Advertisement

Gluten-Free Cereals and Pseudocereals: Nutrition and Health

  • Mario Fernández de Frutos
  • Bartosz Fotschki
  • Ricardo Fernández Musoles
  • José Moisés Laparra LlopisEmail author
Living reference work entry
Part of the Reference Series in Phytochemistry book series (RSP)

Abstract

Cereals constitute a staple food for large groups of population worldwide. However, the protein fraction of cereals continues receiving increasing attention from the clinical community because of its close involvement in both the development of immunological processes and intestinal disorders. Thus, together with constant technological innovations to the increasing demands of the consumer, makes necessary to optimize food formulations promoting health outcomes. In this context, beneficial health implications are being reported based on the advantageous nutritional profile of gluten-free cereals, but mostly pseudocereals. The latter represent a good source of proteins (albumins/globulins) reducing the intake of prolamins. Additionally, pseudocereals provide an optimal lipid profile (ratio of saturated versus unsaturated fatty acids) and bioactive compounds with a potential significant impact on the consumer’s health. Currently, the underlying mechanisms by which these beneficial health effects occur still remain unsolved. Moreover, some recent data point to metabolic effects beyond their nutritional value. These could have an important impact on immunological processes, although studies on these aspects result inferential. Future research should approach epidemiologic studies and toward consolidating the mechanisms of action, especially in the human body.

Keywords

Cereals Gluten-free Health benefits Metainflammation Nutrition Pseudocereals 

1 Introduction

At present, continuous social development and commercial globalization are motivating the increase in food production, where constant technological innovations are needed to respond to the increasing demands of the consumer of high quality food, which is the closest thing to a fresh product with a processed minimum, healthy and nutritious. The important socioeconomic changes in most countries have led to a substantial change in dietary habits favoring an increase in the consumption of animal fats and proteins. This tendency is reflected in an increase in the incidence of diseases, directly or indirectly, associated with alterations of the hepatic homeostasis that give rise to a wide spectrum of pathologies related to the metabolic syndrome, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

For the past two decades, the interest of researchers, the food industry, and consumers has focused on those foods that, in addition to containing essential nutrients, have bioactive components that promote health and/or prevent chronic diseases. Here, we can find cereals that have been cultivated worldwide from ancient times [1, 2]. In the case of cereals, in addition to playing an important nutritional function, they are responsible for multiple beneficial effects for health [3]. This has led to propose health claims for the consumption of whole grains in USA (1999) and, as of 2002, in England and Sweden [4]. The rich composition of whole grains or their fractions, along with their high dietary fiber content, have motivated many nutritional interventions that have focused on highlighting their potential for healthier, more nutritious foods [5, 6]. Thus, recent studies support the relationship between regular intakes of whole grains and the lower risk of diseases such as T2D, obesity, cardiovascular disorders, metabolic syndrome, and cancer [7, 8, 9].

The protein fraction of cereals has received much attention from the clinical community because of its close involvement in both the development of immunological processes and intestinal disorders. With the increasing development of immune function measuring systems and better understanding of the potential role of cereals in immunometabolic (i.e., obesity, T2D, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease) [10, 11, 12] diseases, people became aware and more selective about food supply. Here, gluten-free cereals and pseudocereals emerged as advantageous alternatives to wheat in innovative healthier and nutritive goods [6, 13, 14, 15].

A healthy diet helps protect us from malnutrition as well as immune-metabolic disorders. Cereals are recognized as an essential food within a healthy diet and are recommended for frequent consumption. However, despite the recognized health benefits of cereal consumption, cereals are often considered as grains that provide a great deal of nutrients, forgetting to mention specific health benefits.

This chapter summarizes recent research on pseudocereals providing comprehensive information to better estimate their potential contribution to human health. Beyond its economic, nutritional, and environmental importance, cereals have played a key role in the history of mankind. Animal and human trials support the beneficial effects derived from whole grains consumption, mostly referring to wheat and its derivatives, rice, and maize. Otherwise, pseudocereals belong to a group of nongrasses, which can be consumed as seeds or flours; even kernels can be used to produce diverse food products. The consumption of these grains has experienced a significant increase in recent years worldwide. Thus, general features of those gluten-free cereals and their specific characteristics in comparison to most common cereals are presented .

2 Gluten-Free Cereals and Pseudocereals

According to recent statistics, world cereal trade in 2017–18 has been lifted by 8 million tons to a record 403 million tons, implying an 8.7 million ton (2.2%) expansion from 2016–17 [16]. The world’s most important cereals in the diet are corn, wheat, and rice. Barley, oats, and rye are cereals whose consumption is not so widespread [17]. Other cereals such as sorghum and millet are mainly used for animal consumption, intended for human consumption in some regions [18]. Notably, pseudocereals (amaranth, quinoa, and buckwheat) receive increasing attention and are consumed with great acceptance due to their advantageous nutritional profile [3].

2.1 Food Uses

Good nutrition is our source of energy to live and be active, as well as the first defense against disease. Here, vegetal kingdom satisfies a considerable part of the nutritional needs for the human being; in this context, cereals have been part of the diet of most cultures and civilizations for millennia. Cereals constitute an agronomically important crop from the environmental point of view and an economic source of protein, both in human and animal feed. Pseudocereals show out to substitute wheat in different respects, but mainly due to their high protein concentration, minerals, vitamins, and fatty acids [3]. These grains have been part of human food for centuries, although as they have been neglected by food industries and nutrition, current knowledge is still limited. The advantageous nutritional features of these grains make them good candidates as part of strategies, both conventional and modern breeding approaches, in order to provide a public health benefit with the ultimate goal of overcoming deficiencies worldwide [6, 19]. Currently, it is assumed the high nutritional value of pseudocereals; however, the study to what extent these grains impact nutritional status resulted inferential.

Gluten-free cereals are incorporated into wheat-based products up to a certain proportion to improve the nutritional value of the resulting product [6, 20]; however, it still constitutes a great technological challenge. Traditional processing methods for these cereals include hand-operated wooden or stone pestle and mortar, which still are used today in certain regions. Today, processing occurs mainly based on applying the dry- and wet-milling processes. The latter are decided according to the objective to obtain flours at a high extent or fractions where there can be found other defined components. Gluten-free cereals can represent a good source of other ingredients of technofunctional importance (i.e., kernels, saponins, oils). There are numerous scientific publications that define the physicochemical and functional properties of the major components of pseudocereals [21, 22, 23] .

Gluten-free cereals are being used in a wide variety of foods, devoted to human, pets, and animal feed. Commonly, they are used in several ways, either as seeds, whole or plain grain, and flour (Table 1). The transformations that occur in the distinct components of the flours derived from these cereals during the processing and cooking of foods improve their nutritional value, favor the reduction of “antinutritive” components, and, in some cases, the formation of bioactive compounds that can contribute significantly to the reduction of metainflammatory diseases [15, 25, 26, 27, 28].
Table 1

Several types of products prepared with most commonly used gluten-free cereals [15, 21, 24]

Gluten-free cereal

Amaranth

Quinoa

Buckwheat

 

Grain

Flour

Whole

Flour

Grain

Flour

Kernels

Product

Toasted, popped, extruded, milk

Bread, rolls, cakes, muffins, pancakes, cookies, noodles

Broths, soups, stews, rice-like products

Porridge, coarse bread, pasta, cookies

Unpeeled, semolina, omelets

Biscuits, cookies, bread, cakes

Tea

2.2 General Features of Most Commonly Consumed Pseudocereals

2.2.1 Quinoa

Chenopodium quinoa is a highly nutritious grain that has been cultivated from ancient years in South America. The origin of quinoa appears to be in the Andean mountains. During recent times, there has been an increased interest worldwide for this grain in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Quinoa has been selected by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as one of the crops destined to significantly contribute to food security in the next century.

Quinoa seeds contain a higher percentage of bran than common cereals that makes feasible the carriage of higher levels of protein and fats in these [29]. One of the aspects that could limit the widespread utilization of quinoa is the relatively high amount of saponins that appear in the outer layer of the seeds and are considered as “antinutritional” factors. These are also rich in carbohydrates representing the most part of total fraction of nutrients. There can be found monosaccharides such as xylose, arabinose, fructose, and glucose, and disaccharides such as maltose and mainly sucrose [30]. Starch also represents an important source of carbohydrates in the grain. Dietary fiber in quinoa exhibits a composition where it composed mainly of cellulose, hemicellulose, beta-glucans, and lignin. Notably, quinoa carries a significant higher protein fraction compared to other cereals. Here, there can be found protease inhibitors affecting gastrointestinal proteolytic enzymes [25]. The genetic background is identified as a major cause for the variations in content and quality of these proteins. Additionally, environmental conditions and cultivation methods also contribute significantly to these variations [31, 32]. Lipid content in quinoa is composed mainly of unsaturated fatty acids (85%), particularly linoleic (~52%), oleic acid (~25%), as well as saturated palmitic acid (~10%) [33, 34]. In a global perspective, quinoa presents a favorable profile of polar lipids (phospholipids) (25.2 g/100 g total lipids) with potential benefits on inflammatory processes, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, neurological disorders, liver diseases, and antioxidant carrier [35]. This phospholipid profile is particularly important since quinoa constitutes a good source of bioactive compounds such as phytosterols, flavonoids, and tocopherols [36, 37] .

2.2.2 Amaranth

There can be found up to 26 Amaranthus species, but the three grain species known as amaranths include Amaranthus hypochondriacus L., Amaranthus cruentus L., and Amaranthus caudatus L. These were domesticated in Central America (Tehuacan, Mexico) over 4000 years BC.
Fig. 1

Health-related outcomes associated to gluten-free cereals intake

Amaranth seeds are of high nutritional value, the carbohydrates representing the major part of the total nutrient fraction in the seed. Starch is the most abundant component in the seeds accounting for up to 65% to 75%, while dietary fiber accounts for only 5% [38]. One of the most interesting advantages of amaranth starch is the production of very small granules (0.75–3 μm) that exhibit extremely high water-absorption capacity [39] providing unique functional properties to food. Numerous studies have shown that amaranth starch exerts important physiological functional properties due to its high digestibility [40]. The nutritional value of amaranth is closely connected to its high protein content and amino acid profile. They display a characteristic protein distribution of about 40% albumins, 20% globulins, 25–30% glutelins, and 2–3% prolamins [41, 42]. Amaranth is considered an essential candidate in special diets for patient with coeliac disease; however, the recently identified participation of defined globulins in immunological processes [10] warrants further investigation. It has been reported that cooking and popping of seeds decreases the fraction of albumins and globulins [43]. But the immunomodulatory potential of the resulting peptides and other structures has not yet been clarified. For amaranth, the lipid fraction is mainly localized in the germ and seed coat. The oil content of amaranth is commonly estimated between 5% and 9% [44, 45], although a study reported values up to 19.3% [46]. These discrepancies could be caused by differences in the extraction and purification methods employed as well as by environmental factors such as temperature and latitude that influence the composition of the oil of amaranth seed [44]. Amaranth constitutes a good source of linoleic (C18:2), oleic (C18:1), palmitic (C16:0), and stearic (C18:0) acids (Table 2).
Table 2

Fatty acid profile in gluten-free cereal and pseudocereals

Fatty acids (g/100 g)

Gluten-free cereal and pseudocerealsa

Amaranth

Barley

Buckwheat

Quinoa

Rice bran

Wheat

Palmitic (16:0)

18.5–23.8

18.5–21.0

18.2–19.5

9.7–11.4

18.6

15.4

Stearic (18:0)

3.2–4

2.18

0.6–0.79

1.75

Oleic (18:1)

22–33.3

15.2–15.6

36.4–37.1

24.8–25.6

42.4

22.3

Linoleic (18:2)

38.2–44.8

24.0–52.4

34.8–35.5

52.3–52.8

34.8

54.2

Linolenic (18:3)

0.2–1.0

2.6–5.5

1.93

3.9–7.0

1.1

3.5

Other

7.08–11.3

5.4–6.8

3.8–10.6

2.44–6.8

1.23

4.6

aReferences: [47, 66, 67, 68, 69]

Amaranths are also of high nutraceutical value as they are important sources of phytochemicals and antioxidants [47, 48, 49]. Origin, accession, and location constitute key aspects determining the content of, for example, tocopherols [47, 48]. Otherwise, after different abiotic stresses, the expression of amaranthin-like genes results enhanced. Amaranthin is a homodimeric lectin that was first discovered in the seeds of Amaranthus caudatus and serves as a model for the family of amaranthin-like lectins. Molecular modeling studies have unraveled the structure of amaranthin-like proteins and their carbohydrate-binding sites. Their particular structure allows to interact with the proliferative region of normal human colonic epithelium and neoplastic lesions of the colon. However, a causal association of these lectins to physiological proliferation processes still results inferential .

