Structuring colloidal oat and faba bean protein particles via enzymatic modification

Nivala, Outi; Mäkinen, Outi E.; Kruus, Kristiina; Nordlund, Emilia; Ercili-Cura, Dilek

doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.03.114

Cited by 79 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 1. The profile was quite similar to previously published SDS-PAGE results for faba bean protein [34,37,39]. The majority of proteins found in pulses are globulins (~70-78%), followed by albumins (10-20%) [1,40].…”

Section: Compositional Analysissupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Protein contents of similarly produced protein-rich fractions from peas are typically in the range of~50-60% (DM) [35,36]. On the other hand, aqueous processing allows for higher protein purity; faba bean and other legume protein isolates are often in the range of 80-90% or higher [12,37,38]. Fat content was higher in FPI than FPR, indicating that fat was concentrated to some extent as part of the isolation process.…”

Section: Compositional Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

175

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

Section: Compositional Analysissupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Compositional Analysismentioning

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

175

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The presence of less hydrophobic sites and higher charge densities results in an increase in water solubility; in addition, high electrostatic repulsion and hydration of ions lead to enhanced protein solubility at pH values below and above its p I . Energies associated with interactions between biopolymer–biopolymer and biopolymer–solvent play a critical role in their solubility . Solubility of proteins at their isoelectric point (p I ) is higher when the protein is forming a complex with the polysaccharide than without .…”

Section: Functional Properties Of Protein–polysaccharide Complexesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…54,[84][85][86][87] Energies associated with interactions between biopolymer-biopolymer and biopolymer-solvent play a critical role in their solubility. 54,88 Solubility of proteins at their isoelectric point (pI) is higher when the protein is forming a complex with the polysaccharide than without. 51,89 It has been identified that biopolymer mixing ratio is the factor most responsible for the solubility of proteins when they are in complexes 54 .…”

Section: Protein Solubilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review on plant protein–polysaccharide complex coacervation, and the functionality and applicability of formed complexes

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controlling the interactions between plant proteins and polysaccharides can lead to the development of novel electrostatic complexed structures that can give unique functionality. This in turn can broaden the diversity of applications that they may be suitable for. Overwhelmingly in the literature, work and reviews relating to coacervation have involved the use of animal proteins. However, with the increasing demand for plant-based protein alternatives by industry and consumers, a greater understanding of how they interact with polysaccharides is essential to control structure, functionality and applicability. This review discusses the factors governing the nature of protein-polysaccharide interactions, their functional attributes and industrial applications, with special attention given to plant proteins. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

show abstract

“…Potential food-compatible technologies for improving the functionality of cereal proteins include protein cross-linking by enzymatic means (18,37,40); shear-induced processing (e.g., microfluidization) (16); complexation with polysaccharides (19,21,33,53) or other proteins (22); and complete or limited hydrolysis by enzymatic means (62). The major challenges associated with hydrolysis methods is the off-flavor formation generated by peptides, and therefore, limited/controlled hydrolysis should be favored as an approach in many cases.…”

Section: Liquid and Semisolid Food Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cereal Side-Streams as Alternative Protein Sources

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why Develop Cereal Side-Streams as New Protein Sources?There is a global need to increase dietary intake of plant protein to gain sustainability, food security, and nutritional benefits. The side-streams from cereal grain processing offer large quantities of underexploited raw materials with the potential for use in new plant-based food ingredients. Efficient use of these side-streams as food ingredients would improve processing and raw material efficiency. Moreover, the availability of new protein ingredients will create business opportunities for new plant-based food and protein product concepts and diversify consumer choices by providing new healthy food options.To harness the potential of cereal side-streams, technologically and economically feasible and sustainable technologies need to be developed for the concentration of proteins from solid and liquid material streams. Protein functionality must also be improved to develop new food concepts that meet consumer demands. New technologies are required at different processing stages. First, feasible and sustainable processes are needed to fractionate, concentrate, and isolate protein from solid and liquid cereal side-streams. Second, the technological functionality and sensory properties (e.g., solubility, emulsifying, and foaming ability) of protein-rich fractions need to be improved, and food concepts in which new protein ingredients are utilized either as performance proteins or as sources of dietary protein must be developed. At the same time, we must assess process scenarios in which protein ingredients are developed sustainably, and the basic socioeconomic performance of the product system must be evaluated. Finally, for the new business ecosystem to be viable, it is important to establish business cases, including new value chains in the food industry, for resource efficiency and sustainable plant-based protein ingredients.To realize these objectives, close collaboration throughout the value chain and new partnerships within the industry are needed. Companies from both the ingredient and food production sectors and research partners covering technology, research, and analytics should collaborate to generate novel technological concepts that will enable new business development.

show abstract

Structuring colloidal oat and faba bean protein particles via enzymatic modification

Cited by 79 publications

References 36 publications

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

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

Review on plant protein–polysaccharide complex coacervation, and the functionality and applicability of formed complexes

Cereal Side-Streams as Alternative Protein Sources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About