.95 ± 0.01c 6.34 ± 0.01a 6.21 ± 0.02b 5.45 ± 0.01d 1.874 ± 0.025b 1.910 ± 0.031a 1.694 ± 0.027ab 0.851 ± 0.019c
Cysteine 4.42 ± 0.01a 1.38 ± 0.02a 1.37 ± 0.03a 1.33 ± 0.01a 0.201 ± 0.003a 0.122 ± 0.004b 0.121 ± 0.001b 0.128 ± 0.001b
Valine 3.78 ± 0.02a 3.86 ± 0.01a 3.91 ± 0.01a 3.49 ± 0.02b 0.457 ± 0.005b 0.488 ± 0.009a 0.444 ± 0.009a 0.170 ± 0.005c
Methionine * 2.76 ± 0.01b 2.76 ± 0.01b 2.74 ± 0.01b 3.37 ± 0.01a 0.201 ± 0.001c 0.244 ± 0.001a 0.202 ± 0.002b 0.170 ± 0.001c
Isoleucine * 3.62 ± 0.02a 3.82 ± 0.02a 3.75 ± 0.01a 3.33 ± 0.03b 0.303 ± 0.001a 0.325 ± 0.001a 0.282 ± 0.001a 0.085 ± 0.001a
Leucine * 6.50 ± 0.01a 6.54 ± 0.03a 6.69 ± 0.01a 6.08 ± 0.02b 0.559 ± 0.003c 0.650 ± 0.008a 0.565 ± 0.010b 0.170 ± 0.002d
Tyrosine 2.60 ± 0.04a 2.52 ± 0.01a 2.66 ± 0.02a 2.67 ± 0.01a 0.051 ± 0.001b 0.081 ± 0.001a 0.041 ± 0.001b 0.043 ± 0.001b
Phenylalanine * 3.46 ± 0.01a 3.54 ± 0.01a 3.59 ± 0.03a 3.49 ± 0.02a 0.354 ± 0.002c 0.447 ± 0.003a 0.363 ± 0.004b 0.128 ± 0.001d
Lysine * 6.89 ± 0.02ab 6.71 ± 0.02c 6.94 ± 0.05bc 7.10 ± 0.01a 0.606 ± 0.005b 0.691 ± 0.006a 0.524 ± 0.007b 0.298 ± 0.002c
Histidine△ 1.73 ± 0.02a 1.75 ± 0.01a 1.77 ± 0.02a 1.73 ± 0.01a 0.201 ± 0.001b 0.203 ± 0.001a 0.161 ± 0.001b 0.085 ± 0.001c
Tryptophan* 0.83 ± 0.01a 0.81 ± 0.01a 073 ± 0.01a 0.74 ± 0.02a 0.039 ± 0.00a 0.041 ± 0.001a 0.040 ± 0.001a 0.043 ± 0.00a
Arginine△ 5.24 ± 0.01a 4.80 ± 0.03c 4.96 ± 0.01b 5.22 ± 0.01a 0.205 ± 0.001a 0.122 ± 0.002b 0.121 ± 0.001b 0.043 ± 0.000c
Proline 3.39 ± 0.02b 4.14 ± 0.01a 3.39 ± 0.02b 2.43 ± 0.03c 0.472 ± 0.010b 1.138 ± 0.012a 0.766 ± 0.009c 0.043 ± 0.001d
Total amino acids (TAA) 80.08 ± 0.06ab 82.07 ± 0.05c 81.49 ± 0.06bc 80.24 ± 0.05a 7.992 ± 0.260c 10.894 ± 0.180a 9.315 ± 0.200ab 5.600 ± 0.280d
Essential amino acids (EAA) 30.98 ± 0.03a 31.26 ± 0.02a 31.61 ± 0.02a 30.67 ± 0.02a
Delicious amino acids (DAA) 32.01 ± 0.02c 33.42 ± 0.05b 32.98 ± 0.03bc 33.33 ± 0.02a
EAA/TAA 38.69% 38.09% 38.79% 38.22%
EAA/NEAA 63.11% 61.52% 63.38% 61.86%
DAA/TAA 39.97% 40.71% 40.48% 41.54%
Open in a new tab

indicates delicious amino acids; * indicates essential amino acids.△ indicates semi‐essential amino acids. Values in the same column bearing different letters are significantly different (p <.05).