2.2.3 Buckwheat

Despite the name, buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) is not related to wheat, but to sorrel, knotweed, and rhubarb. Native to the steppes of Central Asia and Siberia, it was spread to West being introduced to Turkey and Poland and later expanded to Central and South Europe. Today, the expansion of buckwheat reached Great Britain, Canada, and EE.UU.

Considerable pharmacological evidences both in vitro and in vivo support positive effects of Fagopyrum buckwheats such as antitumor, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, hepatoprotective, and antidiabetic [50]. These activities are mostly associated to their particular nutrient composition. Carbohydrates represent (~70%) the major proportion of buckwheat’s endosperm, among these the main component is starch that comprises 55% of the total fraction [51, 52]. The starch present in buckwheat seeds has a different composition to the rest of cereals, with a higher concentration of amylose and lower of amylopectin and also a significant fraction resistant (35%) to digestion considered as a dietary fiber [53]. The buckwheat’s starch capacity to retain water has been established as higher than that of wheat and corn starch [54]. Factors associated to low digestibility of buckwheat starch are small granule size, amylose content, starch-protein interactions, and lipid complexes. Buckwheat proteins exhibit an amino acid profile more nutritionally favorable than wheat. Notably, a more balanced concentration of amino acids is found, except for glutamine and proline [55]. The established higher composition of individual protein fractions such as albumins and globulins in buckwheat in comparison to wheat [55] supposes a significant difference in their potential immunomodulatory features. Meanwhile, globulins from wheat exert a clear inflammatory effect; the beneficial pharmacological effects described for buckwheat suggest different bioactive effects derived from buckwheat’s globulins. Nowadays, the very low concentration of glutelins and prolamins in buckwheat makes it a good crop to be part of gluten-free diets [42]. In relation to other gluten-free cereals and pseudocereals, buckwheat provides lower oil content (~2–3 g/100 g) [44]. Otherwise, buckwheat shares with quinoa and amaranth a lipid profile rich in ϖ-3 (linoleic) and ϖ-6 (linolenic) acids as well as oleic acid. Notably, fatty acid content in buckwheat is influenced by seeding time in addition to environmental factors and variety [56]. For buckwheat, neutral lipids represent 85% of the total content, while polar lipids are found in proportions up to 15%. Similarly to other grains, buckwheat seeds are a good source of antioxidants such as tocopherols, phenols, and flavonoids, specially quercetin and rutin. This characteristic favored the interest and use of buckwheat hull by food industries. In addition, groats have also been used for porridges. Other bioactive compounds identified in buckwheat seeds are D-chiro-inositol, myo-inositol, and fagopyritols, which play an essential role in insulin sensitivity lowering glucose blood levels and blood pressure.

2.3 Health Implications

The nutrient content and profile alone does not describe the quality or physiological and health implications sufficiently (Fig. 1). Digestibility, available lysine, net nutrient utilization, and efficiency ratio are some other parameters that help to better estimate the nutritional value of the gluten-free cereals and pseudocereals. In general, the protein quality of pseudocereals is close to that of casein. Significant differences in starch digestibility for pseudocereals are found [25]. Rice and maize are low in protein, fiber, and folate that contrast those concentrations in pseudocereals [3, 57].

2.3.1 Digestibility

The importance of proteins in gluten-free grains relies on their quality. The amino acid composition in pseudocereals provides to them a significant advantageous nutritional profile due to the high content of essential amino acids. Particularly, methionine, lysine, arginine, tryptophan, and several sulfur-containing amino acids are found at higher concentrations than in other gluten-free cereals. Because of the high proportion of lysine in globulins, pseudocereals provide about twofold higher amount of this amino acid than wheat or maize. Thus, they represent an excellent tool to fulfill the nutritional requirements for populations at risk such as children [58, 59]. There can be found several studies in relation to the impact of processing methods on protein quality. A literature search reveals that pseudocereals proteins remain stable, preserving their high quality and digestibility, after washing, cooking [60], and popping [43]. However, a recent study reported a decreased digestibility of quinoa proteins when using an extraction medium with pH values ranging from 8 to 11 [27]. These conditions could have an important impact during preliminary treatments to eliminate of saponins from quinoa by using a “washing” step .

2.3.2 Immunity

Pseudocereals, contrary to common grains such as wheat, contain low or no storage prolamin proteins [61], which are the main storage proteins in cereals and the toxic proteins in celiac disease (CD). Thus, these grains received increasing attention as safe and suitable for CD patients as part of the gluten-free diet. Otherwise, high proportions of pseudocereals proteins are constituted by albumins (40%) and globulins (20%) [59]. Two main classes of globulins can be differentiated in amaranth: 7S (conamaranthin) and 11S (amaranthin) storage globulins [62]. The 11S globulins (salt-soluble proteins) are one of the major storage protein fractions in amaranth. Amaranth 11S globulin has a molecular mass around 398 kDa, and under reduced conditions, it shows characteristic bands of the acidic (36−32 kDa) and basic (24−22 kDa) subunits of 11S proteins. Additionally, a 59−55 kDa band corresponds to the nonprocessed proglobulin with structural characteristics similar to other 11S globulins [63]. Similarly, in quinoa, the 11S (chenopodin) and the 2S globulin account for 37% and 35% of the total protein content, respectively [64].

Among the different buckwheat proteins, there has been identified a 13S globulin seed storage protein with significant allergenic potential (Fagag1, 61.2 kDa, accession number AF152003, Genbank) usually present as a hexamer linked by disulfide bond [65].

