4.4 Article

Isolation and Characterization of Pectic Polysaccharide Fraction from In Vitro Suspension Culture of Fumaria officinalis L.

期刊

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/5705036

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Social Fund of the European Union [BG051PO001/3.3-05]
  2. Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science
  3. Development of nutraceuticals with antioxidant and immune-stimulating action of Operational Program Competitiveness of the European Union [BG161PO003-1.1.05-0024-C0001]
  4. European Regional Development Fund, Ministry of Economy and Energy under the Operational Programme for Development of the Competitiveness of the Bulgarian Economy 2007-2013 [BG161PO003-1.2.04-0007-C0001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the current study, an acidic polysaccharide from the in vitro suspension culture of Fumaria officinalis L. was obtained by extraction with 0.8% (w/v) aqueous ammonium oxalate. The polysaccharide fraction mainly consisted of galacturonic acid (41.0%), followed by galactose (7.3%) and arabinose (5.6%). This suggests the presence of arabinogalactan side chains in the rhamnogalacturonan-I segment of the studied pectin, which was mainly built up by homogalacturonan segments. The pectin was evaluated as low-methyl-esterified (45.0%) with degree of acetylation 3.4%. The polymer fraction was consisted of different molecular weight populations in the range of 6-60010a. The high amount of 4-L-hydroxyproline (11.7% of total protein) and the specific positive reaction to Yariv's phenylglycoside reagent indicated the presence of an arabinogalactan protein in the cell walls. The functional properties of the polysaccharide fraction were evaluated, as it possessed better water-holding capacity than oil-holding capacity. The studied pectin demonstrated significant foaming ability and promising emulsifying properties in a concentration 1%. Therefore, the isolated polysaccharide fraction could be successfully used as emulsifier and foaming agent in food products and pharmaceutical supplements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据