The nutritional value of food depends on amino acid composition and content. For humans, food with higher amino acid content can provide better nutritional value (Shi et al., 2013). TAA and EAA are also important indicators of the nutritional value of aquatic products (Wu et al., 2014). The four shrimp strains evaluated in this study had glutamic acid, content ranging from 172.8 mg g‐ 1 (KH‐1) to 176.6 mg g‐ 1 (Syaqua) crude protein. These values are significantly higher than those reported for fish: 114 mg/g crude protein in Pampus punctatissimus (Zhao et al., 2010), 117 mg/g crude protein in Paralichthys olivaceus (Ning et al., 2018); crabs: 147 mg/g crude protein in Carcinus maenas (Naczk et al., 2004), 151 mg/g crude protein in Eriocheir sinensis (Chen et al., 2007); and other shrimps: 135 mg/g crude protein in Euphausia superba (Li et al., 2014). Glutamate contributes to biochemical metabolism in brain tissue, synthesizing active substances and playing an important role in synaptic transmissions between nervous systems (Morris et al., 1987). Furthermore, the efflux of glutamic acid from meat in response to critical illness can serve as an important carrier of ammonia (nitrogen) to the splanchnic area and the immune system (Deutz et al., 1992). The shrimp protein was also rich in lysine, which is the limiting amino acid in the cereal‐based diets of children in developing countries (Kim et al., 2000).

The EAA scores of each shrimp strain are presented in Table 3. When compared to the reference amino acid pattern of preschool children (2–5 years old), all amino acid scores were >100, except for tryptophan. Tryptophan had the lowest scores (especially in Syaqua), which would be considered the limiting amino acid in shrimp. However, in Chinese recipes, shrimp is often cooked with pork, mutton, and millet, which will supply the limiting amino acid (Jilin and Peck, 1995). Lysine and sulfur‐containing amino acids (cysteine and methionine) had the highest scores in all strains. In general, the shrimp muscle protein was of high quality and exhibited well‐balanced EAA compositions.

TABLE 3.

Essential amino acids scores in four shrimp strains

Amino acid Reference* Universal KH−1 Syaqua Common
content score content score content score content score
Threonine 34 39.33 115.68 39.13 115.09 40.08 117.88 38.12 112.12
Tryptophan 11 10.32 93.82 9.91 90.09 8.91 81.00 9.29 84.45
Cysteine+Methionine 25 52.11 208.44 50.52 202.08 50.47 201.88 58.65 234.60
Valine 35 47.20 134.86 47.05 134.43 47.99 137.11 43.50 124.29
Phenylalanine+Tyrosine 63 75.70 120.16 73.80 117.14 76.70 121.74 76.74 121.81
Isoleucine 28 45.23 161.54 46.56 166.29 46.02 164.35 41.54 148.36
Leucine 66 81.12 122.91 79.74 120.82 82.14 124.45 75.76 114.79
Lysine 38 86.04 226.42 81.72 215.05 85.10 223.95 88.47 232.82
Average score 147.97 145.12 146.55 146.65
Open in a new tab
*

Reference amino acid pattern of preschool children (2–5 years) (FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985) (mg/g protein).

3.3. FAA profiles of four shrimp strains

The free amino acid (FAA) profiles of the four shrimp strains are presented in Table 2. The total FAA contents were 7.99 g 100g‐1 (DW), 10.89 g 100g‐1 (DW), 9.32 g 100g‐1 (DW), and 5.60 g 100g‐1 (DW), respectively. The most abundant FAA was glutamic acid, glycine, alanine, and lysine, which differed from the HAA profiles. These amino acids constituted 63.05%, 57.83%, 60.61%, and 75.10% of the total FAA (TFAA), respectively. The least abundant FAA in the meat of all four shrimp strains was tryptophan.

