4.7 Article

Structural properties and prebiotic activities of fractionated lotus seed resistant starches

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 251, Issue -, Pages 33-40

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.057

Keywords

Fractionation; Lotus seed resistant starch; Structural properties; Prebiotic activities; Bifidobacterium adolescentis; Lactobacillus acidophilus

Funding

  1. Project of International Cooperation and Exchanges in Science and Technology of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University [KXGH17001]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31701552]
  3. Leading Talents Support Program of Science and Technology Innovation in Fujian Province [KRC16002A]
  4. Support Project for Distinguished Young Scholars of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University [xjq201714]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to fractionate lotus seed resistant starch (LRS3) and investigate their structural properties and prebiotic activities. Two main fractions of resistant starch precipitated gradually by ethanol at concentrations of 20% and 30% were named as LRS3-20% and LRS3-30%, respectively. The swelling power and solubility of LRS3-20% were smaller compared to LRS3-30%, and their moisture and resistant starch contents were not significantly different. LRS3-20% and LRS3-30% had molecular weights mainly of 2.0x10(4)-4.0x10(4) and 1.0x10(4)-2.0x10(4) g/mol. Layered strips and gully shapes were evident on the rough surfaces of LRS320%, while LRS3-30% displayed a relatively smooth surface. Both LRS3-20% and LRS3-30% had a B-type crystalline structure with LRS3-20% containing more ordered structures and double-helices. Furthermore, LRS3-20% displayed higher prebiotic activities against Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Lactobacillus acidophilus compared to LRS3-30% and high amylose maize starch. This effect was related to its rough surface and double helix structure.

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