5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Extraction methods and nutritional characterization of protein concentrates obtained from bean, chickpea, and corn discard grains

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Protein concentrates obtained from discarded grain flours of white chickpea Sinaloa ( Cicer arietinum) (CC) , “Azufrazin” bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris) (BC), and white corn ( Zea mays) (MC) , were characterized biochemically through bromatological analyses (protein, lipid, fiber, moisture, ashes, and nitrogen free extract), HPLC techniques (amino acids content), and spectrophotometry (anti-nutrients: phytic acid, trypsin inhibitors, and saponins). The percentage of protein obtained from CC, BC, and MC was 71.23, 81.10, and 55.69%, respectively. Most peptides in the BC and CC flours had a molecular weight of <1.35 kDa, meanwhile, MC peptides were heavier (1.35 to 17 kDa). The amino acids (AA) profile of flours and protein concentrates were similar; however, all the protein concentrates showed an increased AA accumulation (300 to -400%) compared with their flours. The protein concentrates from BC registered the highest AA accumulation (77.4 g of AA/100 g of protein concentrates). Except for the phytic acid in CC and trypsin inhibitor in CC and MC, respectively, the rest of the protein concentrates exhibited higher amounts of the anti-nutrients compared with their flours; however, these levels do not exceed the reported toxicity for some animals, mainly when used in combination with other ingredients for feed formulations. It is concluded that CC and BC protein concentrates showed better nutritional characteristics than MC (level of protein, size of peptides, and AA profile). After biochemical characterization, protein concentrates derived from by-products have nutritional potential for the animal feed industry.

          Graphical abstract

          Highlights

          • Amino acid content and peptide size of protein concentrates are different to flours.

          • Saponins inhibitors increased in protein concentrates.

          • High dry matter yields are obtained from protein concentrates of discarded grains.

          • This study shows that discarded grains are suitable ingredients for animal diets.

          Related collections

          Most cited references78

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Protein content and amino acid composition of commercially available plant-based protein isolates

          The postprandial rise in essential amino acid (EAA) concentrations modulates the increase in muscle protein synthesis rates after protein ingestion. The EAA content and AA composition of the dietary protein source contribute to the differential muscle protein synthetic response to the ingestion of different proteins. Lower EAA contents and specific lack of sufficient leucine, lysine, and/or methionine may be responsible for the lower anabolic capacity of plant-based compared with animal-based proteins. We compared EAA contents and AA composition of a large selection of plant-based protein sources with animal-based proteins and human skeletal muscle protein. AA composition of oat, lupin, wheat, hemp, microalgae, soy, brown rice, pea, corn, potato, milk, whey, caseinate, casein, egg, and human skeletal muscle protein were assessed using UPLC–MS/MS. EAA contents of plant-based protein isolates such as oat (21%), lupin (21%), and wheat (22%) were lower than animal-based proteins (whey 43%, milk 39%, casein 34%, and egg 32%) and muscle protein (38%). AA profiles largely differed among plant-based proteins with leucine contents ranging from 5.1% for hemp to 13.5% for corn protein, compared to 9.0% for milk, 7.0% for egg, and 7.6% for muscle protein. Methionine and lysine were typically lower in plant-based proteins (1.0 ± 0.3 and 3.6 ± 0.6%) compared with animal-based proteins (2.5 ± 0.1 and 7.0 ± 0.6%) and muscle protein (2.0 and 7.8%, respectively). In conclusion, there are large differences in EAA contents and AA composition between various plant-based protein isolates. Combinations of various plant-based protein isolates or blends of animal and plant-based proteins can provide protein characteristics that closely reflect the typical characteristics of animal-based proteins.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Antinutritional factors present in plant-derived alternate fish feed ingredients and their effects in fish

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Plant food anti-nutritional factors and their reduction strategies: an overview

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Curr Res Food Sci
                Curr Res Food Sci
                Current Research in Food Science
                Elsevier
                2665-9271
                05 October 2023
                2023
                05 October 2023
                : 7
                : 100612
                Affiliations
                [a ]Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional Unidad Sinaloa, Departamento de Acuacultura, Guasave, Sinaloa, 81101, Mexico
                [b ]Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Centro de Investigación en Biotecnología Aplicada, Tepetitla, Tlaxcala, 90700, Mexico
                [c ]Maestría en Ciencias Aplicadas. Unidad Académica de Ingeniería en Biotecnología. Universidad Politécnica de Sinaloa, Mazatlán, Sinaloa, 82199, Mexico
                [d ]Consejo Nacional de Humanidades Ciencias y Tecnologías, CONAHCYT, México City, Mexico
                [e ]Universidada Autónoma de Baja California, Facultad de Ciencias Marinas, Ensenada, BCS, Mexico
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. hrodriguezg@ 123456ipn.mx
                Article
                S2665-9271(23)00180-6 100612
                10.1016/j.crfs.2023.100612
                10587706
                37868001
                6ee94e8d-f7f8-4816-b9d4-31a40778a5e4
                © 2023 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 June 2023
                : 27 September 2023
                : 3 October 2023
                Categories
                Research Article

                vegetal proteins,nutritional quality,low-quality agricultural grains,anti-nutritional factors,agricultural by-product

                Comments

                Comment on this article