Ahmad Et Al., 2012

Article
pubs.acs.org/JAFC

Effects of Dietary Sodium Selenite and Selenium Yeast on
Antioxidant Enzyme Activities and Oxidative Stability of Chicken
Breast Meat
Hussain Ahmad,† Jinke Tian,† Jianjun Wang,† Muhammad Ammar Khan,‡ Yuanxiao Wang,† Lili Zhang,†
and Tian Wang*,†
†

College of Animal Science and Technology and ‡National Laboratory for Meat Quality and Safety Control, Nanjing Agricultural
University, Nanjing 210095, People's Republic of China
ABSTRACT: The effects of sodium selenite (SS) and selenium yeast (SY) alone and in combination (MS) on the selenium
(Se) content, antioxidant enzyme activities (AEA), total antioxidant capacity (TAC), and oxidative stability of chicken breast
meat were investigated. The results showed that the highest (p < 0.05) glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity was found in
the SS-supplemented chicken breast meat; however, SY and MS treatments significantly increased (p < 0.05) the Se content and
the activities of catalase (CAT), total superoxide dismutase (T-SOD), and TAC, but decreased (p < 0.05) the malondialdehyde
(MDA) content at 42 days of age. Twelve days of storage at 4 °C decreased (p < 0.05) the activity of the GSH-Px, but CAT, TSOD, and TAC remained stable. SY decreased the lipid oxidation more effectively in chicken breast meat. It was concluded that
SY and MS are more effective than SS in increasing the AEA, TAC, and oxidative stability of chicken breast meat.
KEYWORDS: selenium, broiler, antioxidant enzyme activities, oxidative stability, sensory test

■

INTRODUCTION
Lipid oxidation (LO) is among the major reasons after
microbial deterioration for decreased nutritional contents as
well as sensory traits of meat. It decreases the shelf life of meat,
which leads to economic losses in the meat industry.1 Lipid
oxidation also produces reactive free radicals, which lead to
serious health problems.2 Dietary antioxidants such as βcarotene, vitamin C (Vit C), and vitamin E (Vit E) have been
reported to prevent LO in animal muscles and, thus, improved
the meat quality, as well as stability.3 Vit E is the chain-breaking
antioxidant, the major protector against LO in living organisms.
Selenium (Se) is involved in cellular antioxidant defense
mechanisms by the activity of glutathione peroxidase (GSHPx), which is a Se-dependent enzyme that catalyzes the
reduction of hydrogen peroxide and organic peroxides to water
and the corresponding stable alcohol, thus inhibiting the
formation of free radicals.4 Se had a sparing effect on Vit E and
increased its content of meat and egg yolk in chickens.5
Another recent study has reported that the activity of αtocopherol is improved by the addition of Se in the diets, thus
resulting in a better quality of meat.6 In the past, meat
producers relied on Vit E to reduce LO and increase meat shelf
life. Now, it is clear that efficient utilization of Vit E is
dependent upon the Se-based antioxidant enzymes in the body,
and an adequate Se intake is required to ensure the best
utilization of this exclusive vitamin.7
There are two forms of Se in nature, inorganic sources
(selenite, selenate, and selenide) and organic sources such as
Se-methionine (Se-Met), Se-cystine (Se-Cys), and Se-cysteine.
Sodium selenite (SS) is the most frequent source of Se, used in
the animal feed industry. It is also well-known for showing signs
of strong cytotoxicity and low bioavailability, thus resulting in
the production of animal feedstuffs that contain low Se content.
© 2012 American Chemical Society

However, organic Se has comparatively higher bioavailability
and thus produces Se-enriched meat.8,9 Selenium yeast (SY) is
an organic Se source, the Se-enriched Saccharomyces cerevisiae
produced by aerobic fermentation. It has been reported that SY
has a potential to improve antioxidant status superior to that of
SS in chickens.10
Fresh meat and meat products are usually marketed at
temperatures of 2−5 °C. At this temperature, many undesirable
changes can occur during refrigeration due to microbes and
LO, which decrease the quality and spoilage of meat and create
economic losses in the meat industry. Our objectives were to
examine the effects of different dietary sources of Se (SS and
SY), alone and in combination on Se content, nutritive values,
antioxidant enzyme activities (AEA), total antioxidant capacity
(TAC), and LO in chicken breast meat after 42 days of feeding.
Furthermore, the oxidative stability and sensory evaluation of
chicken breast meat stored at 4 °C for 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 days
were assayed.

■

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials. Six hundred 1-day-old Arbor Acres broiler chickens of
the same grade were procured from a local commercial hatchery
(Hewei, Anhui, People's Republic of China) and randomly assigned to
five treatments, consisting of six replicates of 20 birds.
The birds were fed corn−soybean basal diets (Table 1). Birds in the
control group were fed the diet without any Se supplementation or the
basal diets with SS at 0.3 mg/kg (SS group), SY at 0.2 mg/kg (SY-I
group), SY at 0.3 mg/kg (SY-II group), and 0.3 mg of mixed Se
sources (SS 0.15 mg/kg feed + SY 0.15 mg/kg) (MS group),
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
7111

January 27, 2012
June 23, 2012
June 25, 2012
June 25, 2012
dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Article

Storage Procedure. To assess the effects of different dietary Se
sources alone or in combination on antioxidant enzymes, antioxidant
capacity, and lipid stability of raw chicken breast meat during
refrigeration storage, the breast meat samples were wrapped in sealed
plastic bags and placed at 4 °C. After 3, 6, 9, and 12 days of storage at
4 °C, the meat samples were collected and stored at −80 °C until
further analysis.
Determination of Selenium Content of Feed and Chicken
Breast Meat. To determine the Se content, the feed and chicken
breast meat samples (1.0 g) of 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 days of storage at 4 °C
were digested in a mixture of nitric acid (HNO3) and hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2), purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Co., in
Teflon high-pressure vessels in an MDS-2000 microwave oven (LabX,
Midland, ON, Canada). After mineralization, the solution was diluted
with ultrapure water, and Se was determined according to a
fluorometric method as described in the AOAC.12
Determinations of Antioxidant Enzymes and Thiobarbituric
Acid Reactive Substances of Raw Chicken Breast Meat. One
gram of the raw chicken breast meat samples stored at 4 °C for 0, 3, 6,
9, and 12 days was homogenized in 9 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride
buffer on ice by using an Ultra-Turrax homogenizer (Tekmar Co.,
Cincinnati, OH, USA) for 10 s at 8000 rpm and centrifuged at 4000
rpm for 15 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was used for further analysis.
The activities of GSH-Px, catalase (CAT), and total superoxide
dismutase (T-SOD) were measured.13−15 The LO of the chicken
breast meat was measured, and the results were expressed as
thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) in nanomoles per
milligram of malondialdehyde (MDA).16
The GSH-Px activity is the amount of enzyme that will oxidize 1
μmol/L GSH in the reaction system at 37 °C per minute in 1 mg of
meat. The CAT activity was measured by the rate of disappearance of
H2O2 at 240 nm and expressed as micromoles of H2O2 decomposed
per minute per gram of meat.14 The T-SOD activity was measured as
that which will inhibit the rate of oxidation of hydroxylamine by 50%
in a coupled system, using xanthine and xanthine oxidase at 37 °C in
1.0 mg/mL protein concentration of meat homogenate. The TAC was
measured as, in which the reaction mixture, ferric ion was reduced by
antioxidant reducing agents and blue complex Fe2+ TPTZ (2,4,6-tri(2pyridyl)-s-triazine) was produced, which reacted with phenanthroline
to generate a stable complex. This stable complex was measured
spectrophotometerically at 520 nm and expressed as milligrams of
tissue protein that increased the optical density value 0.01 per minute
at 37 °C. Data for GSH-Px, CAT, T-SOD, and TAC were expressed as
specific activity units per milligram of protein (U/mg protein) in
chicken breast meat. The assays were conducted using the assay kits
procured from Nanjing Jiancheng Institute of Bioengineering
(Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China), according to the
instructions of the manufacturer. All samples were measured in
triplicate. Protein contents of supernatants were determined by a
previously reported method.17
Sensory Evaluation. Sensory attributes such as color, odor, flavor,
juiciness, and overall acceptability were determined according to a
previously reported method.18 Chicken breast meat was evaluated by a
panel of 10 selected assessors. All were members of the Animal Science
and Technology College and National Laboratory for meat quality and
safety control of Nanjing Agriculture University, Nanjing, China. The
chicken breast meat samples were cooked for 20 min at 85 °C. Water
was used between two samples when the flavor of cooked chicken
breast meat was evaluated. A nine-point scale was used for the
assessment (1, like extremely; 2, like very much; 3, like moderately; 4,
like slightly; 5, neither like nor dislike; 6, dislike slightly; 7, dislike
moderately; 8, dislike very much; 9, dislike extremely).
Statistical Analysis. All data were analyzed by ANOVA using the
General Linear Model procedures of SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary,
NC, USA). Duncan's multiple-range test was used for significance of
difference (p < 0 0.05) of two factors (Se source and storage days) and
interaction between the two factors.

Table 1. Ingredients and Nutrient Content of the Basal Diets
ingredient
corn, g
soybean meal, g
corn gluten meal, g
vegetable oil, g
limestone, g
dicalcium phosphate, g
sodium chloride, g
L-lysine, g
DL-methionine, g
premix,a g
calculation of nutrients
metabolizable energy, MJ/kg
crude protein, %
calcium, %
available phosphorus, %
lysine, %,
methionine, %
methionine + cystine, %

1−21 days

22−42 days

59.1
30.6
3.8
1.7
1.31
1.77
0.42
0.15
0.15
1

64.3
24.3
4.5
2.5
1.23
1.58
0.33
0.16
0.1
1

12.27
21.2
1.0
0.43
1.08
0.50
0.82

12.77
19.3
0.91
0.38
0.95
0.43
0.73

a

Provided per kg of diet: iron, 60 mg; copper, 7.5 mg; zinc, 65 mg;
manganese, 110 mg; iodine, 1.1 mg; bacitracin zinc, 30 mg; vitamin A,
4500 IU; vitamin D3, 1000 IU; vitamin E, 30 IU; vitamin K, 1.3 mg;
vitamin B1, 2.2 mg; vitamin B2, 10 mg; vitamin B3, 10 mg; choline, 400
mg; vitamin B5, 50 mg; vitamin B6, 4 mg; biotin, 0.04 mg; vitamin B11,
1 mg; vitamin B12, 1.013 mg.

respectively, for 42 days. The basal starter and grower diets contained
0.11 mg/kg Se. SS was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Co.,
St. Louis, MO, USA, whereas SY was from Sunhy Biological Co. Ltd.,
Wuhan Hubei, People's Republic of China. All nutrients met or
exceeded the nutrient requirements of broilers11 and were analyzed by
following the methods of the Association of Official Analytical
Chemists (AOAC).12
Husbandry. The birds were kept in wire cages in a three-level
battery and housed in an environmentally controlled room (at 34−36
°C) during 1 to 14 days, and then the temperature was gradually
decreased to 26 °C and kept constant until the end of experiment. The
broilers were kept under 24 h constant lighting and also vaccinated
against infectious bursal disease and Newcastle disease. Birds were
allowed to take feed and water ad libitum. This project was approved
and conducted under the supervision of the Animal Care and Use
Committee, Nanjing Agriculture University, Nanjing, Poeple's
Republic of China, which has adopted the Animal Care and Use
Guidelines governing all animals used in experimental procedures. The
average daily gain (ADG in g) was determined as the average daily
change in body weight between two consecutive body weight
measurements by using the following formula:

final wt (g) − initial wt (g)
age (days)
The feed conversion ratio (FCR) was calculated by using the formula
total feed consumption (total feed offered − total feed residue) (g)
total final wt (g) − total initial wt (g) + total mortality wt (g)

Sample Preparation. Following 42 days of exposure to
experimental diets, 60 randomly selected broiler chickens (2 birds
per replicate) were slaughtered. Individual carcasses were trimmed for
breast meat by removing feathers, bones, and connective tissues.
Following trimming, breast meat samples were individually sliced in
different sections. One section was vacuumed packed and stored at
−80 °C until further analysis. Other sections of breast meats were kept
for oxidative stability studies.
7112

dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Article

Table 2. Treatment Effects on the Growth Performance and Concentration of Moisture, Crude Protein, Fat, Ash, and Se
Content in the Breast Muscle of Chickens after 42 Days of Feedinga
control
ADG (g/day)
ADFI, g/day
FCR
moisture, %
crude protein, %
fat, %
ash, %
Se content, mg/kg

53.7
95.3
1.78
73.2
86.9
1.29
6.15
0.19

±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±

1.3
0.8
0.0
0.2
1.1
0.0
0.3
0.0

SS
a
a
a
a
c

53.7
94.2
1.76
71.8
85.7
3.05
5.27
0.20

±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±

0.9
0.7
0.0
0.6
1.3
0.5
0.1
0.0

SY-I
52.5
90.9
1.73
72.2
88.3
3.17
5.53
0.42

ab
ab
c
c
c

±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±

0.7
0.9
0.0
0.2
1.3
0.3
0.1
0.0

SY-II
c
ab
c
bc
b

52.7
91.0
1.73
71.1
88.7
2.01
5.53
0.54

±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±

0.4
1.2
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.0

MS
c
ab
ac
bc
a

52.8
90.7
1.72
70.9
87.6
2.12
6.20
0.40

±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±

0.6
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0

c
b
ac
a
b

Values are the mean ± standard deviation, n = 6. Means in the same row with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05). The concentrations of
moisture and Se content were determined on a fresh basis of chicken breast meat, whereas crude protein, fat, and ash contents were measured on a
dry matter basis.
a

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Growth Performance of Broiler Chickens. The growth
performance of broiler chicken breast meat after 42 days of
treatments with different sources and levels of Se is summarized
in Table 2. During the experimental period, ADG or FCR was
not influenced by treatments nor were there differences
between Se levels or sources. The mean of ADG was 53.12
± 0.82 g/day and FCR was 1.71 ± 0.02 and did not differ
between treatments.
This was consistent with the findings of Payne and
Southern,9 who found that any Se source (SS or SY at 0.3
mg/kg diet) had no influence on ADG and FCR in broiler
chickens. Similarly, Wang et al.19 reported that ADG and FCR
of chickens were not affected by supplementation of different
dietary sources (SS or L-Met or D-Se-Met at 0.15 mg Se/kg),
after 42 days of feeding diets. However, Hartley and Grant20
and Wichtel et al.21 found positive effects on growth
performance after Se supplementation in livestock if the basal
diets fed were extremely deficient in Se. Wang and Xu22 also
found that both Se sources (SS and SY at 0.20 mg/kg) had a
positive effect on FCR in broiler chickens after 21 days of
feeding. It has also been reported that Se-deficient chickens
exhibited a significant improvement in FCR after receiving Sesupplemented diets.9 These results clearly indicated that Sesupplemented diets can improve the growth performance if
there is evidence of a Se deficiency. The differences in the
results might be due to the fact that previous chickens were
deficient in Se, whereas, in the present study, chickens were not
deficient in Se.9
In most parts of China, the Se content of forages and grains
used in poultry diets ranged from 0.02 to 0.12 mg/kg.23 The
diets deficient in Se resulted in poor growth, low feathering
score, increased mortality, hepatic necrosis, pancreatic fibrosis,
dystrophy of muscles, exudative diathesis, microangiopathy,
immune deficiency, and lower hatchability in birds.22 Our
results showed that the control group fed a basal diet without
any Se supplementation did not show symptoms of Se
deficiency. These findings suggested that the 0.11 mg Se/kg
diet was of an adequate level and met the NRC (1994)
requirements to sustain growth and performance for broiler
chickens.11
In this present study, ADFI of chickens, averaging 90.90 ±
0.97 g/day, was not different among SY-I (0.20 mg/kg), SY-II
(0.30 mg/kg), and MS (0.30 mg/kg). However, when we
compared the ADFI of chickens supplemented with 0.30 mg/
kg of SS (94.27 ± 0.70 g/day) and unsupplemented control
(95.35 ± 0.87 g/day) groups, it was higher than SY and MS

