4.7 Article

Subunit, amino acid composition and in vitro digestibility of protein isolates from Chinese kabuli and desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 567-572

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.018

关键词

Cicer arietinum L; Protein isolate; Subunit composition; Amino acid composition; In vitro digestibility; Soybean protein isolate

资金

  1. Ministry of Education of China
  2. National Science and Technology Ministry of China [2007BAC15B06, 2006BAD09A04, 2006BAD09A08]
  3. Jiangsu Science Foundation for Postdoctoral Scientists of China [080104813]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30860152]
  5. Program of the Education Department of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China [XJEDU2004117]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The subunit, amino acid composition and in vitro digestibility of the two protein isolates (GCPI and ZCPI) from one kabuli and one desi chickpea cultivars, grown extensively in Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China, were investigated and compared with those of soy protein isolate (SPI). SDS-PAGE showed that GCPI and ZCPI had almost the same band components under the reduced and Unreduced conditions, with only minor difference in relative quantity for some bands, but different from that of SPL The sulphur-containing amino acids were the first limiting amino acids for all three protein isolates of GCPI (2.11 g/100 g), ZCPI (2.20 g/100 g) and SPI (1.99 g/100 g). Amino acid score of the three protein isolates could reach the FAO/WHO requirement (1990) for the essential amino acids for preschool children. The order of in vitro digestibility was GCPI (87.47%) > ZCPI (80.82%) > SPI (71.04%). Our results indicated that, compared with soybean protein isolate, Chinese kabuli and desi chickpea protein isolates had higher digestibility value, and chickpea protein, especially for kabuli protein, could be utilized as a good source of protein for human nutrition. (C) 2009 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