The broad umbrella of heterogeneous conditions identified for reactions to gluten have revealed the need to establish an international consensus and new nomenclature and classification for these; including CD, nonceliac gluten sensitivity, and allergy affecting up to 10% of the general population [70]. Gluten or the epitopes triggering these disorders are found in all Triticum species; wheat, spelt wheat, einkorn wheat, emmer, durum wheat as well as rye, barley, triticale, and oat. Nowadays, cereal grains that are considered safe to CD patients are rice, maize, millet, and sorghum. However, recent immunological studies have identified several immunogenic components of the globulin fraction, α-amylase/trypsin inhibitors [10, 11]. The different downstream signaling pathways triggered by these globulins engage the chemokine receptor CXCR3 and either MyD88-dependent or independent signals associated to the Toll-like receptor (TLR)-4. The potential physiological benefit derived from an inhibited amylase activity favored the use of these globulins for type 2 diabetes and obese patients. Notably, these pathologies constitute important risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) that today has become the most common liver pathology worldwide affecting an estimated 15–30% of most populations. Thus, 10–20% of subjects with NAFLD develop the severe variant of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), hepatic inflammation, and the development of liver fibrosis with high liver-related morbidity and mortality, part of which is due to the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. However, current evidence for a causal association as well as definition of the potential role of globulins from pseudocereals within these disorders has largely been inferential. Buckwheat leaf and flowers are source of α and β amylase inhibitor activity [71, 72]; however, extracts from buckwheat inhibit proinflammatory signals in macrophages (264.7 cells) stimulated with the prototypical TLR4 agonist; lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from Gram negative bacteria [73]. Dietary buckwheat has been associated to prevention of lymphocyte immunosenescence in aged mice [74]. Taken together these studies, there could be hypothesized the more preserved prevention of reactive oxygen species derived from TLR4 stimulation. In this sense, inclusion of flours from pseudocereals into bread formulations as substitute of wheat improved the nutritional iron status [6]. Systemic iron homeostasis is tightly regulated by the liver through synthesis of hepcidin, which associates to inflammatory stimuli regulated by immunological transcription factors such as the proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator-1α (PGC1α) that participates in the regulation of metabolic, but also immune activation. Thus, scarce existing studies suggest innate immune-mediated alleviating effects on iron homeostasis dysregulation .

This effect is important not only from a nutritional point of view, but also because nutritional iron is an effective modulator of the TLR4 signaling. For example, it has to be kept in mind that activation of aryl hydrocarbon receptor mediates suppression of hypoxia-inducible factor-dependent erythropoietin expression. The flavonoids content of buckwheat has been indicated to interact with the aryl hydrocarbon receptor at intestinal level increasing its expression [75], thus also influencing TLR4-mediated response(s).

2.3.3 Metainflammation

Inflammation constitutes a physiological process necessary to keep functional appropriate cellular response(s). The innate branch of immune system has a crucial role in determining proper inflammatory homeostasis. Notably, a low-grade inflammation represents a common feature to many metainflammatory diseases such as NAFLD and associated comorbidities such as T2D and obesity. The scarce studies existing show the positive effects reducing inflammatory conditions within the gut-liver axis [6]. Notably, pseudocereals were used with lower proportions (5–25%) in relation to wheat flour. It was demonstrated that amaranth albumin proteins are capable to form disulfide bonds with gluten proteins [22]. The data do not allow drawing out definitive conclusions about the modulatory effect of proteins bioactivity. Otherwise, open a new way to further research in order to produce innovative food formulations from which there could be expected more controlled physiological effects. The literature search reveals continuous and intense research efforts in the baking industry to incorporate gluten-free cereals and pseudocereals [22, 63, 76].

2.3.4 Prebiotic Effects

Currently, the close association between the beneficial effects attributed to prebiotics and prevention of gastrointestinal disorders is well accepted. Prebiotics are nondigestible food ingredients that beneficially affect the host by stimulating the growth and/or activity in specific intestinal bacteria. The latter, through the production of short chain fatty acids, are able to modulate the intestinal inflammatory environment [77]. Fermentation of prebiotics exert important metabolic consequences in liver-related disorders contributes to lipid and cholesterol synthesis in the liver as well as regulating the expression of different transcription factors.

Pseudocereals provide significantly higher amounts of dietary fiber than wheat and related cereals [3]. Despite nutritional benefits, pseudocereals have been shown favorable to the adaptability of yeast and most lactic acid bacteria of technological interest [78, 79]. Preclinical studies demonstrated that enterobacteria and other potential commensal harmful bacteria do not benefit from this prebiotic effect of buckwheat [80]. In addition to metabolic effects, it has been reported the participation of defined receptors (i.e., aryl hydrocarbon receptor) in the buckwheat-mediated controlled of the proliferation of Bacteroides spp. [75]. This association between the modulatory potential of buckwheat on microbiota composition and receptors with an important role in cancer progression could open the way to nutraceutical uses of defined components from pseudocereals .

2.3.5 Control of Glycemia

Typical Western diet is characterized by fast digestion and absorption of carbohydrates determining a high postprandial glucose and insulin responses, additionally influencing the risk of liver and biliary tract cancers, although convincing evidence is currently lacking [81]. Current data demonstrate higher glycemic values for gluten-free breads as well as pasta than for their respective counterparts [82, 83]. To date, scarce data support the positive effects of amaranth oil and seeds at controlling insulin responses [84]. The effects of buckwheat on glycemic response(s) remain controversial [85, 86]. Studies on the digestibility of pseudocereals starch predict a poor glycemic value of those [25, 87]. In line with these studies, there have been reported delayed fluxes of glucose release that are reflected in delayed AUC curves of postprandial glucose in rats [88]. These effects were accompanied of an upregulated hepatic expression of the PPARγ receptor that is a key regulator of whole body glucose homeostasis and substrate distribution for energy expenditure. Taking into consideration the influence of other nutrients than starch in the modulation of glycemic values (i.e., protein, fiber and fat), pseudocereals constitute promising “ingredients” to optimize food for populations at risk [45, 89]. Technological features of pseudocereals as well as their behavior during household processes can also greatly impact its glycemic value .