treatments. This indicated that SY and mixed sources of Se
decreased the feed cost by reducing feed intake without
affecting the FCR. Our results are consistent with Choct et
al.,24 who found that SY (0.25 mg/kg) supplementation
reduced the ADFI in broiler chickens after 37 days of feeding.
However, in some other studies, dietary Se did not affect ADFI
in the broiler chickens when diets were supplemented with
different sources of Se.9,19
It is possible that SY has a higher bioavailability than the
inorganic source of Se. SY supplementation increased the
metabolism of thyroxine hormones, which are important for
normal growth and development. SY supplementation also
increased the triiodothyronine (T3) hormone level and high
feather scoring that might be responsible for the reduction of
ADFI in chickens.24 The inconsistencies between the responses
on ADFI reported for different Se sources and levels might be
attributable to differences in the composition of the Se sources
under test, as manufacturing processes ultimately affect the Se
content and the proportion and bioavailability of Se.
Influence of Se on Nutritive Values of Chicken Breast
Meat. The compositional analyses of moisture, protein, fat, ash,
and Se contents in the breast meat of chickens are shown in
Table 2. Dietary sources of Se significantly influenced the
nutritive values of chicken breast meat. The moisture content
(%) was significantly (p < 0.05) lowest in the breast meat of
chickens that had been fed diets supplemented with MS (70.91
± 0.99), and it was highest in the unsupplemented control
group (73.29 ± 0.20). However, there was no difference in
moisture content (on average 71.75 ± 0.66) of chicken breast
meat supplemented with SS and SY. In the present study, there
was no significant difference in the protein content, on average
87.47 ± 0.91% of chicken breast meat among all treatments. In
the present study, the breast meat of chickens that had been fed
diets supplemented with SS, SY, and MS had significantly (p <
0.05) higher fat contents (%) than the unsupplemented control
group. SS (3.05 ± 0.59) and SY-I (3.17 ± 0.35) were more
effective than SY-II (2.01 ± 0.56) and MS (2.12 ± 0.09). The
lowest fat content in chicken breast meat was observed in the
unsupplemented Se control group (1.29 ± 0.09). It was also
found that the control and MS groups had significantly (p <
0.05) higher ash content (on average 6.17 ± 0.23%) of chicken
breast meat than SS and SY groups (on average 5.44 ± 0.13%).
The results of the present study are consistent with the
findings of Dlouhá et al.25 and Zhan et al.,26 who did not find
any significant change in protein content of meats in broiler
chickens and in pigs after supplementation with different
sources of Se. Mikulski et al.27 reported that fat content was
7113

dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Article

sources (SS or SY) and their levels (0.3 or 0.45 mg/kg) in the
diets. Zhan et al.26 also found that Se-Met (0.30 mg/kg)
supplementation increased the Se content in loin meat muscle
more than twice compared to the control (0.10 ± 0.02 μg/g) in
pigs.
The present study also revealed no significant difference (P <
0.05) in Se contents of chicken breast meats of both control
and SS (on average 0.19 ± 0.00) groups. Payne and Southern9
found that there was no significant difference in breast meat Se
contents of control (0.472 mg/kg on dry matter basis) and SS
(0.545 mg/kg on dry matter basis) groups when chickens were
fed diets without Se and supplemented with 0.3 mg/kg of SS,
respectively. The variations of Se depositions in different types
of muscles and in animals might be due to the difference in
uptake, assimilation, and metabolism processes of different Se
sources and animals used in experiments. It is also possible that
the organic Se sources have higher bioavailability than inorganic
Se source (SS) for tissue Se deposition. Inorganic Se is
absorbed by passive diffusion from the intestine, whereas
organic Se is actively absorbed through the sodium-dependent
neutral amino acid transport mechanisms.30,31 It is concluded
that breast meat of broiler chickens is a good source of Seenriched meat as Se-Met. Se-Met has a higher bioavailability
and greater half-life than SS in humans.28 It could be used to
improve human Se status especially in Se-deficient areas of the
world.
Influence of Se Supplementation on GSH-Px Activity
of Breast Meat in Broiler Chickens. Free radicals can
generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) in cells that can
contribute to cell and tissue damage. The antioxidants may
prevent these damages induced by oxidation. The antioxidant
enzymes include GSH-Px, superoxide dismutase (SOD), and
CAT. The principal form of Se-dependent enzyme is GSH-Px;
thus, it is not astonishing that, in our present study and in
several previous papers, the GSH-Px activity in different kinds
of meat muscles was increased in animals that had been fed
diets supplemented with Se. The highest (p < 0.05) GSH-Px
activity (expressed in U/mg protein g of meat, 3.01 ± 0.04) was
observed in breast meat of chickens that had been
supplemented with SS (0.30 mg/kg), whereas MS (0.30 mg/
kg) and SY-II (0.30 mg/kg) had no difference in GSH-Px
activity (on average 2.91 ± 0.45). The lowest GSH-Px activity
(2.60 ± 0.03) was found in unsupplemented breast meat of
chickens (Table 3). The GSH-Px activity was increased in SS
(15.76%), SY-I (9.23%), SY-II (11.53%), and MS (12.69%) as
compared to control without Se-supplemented chicken breast
meat at 42 days of age.
Our results are consistent with the findings of Wang et al.29
and Dlouhá et al.25 in broiler chickens. Similarly, Skrivanová et
al.32 found that the GSH-Px activity in meat of calves was
increased by 56% as compared to the control when they had
been fed with SY (0.50 mg/kg). Zhan et al.26 reported that
both SS and Se-Met sources of Se increased the GSH-Px
activity in pig meat, but there were no significant differences
among different Se sources. The difference in effect of dietary
Se sources (SS or SY) on the GSH-Px activity in chicken breast
meat is possibly due to the fact that Se, despite its form, must
be converted to Se-Cys before incorporation into the GSH-Px.
SS was metabolized into Se-Cys more efficiently than SY (in
which the predominant form of Se is Se-Met). The other
possibility might be that Se-Met can be incorporated into other
body proteins in place of Met.29

increased in breast muscles of turkeys that had been fed diets
supplemented with SY (0.3 mg/kg of diet) for 112 days.
Conversely, Zhan et al.26 reported that no change in the fat
content of pig loin muscles was observed after supplementation
with SS or Se-Met (0.3 mg/kg of feed). Moreover, Vignola et
al.28 found that the different sources of Se did not affect the
chemical composition of lamb meat.
The results of the present study concluded that both Se
sources showed inconsistent influences on the nutritional
composition of chicken breast meat. The difference in the
results with other studies might be due to different animals
(monogastric vs compound stomach) and types of meat
muscles used in different experiments. It is also possible that Se
has interactions with other minerals and vitamins that are
involved in different metabolic pathways in the living body.
These metabolic pathways are often difficult to explain. These
involved compounds have multiple biochemical activities that
are responsible for these compositional changes in living
organisms. Further studies at the molecular level are required to
explore the exact mechanism behind the role of different Se
sources in nutritional composition metabolic pathways in
chicken breast meat.
Se Content in Chicken Breast Meat. In the present study,
the diets supplemented with Se significantly increased the Se
content of the chicken breast meat (Figure 1). SY- and MS-

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the whole experimental setup:
(1) sodium selenite; (2) selenium yeast; (3) chickens in the first week
of experiment; (4) adult chickens after supplementation of different
sources of Se; (5) chicken breast meat after 42 days of feeding; (6) Seenriched diets increased oxidative stability and shelf life of chicken
breast meat; (7) sensory evaluation of fresh and stored (at 4 °C for 12
days) breast meat of chicken.

