4.0 Article

Structural Study of Wheat Gliadin in Different Solvents by Spectroscopic Techniques

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE BRAZILIAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 695-701

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA QUIMICA
DOI: 10.21577/0103-5053.20200221

关键词

gliadin; spectroscopy; morphology; stability; biotechnology

资金

  1. Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES)
  2. National Synchrotron Light Laboratory (LNLS, Campinas, SP, Brazil)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The physicochemical properties of gliadin in different solvents and pH values were investigated, revealing that gliadin showed lower size distribution in certain conditions. The stability analysis showed that gliadin in H2O (pH 9.8) was the most stable system, while gliadin in DMSO was unstable. The techniques used in the study proved to be effective in monitoring the conformation and stability of all gliadin/solvent systems, providing valuable information for the development of new gliadin-based materials.
Physicochemical properties of gliadin in different solvents (dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), H2O, and aqueous ethanol) and pH (9.8, 6.8, and 1.2) were investigated using dynamic light scattering (DLS), zeta potential (ZP), and attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). Gliadin-DMSO and gliadin-deionized water (H2O) (pH 9.8) showed a lower size distribution, whereas samples solubilized in 60% aqueous ethanol presented a lower size distribution only at pH 1.2. ZP analysis showed that gliadin-H2O (pH 9.8) was the most stable evaluated system. ZP results of gliadin-DMSO indicated an unstable system, with the coexistence of several protein conformations. ATR-FTIR analysis showed that, in H2O, most protein conformations were beta-sheets, while in DMSO a band at 1660 cm(-1) appeared to be related to protein unfolding. The techniques proved to be effective in monitoring conformation and stability of all gliadin/solvent systems. Such information can be used in the development of new gliadin-based materials.

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

4.0
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