4.7 Article

Modification by alpha-D-glucan branching enzyme lowers the in vitro digestibility of starch from different sources

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MACROMOLECULES
Volume 107, Issue -, Pages 1758-1764

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.10.049

Keywords

Starch modification; In vitro digestibility; alpha-D-Clucan branching enzyme

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31771935, 31722040]
  2. China Post-doctoral Science Foundation [2014M560394, 2016T90420]
  3. Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral Research Funds [1401100C]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Granular corn starch, waxy corn starch, potato starch and tapioca starch were modified using the alpha-D-glucan branching enzyme (1,4-alpha-D-glucan:1,4-alpha-D-glucan 6-alpha-D-(1,4-alpha-D-glucano)-transferase, GBE, EC 2.4.1.18) from Geobacillus thermoglucosidans. The GBE-catalyzed modification caused a time-dependent increase in the ratios of alpha-1,6 linkages to total glycosidic linkages, as well as reductions in the average chain length and relative crystallinity. These modifications lowered the in vitro digestibility of the starch. Modification with GBE caused varying degrees of change in the in vitro digestibility of starches obtained from different sources. The highest slowly digestible starch (SDS) and resistant starch (RS) contents were found in modified tapioca starch. After modification of tapioca starch with GBE for 10 h, the ratio of alpha-1,6 linkages to total glycosidic linkages was increased by 11.5%, while its relative crystallinity was decreased by 22.9%. Meanwhile, the SDS and RS contents of tapioca starch were increased by 47.3% and 13.5%, respectively. These results demonstrate that the digestibility of starch can be lowered through GBE modification, which may aid the development of modified starches that are digested more slowly. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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