Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biological and chemical evaluation of chick pea seed proteins as affected by germination, extraction and α-amylase treatment

  • Published:
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effects of germination, extraction (double extraction with 70% ethanol and water at isoelectric point) and α-amylase treatments of chick pea seed flours on crude protein, total carbohydrate, protein efficiency ratio (PER), biological value (BV), true digestibility (TD), net protein utilization (NPU), essential amino acid composition, in-vitro protein digestibility (IVPD) and actual amino acid indices (essential amino acid index or amino acid score) were evaluated. Crude protein content was increased (8–149%), while total carbohydrate was decreased (11–62%) by germination, extraction and α-amylase treatments. Alpha-amylase treatment was more efficient in reducing total carbohydrate and increasing the protein content than that of extraction treatment. The protein quality of chick pea flours as measured by PER, BV, TD, NPU, IVPD and corrected amino acid indices (actual amino acid indices×IVPD) was significantly improved by these treatments. The protein quality of germinated-α-amylase treatment was comparble with casein, while germinated-α-amylase treaded seeds appeared nutritionally superior to casein. The results indicate that the germinated-α-amylase and germinated-α-amylase-extracted treatments could be used successfully as a source of concentrated high quality protein for baby food production. The corrected amino acid indices gave better prediction of PER, BV, TD and NPU (r=93 to 97) than actual amino acid indices (r=45 to 71). PER was highly correlated with corrected amino acid score (r=0.93). The PER could be predicted from the following simple regression equation: PER=−1.827+0.0561×corrected amino acid score.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Singh U, Subrahmanyam N, Kumar J (1991) Cooking quality and nutritional attributes of some newly developed cultivars of chick pea (Cicer arietinum). J Sci Food Agric 55: 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Duhan A, Chauhan BM, Punia D, Kapoor AC (1989) Phytic acid content of chick pea (Cicer arietinum) and black gram (Vigna mungo): Varietal differences and effect of domestic processing and cooking methods. J Sci Food Agric 49: 449–455.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mansour EH, Khalil AH (1995) Nutritional changes during the fermentation of chick pea (Cicer arietinum) flour. Menofiya J Agric Res 20: 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Singh U, Jambunathan R (1981) Studies on desi and kabuli chick pea (Cicer arietinum) cultivars: Levels of protease inhibitors, levels of polyphenolic compounds and in vitro protein digestibility. J Food Sci 46: 1364–1367.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mansour EH, El-Adawy TA (1994) Nutritional potential and functional properties of heat-treated and germinated fenugreek seeds. Lebensm-Wiss-Technol 27: 568–572.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Marero LM, Payumo EM, Aguinaldo AR, Homma S (1988) Nutritional characteristics of weaning foods prepared from germinated cereals and legumes. J Food Sci 53: 1399–1402.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jood S, Mehta U, Singh R, Bhat CM (1985) Effect of processing on flatus producing factors in legumes. J Agric Food Chem 33: 268–274.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nnanna IA, Phillips RD (1990) Protein and starch digestibility and flatulence potential of germinated cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata). J Food Sci 55: 151–153.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mostafa MM, Rahma EH, Rady AH (1987) Chemical and nutritional changes in soybean during germination. Food Chem 23: 257–263.

    Google Scholar 

  10. AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis, 15th edn. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analysis Chemists.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moore S, Stein WH (1963) Chromatographic determination of amino acids by the use of automatic recording equipment. In: Colowick, SP, Kaplan NO (eds), Methods in enzymology Vol 6. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Miller EL (1967) Determination of the tryptophan content in feeding stuffs with particular reference to cereals. J Sci Food Agric 18: 381–386.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Salgó A, Granzler K, Jecsai J (1984) Simple enzymic methods for prediction of plant protein digestibility. In Lásztity R, Hidvégi M (eds), Proc Int Assoc Cereal Chem Symp Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Oser BL (1951) Methods for integrating essential amino acid content in the nutritional evaluation of protein. J Am Diet Assoc 27: 396–402.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. FAO/WHO (1973) Energy and protein requirements. Report of FAO Nutritional Meeting Series No. 52. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eggum BO (1973) A study of certain factors influencing protein utilization in rats and pigs. Copenhagen: National Institute of Animal Science, Report No. 406.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pellet PL, Young VR (1980) Some rat and human bioassay procedures. In Pellett PL, Young VR (eds), Nutritional evaluation of protein foods. Tokyo: The United Nations University.

    Google Scholar 

  18. SAS (1985) SAS users guide: Basics version, 5th edn. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Khalil AH, Mansour EH (1995) The effect of cooking, autoclaving and germination on the nutritional quality of faba beans. Food Chem 54: 177–182.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Khan MA, Jacobsen I, Eggum BO (1979) Nutritive value of some improved varieties of legumes. J Sci Food Agric 30: 395–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rowayshed GH, Shahat MS (1994) Biological evaluation of sunflower and soy protein products. Menofiya J Agric Res 19: 3207–3221.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mansour EH (1993) Chemical, functional, nutritional properties and food applications of pumpkin seed and rapeseed protein products. Ph.D. Thesis. Budapest: National Institute of Food Hygiene and Nutrition.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mansour EH, Dworschák E, Lugasi A, Barna É, Gergely A (1993) Nutritive value of pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo, kakai 35) seed products. J Sci Food Agric 61: 73–78.

    Google Scholar 

  24. FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) Energy and protein requirements. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Meeting Series No. 724. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sathe TB, Deshpands SS, Salunkhe DK (1982) Functional properties of lupin seed (Lupinus mutabilis) proteins and protein concentrates. J Food Sci 47: 492–497.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wolzak A, Elías LG, Bressani R (1981) Protein quality of vegetable proteins as determined by traditional biological methods and rapid chemical assay. J Agric Food Chem 29: 1063–1068.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Menofiya University, Shibin El-Kom, Egypt

    E. H. Mansour

Authors
  1. E. H. Mansour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mansour, E.H. Biological and chemical evaluation of chick pea seed proteins as affected by germination, extraction and α-amylase treatment. Plant Food Hum Nutr 49, 271–282 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01091976

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01091976

Key words

Search

Navigation