4.7 Article

New insight into pectic fractions of cell wall: Impact of extraction on pectin structure and in vitro gut fermentation

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127515

关键词

Pectic polysaccharides; Structural characterization; Gut fermentation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the impact of different extraction methods on the structure and gut fermentation behavior of apple pectins. The results showed that pectins extracted with sodium hydroxide had a higher yield and moderate molecular weight, and produced more beneficial short-chain fatty acids and less ammonia during gut fermentation.
Pectic polysaccharides modulate gut fermentation ability, which is determined by structural characteristics. In this work, apple pectins were extracted by HCl (HAEP), NaOH (AEP), cellulase (EAEP), and in parallel cell wall pectic fractions were sequentially extracted by water (WEP), chelator (CEP) and NaOH (NEP). The aim is to comprehensively compare the impact of extraction on pectin structure and gut fermentation behavior. Results showed that high content of galacturonic acid (90.65 mol%) and large molecular weight (675 kg/mol) were detected in the HAEP. Molecular morphology of the HAEP presented high linearity, while AEP, EAEP and WEP exhibited compact filamentous structures with highly branched patterns. The AEP was characterized by high yield (33.1 g/100 g d.b.), moderate molecular weight (304 kg/mol) and large extent of rhamnogalacturonan-I region (24.88 %) with low degree of branching (1.77). After in vitro simulated gut fermentation for 24 h, total content of short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) generated with the AEP supplement increased to 36.8 mmol/L, followed by EAEP, HAEP and WEP (25.2, 24.2 and 20.3 mmol/L, respectively). Meanwhile, WEP simultaneously produced the highest ammonia content (22.4 mmol/L). This investigation suggests that the fermentation of AEP produces more beneficial SCFA and less ammonia, thus indicating a better gut fermentation property.

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

4.7
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