supplemented diets showed significantly (p < 0.05) higher Se
content (expressed in mg/kg on fresh meat basis) than control
and SS groups in chicken breast meat (Table 2). Furthermore,
the Se content was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in SY-II (0.54
± 0.03) than in SY-I (0.42 ± 0.02) and MS (0.40 ± 0.02)
groups than control and SS treatments in chicken breast meat.
The Se content of chicken breast muscles in the SY-II group
was >3-fold higher than the control and SS groups (0.54 vs
0.19/0.20 mg/kg of meat). We found that Se content in
chicken breast meat was increased in SS (5.26%), SY-I
(121.05%), SY-II (184.21%), and MS (110.52%) treatments
as compared to the control group.
The results of the present study are in agreement with the
reports of Payne and Southern,9 Wang and Xu,22 and Wang et
al.,29 who found that SY is more effective in deposition of Se
content in broiler chickens meat. Vignola et al.28 reported that
the Se content of meat in lambs was reliant on different Se
7114

dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Article

Table 3. GSH-Px, CAT, and T-SOD Activities and TAC and MDA Values in Raw Breast Meat Stored at 4 °C for 12 Daysa
antioxidant capacity
GSH-Px
0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days
CAT
0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days
T-SOD
0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days
TAC
0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days
MDA
0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days

control

SS

SY-I

SY-II

MS

2.60
2.45
2.39
2.28
2.20

±
±
±
±
±

0.03 dA
0.05 dB
0.03 dC
0.07 cD
0.04 cE

3.01
2.86
2.79
2.72
2.62

±
±
±
±
±

0.04 aA
0.04 aB
0.05 aC
0.03 aD
0.03 aE

2.84
2.72
2.65
2.57
2.48

±
±
±
±
±

0.03 cA
0.01 cB
0.02 cC
0.05 bD
0.03 bE

2.90
2.82
2.74
2.66
2.62

±
±
±
±
±

0.07 bA
0.04 abB
0.03 abC
0.03 aD
0.02 aD

2.93
2.79
2.70
2.58
2.49

±
±
±
±
±

0.02 bA
0.02 bB
0.05 bC
0.05 bD
0.06 bE

3.74
3.74
3.73
3.74
3.71

±
±
±
±
±

0.06 d
0.13 d
0.04 d
0.06 d
0.08 d

3.85
3.84
3.83
3.86
3.84

±
±
±
±
±

0.13 c
0.06 c
0.05 c
0.08 c
0.08 c

4.10
4.09
4.05
4.08
4.07

±
±
±
±
±

0.07 b
0.04 b
0.04 b
0.07 b
0.08 b

4.26
4.27
4.26
4.23
4.20

±
±
±
±
±

0.06 a
0.05 a
0.09 a
0.04 a
0.06 a

3.93
3.91
3.90
3.91
3.91

±
±
±
±
±

0.05 c
0.03 c
0.06 c
0.07 c
0.09 c

32.87
33.31
33.25
33.80
32.87

±
±
±
±
±

0.85 d
2.37 d
3.48 d
2.07 d
2.80 c

36.60
37.02
36.82
36.94
35.85

±
±
±
±
±

1.61 c
1.28 c
1.60 c
1.86 c
3.78 c

45.31
45.14
45.04
45.47
44.74

±
±
±
±
±

1.91 a
1.25 a
1.72 a
2.96 a
3.15 ab

46.04
46.32
46.19
46.69
46.21

±
±
±
±
±

1.67 a
1.57 a
1.86 a
2.16 a
3.12 a

41.07
41.50
41.41
41.55
41.13

±
±
±
±
±

1.05 b
1.91 b
3.48 b
2.32 b
1.89 b

0.31
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.30

±
±
±
±
±

0.02 c
0.01 d
0.02 b
0.01 c
0.02 b

0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.31

±
±
±
±
±

0.00 bc
0.01 c
0.01 b
0.02 b
0.01 b

0.37
0.35
0.37
0.36
0.34

±
±
±
±
±

0.03 a
0.01 b
0.01 a
0.01 a
0.01 a

0.38
0.38
0.36
0.35
0.36

±
±
±
±
±

0.02 a
0.00 a
0.02 a
0.02 a
0.02 a

0.35
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.36

±
±
±
±
±

0.01 ab
0.01 ab
0.02 a
0.00 a
0.02 a

0.41
0.79
1.01
1.37
1.51

±
±
±
±
±

0.01 aE
0.01 aD
0.00 aC
0.01 aB
0.04 aA

0.32
0.54
0.85
1.01
1.30

±
±
±
±
±

0.00 bE
0.00 bD
0.00 bC
0.01 bB
0.00 bA

0.29
0.38
0.68
0.76
0.97

±
±
±
±
±

0.00 dE
0.00 dD
0.00 dC
0.01 dB
0.00 dA

0.26
0.33
0.61
0.69
0.88

±
±
±
±
±

0.01 eE
0.01 eD
0.01 eC
0.00 eB
0.01 eA

0.30
0.45
0.78
0.92
1.17

±
±
±
±
±

0.00 cE
0.01 cD
0.04 cC
0.01 cB
0.02 cA

a
Values are the mean ± standard deviation (n = 6). Values in a row belonging to different Se sources and levels with different letters (a−e) were
significantly different (p < 0.05). Values in a column belonging to different storage days with different letters (A−E) were significantly different (p <
0.05). Data on GSH-Px, CAT, T-SOD, and TAC are expressed as U/mg protein g of meat; values of MDA are expressed in nmol malondialdehyde/
mg.

activity of CAT (4.26 ± 0.06) was highest in SY-II (0.30 mg/
kg). The CAT activity was increased in SS (2.94%), SY-I
(9.62%), SY-II (13.90%), and MS (5.08%), compared to
control without Se-supplemented chicken breast meat at 42
days of age. However, the activity of T-SOD was highest in the
SY (0.30 and 0.20 mg/kg) on average (45.67 ± 1.79) in
chicken breast meat. The activity of T-SOD was increased in SS
(11.34%), SY-I (37.84%), SY-II (40.06%), and MS (24.94%),
compared to control without Se-supplemented chicken breast
meat at 42 days of age.
Jiang et al.33 reported the similar findings that CAT and TSOD activities were increased in breast meat of Lingnan yellow
chickens after supplementation of dietary Se-Met at 0.225 mg/
kg of diet for 21 days. Wang et al.29 also found that Se-Met
(0.15 mg/kg diet) was more effective in increasing the activities
of CAT and T-SOD in chicken breast meat compared to SS
(0.15 mg/kg) at 42 days of age.
A very few studies have reported the influence of dietary SY
supplementation on the activities of CAT and T-SOD in
chicken breast meat. In our study, it was found that SY
supplementation profoundly increased CAT and T-SOD
activities in chicken breast meat compared with inorganic Se
source (SS). It is possible that SY contains >90% Se, 94% of
which is as Se-Met that increased the CAT and SOD
activities.29,33−35 In contrast, Marounek et al.36 found that

