4.7 Article

Hydrolysis of β-limit dextrins by α-amylases from porcine pancreas, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas saccharophila and Bacillus stearothermophilus

期刊

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 231-239

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2011.06.001

关键词

Amylase; Action pattern; beta-Limit dextrin; Hydrolysis

资金

  1. Fund for Scientific Research, Brussels, Belgium [G.0427.07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrolysis of waxy maize beta-limit dextrins by alpha-amylases from porcine pancreas (PPA), Bacillus subtilis (BSuA), Pseudomonas saccharophila (PSA) and Bacillus stearothermophilus (BStA) was studied to identify possible differences in action pattern between alpha-amylases. The decreases in extinction after iodine staining and the concomitant increases in reducing value upon hydrolysis showed that, for an equivalent decrease in iodine binding value, BStA produced a much higher level of reducing sugars than PPA, PSA and BSuA. The latter three amylases rapidly decreased the molecular weight (MW) of beta-limit dextrin and strongly impacted the chain length distributions, be it to a different extent. The decrease in MW of the beta-limit dextrins by BStA occurred slower with only small changes in the chain length distribution. BStA is suggested to only partially and reluctantly hydrolyse beta-limit dextrins according to an endo mechanism and with a high degree of multiple attack (DMA), since the loss in MW and iodine staining capacity was slower than for the other amylases. It is also suggested that short branch chains which do not contribute to the iodine staining capacity are hydrolysed first. The results allow putting forward a first action pattern in which amylases attack the inner long B-chains with a low degree of multiple attack (DMA) (e. g., BSuA), a second one characterised by a high or intermediate DMA (e. g., PPA, PSA), and a third one in which occasional inner chain are attacked (by BStA) with a high DMA. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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