The taste activity value (TAV) of the FAA identified in the four shrimp strains is presented in Table 4. FAAs are important components of the meat that can affect the flavor of aquatic animals (Li et al., 2014). Each amino acid has a unique taste, the flavor contribution of which is dependent on the TAV, the ratio between the taste substance contained in the sample and its threshold value (Chen et al., 2012; Li et al., 2014). A TAV >1 indicates an important contribution to the taste of food (Wang and Chen, 2014). However, TAV does not consider the interaction between the components, which may have a synergistic effect on food taste. Maybe sensory evaluation should be used in our future research. Among the four shrimp strains, glutamic acid, glycine, valine, methionine, lysine, and histidine had TAVs greater than one. Amino acids, especially glutamic acid, glycine, alanine, and aspartic acid greatly influence the shrimp flavor (Liu et al.,l., 2017).

TABLE 4.

The taste attribute and TAV of free amino acid in four shrimp strains (mg g‐1)

Amino acid Taste attribute Threshold value TAV
Universal KH−1 Syaqua Common
Aspartic acid sweet/sour (+) 1 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.30
Threonine sweet (+) 2.6 0.31 0.42 0.38 0.15
Serine sweet (+) 1.5 0.07 0.20 0.07 0.07
Glutamine sweet/sour (+) 0.3 13.33 14.33 13.00 3.67
Glycine sweet (+) 1.3 3.00 3.69 3.54 4.77
Alanine sweet (+) 0.6 6.17 7.83 7.00 3.33
Valine sweet/bitter (‐) 0.4 2.25 3.00 2.75 1.00
Methionine bitter/sweet/sulfurous (‐) 0.3 1.33 2.00 1.67 1.33
Isoleucine bitter (‐) 0.9 0.67 0.89 0.78 0.22
Leucine bitter (‐) 1.9 0.58 0.84 0.74 0.21
Phenylalanine bitter (‐) 0.9 0.78 1.22 1.00 0.33
Lysine sweet/bitter (‐) 0.5 2.40 3.40 2.60 1.4
Histidine bitter (‐) 0.2 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.00
Arginine bitter/sweet (‐) 0.5 0.80 0.6 0.60 0.20
Proline bitter/sweet (‐) 3 0.4 0.93 0.63 0.03
Open in a new tab

Figure 1 shows the comparative content model charts and TAV model charts of the major FAA in the four shrimps, respectively. All strains had the similar FAA compositions, except the common shrimp, which had higher glycine levels (Figure 1a). The FAA content model among the other three strains was similar, but the model area was highest for KH‐1, followed by Syaqua, and then Universal, which indicates that the FAA content of KH‐1 was higher.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Comparative content and comparative TAV model charts of major free amino acids Abbreviations: Glu, glutamine; Gly, glycine; Ala, alanine; Val, valine; Leu, leucine; Lys, lysine; His, histidine

The FAA content models were similar among strains, except for the common shrimp (Figure 1b). KH‐1 had the largest model area. The top contributor to taste was glutamine, with a TAV of 14.33. The TAVs of alanine and glycine were 7.83 and 3.69, respectively, which also significantly influence the taste of shrimp meat. The models indicate that KH‐1 would taste fresher and sweeter than the other strains.

3.4. Fatty acid profiles of four shrimp strains

The fatty acid profiles and levels, which varied among the four strains, are shown in Table 5. The profiles of all strains were dominated by polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) except in the common shrimp, followed by saturated fatty acids (SFA), and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA). Among the SFAs, palmitic acid (C16:0) was the dominant and stearic acids (C18:0) were also abundant. The dominant MUFA was oleic acid (C18:1). The dominant PUFAs were linoleic acid (LA, C18:2–6), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, C22:6–3), and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, C20:5–3).

TABLE 5.

Fatty acid profile (g/100g wet weight) of four shrimp strains (mean±SD) (g 100g‐1)