However, Wang et al.19 reported that the GSH-Px activity in
breast meat of chickens was not affected by any Se source.
Similarly, Vignola et al.28 also found that the GSH-Px activity in
lamb meat was not influenced by Se levels or sources. The
inconsistencies between the responses reported for different Se
sources might be attributable to differences in the manufacturing processes of different Se sources (inorganic vs organic) and
SY strains used for fermentation that eventually affect both the
Se content and the proportion of total Se. It is also possible that
the GSH-Px activity also varies significantly among different
animal species and types of muscles under test. The variation in
dietary Se concentration alone could not explain differences in
GSH-Px activity. In these studies, probably only a part of SeMet from SY in tissues was converted to selenide and
integrated as Se-cysteine into GSH-Px enzyme, whereas most
was stored in muscle as a methionine substitution for the
synthesis of other proteins.29
Influence of Se Supplementation on CAT and T-SOD
Activities of Chicken Breast Meat. Endogenous antioxidant
enzymes, especially CAT and SOD with GSH-Px, could
potentially delay the oxidation in meat. The activities of CAT
and T-SOD (expressed in U/mg protein g of meat) in chicken
breast meat were significantly increased (p < 0.05) after
supplementation of SY and MS compared with SS and Se
unsupplemented control groups at 42 days (Table3). The
7115

dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Article

in animals, which led to the increase of LO. In our present
study, both Se sources (SS or SY) significantly decreased (p <
0.05) the MDA content (expressed as nmol malondialdehyde/
mg of protein) of chicken breast meat (Table 3). SY-II had
lower MDA content (0.26 ± 0.01) than the SS (0.32 ± 0.00)
and control (0.41 ± 0.01) groups in chicken breast meat at 42
days of age. The MDA content was lower in SS (21.95%), SY-I
(29.26%), SY-II (36.58%), and MS (26.82%) compared to
control without Se-supplemented chicken breast meat at 42
days of age.
Our results were consistent with the findings of Wang et
al.,19 who found that chicken breast meat had lower MDA
content with diets supplemented with the organic Se sources LSe-Met at 0.15 mg Se/kg (0.44 ± 0.03 nmol/mg) or D-Se-Met
at 0.15 mg Se/kg (0.50 ± 0.02 nmol/mg) than SS at 0.15 mg
Se/kg (0.78 ± 0.03 nmol/mg). Zhan et al. also found that
supplementation with SY (0.3 mg/kg) had lower MDA content
(51 ± 8.3 nmol/mg) as compared with SS (617 ± 11.7 nmol/
mg) in pig loin meat.26 Conversely, Vignola et al. reported that
dietary Se sources (SS or SY) did not influence the TBARS
content in the meat of lambs.28
The LO is a quite complex process, in which unsaturated
fatty acids react with molecular oxygen via a free radical chain
mechanism and form fatty acyl hydroperoxides.40 The primary
autoxidation is followed by a series of secondary reactions that
lead to the degradation of the lipid and the development of
oxidative rancidity. The problems associated with LO have
gained much interest as it is related to flavor deterioration, loss
of nutritional value and safety, biological damage, aging, and
environmental pollution.41 MDA is one of the metabolic
products of lipid peroxides. The level of LO in different kinds
of meats can be monitored by MDA content. The MDA level is
well correlated with the GSH-Px activity. Both the lower MDA
level and the higher GSH-Px activity of meat indicated that Se
improved its ability to protect against oxidation and extended
the shelf life of fresh meat.28
Poultry meat is relatively more susceptible to oxidative
deterioration due to its high polyunsaturated fatty acid content.
One approach to enhance the oxidative stability of meat is to
add antioxidants either into the diet of the animal or directly
during meat processing. In the present study, SY and MS were
more effective than SS in lowering the MDA content of chicken
breast meat after 42 days of feeding (Table 3). Although SS
treatment had higher GSH-Px activity in chicken breast meat, it
showed higher MDA content (0.32 ± 0.00 nmol/mg) as
compared to SY-II (0.26 ± 0.01 nmol/mg), SY-I (0.29 ± 0.00
nmol/mg), and MS (0.30 ± 0.00 nmol/mg) groups. It is
possible that the difference in the responses of different Se
sources might be due to the difference of Se sources (inorganic
vs organic), as organic sources significantly maintained the
muscle membrane integrity and lower protein carbonyl content
in meat, which are related to the LO and protein oxidation and
oxidative stability of meat.42
Influence of Se Supplementation on Oxidative
Stability in Refrigerated Chicken Breast Meat. The
oxidative stability of meat depends upon the balance between
anti- and pro-oxidants.42 The results obtained in the present
study showed that different Se sources and levels significantly
(p < 0.05) influenced the AEA in chicken breast meat during 12
days of storage at 4 °C, which could lead to a significant
decrease in LO during meat storage and increase its shelf life
(Table 3).

dietary SY did not influence the CAT activity in the longissimus
thoracis et lumborum muscle of calves.
Both the CAT and SOD enzymes are not Se dependent for
their activities. CAT is a heme-containing enzyme that catalyzes
the decomposition of H2O2 to give water and oxygen
molecules,14 and SOD catalyzes the dismutation of the
superoxide radical anion.37 SOD has two distinct types in
eukaryotic cells: one cytosolic copper, zinc superoxide
dismutase and the other mitochondrial manganese superoxide
dismutase. Superoxide can be converted by mitochondrial MnSOD into H2O2.38 The inconsistencies between the responses
reported for effectiveness of SY on the activities of CAT and TSOD might be due to Se's being an important mineral for the
proper functioning of many selenoproteins such as type 1, type
2, and type 3 iodothyronine deiodinases, which are responsible
for the regulation of thyroxine hormones. These thyroid
hormones are involved in the regulation of numerous body
functions including oxygen consumption and lipid and
carbohydrate metabolism. There are several physiological
functions such as development, reproduction, and growth
that are based on these Se-dependent hormones and
selenoproteins. It is also possible that thyroid dysfunction
due to high production of thyroxin hormones is closely related
to production of ROS that might be also responsible for
increases in the activities of CAT and T-SOD.
Influence of Se Supplementation on TAC of Breast
Meat in Broiler Chickens. The accurate measurement of
oxidative stress in biological systems is not simple. The TAC of
the Se supplemented breast meat in chickens is summarized in
Table 3. The TAC (expressed in U/mg protein g of meat) was
significantly (P < 0.05) higher in Se-supplemented chicken
breast meat than in the unsupplemented control group. The
SY-supplemented (0.30 and 0.20 mg/kg) and MS-supplemented (0.30 mg/kg) chicken breast meat showed higher TAC
(on average 0.36 ± 0.02) than SS (0.33 ± 0.00) and
unsupplemented (0.31 ± 0.02) groups. The TAC was increased
in SS (6.45%), SY-I (19.35%), SY-II (22.58%), and MS
(12.90%) compared to control without Se supplementation
chicken breast meats at 42 days of age. Our results are
consistent with the findings of Wang et al.29 and Jiang et al.,33
who reported that Se-Met significantly increased the TAC of
chicken breast meat as compared to SS and control groups.
The TAC reflects the total antioxidant capacity of the body.
Low TAC could be an indication of oxidative stress or higher
susceptibility to oxidative damage. A reliable estimation of the
TAC of meat can be useful to describe the capacity of meat to
resist against oxidation processes. The TAC mainly measures
the chain-breaking antioxidants including ascorbate, bilirubin,
urate, and thiols (in the aqueous phase) and α-tocopherol,
carotenoids, and flavonoids (in the lipid phase) that have low
molecular weight (excluding the antioxidant enzymes and
metal-binding proteins). The combined activities of all chainbreaking antioxidants can be assessed in a single TAC assay.39
In our present study, we found that SY (0.20 and 0.30 mg/kg)
and MS (0.30 mg/kg) significantly increased the TAC of
chicken breast meat. It is probable that the increased TAC in
SY-supplemented chicken breast meat is due to high content of
Se as Se-Met in SY. Se has interaction with different minerals
and vitamins such as Vit E and Vit C that might be the
responsible for this increase in TAC.
Influence of Se Supplementation on Lipid Oxidation
in Chicken Breast Meat. In Se deficiency, the ability to
synthesize antioxidant enzymes, mainly GSH-Px, was decreased
7116

dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Article

Table 4. Mean Scores for Color, Odor, Flavor, Juiciness, and Overall Acceptability of Cooked Breast Meat of Chickens Stored at
4 °C for 12 Daysa
sensory trait