2.3.6 Control of Cholesterolemia

Information from human trials supporting the cholesterol-lowering activity of pseudocereals is scarce [90, 91, 92]. The main hypotheses to explain the potential contribution of pseudocereals to the hypocholesterolemic effect are based on their nutritional profile. Otherwise, distinct experimental approaches have been performed to support the cholesterol-lowering activity of quinoa [92, 93], amaranth [14, 94], and buckwheat [90, 91]. Some of those have also focused on the impact of processing treatments (i.e., heat-expanded amaranth) [14] or to what extent can alterations on lipid homeostasis [94] be controlled through pseudocereals intake. Overall, the underlying mechanisms to explain the hypocholesterolemic effects of pseudocereals remain unclear. For example, it has been proposed that buckwheat cholesterol-lowering activity could be derived from its poor digestibility [95, 96] in contrast to the commonly assumed high quality of its proteins. An interesting hypothesis is also the assumption of metabolic effects beyond the changes in lipid homeostasis derived from its nutritional profile [97]. Probably, at least in part, these effects could occur through an increased energy expenditure promoting oxidative metabolism. The existing uncertainties warrant further research in this sense.

3 Conclusion and Future Perspectives

Cereals have been associated to human diet from ancient times. Domestication of cereals was facilitated by polyploidization events that led to genetic determinants, which excluded potentially adaptive alleles. At present, an intense and continuous social development, as well as commercial globalization, motivates the increase in food production, where constant technological innovations are needed to respond to the increasing demands of the consumer of high quality food. Thus, important socioeconomic changes in most countries leading to a substantial change in dietary habits favor the appearance of metainflammatory diseases (i.e., NAFLD, T2D, obesity). Here, the strong social demand of gluten-free products increased worldwide and even gluten-free foods started being consumed by many other groups of population than those with immunological imbalances such as celiac patients. Several distinct reasons are considered for this switch on “food choice” and consumer’s behavior; nutritional quality and health benefits beyond this nutrition are mostly considered. Pseudocereals represent a good option both from a nutritional and technological point of view to improve the nutritional profile of food, while reducing the intake of defined food ingredients associated to intestinal and immunological disorders. Three distinct grains are majorly known as pseudocereals; quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa), amaranth (Amaranthus cruentus), and buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum and Fagopyrum tartaricum). These grains offer good technofunctional options to use them as substitutes of wheat flour, thus producing gluten-free foods. Moreover, ascription to the gluten-free diet is commonly associated to nutritional deficiencies. Here, the inclusion of pseudocereals improve the nutritional profile and reduces the risk of deleterious effects on the nutritional status.

Pseudocereals consumption has been associated to a wide spectrum of beneficial effects beyond its mere nutritional value in relation to immune regulation including prevention of intestinal imbalances in gut microbiota composition and inflammatory disorders. Many of these effects could derive from their potential to stimulate innate branch of the immune system because of their particular composition on globulins, but also to its prebiotic effect and potential capacity of other naturally occurring biologically active compounds. Although the scarce data existing encourage the use of pseudocereals as adjuvant in nutritional intervention strategies, a complete description of the underlying molecular mechanisms and processes implied is still unknown . This manuscript has been limited to those existing studies where key aspects such as bioavailability of the different compounds as well as concentrations used could result close to the effective physiological ones. The retrieval from literature revision highlights the need to clarify these aspects in order to pave the way for a full translational and transferable usage of pseudocereals into the clinical practice and society to improve self-management strategies of diseases.

Notes

Acknowledgments

JML thanks Spanish MINECO for his “Ramón y Cajal” contract. BF thanks KNOW Consortium “Healthy Animal – Safe Food,” MS&HE Decision No. 05-1/KNOW2/2015.

