Cited by 140

Effect of high-power sonication pretreatment on extraction and some physicochemical properties of proteins from chickpea, kidney bean, and soybean

Byanju, Bibek, Rahman, Md Mahfuzur, Hojilla-Evangelista, Milagros P., Lamsal, Buddhi P.·2020·International Journal of Biological Macromolecules

Abstract

Impact of high-power sonication (HPS) as pretreatment in extraction and some physicochemical properties of proteins from soybean flakes, flour of soybean, chickpea, and kidney bean was evaluated. Soybean flakes and flours from soybean, chickpea, and kidney bean were dispersed in distilled water (1.10 w/v) and sonicated at two power densities (PD) of 2.5 and 4.5 W/cm 3 for 5 min continuously. Proteins were extracted at pH range 8-8.5. PD 2.5 and 4.5 W/cm 3 significantly increased protein extraction yields from soy flakes to 29.03% and 25.87%, respectively, compared to 15.28% for unsonicated controls, but did not increase for flours. Freeze-dried spent substrates at higher PD sonication aggregated in size. Free sulfhydryl content for both sonicated and unsonicated soy flakes and flour were similar but increased in chickpea and kidney bean when HPS of 4.5 W/cm 3 was applied, indicating the unfolding of protein structure. The protein band patterns for sonicated and unsonicated legumes proteins were found to be similar, indicating no peptide profile alterations by HPS. However, circular dichroism analysis showed changes in secondary structure composition in extracted kidney bean protein causing unfolding and destabilizing the native structure. The secondary structure composition for soy flakes and flour protein and chickpea protein remained unchanged.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.12.118

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Byanju, B., Rahman, M. M., Hojilla-Evangelista, M. P., & Lamsal, B. P.
Venue
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
145
Pages
712-721
ISSN
0141-8130
Cited by
140
References
0
Language
en
Funders
National Institute of Food and Agriculture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review