control

SS

SY-I

SY-II

MS

color
0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days

3.78
3.83
3.91
3.95
4.00

±
±
±
±
±

0.17 B
0.08 AB
0.16 AB
0.18 AB
0.14 A

3.80
3.81
3.86
3.97
3.99

±
±
±
±
±

0.18 A
0.17 A
0.19 A
0.12 A
0.17 A

3.76
3.78
3.80
3.81
3.86

±
±
±
±
±

0.25 A
0.15 A
0.12 A
0.21 A
0.08 A

3.76
3.79
3.79
3.80
3.83

±
±
±
±
±

0.15 A
0.09 A
0.19 A
0.14 A
0.19 A

3.76
3.78
3.83
3.88
3.88

±
±
±
±
±

0.12 A
0.14 A
0.13 A
0.14 A
0.09 A

0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days

3.20
3.21
3.25
3.23
3.24

±
±
±
±
±

0.15
0.24
0.12
0.16
0.17

3.21
3.21
3.29
3.25
3.24

±
±
±
±
±

0.11
0.15
0.27
0.03
0.08

3.20
3.22
3.21
3.24
3.28

±
±
±
±
±

0.10
0.18
0.17
0.04
0.06

3.20
3.23
3.23
3.24
3.26

±
±
±
±
±

0.20
0.10
0.06
0.13
0.08

3.21
3.20
3.21
3.23
3.24

±
±
±
±
±

0.09
0.26
0.10
0.23
0.05

3.54
3.41
3.45
3.49
3.54

±
±
±
±
±

0.17
0.30
0.17
0.09
0.10

3.51
3.52
3.54
3.55
3.58

±
±
±
±
±

0.11
0.23
0.16
0.17
0.17

3.50
3.52
3.51
3.58
3.59

±
±
±
±
±

0.20
0.14
0.17
0.16
0.14

3.46
3.53
3.55
3.57
3.60

±
±
±
±
±

0.14
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.17

3.50
3.52
3.56
3.60
3.61

±
±
±
±
±

0.12
0.17
0.12
0.12
0.18

3.52
3.58
3.60
3.70
3.73

±
±
±
±
±

0.09 B
0.07 AB
0.20 AB
0.14 AB
0.13 A

3.49
3.56
3.60
3.66
3.68

±
±
±
±
±

0.14 A
0.13 A
0.10 A
0.21 A
0.20 A

3.45
3.45
3.50
3.51
3.55

±
±
±
±
±

0.19 A
0.10 A
0.19 A
0.14 A
0.08 A

3.45
3.45
3.49
3.52
3.56

±
±
±
±
±

0.13 A
0.20 A
0.13 A
0.16 A
0.13 A

3.46
3.46
3.52
3.53
3.58

±
±
±
±
±

0.13 A
0.15 A
0.14 A
0.16 A
0.14 A

3.53
3.51
3.55
3.56
3.58

±
±
±
±
±

0.16
0.19
0.20
0.10
0.23

3.51
3.50
3.51
3.53
3.53

±
±
±
±
±

0.18
0.08
0.11
0.25
0.12

3.53
3.50
3.53
3.55
3.55

±
±
±
±
±

0.10
0.30
0.13
0.13
0.24

3.50
3.50
3.53
3.51
3.56

±
±
±
±
±

0.20
0.15
0.18
0.11
0.22

3.51
3.55
3.54
3.55
3.53

±
±
±
±
±

0.24
0.10
0.11
0.08
0.18

odor

flavor
0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days
juiciness
0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days
overall acceptability
0 days
3 days
6 days
9 days
12 days

Values (mean ± standard deviation, n = 6) in the same column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05). A nine-point scale was used for
the assessment (1, like extremely; 2, like very much; 3, like moderately; 4, like slightly; 5, neither like nor dislike; 6, dislike slightly; 7, dislike
moderately; 8, dislike very much; 9, dislike extremely).
a

activity was stable in beef PM and L. dorsi (LD) for 14 days
and in pork LD muscles for 4 days of cold storage.
In the current study, CAT and T-SOD activities and TAC
were higher (p < 0.05) at 0 days of storage in SY-supplemented
chicken breast meat. The activities of CAT, T-SOD, and TAC
were stable over 12 days of storage at 4 °C in breast meat of
chickens fed either diets supplemented with Se or diets without
Se supplementation (Table 3). Our results were consistent with
the findings of Gheisari et al.,43 who found that CAT activity
was stable in refrigerated meats of chicken, camel, and beef
muscles during 4 days of storage at 4 °C. Similarly, Pradhan et
al.46 reported that CAT activity in ground beef SM and LD,
pork LD, and chicken breast and thigh muscles was stable over
2 months of storage at −20 °C. However, Renerre et al.44 found
that SOD activity significantly decreased in different PM, LL,
and TFL muscles of beef during 8 days of storage without any
Se supplementation. It is possible that the higher antioxidant
capacity, lower concentration of myoglobin, and iron-chelating
ability are mainly responsible for chicken breast meat oxidative
stability.47
The differences in results of GSH-Px and T-SOD activity
stability might be due to the difference in animal species and
kind of muscles tested in the experiments. It is also possible
that different rearing conditions of the tested animals, changes
in refrigerated temperature, and different storage durations

The GSH-Px activity was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in SS
(3.01 ± 0.04), followed by MS-supplemented (2.84 ± 0.03),
SY-II-supplemented (2.90 ± 0.07), and SY-I-supplemented
(2.93 ± 0.02) chicken breast meat at 0 days of storage.
However, GSH-Px activity decreased significantly in all
treatments during 12 days of storage. This decrease was higher
in control, SS, and MS groups than in the SY treatments.
Decreases in GSH-Px activity during 12 days of storage at 4 °C
in chicken breast meat were found in control (15.38%), SS
(12.95%), SY-I (12.67%), SY-II, (9.65%) and MS (15.01%).
The results showed that SY-II had more influence on the
stability of GSH-Px activity in chicken breast meat during 12
days of storage at 4 °C.
Nothing has been reported regarding the effects of SY
supplementation on antioxidant enzyme stability and TAC
during 12 days of storage at 4 °C in chicken breast meat.
However, some previous studies reported the stability of GSHPx activity without Se supplementation during different storage
days and temperatures in different animals. Gheisari et al.43
found that the activity of GSH-Px decreased in cattle meat after
2 days and in chicken meat after 4 days of storage at 4 °C.
Contrary to this, Renerre et al.44 reported that the activity of
GSH-Px was stable in beef psoas major (PM), longissimus
lumborum (LL), and tensor fasciae latae (TFL) muscles over 8
days of storage at 2 °C. Daun et al.45 also found that GSH-Px
7117

dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Article

great concern in the poultry industry. The chicken breast
muscle is more susceptible than the thigh muscles to variations
in color because it comprises a high percentage of the carcass,
and its natural light color makes any alterations in color more
apparent. Meat color is very important because consumers
relate it with freshness and the overall quality of meat and meat
products. Difference in color between meat slices displayed in a
retail package is very noticeable to consumers, leading to the
rejection of an entire package. Chicken breast muscles have a
small capacity to form oxymyoglobin after air exposure and
have higher oxygen consumption rates as compared to pork
and beef meat, which encourage the formation of metmyoglobin at the surface of the meat.51
The results of present study showed that both Se sources (SS
and SY) and MS supplementation had significant effects on the
color and juiciness of chicken breast meat over 12 days of
storage at 4 °C. Ahadi et al. found that dietary SY with Vit E
supplementation had higher scores of sensory characteristics in
chicken meat after 7 days and 1 month of storage.52
Conversely, Miezeliene et al. reported that different Se sources
and levels in the diet did not influence the sensory properties
and acceptability of chicken meat.53 It is probable that SY
increased the deposition of Vit E of meat, which is a key
vitamin for the maintenance and integrity of cell membrane
that delays the LO in chicken breast meat. The other possible
reasons in variation of sensory score results are different
methods used for sensory evaluation and the age and sex of
judges. The results of this sensory evaluation suggested that
different Se sources and levels had limited influence on the
sensory characteristics of chicken breast meat.