Fat acid Universal KH−1 Syaqua Common
C4:0 0.04 ± 0.00a 0.02 ± 0.00a 0.03 ± 0.00a 0.04 ± 0.00a
C6:0 0.02 ± 0.00a ‐ 0.02 ± 0.00a 0.03 ± 0.00a
C10:0 0.05 ± 0.00a 0.04 ± 0.00a 0.06 ± 0.00a 0.29 ± 0.00a
C11:0 7.29 ± 0.18c 7.03 ± 0.05c 9.47 ± 0.09b 10.98 ± 0.05a
C12:0 0.06 ± 0.00b 0.04 ± 0.00c 0.06 ± 0.00b 0.08 ± 0.01a
C14:0 0.61 ± 0.01a 0.34 ± 0.00c 0.31 ± 0.00d 0.45 ± 0.01b
C15:0 0.77 ± 0.00b 1.08 ± 0.09a 0.66 ± 0.01bc 0.63 ± 0.00c
C16:0 16.83 ± 0.10b 16.75 ± 0.07b 15.94 ± 0.09c 17.46 ± 0.10a
C17:0 1.41 ± 0.01d 1.99 ± 0.02b 1.62 ± 0.01c 2.64 ± 0.05a
C18:0 10.23 ± 0.19a 10.32 ± 0.20a 10.08 ± 0.21a 9.05 ± 0.15b
C20:0 0.72 ± 0.01a 0.67 ± 0.01b 0.57 ± 0.02c 0.65 ± 0.01b
C21:0 0.22 ± 0.00 0.20 ± 0.00 0.15 ± 0.00 0.22 ± 0.00
C22:0 0.98 ± 0.01a 0.76 ± 0.00b 0.70 ± 0.01c 0.98 ± 0.00a
C23:0 0.20 ± 0.00b 0.21 ± 0.00b 0.18 ± 0.00c 0.29 ± 0.01a
C24:0 0.29 ± 0.00 0.28 ± 0.00 0.21 ± 0.00 0.36 ± 0.00
∑SFA 39.72 ± 0.26b 39.73 ± 0.31b 40.06 ± 0.41b 44.15 ± 0.38a
C16:1(n−7) 2.10 ± 0.02b 1.37 ± 0.01c 1.01 ± 0.00d 3.77 ± 0.12a
C18:1(trans,n−9) 0.56 ± 0.00 0.41 ± 0.00 ‐ 0.61 ± 0.00
C18:1(cis,n−9) 13.89 ± 0.21a 13.10 ± 0.09b 12.71 ± 0.09c 12.40 ± 0.07c
C20:1 0.69 ± 0.00b 0.72 ± 0.00a 0.72 ± 0.01a 0.37 ± 0.00c
C24:1(n−9) 0.43 ± 0.00 0.30 ± 0.00 0.35 ± 0.00 0.33 ± 0.00
∑MUFA n−9 14.88 ± 0.07a 13.81 ± 0.08b 13.06 ± 0.06d 13.34 ± 0.10c
∑MUFA 17.67 ± 0.09a 15.90 ± 0.08b 14.79 ± 0.11c 17.48 ± 0.05a
C18:2(LA,n−6) 16.12 ± 0.07a 15.12 ± 0.07b 16.14 ± 0.08a 9.49 ± 0.11c
C20:2 1.34 ± 0.01c 1.61 ± 0.05b 1.85 ± 0.09a 0.77 ± 0.06d
C22:2 0.04 ± 0.00a 0.05 ± 0.00a 0.07 ± 0.00a 0.10 ± 0.00a
C18:3(GLA,n−6) 0.05 ± 0.00 0.07 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.23 ± 0.00
C18:3(ALA,n−3) 1.89 ± 0.05c 2.00 ± 0.04c 2.22 ± 0.07b 4.30 ± 0.05a
C20:3 (n−6) 0.07 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.46 ± 0.00
C20:4 (ARA,n−4) 2.92 ± 0.04d 3.62 ± 0.05b 3.25 ± 0.04c 6.28 ± 0.09a
C20:5 (EPA,n−3) 9.56 ± 0.07c 10.35 ± 0.08a 10.09 ± 0.09b 9.93 ± 0.10b
C22:6(DHA,n−6) 10.60 ± 0.10b 11.44 ± 0.12a 11.14 ± 0.21a 6.55 ± 0.18c
∑PUFA n−3 11.45 ± 0.22c 12.35 ± 0.04b 12.31 ± 0.08b 14.23 ± 0.09a
∑PUFA n−6 26.77 ± 0.28ab 26.63 ± 0.19b 27.32 ± 0.25a 16.27 ± 0.19c
∑PUFA 42.59 ± 0.45b 44.36 ± 0.36a 44.88 ± 0.47a 38.11 ± 0.39c
∑PUFAn−3/∑PUFA n−6 0.43 0.46 0.45 0.87
∑PUFAn−6/∑PUFA n−3 2.34 2.16 2.22 1.14
Open in a new tab

Values in the same row bearing different letters are significantly different (p <.05), whereas values without letters indicate no significant differences.

