Qualitas Plantarum

, 25:361 | Cite as

Use of tetrahymena pyriformis to evaluate the relative nutritive value (RNV) of some crop cultivars and processed cereals

  • H. W. Kaestner
  • A. K. Kaul
  • E. G. Niemann
Article

Abstract

Tetrahymena pyriformis was used to compare the relative nutritive value (RNV) of various components of wheat and rye bread. Rye bread crumbs were superior to those of wheat crumbs. The crust of both breads had considerably reduced RNV. When applied as an intervarietal screening tool in barley, this organism failed to detect small differences in the lysine content. Gross differences among various cereals and legumes could be detected. A colorimetric method for biomass measurement was compared with the direct microscope counting and found to be superior. The merits and limitations ofT. pyriformis as a test organism in the RNV determination are discussed.

Keywords

Test Organism Amino Acid Content Protein Quality Intact Protein Protein Efficiency Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Zusammenfassung

Mit Hilfe der ProtozoeTetrahymena pyriformis wurde der relative Nährwert (RNV) von Weizen- und Roggenbrot, jeweils aufgetrennt in Krusten- und Krumenanteile, untersucht. Dabei ergab sich ein höherer Nährwert bei der Krume des Roggenbrotes als bei derjenigen des Weizenbrotes, während die Krustenanteile beider Brotsorten einen beträchtlich reduzierten RNV aufwiesen. Im Gegensatz dazu war es nicht möglich, mit Hilfe dieser Protozoe kleinere Unterschiede im Lysingehalt von Gerste aufzuzeigen, wie sie bei sortenbedingten Differenzen auftreten. Größere Divergenzen in der Protein-qualität konnten jedoch sowohl in Cerealien wie in Leguminosen aufgedeckt werden. Eine modifizierte kolorimetrische Methode zur Bestimmung der Zellmasse wurde mit der direkten mikroskopische Zählmethode verglichen. Dabei zeigten sich Vorteile and Prävalenz der ersteren. Die Einsatzmöglichkeiten und Grenzen der ProtozoeT. pyriformis als Testorganismus zur Bestimmung der RNV werden diskutiert.

Résumé

Les auteurs ont étudié la valcur nutritive relative (VNR) du pain de blé et de seigle, en même temps de la croûte et de la mie, à l'aide du protozoeTetrahymena pyriformis. On a trouvé une valeur supérieure aux parts intérieures du pain de seigle par rapport au pain de blé, alors que les croûtes des deux pains avaient une valeur considérablement réduite.

Au contraire il ne fut pas possible à l'aide de cette protozoe de détecter même de petites différences dans le contenu de lysine d'orge comme il y en a dans les sortes nuancés. D'assez grandes différences dans la qualité protéinique non seulement des céréales mais aussi des legumineuses purent être découvertes.

Une méthode modifiée colorimétrique pour la détermination de la masse cellulaire fut comparée à la méthode de dénombrement microscopique. On démontra ainsi les avantages et la prévalence de la première méthode. Les possibilités et les limites d'utilisation de cette protozoeT. pyriformis en tant que base de test pour la détermination de la VNR sont discutées.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adrian, J. (1974). Nutritional and physiological consequences of the maillard reaction.World Rev. Nutr. Diet. 19:71–122.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M.E. & Williams, H.H. (1951). Microbiological evaluation of protein quality. I. A colorimetric method for the determination of the growth ofTetrahymena geleii W. in protein suspensions.J. Nutr. 44:335–343.Google Scholar
  3. Baum F. (1966). Über die Bestimmung des biologischen Eiweißwertes mitTetrahymena pyriformis W. 2. Der Eiweißwert verschiedener Lebens- und Futtermittel,Nahrung 10:453–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, F. & Haenel, H. (1965). Über die Bestimmung der biologischen Eiweißwertigkeit mitTetrahymena pyriformis W. 1. Methodische Hinweise und Bestimmung der Wertigkeit einiger Nahrungsmittel.Nahrung 9:517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolinder, A.E. (1970). Plate assays for amino acids.Acta Pharm. Suecica 7:209–238.Google Scholar
  6. Booth, V.H.J. (1971). Problems in the determination of FDNB-available lysine.,J. Sci. Food Agr. 22:658–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, K.J. (1958). Chemical methods of evaluating protein quality.Proc. Nutr. Soc. 17:91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Celliers, P.G. (1961). Microbiological evaluation of the nutritive value of south African marine products withTetrahymena pyriformis W.South African J. Agr. Sci. 4:191–203.Google Scholar
  9. LeClerg, E.L., Leonard, W.H. & Clark, A.G. (1962). Field Plot Technique (2nd Ed.) Burgess Publ. Co., Minneapolis, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Dunn, M.S. & Rockland, L.B. (1947). Biological value of proteins determined withTetrahymena geleii H.Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 64:377–379.Google Scholar
  11. Eggum, B.O. & Christensen, K.D. (1973). The use of non-protein nitrogen in monogastric animal feeding.Z. Tierphys. Tierern. Futtermittelk. 31:332–341.Google Scholar
  12. FAO (1970). Amino acid content of foods and biological data on proteins. FAO Nutr. Studies No. 24 (Rome).Google Scholar
  13. Fernell, W.R. & Rosen, G.D. (1956). Microbiological evaluation of protein quality withTetrahymena pyriformis W. 1. Characteristics of growth of the organisms and determination of relative nutritive values of intact proteins.Brit. J. Nutr. 10:143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haenel, H. & Kharatyan, S.G. (1973). Some observations on the use of microbiological techniques for the determination of protein quality. In: Proteins in Human Nutrition, Acad. Press, London & New York (Porter & Rolls, Edts.) pp. 195–206.Google Scholar
  15. Helms, P. & Rølle, G. (1970). Nutritive evaluation of protein quality withTetrahymena pyriformis W. In: Evaluation of Novel Protein Products, Pergamon Press, Oxford (Bender, Kihlberg, Löfqvist & Munck) pp. 259–264.Google Scholar
  16. Horn, M.J., Blum, A.E., Womack, M. & Gersdorff C.E.F. (1952). Nutitional evaluation of food proteins by measuring availability of amino acids to microorganisms. I. Cottonseed proteins.J. Nutr. 48:231–241.Google Scholar
  17. Kamath, J.K. & Ambegaokar, S.D. (1968). Microbiological evaluation of protein quality of Indian foodstuffs usingTetrahymena pyriformis W.J. Nutr. Diet. 5:197–202.Google Scholar
  18. Kaul, A.K. (1973). Mutation breeding and crop protein improvement. In: Nuclear Techniques for Seed Protein Improvement. Vienna, IAEA pp. 1–106.Google Scholar
  19. Kaul, A.K., Kaestner, H.W., Georgi, B. & Christoffers, D. (1974). Determination of relative nutritive value (RNV) of grain samples withTetrahymena pyriformis W.Genetika (Beograd) 6:95–104.Google Scholar
  20. Kharatyan, S.G., Antonowa, T.W., Wolnowa, A.I. & Belikow, V.M. (1975). Evaluation of the quality of protein of microbial origin by means of the microbiological and the enzy matic method.Nahrung 19:61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kidder, G.W. & Dewey, V.C. (1951). The biochemistry of ciliates in pure culture. In: Biochemistry and Physiology of Protozoa. Acad. Press, New York (A. Lwoff) Vol. 1: 323–400.Google Scholar
  22. Knipfel, J.E. (1969). Comparative protein quality of triticale, wheat and rye.Cereal Chem. 46:313–317 Google Scholar
  23. Lawrie, N.R. (1937). Studies in the metabolism of protozoa. III. Some properties of a proteolytic extract obtained fromGlaucoma pyriformis.Biochem. J. 31:789–798.Google Scholar
  24. Mattson, A.M., Jensen, C.O. & Dutcher, R.A. (1947). Triphenyltetrazolium chloride as a dye for vital tissues.Science 106:294–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menden, E., Elmadfa, I. & Horchler, V. (1975). Die Stellung von Brot und Getreide-produkten in der heutigen Ernährung.Getriede, Mehl u. Brot 29:253–259.Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell, H.H. & Block, R.J. (1946). Some relationship between the amino acid contents of proteins and their nutritive values for the rat.J. Biol. Chem. 163:599–620.Google Scholar
  27. Munck, L. (1972). Improvement of nutritional value in cereals.Hereditas 72:1–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oser, B.L. (1951). Method for integrating essential amino acid content in the nutritional evaluation of proteins.J. Amer. Diet. Assoc. 27:396–402.Google Scholar
  29. Pilcher, H.L. & Williams, H.H. (1954). Microbiological evaluation of protein quality. II. Studies on the responses ofTetrahymena pyriformis W. to intact proteins.J. Nutr. 53:589–599.Google Scholar
  30. Rockland, L.B. & Dunn, M.S. (1949). Determination of the biological value of proteins withTetrahymena geleii H.Food Technol. 3:289–291.Google Scholar
  31. Rølle, G. (1973):Tetrahymena pyriformis som testorganisme ved vurdering af proteiners naeringsvaerdi.Näringsforskning ⇘rg. 17:118–123.Google Scholar
  32. Rølle, G. & Eggum, B.O. (1971). A comparative protein evaluation withTetrahymena pyriformis W. and rats.Acta Agric. Scand. 21:69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosen, G.D. & Fernell, W.R. (1956). Microbiological evaluation of protein quality withTetrahymena pyriformis W. 2. Relative nutritive values of proteins in foodstuffs.Brit. J. Nutr. 10:156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shorrock, C. & Ford, J.E. (1973). An improved procedure for the determination of available lysine and methionine withTetrahymena. In: Proteins in Human Nutrition. Acad. Press, New York. (Porter & Rolls) pp. 207–223.Google Scholar
  35. Stott, J.A., Smith, H. & Rosen, G.D. (1963). Microbiological evaluation of protein quality with Tetrahymena pyriformis W. 3. A simplified assay procedure.Brit. J. Nutr. 17:227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teunisson, D.J. (1961). Microbiological assay of intact proteins using Tetrahymena pyriformis W. 1. Survey of protein concentrates.Anal. Biochem. 2:405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stott, J.A. & Smith, H. (1966). Microbiological assay of protein quality withTetrahymena pyriformis W. 4. Measurement of available lysine, methionine, arginine and histidine.Brit. J. Nutr. 20:663–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. W. Kaestner
    • 1
  • A. K. Kaul
    • 1
  • E. G. Niemann
    • 2
  1. 1.Gesellschaft für Strahlen- und UmweltforschungInstitut für Strahlenbotanik derHannover(West Germany)
  2. 2.Institute for Nuclear AgricultureMymen SinghBangladesh

Personalised recommendations