4.7 Article

Structural and rheological studies of a polysaccharide mucilage from lacebark leaves (Hoheria populnea A. Cunn.)

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.12.142

关键词

Hoheria populnea; Lacebark; Mucilage; Polysaccharide; Structure; Rheology

资金

  1. Royal Society through the Newton International Fellowship scheme [NF120704]
  2. University of Huddersfield [URF2015/04]
  3. Royal Society [NF120704] Funding Source: Royal Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A water-soluble mucilage extracted from the leaves of Hoheria populnea was chemically and physically studied. Monosaccharide composition and linkages were determined by high performance anion exchange chromatography (HPAEC), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Lacebark mucilage was composed of rhamnose, galactose, galacturonic acid and glucuronic acid (2:1:2:1). Proton and C-13 NMR spectroscopy, and linkage analysis, revealed a predominantly rhamnogalacturonan I-type (RG I-type) structure comprising of a backbone of -> 4]-alpha-D-GalpA-[1 -> 2]-alpha-L-Rhap-[1 ->. Data indicated the mucilage likely comprises of a polymer containing several structurally discrete domains or possibly more than one discrete polymer. One domain contains a RG I-type backbone with branching at 0-3 of GalpA residues to terminal beta-D-GlcpA residues, another similarly contains a RG I-type backbone but is branched at 0-4 of the Rhap residues to terminal GalpA residues or oligosaccharides containing alpha-linked 4-Galp and terminal GalpA residues. A possible third domain contains contiguous 2-Rhap residues, some branched at 0-3. Hydrated mucilage exhibited pseudoplastic flow behaviour and viscoelastic properties of an entangled biopolymer network. These rheological behaviours were only slightly affected by pH and may prove advantageous in potential end-product applications including oral pharmaceuticals or as a food ingredient. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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