References

  1. 1.
    Ulbricht C, Abrams T, Conquer J, Costa D, Grims-Serrano JM, Taylor S, Varguese M (2009) An evidence-based systematic review of amaranth (Amaranthus spp.) by the natural standard research collaboration. J Diet Suppl 6:390–417.  https://doi.org/10.3109/19390210903280348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charmet G (2011) Wheat domestication: lessons for the future. C R Biol 334:212–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2010.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alvarez-Jubete L, Arendt EK, Gallagher E (2009) Nutritive value of pseudocereals and their increasing use as functional gluten-free ingredients. Trends Food Sci Tech 21:106–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marquart L, Wiemer KL, Jones JM, Jacob B (2003) Whole grains health claims in the USA and other efforts to increase whole-grain consumption. Proc Nutr Soc 62(1):151–160.  https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2003242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu RH (2007) Whole grain phytochemicals and health. J Cereal Sci 46:207–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2007.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laparra JM, Haros M (2016) Inclusion of ancient Latin-American crops in bread formulation improves intestinal iron absorption and modulates inflammatory markers. Food Funct 7(2):1096–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c5fo01197c CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marventano S, Vetrani C, Vitale M, Godos J, Riccardi G, Grosso G (2017) Whole grain intake and glycaemic control in healthy subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Forum Nutr 9:769.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9070769 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li Y, Li S, Meng X, Gan RY, Zhang JJ, Li HB (2017) Dietary natural products for prevention and treatment of breast cancer. Forum Nutr 9:728.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9070728 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jenkins DJA, Boucher BA, Ashbury FD et al (2017) Effect of current dietary recommendations on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors. J Am Coll Cardiol 69:1103–1112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Junker Y, Zeissig S, Kim SJ, Barisani D, Wieser H, Leffler DA, Zevallos V, Libermann TA, Dillon S, Freitag TL, Kelly CP, Schuppan D (2012) Wheat amylase trypsin inhibitors drive intestinal inflammation via activation of toll-like receptor 4. J Exp Med 209:2395–2408.  https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20102660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaliszewska A, Martinez V, Laparra JM (2016) Proinflammatory responses driven by non-gluten factors are masked when they appear associated to gliadins. Food Chem Toxicol 95:89–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.06.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ojo B, Simenson AJ, O’Hara C, Wu L, Gou X, Peterson SK, Lin D, Smith BJ, Lucas EA (2017) Wheat germ supplementation alleviates insulin resistance and cardiac mitochondrial dysfunction in an animal model of diet-induced obesity. Br J Nutr 118:241–249.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114517002082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bergamo P, Maurano F, Mazzarella G, Iaquinto G, Vocca I, Rivelli AR, De Falco E, Gianfrani C, Rossi M (2011) Immunological evaluation of the alcohol-soluble protein fraction from gluten-free grains in relation to celiac disease. Mol Nutr Food Res 55:1266–1270.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201100132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caselato-Sousa VM, Ozaki MR, de Almeida EA, Amaya-Farfan J (2014) Intake of heat-expanded amaranth grain reverses endothelial dysfucntion in hypercholesterolemic rabbits. Food Funct 5:3281–3286.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c4fo00468j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanz-Penella JM, Laparra JM, Sanz Y, Haros M (2012) Bread supplemented with amaranth (Amaranthus cruentus): effect of phytates on in vitro iron absorption. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 67:50–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-011-0269-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2017) http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
  17. 17.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011) http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
  18. 18.
    US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2007) National Nutrient Database for Standard References. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/
  19. 19.
    Hurrell RF, Reddy MB, Burri J, Cook JD (2000) An evaluation of EDTA compounds for iron fortification of cerealbased foods. Br J Nutr 84:903–910.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114500002531 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sanz-Penella JM, Wronkowska M, Soral-Śmietana M, Haros M (2013) Effect of whole amaranth flour on bread properties and nutritive value. LWT-Food Sci Tech 50:679–685.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2012.07.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chauhan GS, Eskin NAM, Tkachuck R (1992) Nutrients and antinutrients in quinoa seed. Cereal Chem 69:85–88Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oszvald M, Tamás C, Rakszegi M, Tömösközi S, Békés F, Tamás L (2009) Effects of incorporated amaranth albumins on the functional properties of wheat dough. J Sci Food Agric 89:882–889.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schönlechner R, Drausinger J, Ottenschlaeger V, Jurackova K, Berghofer E (2010) Functional properties of gluten-free pasta produced from amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 65:339–349.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-010-0194-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobsen S-E (2003) The worldwide potential for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). Food Rev Int 19:167–177.  https://doi.org/10.1081/FRI-120018883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wolter A, Hager AS, Zannini E, Arendt EK (2014) Influence of sourdough on in vitro starch digestibility and predicted glycemic indices of gluten-free breads. Food Funct 5:564–572.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3fo60505a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mithila MV (2015) Khanum F (2015) effectual comparison of quinoa and amaranth supplemented diets in controlling appetite; a biochemical study in rats. J Food Sci Technol 52:6735–6741.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-014-1691-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ruiz GA, Opazo-Navarrete M, Meurs M, Minor M, Sala G, van Boekel M, Stieger M, Janssen AE (2016) Denaturation and in vitro gastric digestion of heat-treated quinoa protein isolates obtained at various extraction pH. Food Biophys 11:184–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11483-016-9429-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tang Y, Tsao R (2017) Phytochemicals in quinoa and amaranth grains and their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and potential health beneficial effects: a review. Mol Nutr Food Res 2017:61(7).  https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201600767 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bressani R (2003) Amaranth. In: Caballero B (ed) Encyclopedia of food science and nutrition. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 166–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berghofer E, Scoenlenchner R (2007) Pseodocereals – An Overview, Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria. http://projekt.sik.se/traditionalgrains/review/Oral%20presentation%20PDF%20files/Berghofer%20.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
  31. 31.
