Plant Foods for Human Nutrition

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 273–283 | Cite as

Factors affecting the protein quality of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.)

  • U. Singh
  • B. O. Eggum


Pigeonpea occupies an important place in human nutrition as a source of dietary proteins in several countries. Some of the important factors that affect the protein quality of pigeonpea have been reviewed and summarised in this paper. Among important food legumes, pigeonpea contained the lowest amount of limiting sulphur amino acids, methionine and cystine implicating the importance of these amino acids in protein quality improvement program. Large variation existed in the levels of protease inhibitors of pigeonpea varieties. The concentration of these inhibitors were significantly higher in some of the wild relatives of pigeonpea. Protein digestibility of cooked pigeonpea meal remained low and this could be due to the presence of certain compounds other than trypsin inhibitors. Pigeonpea polyphenolic compounds adversely affected the activity of digestive enzymes and this would affect the protein quality of pigeonpea. The protein quality of pigeonpea was greatly influenced by storage and processing practices.

Key words

pigeonpea protein quality amino acids protease inhibitors storage processing effects 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    PAG (Protein Advisory Group) Statement 22 (1973). Upgrading human nutrition through the improvement of food legumes. In: Milner M (ed). Nutritional improvement of food legumes by breeding, United Nations, New York, pp 349–380Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bressani R (1972) Legumes in human diets and how they might be improved. In: Milner M (ed). Nutritional improvement of food legumes by breeding, United Nations, New York, pp 15–42.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bliss FA, Hall TC (1977) Food legumes — compositional and nutritional changes induced by breeding. Cereal Foods World 22:106–112Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eggum BO, Beames RM (1983) The nutritive value of seed proteins. In: Gottschalk W, Muller HP (eds). See proteins — Biochemistry, genetics nutritive value. The Hague, Dr W Junk, pp 499–531Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bozzini A, Silano V (1978) Control through breeding methods of factors affecting nutritional quality of cereals and grain legumes. In: Friedman M (ed). Nutritional improvement of food and feed proteins. Plenum Press, New York and London, pp 249–274Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singh U, Jambunathan R (1981a) Methods of protein estimation in pigeonpea and relationship between whole seed and dhal protein. J Sci Food Agric 32:705–710Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahiya BS, Brar JS, Bhullar BS (1977) Inheritance of protein content and its correlation with grain yield in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan [L.] Millsp.). Qual Plant Plant Foods Hum Nutr 27:327–334Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reddy LJ, Green JM, Singh U, Bisen SS, Jambunathan R (1979) Seed protein studies onCajanus cajan Atylosia spp. and some hybrid derivatives. In: Proc Sym Seed protein improvement in cereals and grain legumes. IAEA/FAO, Munich, West Germany pp 105–117Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tripathi RD, Srinivastava GP, Misra MC, Sinha ST (1975) Comparative studies on the quality characteristics of early and late cultivars of redgram (Cajanus cajan L.). Ind J Agric Chem 8:57–61Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singh L, Sharma D, Deodhar AD (1974) Effect of environments on the protein of seeds and implication in pulse improvement. Ind J Gen and Pl Breeding 34:764–770Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eggum BO (1973) Biological availability of amino acid constituents in grain protein. In Nuclear techniques for seed protein improvement, IAEA, Vienna, p 422Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization) (1973). Energy and protein requirements. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Ad Hoc Expert Committee. WHO technical report series 522, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 63Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burr HK (1975) Pulse protein. In: Friedman M (ed). Protein nutritional quality of foods and feeds. Dekker Inc, New York, p 119Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eggum BO (1977) Nutritive value of food crops and factors affecting the utilization of dietary protein and energy. Second FAO/SIDA Seminar on Field Food Crops in Africa and the Near East, Lahore, PakistanGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chatterjee SR, Abrol YP (1975) Amino acid composition of new varieties of cereals and pulses and nutritional potential of cereal-pulse combinations. J Food Sci & Technol 12:221–227Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jambunathan R, Singh U (1981) Relationship between total sulphur and sulphur amino acids in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). Qual Plant Plant Foods Hum Nutr 31:109–117Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh U, Jambunathan R, Santosh Gurtu (1981) Seed protein fractions and amino acid composition of some wild species of pigeonpea. J Food Sci Technol 18:83–85Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singh U, Jambunathan R (1982) Distribution of seed protein fractions and amino acids in different anatomical parts of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). Qual Plant Plant Foods Hum Nutr 31:347–354Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh U, Jambunathan, R (1981b) Protease inhibitors andin vitro protein digestibility of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) and its wild relatives. J Food Sci Technol 18:246–247Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liener IE (1979) Protease inhibitors and lectins. In: Neuberger A, Jukes TH (eds). Biochemistry of nutrition. University Park Press, Baltimore, Vol 27, pp 97–122Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sumathi S, Pattabiraman TN (1976) Natural plant enzyme inhibitors: Part II — Protease inhibitors of seeds. Ind J Biochem & Biophys 13:52–56Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bressani R, Elias LG (1977) The problem of legume protein digestibility. In: Hulse JH, Rachie KO, Billingsley LW (eds). Nutritional standards and methods of evaluation for food legume breeders: IDRC-TS7e, pp 61–72Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Price ML, Hagerman AE, Butler LG (1980) Tannin content of cowpeas, chickpeas, pigeonpea and mung beans. J Agri Food Chem 28:459–461Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh U (1984) The inhibition of digestive enzymes by polyphenols of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). Nut Rep Int 29:745–753Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Elias LG, de Fernandez DG, Bressani R (1979) Possible effects of seed coat polyphenols on the nutritional quality of bean protein. J Food Sci 44:524–527Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parpia HAB (1972) Utilization problems in food legumes In: Milner M (ed). Nutritional improvement of food legumes by breeding. United Nations, New York, pp 281–285Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Daniel VA, Rajan P, Sanjeevarayappa KV, Srinivasan KS, Swaminathan M (1977) Effect of insect infestation on the chemical composition and protein efficiency ratio of the proteins of Bengal gram and red gram. Ind J Nutr & Diet 14:70–73Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Synge RLM (1976) Damage to nutritional value of plant proteins by chemical reactions during storage and processing. Qual Plant Plant Foods Hum Nutr 28:9–26Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh U, Jambunathan R (1980) A survey of the methods of milling and consumer acceptance of pigeonpeas in India. In Proc International Workshop on Pigeonpeas. Vol 2, p 149, 15–19 Dec, 1980. ICRISAT Center, Patancheru, A.P. 502 324, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carpenter KJ, Booth VH (1973) Damage to lysine in food processing: Its measurement and its significance. Nutr Abs Rev 43:423–430Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geervani P, Theophilus F (1980) Effect of home processing on nutrient composition of certain high yielding legume varieties. Ind J Nutr & Diet 17:443–446Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shemer M, Perkins EG (1975) Degradation of methionine in heated soybean protein and the formation of B-methyl mercaptopropionaldehyde. J Agr Food Chem 23:201–205Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. Singh
    • 1
  • B. O. Eggum
    • 2
  1. 1.International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRIAT)PatancheruIndia
  2. 2.National Institute of Animal ScienceCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations