Characterization of the FODMAP-profile in cereal-product ingredients

Ispiryan, Lilit; Zannini, Emanuele; Arendt, Elke K.

doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2020.102916

Cited by 45 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Andersen et al [82] determined 9.1 ± 2.6 g/100 g DM GOS in different varieties of lupin seeds. Similar levels were reported by Ispiryan et al [39] in a commercial lupin protein concentrate (10.74 g/100 g DM), while in contrast, only traces of the lupin GOS were found in BLPI as well as WLPI (Table 5) [39]. Joehnke et al [83] compared the FODMAP contents in lentil protein isolates acquired by UF or IEP.…”

Section: Fodmap Analysissupporting

confidence: 70%

“…e n.d., not detected in means of no significant difference in sucrose values and fructose values determined from difference of assay A and B in fructan determination, or levels below 0.1 g/100 g DM. * data as reported by Ispiryan et al[39].…”

supporting

confidence: 76%

“…The significance of the fructose released from sucrose and the fructose released from the hydrolysis with the enzyme mixture B has been determined. If no significant difference was determined and all levels below 0.1 g/100 g are referred to as not detected (n.d.) in further discussions [39].…”

Section: Quantification Of Fermentable Oligo- Di-and Monosaccharidesmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance of Protein Isolates from Blue Lupin and White Lupin

Vogelsang-O’Dwyer

Bez

Petersen

et al. 2020

Foods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Similarly prepared protein isolates from blue lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) and white lupin (L. albus) were assessed in relation to their composition, functional properties, nutritional attributes and environmental impacts. Blue lupin protein isolate (BLPI) and white lupin protein isolate (WLPI) were found to be quite similar in composition, although differences in the electrophoretic protein profiles were apparent. Both lupin protein isolates (LPIs) had good protein solubility (76.9% for BLPI and 69.8% for WLPI at pH 7) and foaming properties. However, a remarkable difference in heat gelation performance was observed between BLPI and WLPI. WLPI had a minimum gelling concentration of 7% protein, whereas BLPI required 23% protein in order to form a gel. WLPI also resulted in stronger gels over a range of concentrations compared to BLPI. Nutritional properties of both LPIs were similar, with no significant differences in in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD), and both had very low trypsin inhibitor activity (TIA) and fermentable oligo-, di- and monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAP) content. The amino acid profiles of both LPIs were also similar, with sulfur-containing amino acids (SAAs) being the limiting amino acid in each case. Environmental impacts revealed by the life cycle assessment (LCA) were almost identical for BLPI and WLPI, and in most categories the LPIs demonstrated considerably better performance per kg protein when compared to cow’s whole milk powder.

show abstract

Section: Fodmap Analysissupporting

confidence: 70%

supporting

confidence: 76%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance of Protein Isolates from Blue Lupin and White Lupin

Vogelsang-O’Dwyer

Bez

Petersen

et al. 2020

Foods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…e n.d., not detected in means of no significant difference in sucrose values and fructose values, determined from difference of assay A and B in fructan determination, or levels below 0.1 g/100 g DM. * data as reported by Ispiryan et al[29]…”

supporting

confidence: 75%

“…The calculation was based on the quantification of the monomers glucose and fructose released from the fructan molecules [28]. The significance of the fructose released from sucrose and the fructose released from the hydrolysis with the enzyme mixture B was determined; if no significant difference was determined and all levels below 0.1 g/ 100 g are referred to as not detected (n.d.) in further discussions [29]. All extractions were carried out in duplicate, according to the method described by Ispiryan et al [28] The results of the ingredients (including FDH) are presented as g analyte per 100 g sample on a dry weight basis (g/100 g DM).…”

Section: Quantification Of Fermentable Oligo- Di-and Monosaccharidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance

Vogelsang-O’Dwyer

Petersen

Joehnke

et al. 2020

Foods

Self Cite

160

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dry fractionated faba bean protein-rich flour (FPR) produced by milling/air classification, and faba bean protein isolate (FPI) produced by acid extraction/isoelectric precipitation were compared in terms of composition, techno-functional properties, nutritional properties and environmental impacts. FPR had a lower protein content (64.1%, dry matter (DM)) compared to FPI (90.1%, DM), due to the inherent limitations of air classification. Of the two ingredients, FPR demonstrated superior functionality, including higher protein solubility (85%), compared to FPI (32%) at pH 7. Foaming capacity was higher for FPR, although foam stability was similar for both ingredients. FPR had greater gelling ability compared to FPI. The higher carbohydrate content of FPR may have contributed to this difference. An amino acid (AA) analysis revealed that both ingredients were low in sulfur-containing AAs, with FPR having a slightly higher level than FPI. The potential nutritional benefits of the aqueous process compared to the dry process used in this study were apparent in the higher in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD) and lower trypsin inhibitor activity (TIA) in FPI compared to FPR. Additionally, vicine/convicine were detected in FPR, but not in FPI. Furthermore, much lower levels of fermentable oligo-, di- and monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) were found in FPI compared to FPR. The life cycle assessment (LCA) revealed a lower environmental impact for FPR, partly due to the extra water and energy required for aqueous processing. However, in a comparison with cow’s milk protein, both FPR and FPI were shown to have considerably lower environmental impacts.

show abstract

Combining high‐protein ingredients from pseudocereals and legumes for the development of fresh high‐protein hybrid pasta: enhanced nutritional profile

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: The fortification of wheat-based staple foods, such as pasta, with pseudocereal and legume flours has received growing research interest in recent years. While it is associated with many challenges regarding technological and sensory quality of the products, it promises a substantial improvement of the nutritional value of pasta. However, investigations of the nutritional quality of fortified pasta often focus on the carbohydrate/starch fraction, and information on changes in protein quality is relatively scarce. This study evaluates the nutritional profile of a high-protein hybrid pasta (HPHP) formulation in which a combination of three high-protein ingredients (HPIs) from buckwheat, faba bean and lupin is used to partially replace wheat semolina. The formulation's macronutrient composition, protein quality and the content of antinutritional compounds are assessed in comparison to regular wheat pasta. RESULTS:The HPHP formulation represents a more favourable macronutrient profile compared to regular wheat pasta, particularly in relation to the isocaloric replacement of wheat starch by non-wheat protein. Furthermore, a more balanced amino acid profile, improved N utilisation and increased protein efficiency ratio (in vivo) were determined for HPHP, which conclusively suggests a substantially enhanced protein quality. The cooking process was shown to significantly reduce levels of vicine/convicine and trypsin inhibitor activity originating from HPIs. The small remaining levels seem not to adversely affect HPHP's nutritional quality.CONCLUSION: This significant upgrade of pasta's nutritional value identifies HPHP, and similar hybrid formulations, as a healthy food choice and valuable alternative to regular wheat pasta, specifically for a protein supply of adequate quality in mostly plant-based diets.

show abstract

Characterization of the FODMAP-profile in cereal-product ingredients

Cited by 45 publications

References 25 publications

Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance of Protein Isolates from Blue Lupin and White Lupin

Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance of Protein Isolates from Blue Lupin and White Lupin

Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance

Combining high‐protein ingredients from pseudocereals and legumes for the development of fresh high‐protein hybrid pasta: enhanced nutritional profile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About