Cited by 99Food and Agricultural SciencesFood composition and propertiesProteins in Food Systems

Effect of Processing on the in Vitro and in Vivo Protein Quality of Yellow and Green Split Peas (Pisum sativum)

Nosworthy, Matthew G., Franczyk, Adam J., Medina, Gerardo, Neufeld, Jason, Appah, Paulyn, Utioh, Alphonsus, Frohlich, Peter, House, James D.·2017·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Abstract

In order to determine the effect of extrusion, baking, and cooking on the protein quality of yellow and green split peas, a rodent bioassay was conducted and compared to an in vitro method of protein quality determination. The Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) of green split peas (71.4%) was higher than that of yellow split peas (67.8%), on average. Similarly, the average Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) of green split peas (69%) was higher than that of yellow split peas (67%). Cooked green pea flour had lower PDCAAS and DIAAS values (69.19% and 67%) than either extruded (73.61%, 70%) or baked (75.22%, 70%). Conversely, cooked yellow split peas had the highest PDCCAS value (69.19%), while extruded yellow split peas had the highest DIAAS value (67%). Interestingly, a strong correlation was found between in vivo and in vitro analysis of protein quality ( R 2 = 0.9745). This work highlights the differences between processing methods on pea protein quality and suggests that in vitro measurements of protein digestibility could be used as a surrogate for in vivo analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03597

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nosworthy, M. G., Franczyk, A. J., Medina, G., Neufeld, J., Appah, P., Utioh, A., Frohlich, P., & House, J. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • Food Development Centre, Portage la Prarie, MB R1N 3J9, Canada
  • Canadian International Grains Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
House, James D.
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Published
2017-08-22
Volume
65
Issue
35
Pages
7790-7796
ISSN
  • 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5118
OpenAlex
W2745235649
Cited by
99
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Global Institute for Food Security
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - Growing Forward 2 Pulse Science Cluster (H32)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Proteins in Food Systems
Keywords
Pisum sativum, protein digestibility, extrusion, baking, cooking, pea flour, PDCAAS, DIAAS, rodent bioassays
MeSH terms
Color, Cooking, Dietary Proteins, Digestion, Humans, Models, Biological, Nutritive Value, Plant Proteins, Seeds, Pisum sativum

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