4.5 Article

Effect of glutathione on gelatinization and retrogradation of wheat flour and starch

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREAL SCIENCE
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcs.2020.103061

关键词

Wheat flour; Wheat starch; Glutathione; Gelatinization; Retrogradation

资金

  1. National Thirteenth Five-Year Plan for Science & Technology Support of China [2019YFD0400604]
  2. National Natural Science Support of China [31872905]
  3. Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province [KYCX19_1812]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reduced glutathione (GSH) commonly exists in wheat flour and has remarkable influence on gluten properties. In this study, effect of GSH on the gelatinization and retrogradation of wheat flour and wheat starch were investigated to better understand the GSH-gluten-starch interactions in wheat flour. Compared with wheat starch, wheat flour showed significant decreases in peak and final viscosity, and gelatinization onset temperature with increasing GSH concentration. GSH depolymerized gluten and thereby broke down the protein barrier around starch granules to make the starch easily gelatinized. However, the interaction between GSH and wheat starch restrained starch swelling. GSH addition resulted in weakened structure with higher water mobility in freshly gelatinized wheat flour dispersions but decreased water mobility in wheat starch dispersions. After storage at 4 degrees C for 7 d, GSH increased elasticity and retrogradation degree in wheat flour dispersions but retarded retrogradation in wheat starch dispersions. The results indicated that GSH promoted retrogradation of wheat flour, which mainly attributed to the depolymerized gluten embedding in the leached starch chains, and inhibiting the re-association of amylose, and subsequently promoted the starch intermolecular associations and starch retrogradation. This study could provide valuable information for the control of the quality of wheat flour-based products.

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

4.5
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