4.2 Article

Distribution of protein composition in bread wheat flour mill streams and relationship to breadmaking quality

Journal

CEREAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 84, Issue 3, Pages 271-275

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1094/CCHEM-84-3-0271

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Wheat protein quantity and composition are important parameters for wheat baking quality. The objective of this study was to use fractionation techniques to separate the proteins of flour mill streams into various protein fractions, to examine the distribution of these protein fractions, and to establish a relationship between protein composition and breadmaking quality. Nine break streams, nine reduction streams, and three patent flours obtained from three samples of Nekota (a hard red winter wheat) were used in this study. A solution of 0.3M NaI + 7.5% 1-propanol was used to separate flour protein into monomeric and polymeric proteins. The protein fractions, including gliadin, albumin+globulin, HMW-GS, and LMW-GS, were precipitated with 0.1M NH4Ac-MeOH or acetone. The fractions were statistically analyzed for their distribution in the mill streams. The quantities of total flour protein and protein fractions in flour were significantly different among mill streams. The ratio of polymeric to monomeric proteins in break streams was significantly greater than in the reduction streams. The relationship between protein composition and bread-making quality showed that the quantities of total flour protein, albumin+globulin, HMW-GS, and LMW-GS in flour were significantly and positively correlated with loaf volume. The ratio of HMW-GS to LMW-GS had little association with loaf volume. The gliadin content in total flour protein was negatively and significantly correlated with loaf volume. These results indicated that the quantity and composition of protein among the mill streams was different, and this resulted in differences in breadmaking quality.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available