Abbreviations: MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids; SFA, saturated fatty acids.

Lipids store and provide energy to organisms. PUFAs are essential for the reproduction and growth of organisms; they can also increase the flavor of food during heating, reduce blood viscosity, and enhance human immunity (Cui et al., 2018). Compared with pomfret (Zhao et al., 2010), Pacific white shrimp have higher amounts PUFA contents, especially the Syaqua strain. In addition, all four strains had higher MUFA levels than Chinese white shrimp Fenneropenaeus chinensis (Li et al., 2017). LA is a fat acid typically found in plants; the high LA content observed in shrimp may attribute to their omnivorous diets. In fact, a previous study reported higher LA content in the muscle of L. vannamei fed diets supplemented with two species of marine algae (Ju et al., 2009). Dietary lipids have also been shown to affect the fatty acid composition of L. vannamei; whole body shrimps showed increases in MUFA and PUFA when fed diets with high levels of unsaturated fatty acids.

Among the most valuable FAs, DHA and EPA play important roles in the prevention of inflammatory and cardiovascular diseases due to their serum triglycerides‐lowering effects (Bono et al., 2012). The EPA and DHA contents were moderately high in all the shrimp samples, especially KH‐1. However, the EPA content measured in the present research was lower than that reported by Huang et al., (2004) for L. vannamei (11.5 to 13.7 g100 g−1FA), while the DHA content, which ranged from 8.9 to 10.4 g 100 g−1 FA, was lower than that of our data.

The ratio of n‐6/n‐3 PUFAs found among the four strains in this study was lower than the threshold value recommended by the UK Department of Health (HMSO, 1994). Values>4.0 are considered to be harmful to health and may promote the development of cardiovascular disease (Moreira et al., 2001). Therefore, consuming these shrimp strains may contribute to maintenance of n‐6/n‐3 ratio recommended. The FA compositions among aquatic organisms are dependent on diet, size, age, reproductive conditions, and environmental conditions, especially water temperature, which can influence lipid content and FA composition (Zhao et al., 2010). Our results indicate that the shrimp strain influences FA content and composition.

4. CONCLUSION

The results from this study revealed that strain‐specific variability exists in chemical composition of the shrimp L. vannamei under controlled condition. The Universal strain had the highest protein and fat content, and the highest overall EAA score. The Syaqua shrimps showed the highest levels of PUFA. And the KH‐1 strain was highest in FAA taste‐active components.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by Modern Agricultural Industry Technology System of Shandong Province (SDAIT‐13‐07).

Li, X. , Wang, Y. , Li, H. , Jiang, X. , Ji, L. , Liu, T. , & Sun, Y. (2021). Chemical and quality evaluation of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei: Influence of strains on flesh nutrition. Food Science & Nutrition, 9, 5352–5360. 10.1002/fsn3.2457

