CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Proteins in Food SystemsProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive PeptidesProtein purification and stability

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Salt Solubilization Coupled with Membrane Filtration-Impact on the Structure/Function of Chickpea Compared to Pea Protein

Open access
Yaputri, Brigitta P., Bu, Fan, Ismail, Baraem P.·2023·Foods
DOI 10.3390/foods12081694PMC PMC10137475
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The demand for pulse proteins as alternatives to soy protein has been steeply increasing over the past decade. However, the relatively inferior functionality compared to soy protein is hindering the expanded use of pulse proteins, namely pea and chickpea protein, in various applications. Harsh extraction and processing conditions adversely impact the functional performance of pea and chickpea protein. Therefore, a mild protein extraction method involving salt extraction coupled with ultrafiltration (SE-UF) was evaluated for the production of chickpea protein isolate (ChPI). The produced ChPI was compared to pea protein isolate (PPI) produced following the same extraction method in terms of functionality and feasibility of scaling. Scaled-up (SU) ChPI and PPI were produced under industrially relevant settings and evaluated in comparison to commercial pea, soy, and chickpea protein ingredients. Controlled scaled-up production of the isolates resulted in mild changes in protein structural characteristics and comparable or improved functional properties. Partial denaturation, modest polymerization, and increased surface hydrophobicity were observed in SU ChPI and PPI compared to the benchtop counterparts. The unique structural characteristics of SU ChPI, including its ratio of surface hydrophobicity and charge, contributed to superior solubility at both a neutral and acidic pH compared to both commercial soy protein and pea protein isolates (cSPI and cPPI) and significantly outperformed cPPI in terms of gel strength. These findings demonstrated both the promising scalability of SE-UF and the potential of ChPI as a functional plant protein ingredient.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/foods12081694

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 SDS-PAGE gel protein profile visualization of benchtop and scaled-up pea and chickpea protein isolates (PPI, SU PPI, ChPI, and SU ChPI), as well as commercial PPI, PPC, and ChPC under non-reducing (a) and reducing (b) conditions. Lane 1: Molecular weight (MW) marker; Lane 2, 3: cPPI and cPPC; Lane 4, 5: PPI and SU PPI, Lane 6: cChPC; Lane 7, 8: ChPI and SU ChPI. Lox: lipoxygenase; Cs: convicilin subunits; Lm: legumin monomer; Vs: vicilin subunits; Lsα: legumin acidic subunits, Lsβ: legumin basic subunits; Vsf: vicilin subunit fractions due to post-translational cleavages.
Figure 1 SDS-PAGE gel protein profile visualization of benchtop and scaled-up pea and chickpea protein isolates (PPI, SU PPI, ChPI, and SU ChPI), as well as commercial PPI, PPC, and ChPC under non-reducing (a) and reducing (b) conditions. Lane 1: Molecular weight (MW) marker; Lane 2, 3: cPPI and cPPC; Lane 4, 5: PPI and SU PPI, Lane 6: cChPC; Lane 7, 8: ChPI and SU ChPI. Lox: lipoxygenase; Cs: convicilin subunits; Lm: legumin monomer; Vs: vicilin subunits; Lsα: legumin acidic subunits, Lsβ: legumin basic subunits; Vsf: vicilin subunit fractions due to post-translational cleavages.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 SDS-PAGE gel protein profile visualization of high solid (HS) and low solid (LS) fractions of SU PPI compared to that of cPPI and SU ChPI compared to that of cChPC under non-reducing (lane 2–5) and reducing (lane 6–9) conditions. Lane 1: Molecular weight (MW) marker; Lane 2, 6: SU PPI HS; Lane 3, 7: SU PPI LS; Lane 4, 8: SU ChPI HS; Lane 5, 9: SU ChPI LS. Lox: lipoxygenase; Cs: convicilin subunits; Lm: legumin monomer; Vs: vicilin subunits; Lsα: legumin acidic subunits, Lsβ: legumin basic subunits; Vsf: vicilin subunit fractions due to post-translational cleavages.
Figure 2 SDS-PAGE gel protein profile visualization of high solid (HS) and low solid (LS) fractions of SU PPI compared to that of cPPI and SU ChPI compared to that of cChPC under non-reducing (lane 2–5) and reducing (lane 6–9) conditions. Lane 1: Molecular weight (MW) marker; Lane 2, 6: SU PPI HS; Lane 3, 7: SU PPI LS; Lane 4, 8: SU ChPI HS; Lane 5, 9: SU ChPI LS. Lox: lipoxygenase; Cs: convicilin subunits; Lm: legumin monomer; Vs: vicilin subunits; Lsα: legumin acidic subunits, Lsβ: legumin basic subunits; Vsf: vicilin subunit fractions due to post-translational cleavages.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Protein gel strength of benchtop and scaled-up pea and chickpea protein isolates (PPI, SU PPI, ChPI, SU ChPI), as well as commercial SPI, PPI, PPC, and cChPC. An asterisk (*) denotes sample not analyzed due to high viscosity during sample solubilization. Error bars represent standard error (n = 3). Lowercase and uppercase letters above the bars denote significant differences among the samples evaluated at 15% and 20% protein concentration, respectively, according to the Tukey-Kramer multiple means comparison test (p < 0.05).
Figure 3 Protein gel strength of benchtop and scaled-up pea and chickpea protein isolates (PPI, SU PPI, ChPI, SU ChPI), as well as commercial SPI, PPI, PPC, and cChPC. An asterisk (*) denotes sample not analyzed due to high viscosity during sample solubilization. Error bars represent standard error (n = 3). Lowercase and uppercase letters above the bars denote significant differences among the samples evaluated at 15% and 20% protein concentration, respectively, according to the Tukey-Kramer multiple means comparison test (p < 0.05).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Protein emulsion capacity, EC, (a) emulsion activity index, EAI, (b) and emulsion stability, ES, (c) of benchtop and scaled-up pea and chickpea protein isolates (PPI, SU PPI, ChPI, SU ChPI), as well as commercial SPI, PPI, PPC, and cChPC. Error bars represent standard error (n = 3). Lowercase letters above the bars denote significant differences among the samples, according to the Tukey-Kramer multiple means comparison test (p < 0.05).
Figure 4 Protein emulsion capacity, EC, (a) emulsion activity index, EAI, (b) and emulsion stability, ES, (c) of benchtop and scaled-up pea and chickpea protein isolates (PPI, SU PPI, ChPI, SU ChPI), as well as commercial SPI, PPI, PPC, and cChPC. Error bars represent standard error (n = 3). Lowercase letters above the bars denote significant differences among the samples, according to the Tukey-Kramer multiple means comparison test (p < 0.05).CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Lu, 2019, Composition, Physicochemical Properties of Pea Protein and Its Application in Functional Foods, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 60, 2593, 10.1080/10408398.2019.1651248 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Schreuders, 2019, Comparing Structuring Potential of Pea and Soy Protein with Gluten for Meat Analogue Preparation, J. Food Eng., 261, 32, 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.04.022 · DOI
  3. Wanasundara, 2011, Physicochemical, Thermal and Functional Characterisation of Protein Isolates from Kabuli and Desi Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A Comparative Study with Soy (Glycine Max) and Pea (Pisum sativum L.), J. Sci. Food Agric., 91, 1022, 10.1002/jsfa.4277 · DOI
  4. Karaca, 2011, Emulsifying Properties of Chickpea, Faba Bean, Lentil and Pea Proteins Produced by Isoelectric Precipitation and Salt Extraction, Food Res. Int., 44, 2742, 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.06.012 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Taherian, 2011, Comparative Study of Functional Properties of Commercial and Membrane Processed Yellow Pea Protein Isolates, Food Res. Int., 44, 2505, 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.01.030 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cui, 2020, Functionality and Structure of Yellow Pea Protein Isolate as Affected by Cultivars and Extraction PH, Food Hydrocoll., 108, 106008, 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106008 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 1991, Chickpea Protein Isolates: Physicochemical, Functional and Nutritional Characterization, J. Food Sci., 56, 726, 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1991.tb05367.x · DOI
  8. Stone, 2015, Functional Attributes of Pea Protein Isolates Prepared Using Different Extraction Methods and Cultivars, Food Res. Int., 76, 31, 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.11.017 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Yang, 2021, Extraction Methods Significantly Impact Pea Protein Composition, Structure and Gelling Properties, Food Hydrocoll., 117, 106678, 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106678 · DOI
  10. Boudries, 2016, Pea, Chickpea and Lentil Protein Isolates: Physicochemical Characterization and Emulsifying Properties, Food Biophys., 11, 43, 10.1007/s11483-015-9411-6 · DOI
  11. Chang, 2022, Plant Proteins from Green Pea and Chickpea: Extraction, Fractionation, Structural Characterization and Functional Properties, Food Hydrocoll., 123, 107165, 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.107165 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Ghribi, 2015, Effect of Drying Methods on Physico-Chemical and Functional Properties of Chickpea Protein Concentrates, J. Food Eng., 165, 179, 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.06.021 · DOI
  13. Mondor, 2009, Influence of Processing on Composition and Antinutritional Factors of Chickpea Protein Concentrates Produced by Isoelectric Precipitation and Ultrafiltration, Innov. Food Sci. Emer. Technol., 10, 342, 10.1016/j.ifset.2009.01.007 · DOI
  14. Gabelli, 2014, Salting out of Proteins Using Ammonium Sulfate Precipitation, Methods Enzymol., 541, 85, 10.1016/B978-0-12-420119-4.00007-0 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Boyle, 2018, Emerging Camelina Protein: Extraction, Modification, and Structural/Functional Characterization, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 95, 1049, 10.1002/aocs.12045 · DOI
  16. 2017, Pressurized hot water extraction of proteins from Sambucus nigra L. branches, Ind. Crops Prod., 108, 312, 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.06.053 · DOI
  17. Laemmli, 1970, Cleavage of Structural Proteins during the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4, Nature, 227, 680, 10.1038/227680a0 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Deak, 2006, Effects of NaCl concentration on salting-in and dilution during salting-out on soy protein fractionation, J. Food Sci., 71, C247, 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00028.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. 2019, Wet-milled chickpea coproduct as an alternative to obtain protein isolates, LWT, 115, 108468, 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108468 · DOI
  20. Boye, 2010, Comparison of the functional properties of pea, chickpea and lentil protein concentrates processed using ultrafiltration and isoelectric precipitation techniques, Food Res. Int., 43, 537, 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.021 · DOI
  21. Huang, 2007, Physicochemical properties and amylopectin chain profiles of cowpea, chickpea and yellow pea starches, Food Chem., 101, 1338, 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.03.039 · DOI
  22. Dalgetty, 2003, Isolation and characterization of cotyledon fibers from peas, lentils, and chickpeas, Cereal Chem., 80, 310, 10.1094/CCHEM.2003.80.3.310 · DOI
  23. Tian, 1999, Pilot scale isolation of proteins from field peas (Pisum sativum L.) for use as food ingredients, Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 34, 33, 10.1046/j.1365-2621.1999.00236.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. Zhao, 2012, Effects of Spray Drying and Freeze Drying on the Properties of Protein Isolate from Rice Dreg Protein, Food Bioprocess Technol., 6, 1759, 10.1007/s11947-012-0844-3 · DOI
  25. Liu, 2019, Effects of Microbial Transglutaminase Treatment on Physiochemical Properties and Emulsifying Functionality of Faba Bean Protein Isolate, LWT, 99, 396, 10.1016/j.lwt.2018.10.003 · DOI
  26. Lam, 2018, Pea Protein Isolates: Structure, Extraction, and Functionality, Food Rev. Int., 34, 126, 10.1080/87559129.2016.1242135 · DOI
  27. Shevkani, 2015, Structural and Functional Characterization of Kidney Bean and Field Pea Protein Isolates: A Comparative Study, Food Hydrocoll., 43, 679, 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.07.024 · DOI
  28. Chang, 2012, Isolation and Characterization of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Seed Protein Fractions, Food Bioprocess Technol., 5, 618, 10.1007/s11947-009-0303-y · DOI
  29. Wang, 2010, Subunit, Amino Acid Composition and in Vitro Digestibility of Protein Isolates from Chinese Kabuli and Desi Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Cultivars, Food Res. Int., 43, 567, 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.018 · DOI
  30. Clemente, 1999, Protein Isolates from Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): Chemical Composition, Functional Properties and Protein Characterization, Food Chem., 64, 237, 10.1016/S0308-8146(98)00133-2 · DOI
  31. Papalamprou, 2009, Influence of Preparation Methods on Physicochemical and Gelation Properties of Chickpea Protein Isolates, Food Hydrocoll., 23, 337, 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2008.03.006 · DOI
  32. Pelgrom, 2013, Dry Fractionation for Production of Functional Pea Protein Concentrates, Food Res. Int., 53, 232, 10.1016/j.foodres.2013.05.004 · DOI
  33. Zhu, 2021, Potential of Preparing Meat Analogue by Functional Dry and Wet Pea (Pisum Sativum) Protein Isolate, LWT, 148, 111702, 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111702 · DOI
  34. Alavi, 2021, Consequences of Heating under Alkaline pH Alone or in the Presence of Maltodextrin on Solubility, Emulsifying and Foaming Properties of Faba Bean Protein, Food Hydrocoll., 112, 106335, 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106335 · DOI
  35. Arogundade, 2021, Impact of Dextran Conjugation on Physicochemical and Gelling Properties of Sweet Potato Protein through Maillard Reaction, Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 56, 1661, 10.1111/ijfs.14787 · DOI
  36. Liu, 2020, Functional Properties and Structural Characteristics of Phosphorylated Pea Protein Isolate, Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 55, 2002, 10.1111/ijfs.14391 · DOI
  37. Li, 2014, DSC study on the thermal properties of soybean protein isolates/corn starch mixture, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., 115, 1633, 10.1007/s10973-013-3433-4 · DOI
  38. Kaur, 2007, Characterization of protein isolates from different Indian chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars, Food Chem., 102, 366, 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.05.029 · DOI
  39. Wagner, 1990, Influence of denaturation, hydrophobicity and sulfhydryl content on solubility and water absorbing capacity of soy protein isolates, J. Food Sci., 55, 765, 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb05225.x · DOI
  40. Wagner, 2000, Relation between solubility and surface hydrophobicity as an indicator of modifications during preparation processes of commercial and laboratory-prepared soy protein isolates, J. Agric. Food Chem., 48, 3159, 10.1021/jf990823b · DOI
  41. Lam, 2017, Physicochemical and functional properties of protein isolates obtained from several pea cultivars, Cereal Chem., 94, 89, 10.1094/CCHEM-04-16-0097-FI · DOI
  42. Riblett, 2001, Characterization of β-conglycinin and glycinin soy protein fractions from four selected soybean genotypes, J. Agric. Food Chem., 49, 4983, 10.1021/jf0105081 · DOI
  43. Carbonaro, 1997, Solubility−digestibility relationship of legume proteins, J. Agric. Food Chem., 45, 3387, 10.1021/jf970070y · DOI
  44. Ashogbon, 2020, Developments in the Isolation, Composition, and Physicochemical Properties of Legume Starches, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 61, 2938, 10.1080/10408398.2020.1791048 · DOI
  45. Cai, 2002, Textural property of 6 legume curds in relation to their protein constituents, J. Food Sci., 67, 1725, 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb08713.x · DOI
  46. Donmez, 2021, Characterization of starch–water interactions and their effects on two key functional properties: Starch gelatinization and retrogradation, Curr. Opin. Food Sci., 39, 103, 10.1016/j.cofs.2020.12.018 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 22

Metadata

Authors
Yaputri, B. P., Bu, F., & Ismail, B. P.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Ismail, Baraem P.
ORCID
Venue
Foods
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-04-19
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
1694
ISSN
2304-8158 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/foods12081694
PMC
PMC10137475
OpenAlex
W4366414682
Cited by
22
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Foods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Food Institute (GFI) nonprofit organization
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Proteins in Food Systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Protein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein purification and stability
Keywords
chickpea protein isolate, pea protein isolate, salt extraction, ultrafiltration, legume protein, protein functional properties, protein structure, surface hydrophobicity, protein solubility, gel strength

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