might be other factors responsible for these variations in the
results.
For GSH-Px activity and MDA values, correlation between
Se sources, levels, and storage days studied were significant (p <
0.05). In the present study, the SY and MS treatments
significantly decreased MDA content as compared to SS and
control groups (Table 3). SY-II (0.30 mg/kg) was more
effective in inhibiting LO and increasing oxidative stability than
other Se sources and levels in chicken breast meat over 12 days
of storage at 4 °C. It was also found that SS had higher GSH-Px
activity, but it showed lower oxidative stability as compared to
SY and MS treatments. The results of the present study
indicated that there is no correlation between GSH-Px activity
and MDA content in chicken breast meat. We also found that
MDA content in chicken breast meat was increased in control
(268.29%), SS (306.25%), SY-I (234.48%), SY-II (238.46%),
and MS (290.0%) treatments over 12 days of storage at 4 °C.
Vignola et al.28 found that no significant differences in
TBARS values were observed after 9 days of storage in the LD
muscles of lambs that has been fed diets supplemented with SS
(0.30 mg/kg) or SY (0.30 or 0.45 mg/kg) for 63 days.
Similarly, Mikulski et al.27 also did not find significant difference
in TBARS content between SS and SY sources of Se; however,
when compared to the control, both SS and SY groups had low
TBARS values in turkey breast meat after 70 days of storage at
−20 °C. However, Dlouhá et al. reported that the MDA value
was lower in chicken breast meat over 5 days of storage at 3−5
°C after supplementation with Se-enriched Chlorella as
compared to SS supplementation.25
In the present study, it was also found that SY and MS
supplementations showed lower (p < 0.05) MDA contents than
SS-supplemented chicken breast meat during the 12 days of
storage at 4 °C (Table 3). It is suggested that the rise in GSHPx was not accompanied by an increase in the oxidative stability
of meat. Skrivanová et al.32 also reported that the rise in GSHPx was not accompanied by an increase in the oxidative stability
in veal meat. The differences in MDA content in different
animals during refrigerated storage might be due to differences
in the types of meat muscles, animals, and storage conditions.
Dietary SY has limited potential for improving nutritive values,
but it is superior to SS for improving the antioxidant enzymes
activities, TAC, and oxidative stability of chicken breast meat
over 12 days of storage at 4 °C, which has positive
consequences for human food because chicken meat and
meat products are widely consumed in the world. It also has a
positive influence on meat storage at the retail level.
Effect of Different Se Sources on the Sensory
Characteristics of Chicken Breast Meat. The effect of Se
in animal nutrition is associated with maintaining the
antioxidant system of the cells. The results obtained in the
present study indicated that the odor, flavor, and overall
acceptability were not changed due to different Se sources,
levels, and storage days in chicken breast meat but showed
significant influence on color and juiciness during the 12 days
of storage (Table 4). Meat discoloration was believed to be
related to the effectiveness of the oxidation processes. Changes
associated with oxidation include discoloration and unpleasant
tastes and odors. Lipid and protein oxidation reduced the shelf
life of meat and decreased nutritive values and the sensory
quality of meat.48−50
Poultry is the only species known to have muscles with
marked differences in color, and the meat has been classified as
either white or dark. Changes in color of chicken meat are of

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. Phone: 0086-25-84395156.
Fax: 0086-25-84395156.
Funding

This study was funded by the Priority Academic Program
Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions,
People's Republic of China, and the Sunhy Biological Company
Ltd., Wuhan, People's Republic of China. H.A. was financially
supported by the China Scholarship Council, People's Republic
of China.
Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ABBREVIATIONS USED
LO, lipid oxidation; β-carotene, beta-carotene; Vit E, vitamin E;
Se, selenium; GSH-Px, glutathione peroxidase; α-tocopherol,
alpha-tocopherol; Se-Met, selenium methionine; Se-Cys,
selenium cystine; SS, sodium selenite; SY, selenium yeast;
AOAC, Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International;
ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily feed intake; FCR,
feed conversion ratio; CAT, catalase; T-SOD, total superoxide
dismutase; TAC, total antioxidant capacity; TBARS, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; MDA, malondialdehyde; U/mg
protein, units per milligram of protein; nmol/mg of protein,
nanomoles per milligram of protein; SS, sodium selenite; SY-I,
Se-yeast 0.2 mg/kg feed; SY-II, Se-yeast 0.3 mg/kg feed; MS,
0.3 mg combined Se sources (sodium selenite 0.15 mg/kg feed
+ Se-yeast 0.15 mg/kg feed)/kg feed; LD, longissimus dorsi;
Met, methionine; PM, psoas major; LL, longissimus lumborum;
TFL, tensor fasciae latae.
7118

dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

■

Article

(23) Liu, P. Selenium Source, Research and Application in China;
Chinese Science and Technology Press: Beijing, China, 1993.
(24) Choct, M.; Naylor, A. J.; Reinke, N. Selenium supplementation
affects broiler growth performance, meat yield and feather coverage.
Br. Poult. Sci. 2004, 45, 677−683.
(25) Dlouhá, G.; Ševčikova, S.; Dokoupilova, A.; Zita, L.; Heindl, J.;
Skřivan., M. Effect of dietary selenium sources on growth performance,
breast muscle selenium, glutathione peroxidase activity and oxidative
stability in broilers. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 53, 265−269.
(26) Zhan, X.; Wang, M.; Zhao, R. Q.; Li, W.; Xu, Z. Effects of
different selenium source on selenium distribution, loin quality and
antioxidant status in finishing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007, 132,
202−211.
(27) Mikulski, D.; Jankowski, J.; Zduńczyk, Z.; Wróblewska, M.;
Sartowska, K.; Majewska, T. The effect of selenium source on
performance, carcass traits, oxidative status of the organism, and meat
quality of turkeys. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2009, 18, 518−530.
(28) Vignola, G.; Lambertini, L.; Mazzone, G.; Giammarco, M.;
Tassinari, M.; Martelli, G.; Bertin, G. Effects of selenium source and
level of supplementation on the performance and meat quality of
lambs. Meat Sci. 2009, 81, 678−685.
(29) Wang, Y. X.; Zhan, X. A.; Yuan, D.; Zhang, X. W.; Wu, R. J.
Effects of selenomethionine and sodium selenite supplementation on
meat quality, selenium distribution and antioxidant status in broilers.
Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 56, 305−313.
(30) Wolfram, S.; Berger, B.; Grenacher, B.; Scharrer, E. Transport of
seleno amino acids and their sulphur analogues across the intestinal
brush border membrane. J. Nutr. 1989, 119, 706−712.
(31) Wolfram, S.; Berger, B.; Scharrer, E. Transport of
selenomethionine and methionine across the intestinal brush border
membrane. In Selenium in Biology and Medicine, Proceeding of the 4th
International Symposium on Selenium in Biology and Medicine; Wendal,
A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1989; pp 109−113.
(32) Skrivanová, E.; Marounek, M.; De Smet, S.; Raes, K. Influence
of dietary selenium and vitamin E on quality of veal. Meat Sci. 2007,
76, 495−500.
(33) Jiang, Z.; Lin, Y.; Zhou, G.; Luo, L.; Jiang, S.; Chen, F. Effects of
dietary selenomethionine supplementation on growth performance,
meat quality and antioxidant property in yellow broilers. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 2009, 57, 9769−9772.
(34) Rayman, M. P. The use of high-selenium yeast to raise selenium
status: how does it measure up? Br. J. Nutr. 2004, 92, 557−573.
(35) El-Bayoumy, K.; Sinha, R. Molecular chemoprevention by
selenium: A genomic approach. Mutat. Res. 2005, 591, 224−236.
(36) Marounek, M.; Skřivanová, E.; Skřivanová, V. Selenium content
and antioxidant status in tissues of veal calves fed a diet supplemented
with selenium yeast. Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 39, 51−54.
(37) McCord, J. M. Superoxide, superoxide dismutase and oxygen
toxicity. In Reviews in Biochemical Toxicology; Hodgson, E., Bend, J. R.,
Philpot, R. M., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1979; pp
109−124.
(38) Fridovich, I. Superoxide anion radical (O2•), superoxide
dismutases and related matters. J. Biol. Chem. 1997, 272, 18515−
18517.
(39) Koracevic, D.; Koracevic, G.; Djordjevic, V.; Andrejevic, S.;
Cosic, V. Method for the measurement of antioxidant activity in
human fluids. J. Clin. Pathol. 2001, 54, 356−61.
(40) Gray, J. I. Measurement of lipid oxidation. A review. J. Am. Oil
Chem. Soc. 1978, 55, 539−546.
(41) Frankel, E. N. Recent advances in the chemistry of the rancidity
of fats. In Recent Advances in the Chemistry of Meat; Bailey, A. J., Ed.;
Special Publication; The Royal Society of Chemistry: London, U.K.,
1984; pp 47, 87−118.
(42) Wang, Z. G.; Pan, X. J.; Peng, Z. Q.; Zhao, R. Q.; Zhou, G. H.
Methionine and selenium yeast supplementation of the maternal diets
affects color, water holding capacity, and oxidative stability of their
male offspring meat at the early stage. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 1096−1101.

REFERENCES

(1) Gray, J. L.; Gomaa, E. A.; Buckley, D. J. Oxidative quality and
shelf life of meats. Meat Sci. 1996, 43, S111−S123.
(2) Bou, R.; Codony, R.; Tres, A.; Decker, E. A.; Guardiola, F.
Dietary strategies to improve nutritional value, oxidative stability, and
sensory properties of poultry products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2007,
10, 800−822.
(3) Yasin, M.; Asghar, A.; Anjum, F. M.; Butt, M. S.; Khan, M. I.;
Arshad, M. S.; Shahid, M.; El-Ghorab, A. H.; Shibamoto, T. Oxidative
stability enhancement of broiler bird meats with α-lipoic acid and αtocopherol acetate supplemented feed. Food Chem. 2012, 131, 768−
773.
(4) Behne, D.; Kyriakopoulos, A. Mammalian selenium containing
proteins. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2001, 21, 453−473.
(5) Skrivan, M.; Marounek, M.; Dlouhá, G.; Ševcíková, S. Dietary
selenium increases vitamin E contents of egg yolk and chicken meat.
Br. Poult. Sci. 2008, 49, 482−486.
(6) Kim, Y. J.; Park, W. Y.; Choi, I. H. Effects of dietary α-tocopherol,
selenium, and their different combinations of growth performance and
meat quality of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 603−608.
(7) Perić, L.; Milošević, N.; Ž ikić, D.; Kanački, Z.; Džinić, N.; Nollet,
L.; Spring, P. Effect of selenium sources on performance and meat
characteristics of broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2009, 18, 403−
409.
(8) Seko, Y.; Imura, N. Active oxygen generation as a possible
mechanism of selenium toxicity. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 1997, 10, 333−
339.
(9) Payne, R. L.; Southern, L. L. Changes in glutathione peroxidase
and tissue selenium concentrations of broilers after consuming a diet
adequate in selenium. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 1268−1276.
(10) Mahmoud, K. Z.; Edens, F. W. Influence of selenium sources on
age-related and mild heat stress-related changes of blood and liver
glutathione redox cycle in broiler chickens (Gallus domesticus).
Biochem. Mol. Biol 2003, 136, 921−934.
(11) NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 9th revised ed.; National
Academy Press: Washington, DC,1994.
(12) AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC international, 18th
ed.; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, 2005.
(13) Lawrence, R. A.; Burk, R. F. Glutathione peroxidase activity in
selenium deficient rat liver. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1976, 71,
952−958.
(14) Abei, A. Catalase in vitro. Methods Enzymol. 1984, 105, 121−
126.
(15) Panckenko, L. F.; Brusov, O. S.; Gerasimov, A. M.; Loktaeva, A.
E. Intramitochondrial localization and release of rat liver superoxide
dismutase. FEBS Lett. 1975, 55, 84−87.
(16) Placer, Z. A.; Cushman, L. L.; Johnson, B. C. Estimation of
product of lipid peroxidation (malondialdehyde) in biochemical
systems. Anal. Biochem. 1966, 16, 359−364.
(17) Lowry, O. H.; Rosebrough, N. J.; Farr, A. L.; Randall, R. J.
Protein measurement with the Folin−phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem.
1951, 193, 265−275.
(18) Skrivan, M.; Marounek, M.; Englmaierová, M.; Skrivanová, E.
Influence of dietary vitamin C and selenium, alone and in
combination, on the composition and oxidative stability of meat of
broilers. Food Chem. 2012, 130, 660−664.
(19) Wang, Y. X.; Zhan, X. A.; Zhang, X. W.; Wu, R. J.; Yuan, D.
Comparison of different forms of dietary selenium supplementation on
growth performance, meat quality, selenium deposition, and
antioxidant property in broilers. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2010, 1−13.
(20) Hartley, W. J.; Grant, A. B. A review of selenium responsive
diseases of New Zealand livestock. Fed. Proc. 1961, 20, 679−688.
(21) Wichtel, J. J.; Craigie, A. L.; Freeman, D. A.; Varela-Alvarez, H.;
Williamson, N. B. Effect of selenium and iodine supplementation on
growth rate, thyroid and somatotropic function in dairy calves at
pasture. J. Dairy Sci. 1996, 79, 1865−1872.
(22) Wang, Y. B.; Xu, B. H. Effect of different selenium source
(sodium selenite and selenium yeast) on broiler chickens. Anim. Feed
Sci. Technol. 2008, 144, 306−314.
7119

dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Article

(43) Gheisari, H. R.; Motamedi, H. Chloride salt type/ionic strength
and refrigeration effects on antioxidant enzymes and lipid oxidation in
cattle, camel and chicken meat. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 377−383.
(44) Renerre, M.; Dumont, F.; Gatellier, P. Antioxidant enzyme
activities in relation to oxidation of lipid and myoglobin. Meat Sci.
1996, 43, 111−121.
(45) Daun, C.; Johansson, M.; Ö nning, G.; Åkesson, B. Glutathione
peroxidase activity, tissue and soluble selenium content in beef and
pork in relation to meat ageing and pig RN phenotype. Food Chem.
2001, 73, 313−319.
(46) Pradhan, A. A.; Rhee, K. S.; Hernandez, P. Stability of catalase
and its potential role in lipid oxidation in meat. Meat Sci. 2000, 54,
385−390.
(47) Min, B.; Ahn, D. U. Factors in various fractions of meat
homogenates that affect the oxidative stability of raw chicken breast
and beef loin. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, C41−C48.
(48) Faustman, C.; Cassens, R. G. The biochemical basis for
discoloration in fresh meat: a review. J. Muscle Foods 1990, 1, 217−
243.
(49) Baron, C. P.; Andersen., J. H. Myoglobin-induced lipid
oxidation. A review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 3887−3897.
(50) Decker, E. A.; Xiong, Y. L.; Calvert, J. T.; Crum, A. D.;
Blanchart, S. P. Chemical, physical and functional properties of
oxidized turkey white muscle myofibrillar proteins. J. Agric. Food Chem.
1993, 41, 186−189.
(51) Froning, G. W. Color of poultry meat. Poult. Avian Biol. Rev.
1995, 6, 83−93.
(52) Ahadi, F.; Azar, S. C.; Shaharyar, H. A.; Lotfi, A.; Mansoub, N.
H.; Bahrami, Y. Effect of dietary supplementation with fish oil with
Selenium and Vitamin E on oxidative stability and consumer
acceptability of broiler meat. Global Vet. 2010, 4, 216−221.
(53) Miezeliene, A.; Alencikiene, G.; Gruzauskas, R.; Barstys, T. The
effect of dietary selenium supplementation on meat quality of broiler
chickens. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2011, 15, 61−69.

7120

dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf3017207 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7111−7120