A comparison of in vivo and in vitro estimates of protein digestibility of native and thermally processed vegetable proteins

Wolzak, A.; Bressani, Ricardo; Brenes, Roberto Gomez

doi:10.1007/bf01093886

Cited by 35 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bodwell et al (1980) also found a significant correlation between three-and four-enzyme pH-drop methods (r = 0.88, P < 0.05). In addition, the correlations between the four-enzyme estimates and the values from human assays were always higher than those obtained from the three-enzyme method (Bodwell et al, 1980), suggesting that the addition of bacterial protease improved the correlation coefficients between in vitro and in vivo estimates by increasing the extent of proteolysis (Wolzak, Bressani, & Brenes, 1981). Here a good correlation was also observed for the estimates from the four-enzyme assay.…”

Section: Correlation Coefficients Between Digestibility Values and Grsupporting

confidence: 67%

A study of the in vitro protein digestibility of indica and japonica cultivars

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Correlation Coefficients Between Digestibility Values and Grsupporting

confidence: 67%

A study of the in vitro protein digestibility of indica and japonica cultivars

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The in vitro digestibility values were ≈4% higher than those of the nixtamalized and extruded flours (Table II). The differences we observed may be due to the poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo apparent digestibility in thermally processed vegetable samples (Wolzak et al 1981). The differences we observed may be due to the poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo apparent digestibility in thermally processed vegetable samples (Wolzak et al 1981).…”

Section: Chemical Composition and Nutritional Properties Of Tortillasmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…In vitro digestibility values underestimated those of the in vivo apparent digestibility of nixtamalized and extruded flours by ≈5%. Wolzak et al (1981) reported that the response of different types of proteins to the multienzyme assay is different. They found highly significant correlations between in vivo and in vitro estimates for unprocessed vegetable samples but this was not the case when these samples were thermally processed.…”

Section: Chemical Composition and Physicochemical And Nutritional Promentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological and Nutritional Properties of Flours and Tortillas from Nixtamalized and Extruded Quality Protein Maize (Zea mays L.)

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cereal Chem. 85(6):808-816Nixtamalized and extruded flours from quality protein maize (QPM, V-537C) and tortillas made from them were evaluated for some technological and nutritional properties and compared with the commercial brand MASECA. Both QPM flours showed higher (P < 0.05) protein content, total color difference, pH, available lysine, and lower (P < 0.05) total starch content, Hunter L value, water absorption index, gelatinization enthalpy, resistant starch, and retrograded resistant starch than nixtamalized MASECA flour. Tortillas from nixtamalized and extruded QPM flours had higher contents of essential amino acids than tortillas from MASECA flour, except for leucine. Tortillas from processed QPM flours also showed higher (P < 0.05) values of the nutritional indicators calculated protein efficiency ratio (C-PER 1.80-1.85 vs. 1.04), apparent and true in vivo protein digestibility (78.4-79.1 vs. 75.6% and 76.4-77.4 vs. 74.2%, respectively), PER (2.30-2.43 vs. 1.31), net protein retention (NPR; 2.88-2.89 vs. 2.11), and protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS; 54-55 vs. 29% based on preschool children and 100 vs. 85% based on adults) than MASECA flour. The use of QPM for flour and tortilla preparation may have a positive effect on the nutritional status of people from countries where these products are widely consumed.

show abstract

“…However, both the pH-drop and pH-stat methods have given poor agreement with in vivo values for a great variety of foods and feedstuffs (Pedersen & Eggum, 1981;Wolzak et al 1981). These authors found it necessary to use different regression equations for each class of food to obtain a reliable estimate of digestibility.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%