The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Solubility−Digestibility Relationship of Legume Proteins
Abstract
Protein solubility of raw and cooked faba bean, lentil, chickpea, and dry bean was tested in water and in NaCl in the pH range 1.0−13.0. The solubility of all legume proteins in water typically increased on both sides of pH 4.0. In NaCl, only solubility of raw dry bean proteins was improved. A marked reduction in protein solubility was observed after cooking of all legumes up to pH 10.0, where solubilization occurred, suggesting that it was dependent on deprotonation of lysine and arginine. Amino acid analysis showed that the protein fraction that retained solubility in water (pH 6.5) after cooking had a high amount of arginine and glutamic acid, low levels of hydrophobic amino acids, and, therefore, a much higher charge density than proteins in the whole flour. The SE-HPLC profiles indicated that water-soluble raw faba bean and lentil had main protein peaks of a higher molecular weight than those of dry bean or chickpea, thus suggesting a higher trend toward association. In vitro protein digestibility of faba bean and lentil, unlike that of chickpea and dry bean, was not improved upon cooking. The results indicate that, in addition to hydrophobic forces, basic residues are involved in the stabilization of heat-induced aggregates of legume proteins, possibly contributing to their low digestibility. Keywords: Legumes; globulins; solubility; digestibility
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bodwell, C. E., Satterlee, L. D., & Hackler, L. R. (1980) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/33.3.677 · Cited by 110
Cited by
The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption
Boland, M. J., Rae, A. N., Vereijken, J. M., Meuwissen, M. P. M., Fischer, A. R. H., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., Rutherfurd, S. M., Gruppen, H., Moughan, P. J., & Hendriks, W. H. (2013) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2012.07.002 · Cited by 524
Fortification of pasta with split pea and faba bean flours: Pasta processing and quality evaluation
Petitot, M., Boyer, L., Minier, C., & Micard, V. (2010) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.020 · Cited by 426
Aguilera, Y., Esteban, R. M., Benítez, V., Mollá, E., & Martín-Cabrejas, M. A. (2009) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf902042r · Cited by 201
Carbonaro, M., & Nucara, A. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14061188 · Cited by 81
Self-citationTavano, O. L., da Silva, S. I., Demonte, A., & Neves, V. A. (2008) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf8010799 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Carbonaro, M., Cappelloni, M., Nicoli, S., Lucarini, M., & Carnovale, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1997-09-01
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 3387-3394
- ISSN
- 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5118
- OpenAlex
- W2039511491
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.