    Wood SG, Lawson LD, Fairbanks DJ, Robison LR, Andersen WR (1993) Seed lipid content and fatty acid composition of three quinoa cultivars. J Food Compos Anal 6:41–44.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jfca.1993.1005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vega-Galvez A, Miranda M, Vergara J, Uribe E, Puente L, Martínez EA (2010) Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd), an ancient Andean grain: a review. J Sci Food Agric 90:2541–2547.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wijngaard HH, Arent EK (2006) Buckwheat. Cereal Chem 83:391–401.  https://doi.org/10.1094/CC-83-0391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Valcárcel-Yamani B, Caetano S, Lannes S (2012) Applications of quinoa (Chenopodium Quinoa Willd.) and qmaranth (Amaranthus Spp.) and their influence in the nutritional value of cereal based foods. Food and. Public Health 2:265–275.  https://doi.org/10.5923/j.fph.20120206.12 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Torres García J, Durán Agüero S (2014) Phospholipids: properties and health effects. Nutr Hosp 31:76–83.  https://doi.org/10.3305/nh.2015.31.1.7961 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Repo-Carrasco R, Espinoza C, Jacobsen S-E (2003) Nutritional value and use of the Andean crops quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and Kañiwa (Chenopodium pallidicaule). Food Rev Int 19:179–189.  https://doi.org/10.1081/FRI-120018884 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carrion R, Murphy K, Ganjyal G, Kowalski R, Noratto G (2014) Quinoa as source of bioactive compounds with potential for intestinal health. FASEB J 28:647.18Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Venskutonis PR, Kraujalis P (2013) Nutritional components of amaranth seeds and vegetables: a review on composition, properties, and uses. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 12:381–412.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Uriyapongson J, Rayas-duarte P (1994) Comparison of yield and properties of amaranth starches using wet and dry-wet milling processes. Cereal Chem 71:571–577Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Caselato-Sousa VM, Amaya-Farfán J (2012) State of knowledge on amaranth grain: a comprehensive review. J Food Sci 77:93–104.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02645.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Segura-Nieto M, Shewry PR, Paredes-Lopez O (1994) Globulins of the pseudocereals: Amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat. In: Shewry PR, Casey R (eds) Seed Proteins. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 453–475Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gorinstein S, Pawelzik E, Delgado-Licon E, Haruenkit R, Weisz M, Trakhtenberg S (2002) Characterisation of pseudocereal and cereal proteins by protein and amino acid analyses. J Sci Food Agric 82:886–891.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02645.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gamel TH, Linssen JP, Alink GM, Mossallem AS, Shekib LA (2004) Nutritional study of raw and popped seed proteins of Amaranthus caudatus L and Amaranthus cruentus L. J Sci Food 84:1153–1158.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Berganza BE, Moran AW, Rodriguez GM, Coto NM, Santamaría M, Bressani R (2003) Effect of variety and location on the total fat, fatty acids and squalene content of amaranth. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 58:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAL.0000041143.24454.0a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pina-Rodriguez AM, Akoh CC (2010) Composition and oxidative stability of a structured lipid from amaranth oil in a milk-based infant formula. J Food Sci 75:140–146.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01460.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Singhal RS, Kulkarni PR (1998) Amaranths as underutilized resource. Int J Food Sci Tech 23:125–139.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1988.tb00559.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Budin JT, Breene WM, Putnam DH (1996) Some compositional properties of seeds and oils of eight Amaranthus species. J Am Oil Chem Soc 73:475–481.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02523922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bruni R, Medici A, Guerrini A, Scalia S, Poli F, Muzzoli M, Sacchetti G (2001) Wild Amaranthus Caudatus seed oil, a nutraceutical resource from Ecuadorian flora. J Agric Food Chem 49:5455–5460.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf010385k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rocchetti G, Chiodelli G, Giuberti G, Masoero F, Trevisan M, Lucini L (2017) Evaluation of phenolic profile and antioxidant capacity in gluten-free flours. Food Chem 228:367–373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.01.142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jing R, Li HQ, Hu CL, Jiang YP, Qin LP, Zheng CJ (2016) Phytochemical and pharmacological profiles of three fagopyrum buckwheats. Int J Mol Sci 17(4).  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17040589
  51. 51.
    Steadman K, Burgoon M, Lewis B, Edwardson SE, Obendorf RL (2001) Buckwheat seed milling fractions: description, macronutrient composition and dietary fibre. J Cereal Sci 33:271–278.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcrs.2001.0366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Steadman K, Burgoon M, Schuster R et al (2000) Fagopyritols, D-chiro-inositol, and other soluble carbohydrates in buckwheat seed milling fractions. J Agric Food Chem 48:2843–2847.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf990709t CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Skrabanja V, Kreft I (1998) Resistant starch formation following autoclaving of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) groats. An in vitro study. J Agric Food Chem 46:2020–2023.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf970756q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Qian J, Rayas-Duarte P, Grant L (1998) Partial characterization of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) starch. Cereal Chem 75:365–373.  https://doi.org/10.1094/CCHEM.1998.75.3.365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aubrecht E, Biacs PÁ (2001) Characterization of buckwheat grain proteins and its products. Acta Aliment 30:71–80.  https://doi.org/10.1556/AAlim.30.2001.1.8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cai YZ, Corke H, Whum HX (2004) Amaranth. In: Corke H, Walker CE, Wrigley C (eds) Encyclopedia of grain science. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hager AS, Wolter A, Jacob F, Zannini E, Arendt EK (2012) Nutritional properties and ultra-structure of commercial gluten free flours from different botanical sources compared to wheat flours. J Cereal Sci 56:239–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2012.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Grobelnik MS, Turinek M, Jakop M, Bavec M, Bavec F (2009) Nutrition value and use of grain amaranth: potential future application in bread making. Agricultura 6:43–53Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schoenlechner R, Siebenhandl S, Berghofer E (2008) Pseudocereals, Chapter 7. In: Arendt EK, Bello FD (eds) Gluten-free cereal products and beverages. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 149–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gross R, Koch F, Malaga I, Miranda AF, Schoeneberger H, Trugo LC (1989) Chemical composition and protein quality of some local Andean food sources. Food Chem 34:25–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-8146(89)90030-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Aubrecht E, Horacsek M, Gelencser E, Dworschak E (1998) Investigation of prolamin content of cereals and different plant seeds. Acta Aliment 27:119–125Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Marcone MF, Rickey YY (1997) Evidence for the phosophorylation and glycosylation of the amaranth 11S globulin (Amaranthin). J Food Biochem 21:341–369.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4514.1997.tb00203.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Carrazco-Peña L, Osuna-Castro JA, De León-Rodríguez A, Maruyama N, Toro-Vazquez JF, Morales-Rueda JA, Barba de la Rosa AP (2013) Modification of solubility and heat-induced gelation of Amaranth 11S globulin by protein engineering. J Agric Food Chem 61:3509–3516.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf3050999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Brinegar C, Sine B, Nwokocha L (1996) High-cy steine 2S seed storage proteins from quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). J Agric Food Chem 44:1621–1623.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf950830+ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Shigemori S, Yonekura S, Sato T, Otani H, Shimosato T (2013) Expression of the immunoreactive buckwheat major allergenic storage protein in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:3603–3611.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-4608-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jahaniaval F, Kakuda Y, Marcone MF (2000) Fatty acid and triacylglycerol compositions of seed oils of five Amaranthus accessions and their comparison to other oils. J Am Oil Chem Soc 77:847–852.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-000-0135-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ruales J, Nair BM (1993) Content of fat, vitamins and minerals in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa, Willd.) seeds. Food Chem 48:131–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-8146(93)90047-J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    León-Camacho M, García-González DL, Aparicio R (2001) A detailed and comprehensive study of amaranth (Amaranthus cruentus L.) oil fatty profile. Eur Food Res Technol 213:349–355.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002170100340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vidueiros SM, Curti RN, Dyner LM, Binaghi MJ, Peterson G, Bertero HD, Pallaro AN (2015) Diversity and interrelationships in nutritional traits in cultivated quinoa (Chenopodiumquinoa Willd.) from Northwest Argentina. J Cereal Sci 62:87–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2015.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sapone A, Bai JC, Ciacci C, Dolinsek J, Green PH, Hadjivassiliou M et al (2012) Spectrum of gluten-related disorders: consensus on new nomenclature and classification. BMC Med 10:13.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lee MH, Lee JS, Yang HC (2008) α-Amylase inhibitory activity of flower and leaf extracts from buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). J Kor Soc Food Sci Nutrition 37:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Prakash S, Deshwal S (2013) α/β-amylase activity of Fagopyrum esculentum (buckwheat): a medicinal plant. Janaki Med Coll J Med Sci 1:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Karki R, Kim DW (2013) Extract of buckwheat sprouts scavenges oxidation and inhibits pro-inflammatory mediators in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated macrophages (RAW264.7). J Integr Med 11:246–252.  https://doi.org/10.3736/jintegrmed2013036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Alvarez P, Alvarado C, Puerto M, Schlumberger A, Jiménez L, De la Fuente M (2006) Improvement of leukocyte function in prematurely aging mice after five weeks of diet supplementation with polyphenol-rich cereals. Nutrition 22:913–921.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2005.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Li Y, Innocentin S, Withers DR, Roberts NA, Gallagher AR, Grigorieva EF, Wilhelm C, Veldhoen M (2011) Exogenous stimuli maintain intraepithelial lymphocytes via aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation. Cell 147:629–640.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.09.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Schoenlechner R, Drausinger J, Ottenschlaeger V, Jurackova K, Berghofer E (2010) Functional properties of gluten-free pasta produced from amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 65:339–349.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-010-0194-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Cavaglieri CR, Nishiyama A, Fernandes LC, Curi R, Miles EA, Calder PC (2003) Differential effects of short-chain fatty acids on proliferation and production of pro-and anti-inflammatory cytokines by cultured lymphocytes. Life Sci 73:1683–1690.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3205(03)00490-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Vogelmann SA, Seitter M, Singer U, Brandt MJ, Hertel C (2009) Adaptability of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts to sourdoughs prepared from cereals, pseudocereals and cassava and use of competitive strains as starters. Int J Food Microbiol 130:205–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.01.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bianchi F, Rossi EA, Gomes RG, Sivieri K (2014) Potentially synbiotic fermented beverage with aqueous extracts of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) and soy. Food Sci Tech Int 21:403–415.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013214540672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Préstamo G, Pedrazuela A, Peñas E, Lasunción MA, Arroyo G (2003) Role of buckwheat diet on rats as prebiotic and healthy food. Nutr Res 23:803–814.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5317(03)00074-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fedirko V, Lukanova A, Bamia C, Trichopolou A, Trepo E, Nöthlings U (2013) Glycemic index, glycemic load, dietary carbohydrate, and dietary fiber intake and risk of liver and biliary tract cancers in western Europeans. Ann Oncol 24:543–553.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Atkinson FS, Foster-Powell K, Brand-Miller JC (2008) International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2008. Diabetes Care 31:2281–2283.  https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-1239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bacchetti T, Saturni L, Turco I, Ferretti G (2014) The postprandial glucose response to some varieties of commercially available gluten-free pasta: a comparison between healthy and celiac subjects. Food Funct 5:3014–3019.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c4fo00745j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kim HK, Kim MJ, Cho HY, Kim EK, Shin DH (2006) Antioxidative and anti-diabetic effects of amaranth (Amaranthus esculantus) in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. Cell Biochem Funct 24:195–199.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cbf.1210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Stringer DM, Taylor CG, Appah P, Blewett H, Zahradka P (2013) Consumption of buckwheat modulates the post-prandial response of selected gastrointestinal satiety hormones in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 62:1021–1031.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2013.01.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Su-Que L, Ya-Ning M, Xing-Pu L, Ye-Lun Z, Guang-Yao S, Hui-Juan M (2013) Effect of consumption of micronutrient enriched wheat steamed bread on postprandial plasma glucose in healthy and type 2 diabetic subjects. Nutr J 17:64–71.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-12-64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Cavallero A, Empilli S, Brighenti F, Stanca AM (2002) High (1→3,1→4)-β-glucan barley fractions in bread making and their effects on human glycemic response. J Cereal Sci 36:59–66.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcrs.2002.0454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Laparra JM, Haros M (2017) Inclusion of whole flour from Latin-American crops into bread formulations as substitute of wheat delays glucose release and uptake (Personal communication)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Pina-Rodriguez AM (2009) Akoh CC (2009) synthesis and characterization of a structured lipid from amaranth oil as a partial fat substitute in milk-based infant formula. J Agric Food Chem 57:6748–6756.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf901048x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    He J, Klag MJ, Whelton PK, Mo JP, Chen JY, Qian MC, Mo PS (1995) He GQ (1995) oats and buckwheat intakes and cardiovascular disease risk factors in an ethnic minority of China. Am J Clin Nutr 61:366–372Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zhang HW, Zhang YH, MJ L, Tong WJ, Cao GW (2007) Comparison of hypertension, dyslipidaemia and hyperglycaemia between buckwheat seed-consuming and non-consuming Mongolia-Chinese population in Inner Mongolia, China. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 34:838–844.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1681.2007.04614.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    De Carvalho FG, Ovidio PP, Padovan GJ, Jordao Junior AA, MArchini JS, Navarro AM (2014) Metabolic parameters of postmenopausal women after quinoa or corn flakes intake--a prospective and double-blind study. Int J Food Sci Nutr 65:380–385.  https://doi.org/10.3109/09637486.2013.866637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Paśko P, Barton H, Zagrodzki P, Izewska A, Krosniak M, Gawlik M, Gawlik M, Gorinstein S (2010) Effect of diet supplemented with quinoa seeds on oxidative status in plasma and selected tissues of high fructose-fed rats. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 65:146–151.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-010-0164-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lucero López VR, Razzeto GS, Escudero NL, Gimenez MS (2013) Biochemical and molecular study of the influence of Amaranthus Hypochondriacus flour on serum and liver lipids in rats treated with ethanol. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 68:396–402.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-013-0388-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kayashita J, Shimaoka I, Nakajoh M, Yamazaki M, Kato N (1997) Consumption of buckwheat protein lowers plasma cholesterol and raises fecal neutral sterols in cholesterol-fed rats because of its low digestibility. J Nutr 127:1395–1400Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Tomotake H, Shimaoka I, Kayashita J, Yokoyama F, Nakajoh M, Kato N (2000) A buckwheat protein product suppresses gallstone formation and plasma cholesterol more strongly than soy protein isolate in hamsters. J Nutr 130:1670–1674Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Foucault AS, Even P, Lafont R, Dioh W, Veillet S, Tomé D, Huneau JF, Hermier D, Quignard-Boulangé A (2014) Quinoa extract enriched in 20-hydroxyecdysone affects energy homeostasis and intestinal fat absorption in mice fed a high-fat diet. Physiol Behav 128:226–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Fernández de Frutos
    • 1
  • Bartosz Fotschki
    • 2
  • Ricardo Fernández Musoles
    • 3
  • José Moisés Laparra Llopis
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Madrid Institute for Advanced Studies in FoodMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Biological function of foodInstitute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research of the Polish Academy of SciencesOlsztynPoland
  3. 3.Valencian International UniversityValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations