4.7 Review

Mechanisms of starch digestion by α-amylase-Structural basis for kinetic properties

Journal

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION
Volume 57, Issue 5, Pages 875-892

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2014.922043

Keywords

Enzyme resistant starch; in vitro digestion; in vivo digestion; kinetic processes; digestion profiles

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [DP130102461]
  2. University of Queensland
  3. BBSRC (DRINC) [BB/H0048661]
  4. BBSRC [BBS/E/F/00044425] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent studies of the mechanisms determining the rate and extent of starch digestion by alpha-amylase are reviewed in the light of current widely-used classifications for (a) the proportions of rapidly-digestible (RDS), slowly-digestible (SDS), and resistant starch (RS) based on in vitro digestibility, and (b) the types of resistant starch (RS 1,2,3,4.) based on physical and/or chemical form. Based on methodological advances and new mechanistic insights, it is proposed that both classification systems should be modified. Kinetic analysis of digestion profiles provides a robust set of parameters that should replace the classification of starch as a combination of RDS, SDS, and RS from a single enzyme digestion experiment. This should involve determination of the minimum number of kinetic processes needed to describe the full digestion profile, together with the proportion of starch involved in each process, and the kinetic properties of each process. The current classification of resistant starch types as RS1,2,3,4 should be replaced by one which recognizes the essential kinetic nature of RS (enzyme digestion rate vs. small intestinal passage rate), and that there are two fundamental origins for resistance based on (i) rate-determining access/binding of enzyme to substrate and (ii) rate-determining conversion of substrate to product once bound.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available