CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Wheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFood composition and propertiesCeliac Disease Research and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparative Study on Gluten Protein Composition of Ancient (Einkorn, Emmer and Spelt) and Modern Wheat Species (Durum and Common Wheat)

Open access
Geisslitz, Sabrina, Longin, C. Friedrich H., Scherf, Katharina A., Koehler, Peter·2019·Foods
DOI 10.3390/foods8090409PMC PMC6769531
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The spectrophotometric Bradford assay was adapted for the analysis of gluten protein contents (gliadins and glutenins) of spelt, durum wheat, emmer and einkorn. The assay was applied to a set of 300 samples, including 15 cultivars each of common wheat, spelt, durum wheat, emmer and einkorn cultivated at four locations in Germany in the same year. The total protein content was equally influenced by location and wheat species, however, gliadin, glutenin and gluten contents were influenced more strongly by wheat species than location. Einkorn, emmer and spelt had higher protein and gluten contents than common wheat at all four locations. However, common wheat had higher glutenin contents than einkorn, emmer and spelt resulting in increasing ratios of gliadins to glutenins from common wheat (< 3.8) to spelt, emmer and einkorn (up to 12.1). With the knowledge that glutenin contents are suitable predictors for high baking volume, cultivars of einkorn, emmer and spelt with good predicted baking performance were identified. Finally, spelt, emmer and einkorn were found to have a higher nitrogen partial factor productivity than common and durum wheat making them promising crops for a more sustainable agriculture.

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/foods8090409

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Correlation between RP-HPLC and Bradford assay for the quantitation of gliadins (A) and glutenins (B) in eight cultivars each of common wheat, durum wheat, spelt, emmer and einkorn.
Figure 1 Correlation between RP-HPLC and Bradford assay for the quantitation of gliadins (A) and glutenins (B) in eight cultivars each of common wheat, durum wheat, spelt, emmer and einkorn.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Contents of protein, gluten, gliadins, glutenins and the ratio between gliadins and glutenins (GLIA/GLUT) in common wheat (CW), spelt, durum wheat (DW), emmer and einkorn. Data are presented as median (line in the box) of 15 cultivars per wheat species cultivated at four locations (n = 60), boxes represent the interquartile range, the rectangle in the box represents the mean value, whiskers designate minima and maxima and different capital letters indicate significant differences between the wheat species (one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey’s test at p < 0.05).
Figure 2 Contents of protein, gluten, gliadins, glutenins and the ratio between gliadins and glutenins (GLIA/GLUT) in common wheat (CW), spelt, durum wheat (DW), emmer and einkorn. Data are presented as median (line in the box) of 15 cultivars per wheat species cultivated at four locations (n = 60), boxes represent the interquartile range, the rectangle in the box represents the mean value, whiskers designate minima and maxima and different capital letters indicate significant differences between the wheat species (one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey’s test at p < 0.05).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Contents of protein, gluten, gliadins, glutenins and the ratio between gliadins and glutenins (GLIA/GLUT) in common wheat (CW), spelt, durum wheat (DW), emmer and einkorn. Data are presented as median (line in the box) of 15 cultivars per wheat species and growing location (SEL, Seligenstadt; OLI, Oberer Lindenhof; HOH, Hohenheim; EKW, Eckartsweiher), boxes represent the interquartile range, the rectangle in the box represents the mean value, whiskers designate minima and maxima and different capital letters indicate significant differences between growing locations within each wheat species (one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s test at p < 0.05).
Figure 3 Contents of protein, gluten, gliadins, glutenins and the ratio between gliadins and glutenins (GLIA/GLUT) in common wheat (CW), spelt, durum wheat (DW), emmer and einkorn. Data are presented as median (line in the box) of 15 cultivars per wheat species and growing location (SEL, Seligenstadt; OLI, Oberer Lindenhof; HOH, Hohenheim; EKW, Eckartsweiher), boxes represent the interquartile range, the rectangle in the box represents the mean value, whiskers designate minima and maxima and different capital letters indicate significant differences between growing locations within each wheat species (one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s test at p < 0.05).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Principal component analysis biplot based on contents of gliadins (GLIA), glutenins (GLUT), gluten and protein, and ratio between gliadins and glutenins (GLIA/GLUT) using the mean value of the four locations. Abbreviations of cultivars can be found in Table S1.
Figure 4 Principal component analysis biplot based on contents of gliadins (GLIA), glutenins (GLUT), gluten and protein, and ratio between gliadins and glutenins (GLIA/GLUT) using the mean value of the four locations. Abbreviations of cultivars can be found in Table S1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Scatter plot of glutenin (GLUT) content versus ratio between gliadins and glutenins (GLIA/GLUT) to identify cultivars with good predicted baking performance. The cultivars marked with an asterisk had already been identified as cultivars with good baking performance in our previous study [11]. Only samples with good predicted baking performance are labeled with abbreviations for better visibility. Abbreviations of cultivars are given in Table S1.
Figure 5 Scatter plot of glutenin (GLUT) content versus ratio between gliadins and glutenins (GLIA/GLUT) to identify cultivars with good predicted baking performance. The cultivars marked with an asterisk had already been identified as cultivars with good baking performance in our previous study [11]. Only samples with good predicted baking performance are labeled with abbreviations for better visibility. Abbreviations of cultivars are given in Table S1.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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Longin, 2015, Comparative study of hulled (einkorn, emmer, and spelt) and naked wheats (durum and bread wheat): Agronomic performance and quality traits, Crop. Sci., 56, 302, 10.2135/cropsci2015.04.0242 · DOI
  2. Shewry, 2015, Do “ancient” wheat species differ from modern bread wheat in their contents of bioactive components?, J. Cereal Sci., 65, 236, 10.1016/j.jcs.2015.07.014 · DOI
  3. Li, 2008, Phenolic acids in wheat varieties in the HEALTHGRAIN diversity screen, J. Agric. Food Chem., 56, 9732, 10.1021/jf801069s · DOI
  4. Lampi, 2008, Tocopherols and tocotrienols in wheat genotypes in the HEALTHGRAIN diversity screen, J. Agric. Food Chem., 56, 9716, 10.1021/jf801092a · DOI
  5. Ziegler, 2015, Alkylresorcinol composition allows the differentiation of Triticum spp. having different degrees of ploidy, J. Cereal Sci., 65, 244, 10.1016/j.jcs.2015.07.013 · DOI
  6. Piironen, 2008, Folate in wheat genotypes in the HEALTHGRAIN diversity screen, J. Agric. Food Chem., 56, 9726, 10.1021/jf801066j · DOI
  7. Ziegler, 2015, Lutein and lutein esters in whole grain flours made from 75 genotypes of 5 Triticum species grown at multiple sites, J. Agric. Food Chem., 63, 5061, 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b01477 · DOI
  8. Shewry, 2018, Do ancient types of wheat have health benefits compared with modern bread wheat?, J. Cereal Sci., 79, 469, 10.1016/j.jcs.2017.11.010 · DOI
  9. Sobczyk, 2017, Evaluation of the rheological properties of dough and quality of bread made with the flour obtained from old cultivars and modern breeding lines of spelt (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta), J. Cereal Sci., 77, 35, 10.1016/j.jcs.2017.07.013 · DOI
  10. Wieser, 2009, Studies on the protein composition and baking quality of einkorn lines, Eur. Food Res. Technol., 229, 523, 10.1007/s00217-009-1081-5 · DOI
  11. Geisslitz, 2018, Gluten protein composition and aggregation properties as predictors for bread volume of common wheat, spelt, durum wheat, emmer and einkorn, J. Cereal Sci., 83, 204, 10.1016/j.jcs.2018.08.012 · DOI
  12. Wieser, 1998, Quantitative determination of gluten protein types in wheat flour by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography, Cereal Chem., 75, 644, 10.1094/CCHEM.1998.75.5.644 · DOI
  13. Thanhaeuser, 2015, Spectrophotometric and fluorimetric quantitation of quality-related protein fractions of wheat flour, J. Cereal Sci., 62, 58, 10.1016/j.jcs.2014.12.010 · DOI
  14. Visioli, 2018, Variations in yield and gluten proteins in durum wheat varieties under late-season foliar versus soil application of nitrogen fertilizer in a northern Mediterranean environment, J. Sci. Food Agric., 98, 2360, 10.1002/jsfa.8727 · DOI
  15. Mæhre, H.K., Dalheim, L., Edvinsen, G.K., Elvevoll, E.O., and Jensen, I.-J. (2018). Protein determination—Method matters. Foods, 7. · DOI
  16. Cullis, 2006, On the design of early generation variety trials with correlated data, J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat., 11, 381, 10.1198/108571106X154443 · DOI
  17. Piepho, 2007, Computing heritability and selection response from unbalanced plant breeding trials, Genetics, 177, 1881, 10.1534/genetics.107.074229 · DOI
  18. Schopf, 2018, Wheat cultivar and species influence variability of gluten ELISA analyses based on polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies R5 and G12, J. Cereal Sci., 83, 32, 10.1016/j.jcs.2018.07.005 · DOI
  19. Shewry, 2010, The HEALTHGRAIN wheat diversity screen: Effects of genotype and environment on phytochemicals and dietary fiber components, J. Agric. Food Chem., 58, 9291, 10.1021/jf100039b · DOI
  20. Dupont, 2003, Molecular and biochemical impacts of environmental factors on wheat grain development and protein synthesis, J. Cereal Sci., 38, 133, 10.1016/S0733-5210(03)00030-4 · DOI
  21. Chope, 2014, Effects of genotype, season, and nitrogen nutrition on gene expression and protein accumulation in wheat grain, J. Agric. Food Chem., 62, 4399, 10.1021/jf500625c · DOI
  22. Triboi, 2000, Environmental effects on the quality of two wheat genotypes: 1. quantitative and qualitative variation of storage proteins, Eur. J. Agron., 13, 47, 10.1016/S1161-0301(00)00059-9 · DOI
  23. Rossmann, 2019, Foliar N application at anthesis alters grain protein composition and enhances baking quality in winter wheat only under a low N fertiliser regimen, Eur. J. Agron., 109, 125909, 10.1016/j.eja.2019.04.004 · DOI
  24. Koenig, 2015, Classification of spelt cultivars based on differences in storage protein compositions from wheat, Food Chem., 168, 176, 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.07.040 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 149

Metadata

Authors
Geisslitz, S., Longin, C. F. H., Scherf, K. A., & Koehler, P.
Affiliations
  • Leibniz-Institute for Food Systems Biology at the Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • University of Hohenheim (DE)
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • biotask AG, Schelztorstrasse 54-56, 73728 Esslingen am Neckar, Germany
Corresponding author
Scherf, Katharina A.
ORCID
Venue
Foods
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-09-12
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
409
ISSN
2304-8158 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/foods8090409
PMC
PMC6769531
OpenAlex
W2973117793
Cited by
149
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Foods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • KITopen (cc-by)
Funders
Forschungskreis der Ernährungsindustrie (AiF 18355 N)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Wheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Celiac Disease Research and Management
Keywords
gliadin, glutenin, Triticum monococcum, emmer wheat, spelt wheat, durum wheat, wheat, total protein, baking performance, partial factor productivity of nitrogen, cultivar comparison

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative Study on Gluten Protein Composition of Ancient (Einkorn, Emmer and Spelt) and Modern Wheat Species (Durum and Common Wheat). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/foods8090409
The paper
Geisslitz, S., Longin, C. F. H., Scherf, K. A., & Koehler, P. (2019). Comparative Study on Gluten Protein Composition of Ancient (Einkorn, Emmer and Spelt) and Modern Wheat Species (Durum and Common Wheat). Foods. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8090409