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

REFERENCE

  1. AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) , (1995). Official Method of Analysis of Official Analysis Chemists International, 16th. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. [Google Scholar]
  2. Blythe, J. , Mark, F. , & Grant, M. (2015). Vulnerability of coastal livelihoods to shrimp farming: Insights from Mozambique. Ambio, 44(4), 275–284. 10.1007/s13280-014-0574-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bono, G. , Gai, F. , Peiretti, P. G. , Badalucco, C. , Brugiapaglia, A. , Siragusa, G. , & Palmegiano, G. B. (2012). Chemical and nutritional characterisation of the Central Mediterranean Giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea): Influence of trophic and geographical factors on flesh quality. Food Chemistry, 130(1), 104–110. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, D. , Su, J. , Liu, X. , Yan, D. , & Lin, Y. (2012). Taste evaluation of non‐volatile taste compounds in bivalve mollusks from beibu. Guangxi. Food Science, 33(10), 165–168. (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, D. , Zhang, M. , & Shrestha, S. (2007). Compositional characteristics and nutritional quality of Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis). Food Chemistry, 103(4), 1343–1349. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.10.047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, M. , Wu, C. , Xiang, J. , Huang, H. , Liu, X. , Liu, C. , He, J. , & Sun, C. (2008). Selective breeding and pedigree foundation of Litopenaeus vanamei . Marine Sciences, 32(11), 5–8. 10.13233/j.cnki.mar.fish.2010.04.101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cui, G. , Jiang, Z. , Wang, J. , Hu, Z. , & Wei, W. (2018). Comparison of nutritional components of Macrobrachium rosenbergii under two cultivation modes. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 46(9), 212–214. 10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2018.09.051 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Deutz, N. E. P. , Reijven, P. L. M. , Athanasas, G. , & Soeters, P. B. (1992). Post‐operative changes in hepatic, intestinal, splenic and muscle fluxes of amino acids and ammonia in pigs. Clinical Science, 83, 607. 10.1042/cs0830607 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Duan, Y. , Huang, Z. , Lin, H. , Dong, H. , & Zhang, J. (2017).Comparative analysis of muscle nutrient composition between floating‐cage cultured and pond‐cultured Pacific white shrimps (Litopenaeus vannamei). South China Fisheries Science, 13(2):93‐100. 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0780.2017.02.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. FAO/WHO/UNU , (1985). Energy and protein requirements. Report of a joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation, World Health Origanization technical report series724. 121–123. [Google Scholar]
  11. FBMA (Fisheries Bureau of Ministry of Agriculture) (2020). China Fishery Statistical Yearbook. China Agriculture Press. (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  12. HMSO (1994). Nutritional aspects of cardiovascular disease (report on health and sociall subjects, Vol. No. 46. HMSO. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hu, Z. , Liu, J. , Yuan, R. , & Zhang, J. (2015). Growth performance comparison and selection effect prediction for selective breeding G0 generation of Litopenaeus Vannamei . Oceanologia Et Limnologia Sinica, 46(3), 556–562. (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  14. Huang, K. , Wang, W. , Lu, J. , Dai, X. , & Zhou, J. (2004). Salinity effects on growth and biochemical composition of Paeneus vannamei . Marine Science, 28, 20–25. (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  15. (2000). Animal and vegetable fats and oils: Preparation of methylesters of fatty acids (ISO5509). International Organization for Standardization. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jilin, L. , & Peck, G. (1995). Chinese dietary therapy. Churchill Livingstone. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ju, Z. , Forster, I. , & Dominy, W. (2009). Effects of supplementing two species of marine algae or their fractions to a formulated diet on growth, survival and composition of shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Aquaculture, 292, 237–243. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.04.040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, J‐D. , & Lall, S. P. (2000). Amino acid composition of whole body tissue of Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea) and Japanese flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Aquaculture, 187(3‐4), 367–373. 10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00322-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, H. , Li, X. , Liu, T. , Jiang, X. , Sun, Y. , Ji, L. , Wang, Y. (2017). Analysis on nutritional components in Fenneropenaeus chinensis in the biological aquaculture mode integrating salt production and fish farming. Fishery Modernization, 44(5), 60–66. 10.3969/j.issn.1007-9580.2017.05.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, T. , Huang, J. , Ma, Z. , Yang, Q. , Zhou, F. , Yang, L. , & Jiang, S. (2016). Culture performance in four different strains of Pacific white leg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei . Journal of Dalian Ocean University, 31(1), 71–74. (in Chinese). 10.16535/j.cnki.dlhyxb.2016.01.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, W. , Chen, S. , & Qiu, W. (2014). Comparative analysis of amino acid composition in Antarctic krill and White shrimp. Advanced Materials Research, 941–944, 1114–1119. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.941-944.1114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, X. , Wang, X. , Wang, Y. , Jiang, X. , Li, H. , Liu, T. , Wu, Z. , & Ji, L. , (2020). Effects of different salinities on nutritional composition in muscle of Litopenaeus vannamei . Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 22(1), 130–137. 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, Q. , Huang, S. , Yue, W. , Chen, X. , & Wang C., (2017). Effects of Elodea nuttallii on growth and nutritional quality of Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis . Journal of Fishery Sciences of China, 24(1), 91–99. 10.3724/SP.J.1118.2017.16219 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Luan, S. , Luo, K. , Ruan, X. , Cao, B. , Wang, H. , Du., X. , Zhang, K. , & Kong, J. (2013). Genetic parameters and genotype by envieronment ineration for body weight and surviaval of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei . Oceanologia Et Limnologia Sinica, 44(2), 445–452. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ma, L. , Jiang, J. , Wu, H. , Bai, X. , Liu, X. , Cai, C. , Xue, Y. , Zhang, Z. , & Li, C. (2018). Analysis and evaluation of nutritional components in the muscle of 5 strains of Penaeus vannamei cultured in circulating water in ponds. Fishery Modernization, 45(5), 36‐44. 10.3969/j.issn.1007-9580.2018.05.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Moreira, A. , Visentainer, J. , Souza, N. , & Matsushita, M. (2001). Fatty acids profile and cholesterol contents of three Brazilian Brycon Freshwater fishes. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 14, 565–574. 10.1006/jfca.2001.1025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Morris, R. G. , & Dabis, M. (1987). The Role of NMDA Receptors in Learning and Memory, Nature. 330, 604–605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Naczk, M. , Williams, J. , Brennan, K. , Liyanapathirana, C. , & Shahidi, F. (2004). Compositional characteristics of green crab (Carcinus maenas). Food Chemistry, 88(3), 429–434. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.01.056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ning, J. , Hu, P. , Li, B. , & Jiang, C. (2018). Nutritional comparison in muscle of wild, pond and factory cultured Japanese flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus) adults. Aquaculture Research, 49(7), 2572‐2578. 10.1111/are.13719 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Shi, Y. , Zhang, G. , Liu, Y. , Yan, Y. , Xie, Y. , Lu, G. , Xu, J. , & Liu, J. (2013). Effects of salinity on nutrient composition, amino acid composition and content in themuscle of Parapenaeopsis hardwickii . Chinese Journal of Zoology, 8(3), 399–406. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sriket, P. , Benjakul, S. , Visessanguan, W. , & Kijroongrojana, K. (2007). Comparative studies on chemical composition and thermal properties of black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) and white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) meats. Food Chemistry, 103, 1199–1207. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.10.039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. The PRC Health and Family Planning Commssion & Food and Drug Administraion . (2016). Determination of amino acids in foods (GB5009.124‐2016). Standards Press of China. [Google Scholar]
  33. Huang, Y. , Ai, H. , Yin, Z. , Huang, X. , Li, S. , Weng, S. , & He, J. (2010). Studies on WSSV‐resistant and immune characteristics of the 4th generation selective breeding families for resistance to the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) of Litopenaeus vannamei. Journal of Fisheries of China, 43(10):1549‐1558. (in Chinese) 10.3724/SP.J.1231.2010.06941 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, J. (2013). Comparision of nutritional composition in muscle of Penaeus chinensis, Penaeus vannamei Boone and Penaeus japonicuss Bate. Food Science and Technology, 38(6):145‐150. 10.13684/j.cnki.spkj.2013.06.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, Y. , & Chen, S. (2014). Comparative composition of free amino acids in wild and cultured Procambarus clarkii . Food Science, 35(11), 269–273. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wu, X. , Wang, Q. , Lou, B. , Liu, Z. , & Chen, Y. (2014). Effect of fatterning period on ovarian development and nutritional quality of female swimming crab (Portunus trituberculatus). Journal of Fisheries of China, 38(2), 170–181. 10.3724/SP.J.1231.2014.48934 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Xu, Z. , Li, W. , Fu, R. , Luo, H. , Liu, M. , Zhang, X. , & You, J. , (2015). Effect of different breeding patterns on growth performance and body composition of Litopenaeus vannamei . Journal of Zhejiang Ocean University (Natural Science), 34(1), 15–19. (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhang, M. , Sun, Y. , Chen, K. , Yu, N. , Zhou, Z. , Chen, L. , Du, Z. , & Li, E. (2014). Characterization of the intestinal microbiota in Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, fed diets with different lipid sources. Aquaculture, 434, 449–455. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhao, F. , Zhuang, P. , Song, C. , Shi, Z. , & Zhang, L. (2010). Amino acid and fatty acid compositions and nutritional quality of muscle in the pomfret, Pampus punctatissimus. Food Chemistry, 118(2), 224‐227. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.04.110 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhou, Q. , Wang, Y. , Wang, H. , & Tan, B. (2013). Dietary threonine requirements of juvenile Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei . Aquaculture, 392–395, 142–147. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.01.026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Articles from Food Science & Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES