α-Amylase action on starch in chickpea flour following hydrothermal processing and different drying, cooling and storage conditions

Edwards, Cathrina H.; Veerabahu, Amalia S.; Mason, A. James; Butterworth, Peter J.; Ellis, Peter R.

doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.117738

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is still a limited understanding of the effect of freeze–thaw treatment on starch digestibility in bread and glycaemia, however the largest effects of cold storage occur during the initial stages of freezing 40 and further starch retrogradation effects thereafter would likely be minimal and negligible with regard to influencing postprandial glycaemia. 41 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of high-amylosestarch branching enzyme IIwheat mutants on starch digestibility in bread, product quality, postprandial satiety and glycaemic response

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of high-amylosestarch branching enzyme IIwheat mutants on starch digestibility in bread, product quality, postprandial satiety and glycaemic response

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is most unlikely that the maximum digestible starches would be cumulative, stepped-up or additive from the phases/segments to possibly project digesting more than the available starches (>100 g/100 g dry starch), a situation that Nguyen & Sopade (2018) described as impractical in starch digestion. We, therefore, propose that instead of adding D ∞1 and D ∞2 as in, for example, Edwards et al (2021) for biphasic digestograms or D ∞1 , D ∞2 , and D ∞3 for triphasic digestograms, the higher of D ∞1 and D ∞2 or the highest of D ∞1 , D ∞2 , and D ∞3 be used to define the prevailing maximum digestible starches, as in Sopade and co-workers (Sopade, 2021(Sopade, , 2022aForestier & Sopade, 2022).…”

Section: Starch Digestion Parameters and Estimated Glycaemic Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding starch digestibility of rice: a study in brown rice

Srikaeo

Saeva

Sopade³

2022

Int J of Food Sci Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In vitro starch digestibility of 10 Thai brown rice samples was investigated for foundational in-depth understandings of treated/processed and untreated/non-processed rice. The samples were uncooked pigmented, non-pigmented and differed in amylose contents and chemical and functional properties. The starch digestograms were modelled using innovative techniques involving objective logarithm of slope (Sopade Objective Procedure) and one-term and two-term exponential and non-exponential models. The samples significantly (P ≤ 0.05) revealed monophasic and biphasic starch digestograms, and the digestion parameters were sample-dependent. Using the Sopade Objective Procedure, which better predicted the digestograms, the biphasic samples exhibited rapid-slow and slow-rapid in vitro starch digestion phenomena. The estimated glycaemic index (eGI) of the samples ranged from 41 to 95 g/100 g, and the sample with the slow-rapid digestion pattern exhibited the lowest eGI. The results are discussed as baselines for follow-up treatments that typify rice as a notable global food commodity.

show abstract

“…For many pulses, refrigeration temperatures (4 • C) will create more RS type III than storage at room temperature (Yadav et al, 2010). In another study by Edwards, Veerabahu, et al (2020), the effect of thermal treatment and refrigeration on in vitro digestibility of starch in chickpea flour was determined. Refrigeration of a gelatinized sample decreased in vitro starch digestibility, but when these samples were gelatinized again (after refrigeration) they showed an even higher starch digestibility compared to the gelatinized sample (Edwards, Veerabahu, et al, 2020).…”

Section: Storage After Thermal Treatment and Starch Retrogradationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intactness of the cell, a densely packed matrix encapsulated by a cell wall, is a major factor hindering, and thus slowing down, amylolysis during in vitro digestion of different pulses (Berg et al., 2012; Bhattarai et al., 2017; Dhital et al., 2016; Edwards, Veerabahu, et al., 2020; Mishra et al., 2012; Rovalino‐Córdova et al., 2018). In this regard, pulse cell wall structure is very different from other plant‐based foods, such as cereals.…”

Section: The Effect Of Traditional Thermal Processing On Nutrient Dig...mentioning

confidence: 99%

How postharvest variables in the pulse value chain affect nutrient digestibility and bioaccessibility

Duijsens

Gwala

Pallares

et al. 2021

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pulses are increasingly being put forward as part of healthy diets because they are rich in protein, (slowly digestible) starch, dietary fiber, minerals, and vitamins. In pulses, nutrients are bioencapsulated by a cell wall, which mostly survives cooking followed by mechanical disintegration (e.g., mastication). In this review, we describe how different steps in the postharvest pulse value chain affect starch and protein digestion and the mineral bioaccessibility of pulses by influencing both their nutritional composition and structural integrity. Processing conditions that influence structural characteristics, and thus potentially the starch and protein digestive properties of (fresh and hard-to-cook [HTC]) pulses, have been reported in literature and are summarized in this review. The effect of thermal treatment on the pulse microstructure seems highly dependent on pulse type-specific cell wall properties and postharvest storage, which requires further investigation. In contrast to starch and protein digestion, the bioaccessibility of minerals is not dependent on the integrity of the pulse (cellular) tissue, but is affected by the presence of mineral antinutrients (chelators). Although pulses have a high overall mineral content, the presence of mineral antinutrients makes them rather poorly accessible for absorption. The negative effect of HTC on mineral bioaccessibility cannot be counteracted by thermal processing. This review also summarizes lessons learned on the use of pulses for the preparation of foods, from the traditional use of raw-milled pulse flours, to purified pulse ingredients (e.g., protein), to more innovative pulse ingredients in which cellular arrangement and bioencapsulation of macronutrients are (partially) preserved.

show abstract

α-Amylase action on starch in chickpea flour following hydrothermal processing and different drying, cooling and storage conditions

Cited by 23 publications

References 32 publications

Effect of high-amylosestarch branching enzyme IIwheat mutants on starch digestibility in bread, product quality, postprandial satiety and glycaemic response

Effect of high-amylosestarch branching enzyme IIwheat mutants on starch digestibility in bread, product quality, postprandial satiety and glycaemic response

Understanding starch digestibility of rice: a study in brown rice

How postharvest variables in the pulse value chain affect nutrient digestibility and bioaccessibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About