CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Proteins in Food SystemsFood and Agricultural SciencesPhytase and its Applications

Decoding the Duality of Antinutrients: Assessing the Impact of Protein Extraction Methods on Plant-Based Protein Sources

Open access
Manzanilla-Valdez, Maria Lilibeth, Ma, Zidan, Mondor, Martin, Hernández-Álvarez, Alan Javier·2024·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
DOI 10.1021/acs.jafc.4c00380PMC PMC11157537
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This review aims to provide an updated overview of the effects of protein extraction/recovery on antinutritional factors (ANFs) in plant protein ingredients, such as protein-rich fractions, protein concentrates, and isolates. ANFs mainly include lectins, trypsin inhibitors, phytic acid, phenolic compounds, oxalates, saponins, tannins, and cyanogenic glycosides. The current technologies used to recover proteins (e.g., wet extraction, dry fractionation) and novel technologies (e.g., membrane processing) are included in this review. The mechanisms involved during protein extraction/recovery that may enhance or decrease the ANF content in plant protein ingredients are discussed. However, studies on the effects of protein extraction/recovery on specific ANFs are still scarce, especially for novel technologies such as ultrasound- and microwave-assisted extraction and membrane processing. Although the negative effects of ANFs on protein digestibility and the overall absorption of plant proteins and other nutrients are a health concern, it is also important to highlight the potential positive effects of ANFs. This is particularly relevant given the rise of novel protein ingredients in the market and the potential presence or absence of these factors and their effects on consumers' health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jafc.4c00380

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The concordant ranking of samples across protein quantification methods reinforces that isoelectric precipitation effectively concentrated proteins.

    “Despite these differences, the concordant ranking of samples across the methods reinforces that isoelectric precipitation effectively concentrated proteins, as also reported by Mamone et al. [11] for hemp seed isolates as well as by related studies on plant protein recovery [30].”

    From Functional and Bioactive Characterization of Hemp Cake Proteins and Polyphenols from Non-Psychoactive Cannabis sativa (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

  • The recovery yields of CPS and CPL are consistent with values reported for plant protein isolates produced by isoelectric precipitation.

    “The protein recovery yields obtained in this study (17.71% for CPS and 20.13% for CPL) are consistent with values reported for plant protein isolates produced by isoelectric precipitation, such as soy and pea proteins, which typically range between 15-30% [30].”

    From Functional and Bioactive Characterization of Hemp Cake Proteins and Polyphenols from Non-Psychoactive Cannabis sativa (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Protein Extraction and ANFs section describes isoelectric precipitation as a plant-protein extraction method, but gives no recovery-yield range. The Phenolic Compounds section reports protein content for chickpea concentrates, not recovery yield. Searches for 15–30% and soy or pea isolate yields found no passage supporting the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Soy and pea protein isolates obtained by isoelectric precipitation typically have recovery yields between 15% and 30%.

    “such as soy and pea proteins, which typically range between 15-30% [30]”

    From Functional and Bioactive Characterization of Hemp Cake Proteins and Polyphenols from Non-Psychoactive Cannabis sativa (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Protein Extraction and ANFs section describes isoelectric precipitation as a common extraction method, and the Lectins section discusses its use with soybean and pea. Neither passage gives recovery yields. Searches for 15–30% and protein recovery yields found no passage establishing the claimed range; the percentages reported in the Phenolic Compounds section describe protein content of chickpea concentrates, not recovery yield. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 84

  1. Peña-Jorquera H.; Cid-Jofré V.; Landaeta-Díaz L.; Petermann-Rocha F.; Martorell M.; Zbinden-Foncea H.; Ferrari G.; Jorquera-Aguilera C.; Cristi-Montero C. Plant-Based Nutrition: Exploring Health Benefits for Atherosclerosis, Chronic Diseases, and Metabolic Syndrome—A Comprehensive Review. Nutrients; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) July 1, 2023 10.3390/nu15143244. PMC10386413 37513660 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Condori M. A. V.; De Camargo A. C. Trypsin Inhibitors, Antinutrients or Bioactive Compounds? A Mini Review. J. Bioact. 2023, 22 10.31665/JFB.2023.18344. · DOI
  3. Chen W.; Xu D. Phytic Acid and Its Interactions in Food Components, Health Benefits, and Applications: A Comprehensive Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 141, 104201 10.1016/j.tifs.2023.104201. · DOI
  4. Jennings R.; Henderson A. D.; Phelps A.; Janda K. M.; van den Berg A. E. Five U.S. Dietary Patterns and Their Relationship to Land Use, Water Use, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Implications for Future Food Security. Nutrients 2023, 15 (1), 215 10.3390/nu15010215. 36615871 PMC9823774 · DOI
  5. Green Protein Processing Technologies from Plants; Hernández-Álvarez A. J.; Mondor M.; Nosworthy M. G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2023 10.1007/978-3-031-16968-7. · DOI
  6. Alibhai Z.; Mondor M.; Moresoli C.; Ippersiel D.; Lamarche F. Production of Soy Protein Concentrates/Isolates: Traditional and Membrane Technologies. Desalination 2006, 191 (1–3), 351– 358. 10.1016/j.desal.2005.05.026. · DOI
  7. Hewage A.; Olatunde O. O.; Nimalaratne C.; Malalgoda M.; Aluko R. E.; Bandara N. Novel Extraction Technologies for Developing Plant Protein Ingredients with Improved Functionality. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; Elsevier, Ltd.: Amsterdam, November 1, 2022; pp 492– 511. 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.10.016. · DOI
  8. Tome D. Criteria and Markers for Protein Quality Assessment - a Review. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108 (S2), S222– S229. 10.1017/S0007114512002565. 23107532 · DOI
  9. Mondor M.; Hernández-Álvarez A. J. Processing Technologies to Produce Plant Protein Concentrates and Isolates. In Plant Protein Foods; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2022; pp 61– 108 10.1007/978-3-030-91206-2_3. · DOI
  10. Mondor M.; Aksay S.; Drolet H.; Roufik S.; Farnworth E.; Boye J. I. Influence of Processing on Composition and Antinutritional Factors of Chickpea Protein Concentrates Produced by Isoelectric Precipitation and Ultrafiltration. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 2009, 10 (3), 342– 347. 10.1016/j.ifset.2009.01.007. · DOI
  11. Schutyser M. A. I.; Pelgrom P. J. M.; van der Goot A. J.; Boom R. M. Dry Fractionation for Sustainable Production of Functional Legume Protein Concentrates. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 45 (2), 327– 335. 10.1016/j.tifs.2015.04.013. · DOI
  12. Fekadu Gemede H. Antinutritional Factors in Plant Foods: Potential Health Benefits and Adverse Effects. International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences 2014, 3 (4), 284 10.11648/j.ijnfs.20140304.18. · DOI
  13. Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1969 10.1016/B978-0-12-395739-9.X5001-6. · DOI
  14. Thakur A.; Sharma V.; Thakur A. An Overview of Anti-Nutritional Factors in Food. Int. J. Chem. Stud 2019, 7 (1), 2472– 2479.
  15. Muzquiz M.; Varela A.; Burbano C.; Cuadrado C.; Guillamón E.; Pedrosa M. M. Bioactive Compounds in Legumes: Pronutritive and Antinutritive Actions. Implications for Nutrition and Health. Phytochemistry Reviews 2012, 11 (2–3), 227– 244. 10.1007/s11101-012-9233-9. · DOI
  16. Muramoto K. Lectins as Bioactive Proteins in Foods and Feeds. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2017, 23 (4), 487– 494. 10.3136/fstr.23.487. · DOI
  17. Wang R.; Guo S. Phytic Acid and Its Interactions: Contributions to Protein Functionality, Food Processing, and Safety. Compr Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf 2021, 20 (2), 2081– 2105. 10.1111/1541-4337.12714. 33559386 · DOI
  18. Singh P.; Prasad S. A Review on Iron, Zinc and Calcium Biological Significance and Factors Affecting Their Absorption and Bioavailability. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 2023, 123, 105529 10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105529. · DOI
  19. Israr B.; Frazier R. A.; Gordon M. H. Effects of Phytate and Minerals on the Bioavailability of Oxalate from Food. Food Chem. 2013, 141 (3), 1690– 1693. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.130. 23870879 · DOI
  20. Panigrahy N.; Priyadarshini A.; Sahoo M. M.; Verma A. K.; Daverey A.; Sahoo N. K. A Comprehensive Review on Eco-Toxicity and Biodegradation of Phenolics: Recent Progress and Future Outlook. Environ. Technol. Innov 2022, 27, 102423 10.1016/j.eti.2022.102423. · DOI
  21. Osawa Ro.; Walsh T. P. Effects of Acidic and Alkaline Treatments on Tannic Acid and Its Binding Property to Protein. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1993, 41 (5), 704– 707. 10.1021/jf00029a004. · DOI
  22. Kunitz M. CRYSTALLINE SOYBEAN TRYPSIN INHIBITOR. J. Gen. Physiol. 1947, 30 (4), 291– 310. 10.1085/jgp.30.4.291. 19873496 PMC2142836 · DOI
  23. Song H. K.; Suh S. W. Kunitz-Type Soybean Trypsin Inhibitor Revisited: Refined Structure of Its Complex with Porcine Trypsin Reveals an Insight into the Interaction between a Homologous Inhibitor from Erythrina Caffra and Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator. J. Mol. Biol. 1998, 275 (2), 347– 363. 10.1006/jmbi.1997.1469. 9466914 · DOI
  24. Roychaudhuri R.; Sarath G.; Zeece M.; Markwell J. Stability of the Allergenic Soybean Kunitz Trypsin Inhibitor. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Proteins and Proteomics 2004, 1699 (1–2), 207– 212. 10.1016/j.bbapap.2004.02.014. 15158729 · DOI
  25. Burnett G. R.; Wickham M.; Fillery-Travis A.; Robertson J. A.; Belton P. S.; Gilbert S. M.; Tatham A. S.; Shewry P. R.; Mills E. N. C. Interaction between Protein Allergens and Model Gastric Emulsions. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2002, 30 (6), 916– 918. 10.1042/bst0300916. 12440946 · DOI
  26. Bidlingmeyer U. D. V.; Leary T. R.; Laskowski M. Identity of the Tryptic and α-Chymotrypic Reactive Sites on Soybean Trypsin Inhibitor (Kunitz). Biochemistry 1972, 11 (17), 3303– 3310. 10.1021/bi00767a028. 5065479 · DOI
  27. BIRK Y. The Bowman-Birk Inhibitor. Trypsin- and Chymotrypsin-inhibitor from Soybeans. Int. J. Pept Protein Res. 1985, 25 (2), 113– 131. 10.1111/j.1399-3011.1985.tb02155.x. 3886572 · DOI
  28. Dumoulin L.; Jacquet N.; Malumba P.; Richel A.; Blecker C. Dry and Wet Fractionation of Plant Proteins: How a Hybrid Process Increases Yield and Impacts Nutritional Value of Faba Beans Proteins. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 2021, 72, 102747 10.1016/j.ifset.2021.102747. · DOI
  29. Barbana C.; Boye J. I. In Vitro Protein Digestibility and Physico-Chemical Properties of Flours and Protein Concentrates from Two Varieties of Lentil (Lens Culinaris). Food Funct. 2013, 4 (2), 310– 321. 10.1039/C2FO30204G. 23151538 · DOI
  30. De Angelis D.; Pasqualone A.; Allegretta I.; Porfido C.; Terzano R.; Squeo G.; Summo C. Antinutritional Factors, Mineral Composition and Functional Properties of Dry Fractionated Flours as Influenced by the Type of Pulse. Heliyon 2021, 7 (2), e06177 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06177. 33644466 PMC7887393 · DOI
  31. Wang L. C. Isoelectric Point Differences in Commercial Soybean Trypsin Inhibitors. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem. 1971, 48, 304– 312.
  32. Quan T. H.; Benjakul S. Impacts of Desugarization and Drying Methods on Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Duck Albumen Powder. Drying Technology 2019, 37 (7), 864– 875. 10.1080/07373937.2018.1469509. · DOI
  33. Avilés-Gaxiola S.; Chuck-Hernández C.; Serna Saldívar S. O. Inactivation Methods of Trypsin Inhibitor in Legumes: A Review. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83 (1), 17– 29. 10.1111/1750-3841.13985. 29210451 · DOI
  34. Krishnan H. B.; Kim S.; Pereira A. E.; Jurkevich A.; Hibbard B. E. Adenanthera Pavonina, a Potential Plant-Based Protein Resource: Seed Protein Composition and Immunohistochemical Localization of Trypsin Inhibitors. Food Chem. X 2022, 13, 100253 10.1016/j.fochx.2022.100253. 35498991 PMC9040029 · DOI
  35. Vogelsang-O’Dwyer M.; Petersen I. L.; Joehnke M. S.; Sørensen J. C.; Bez J.; Detzel A.; Busch M.; Krueger M.; O’Mahony J. A.; Arendt E. K.; Zannini E. Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance. Foods 2020, 9 (3), 322 10.3390/foods9030322. 32168773 PMC7143175 · DOI
  36. Wang N.; Maximiuk L. Effect of Air Classification Processing Variables on Yield, Composition, and Certain Antinutrients of Air-Classified Fractions from Field Peas by Response Surface Methodology. J. Food Proc. Preserv. 2019, 43 ((7),) 10.1111/jfpp.13999. · DOI
  37. Coda R.; Melama L.; Rizzello C. G.; Curiel J. A.; Sibakov J.; Holopainen U.; Pulkkinen M.; Sozer N. Effect of Air Classification and Fermentation by Lactobacillus Plantarum VTT E-133328 on Faba Bean (Vicia Faba L.) Flour Nutritional Properties. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 193, 34– 42. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.10.012. 25462921 · DOI
  38. Daneluti A. L. M.; Matos J. do R. Study of Thermal Behavior of Phytic Acid. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2013, 49 (2), 275– 283. 10.1590/S1984-82502013000200009. · DOI
  39. Oatway L.; Vasanthan T.; Helm J. H. PHYTIC ACID. Food Reviews International 2001, 17 (4), 419– 431. 10.1081/FRI-100108531. · DOI
  40. Fernández-Quintela A.; Macarulla M. T.; del Barrio A. S.; Martínez J. A. Composition and Functional Properties of Protein Isolates Obtained from Commercial Legumes Grown in Northern Spain. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 1997, 51 (4), 331– 341. 10.1023/A:1007936930354. 9650726 · DOI
  41. Cheng S.; Skylas D. J.; Whiteway C.; Messina V.; Langrish T. A. G. The Effects of Fluidized Bed Drying, Soaking, and Microwaving on the Phytic Acid Content, Protein Structure, and Digestibility of Dehulled Faba Beans. Processes 2023, 11 (12), 3401 10.3390/pr11123401. · DOI
  42. Godrich J.; Rose P.; Muleya M.; Gould J. The Effect of Popping, Soaking, Boiling and Roasting Processes on Antinutritional Factors in Chickpeas and Red Kidney Beans. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 58 (1), 279– 289. 10.1111/ijfs.16190. · DOI
  43. Mondor M.; Ippersiel D.; Lamarche F.; Boye J. I. Production of Soy Protein Concentrates Using a Combination of Electroacidification and Ultrafiltration. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52 (23), 6991– 6996. 10.1021/jf0400922. 15537308 · DOI
  44. Skorepova J.; Moresoli C. Carbohydrate and Mineral Removal during the Production of Low-Phytate Soy Protein Isolate by Combined Electroacidification and High Shear Tangential Flow Ultrafiltration. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55 (14), 5645– 5652. 10.1021/jf070518n. 17567146 · DOI
  45. Taherian A. R.; Mondor M.; Labranche J.; Drolet H.; Ippersiel D.; Lamarche F. Comparative Study of Functional Properties of Commercial and Membrane Processed Yellow Pea Protein Isolates. Food Research International 2011, 44 (8), 2505– 2514. 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.01.030. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Rini J. M. Lectin Structure. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 1995, 24 (1), 551– 577. 10.1146/annurev.bb.24.060195.003003. 7663127 · DOI
  47. Lajolo F. M.; Genovese M. I. Nutritional Significance of Lectins and Enzyme Inhibitors from Legumes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50 (22), 6592– 6598. 10.1021/jf020191k. 12381157 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Loris R.; Hamelryck T.; Bouckaert J.; Wyns L. Legume Lectin Structure. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure and Molecular Enzymology 1998, 1383 (1), 9– 36. 10.1016/S0167-4838(97)00182-9. 9546043 · DOI
  49. Embaby H. E.-S. Effect of Soaking, Dehulling, and Cooking Methods on Certain Antinutrients and in Vitro Protein Digestibility of Bitter and Sweet Lupin Seeds. Food Sci. Biotechnol 2010, 19 (4), 1055– 1062. 10.1007/s10068-010-0148-1. · DOI
  50. Ferreira R. S.; Napoleão T. H.; Santos A. F. S.; Sá R. A.; Carneiro-da-Cunha M. G.; Morais M. M. C.; Silva-Lucca R. A.; Oliva M. L. V.; Coelho L. C. B. B.; Paiva P. M. G. Coagulant and Antibacterial Activities of the Water-Soluble Seed Lectin from Moringa Oleifera. Lett. Appl. Microbiol 2011, 53 (2), 186– 192. 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03089.x. 21605145 · DOI
  51. Bhutia S. K.; Behera B.; Nandini Das D.; Mukhopadhyay S.; Sinha N.; Panda P. K.; Naik P. P.; Patra S. K.; Mandal M.; Sarkar S.; Menezes M. E.; Talukdar S.; Maiti T. K.; Das S. K.; Sarkar D.; Fisher P. B. Abrus Agglutinin Is a Potent Anti-proliferative and Anti-angiogenic Agent in Human Breast Cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2016, 139 (2), 457– 466. 10.1002/ijc.30055. 26914517 · DOI
  52. Raíssa Ferreira de Lima B.; Leite de Siqueira Patriota L.; de Oliveira Marinho A.; Alves da Costa J.; Henrique Napoleão T.; Melgarejo da Rosa M.; Maria Guedes Paiva P. The Lectin from Schinus Terebinthifolia Leaf (SteLL) Reduces Immobility of Mice on the Tail Suspension Test Dependent on the Monoaminergic and Nitric Oxide Signaling. Neurosci. Lett. 2023, 801, 137092 10.1016/j.neulet.2023.137092. 36690060 · DOI
  53. Hernández-Infante M.; Sousa V.; Montalvo I.; Tena E. Impact of Microwave Heating on Hemagglutinins, Trypsin Inhibitors and Protein Quality of Selected Legume Seeds. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 1998, 52 (3), 199– 208. 10.1023/A:1008033610737. 9950081 · DOI
  54. Hisayasu S.; Orimo H.; Migita S.; Ikeda Y.; Satoh K.; Shinjo S.; Hirai Y.; Yoshino Y. Soybean Protein Isolate and Soybean Lectin Inhibit Iron Absorption in Rats. J. Nutr. 1992, 122 (5), 1190– 1196. 10.1093/jn/122.5.1190. 1564573 · DOI
  55. Zeb A. Concept, Mechanism, and Applications of Phenolic Antioxidants in Foods. J. Food Biochem. Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Malden, MA, September 1, 2020. 10.1111/jfbc.13394. 32691460 · DOI
  56. Günal-Köroğlu D.; Lorenzo J. M.; Capanoglu E. Plant-Based Protein-Phenolic Interactions: Effect on Different Matrices and in Vitro Gastrointestinal Digestion. Food Res. Int. Elsevier Ltd: Amsterdam, November 1, 2023. 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113269. 37803589 · DOI
  57. Strauch R. C.; Lila M. A. Pea Protein Isolate Characteristics Modulate Functional Properties of Pea Protein-Cranberry Polyphenol Particles. Food Sci. Nutr 2021, 9 (7), 3740– 3751. 10.1002/fsn3.2335. 34262733 PMC8269610 · DOI
  58. Prodpran T.; Benjakul S.; Phatcharat S. Effect of Phenolic Compounds on Protein Cross-Linking and Properties of Film from Fish Myofibrillar Protein. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2012, 51 (5), 774– 782. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.07.010. 22824469 · DOI
  59. Wang Y.; Sánchez-Velázquez O. A.; Martínez-Villaluenga C.; Goycoolea F. M.; Hernández-Álvarez A. J. Effect of Protein Extraction and Fractionation of Chia Seeds Grown in Different Locations: Nutritional, Antinutritional and Protein Quality Assessment. Food Biosci. 2023, 56, 103238 10.1016/j.fbio.2023.103238. · DOI
  60. Shahidi F.; Dissanayaka C. S. Phenolic-Protein Interactions: Insight from in-Silico Analyses - a Review. Food Production, Processing and Nutrition; BioMed Central Ltd: London, December 1, 2023 10.1186/s43014-022-00121-0. · DOI
  61. Cosson A.; Meudec E.; Ginies C.; Danel A.; Lieben P.; Descamps N.; Cheynier V.; Saint-Eve A.; Souchon I. Identification and Quantification of Key Phytochemicals in Peas - Linking Compounds with Sensory Attributes. Food Chem. 2022, 385, 132615 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.132615. 35290955 · DOI
  62. Alireza Sadeghi M.; Appu Rao A. G.; Bhagya S. Evaluation of Mustard (Brassica Juncea) Protein Isolate Prepared by Steam Injection Heating for Reduction of Antinutritional Factors. LWT 2006, 39 (8), 911– 917. 10.1016/j.lwt.2005.06.012. · DOI
  63. Arntfield S. D.; Ismond M. A. H.; Murray E. D. The Fate of Antinutritional Factors During the Preparation of a Fababean Protein Isolate Using a Micellization Technique. Food Science and Technology 1985, 18 (2), 137– 143. 10.1016/S0315-5463(85)71771-3. · DOI
  64. Garg D.; Chakraborty S.; Gokhale J. S. Optimizing the Extraction of Protein from Prosopis Cineraria Seeds Using Response Surface Methodology and Characterization of Seed Protein Concentrate. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 117, 108630 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108630. · DOI
  65. Mesfin N.; Belay A.; Amare E. Effect of Germination, Roasting, and Variety on Physicochemical, Techno-Functional, and Antioxidant Properties of Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.) Protein Isolate Powder. Heliyon 2021, 7 (9), e08081 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08081. 34632147 PMC8488851 · DOI
  66. Sofi S. A.; Singh J.; Muzaffar K.; Majid D.; Dar B. N. Physicochemical Characteristics of Protein Isolates from Native and Germinated Chickpea Cultivars and Their Noodle Quality. Int. J. Gastron Food Sci. 2020, 22 (July), 100258 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100258. · DOI
  67. López-Moreno M.; Garcés-Rimón M.; Miguel M. Antinutrients: Lectins, Goitrogens, Phytates and Oxalates, Friends or Foe?. J. Funct. Foods 2022, 89, 104938 10.1016/j.jff.2022.104938. · DOI
  68. Illingworth K. A.; Lee Y. Y.; Siow L. F. The Effect of Isolation Techniques on the Physicochemical Properties of Moringa Oleifera Protein Isolates. Food Chemistry Advances 2022, 1 (April), 100029 10.1016/j.focha.2022.100029. · DOI
  69. Song L. M.; Yu Y.; Du L. D.; Ji X. Y.; Gao H.; Cai Y. Q.; Li C. J.; Xue P. Does Saponin in Quinoa Really Embody the Source of Its Bitterness?. Food Chem. 2024, 437, 137872 10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137872. 37918165 · DOI
  70. Samtiya M.; Aluko R. E.; Dhewa T. Plant Food Anti-Nutritional Factors and Their Reduction Strategies: An Overview. Food Production, Processing and Nutrition; BioMed Central Ltd: London, December 1, 2020 10.1186/s43014-020-0020-5. · DOI
  71. Zhang Z.; Liu C.; Wu S.; Ma T. The Non-Nutritional Factor Types, Mechanisms of Action and Passivation Methods in Food Processing of Kidney Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.): A Systematic Review. Foods; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI): Basel, October 1, 2023 10.3390/foods12193697. PMC10572541 37835350 · DOI
  72. Gilani G. S.; Xiao C. W.; Cockell K. A. Impact of Antinutritional Factors in Food Proteins on the Digestibility of Protein and the Bioavailability of Amino Acids and on Protein Quality. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108 ((S2),) 10.1017/S0007114512002371. 23107545 · DOI
  73. Lo D.; Wang H. I.; Wu W. J.; Yang R. Y. Anti-Nutrient Components and Their Concentrations in Edible Parts in Vegetable Families. CAB Rev. 2018, 13 10.1079/PAVSNNR201813015. · DOI
  74. Gunawan S.; Dwitasari I.; Rahmawati N.; Darmawan R.; Wirawasista Aparamarta H.; Widjaja T. Effect of Process Production on Antinutritional, Nutrition, and Physicochemical Properties of Modified Sorghum Flour. Arab. J. Chem. 2022, 15 ((10),), 104134 10.1016/j.arabjc.2022.104134. · DOI
  75. FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation. Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition: Report of a Joint. WHO Technical Report Series 2007, 1– 265. 18330140
  76. Traka M. H. Health Benefits of Glucosinolates. Adv. Bot Res. 2016, 80, 247– 279. 10.1016/bs.abr.2016.06.004. · DOI
  77. Oluwole O.; Fernando W. B.; Lumanlan J.; Ademuyiwa O.; Jayasena V. Role of Phenolic Acid, Tannins, Stilbenes, Lignans and Flavonoids in Human Health - a Review. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 57, 6326– 6335. 10.1111/ijfs.15936. · DOI
  78. Mohan V. R.; Tresina P. S.; Daffodil E. D. Antinutritional Factors in Legume Seeds: Characteristics and Determination. In Encyclopedia of Food and Health; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, 2015; pp 211– 220 10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00036-2. · DOI
  79. Khazaei H.; Purves R. W.; Hughes J.; Link W.; O’Sullivan D. M.; Schulman A. H.; Björnsdotter E.; Geu-Flores F.; Nadzieja M.; Andersen S. U.; Stougaard J.; Vandenberg A.; Stoddard F. L. Eliminating Vicine and Convicine, the Main Anti-Nutritional Factors Restricting Faba Bean Usage. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 549– 556. 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.051. · DOI
  80. Sui X.; Sun H.; Qi B.; Zhang M.; Li Y.; Jiang L. Functional and Conformational Changes to Soy Proteins Accompanying Anthocyanins: Focus on Covalent and Non-Covalent Interactions. Food Chem. 2018, 245, 871– 878. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.11.090. 29287453 · DOI
  81. Mattioli R.; Francioso A.; Mosca L.; Silva P. Anthocyanins: A Comprehensive Review of Their Chemical Properties and Health Effects on Cardiovascular and Neurodegenerative Diseases. Molecules 2020, 25 (17), 3809 10.3390/molecules25173809. 32825684 PMC7504512 · DOI
  82. Duraiswamy A.; Sneha A.; N M.; Jebakani K. S.; Selvaraj S.; Pramitha J. L.; Selvaraj R.; Petchiammal K. I.; Kather Sheriff S.; Thinakaran J.; Rathinamoorthy S.; Kumar P. R. Genetic Manipulation of Anti-Nutritional Factors in Major Crops for a Sustainable Diet in Future. Frontiers in Plant Science. Frontiers Media S.A.: Lausanne, 2023 10.3389/fpls.2022.1070398. PMC9976781 36874916 · DOI
  83. Filho A. M. M.; Pirozi M. R.; Borges J. T. D. S.; Pinheiro Sant'Ana H. M.; Chaves J. B. P.; Coimbra J. S. D. R. Quinoa: Nutritional, Functional, and Antinutritional Aspects. Crit Rev. Food Sci. Nutr 2017, 57 (8), 1618– 1630. 10.1080/10408398.2014.1001811. 26114306 · DOI
  84. Arogundade L. A.; Mu T.-H.; Deng F.-M.; Abegunde O. K.; Sun M.-J. Nutrition, Gelation Rheology and Gel Microstructure of Isoelectric and Ultrafiltered/Diafiltered African Yam Bean (Sphenostylis Stenocarpa) Protein Isolates. LWT - Food Science and Technology 2014, 59 (2), 1018– 1024. 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.06.053. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Manzanilla-Valdez, M. L., Ma, Z., Mondor, M., & Hernández-Álvarez, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2024-05-23
Volume
72
Issue
22
Pages
12319-12339
ISSN
  • 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5118
DOI
10.1021/acs.jafc.4c00380
PMC
PMC11157537
OpenAlex
W4398238526
Cited by
58
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 5
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog?a (861083)
  • University of Leeds (95522790)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Proteins in Food Systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Phytase and its Applications
Keywords
antinutritional factors, plant proteins, protein extraction, protein isolates, protein concentrate, lectins, trypsin inhibitor, phytic acid, phenolic compounds, oxalate, saponins, tannins, cyanogenic glycosides, membrane processing, ultrasound-assisted extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, protein digestibility
MeSH terms
Animals, Chemical Fractionation, Humans, Nutritive Value, Plant Proteins, Trypsin Inhibitors

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