scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)
This version is available at https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-11859
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License (Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International). For
more information see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Terms of Use
Einhorn-Stoll, U., Archut, A., Eichhorn, M., & Kastner, H. (2021). Pectin - plant protein systems and their
application. Food Hydrocolloids, 106783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106783
Ulrike Einhorn-Stoll, Artwin Archut, Marina Eichhorn, Hanna Kastner
Pectin - Plant protein systems and their
application
Accepted manuscript (Postprint)Journal article |
Pectin - plant protein systems and their application
Ulrike Einhorn-Stoll, Artwin Archut, Marina Eichhorn, Hanna Kastner
Technische Universität Berlin, Department of Food Technology and Food Material Science, Germany
Abstract
The techno-functional properties of plant protein are often inferior to those of animal origin,
mainly due to denaturation during extraction. They require improvement for easier
incorporation into food products, and combinations with pectin were tested for this purpose.
Coacervates, formed mainly by electrostatic interactions, and conjugates, formed by covalent
binding, improved protein solubility around the isoelectric point, surface activity and
emulsion and foam stability. Active (often hydrophobic) ingredients were encapsulated by
conjugates or bilayers or within nanoparticles to stabilise them in a hydrophilic environment
and to control their release. Coacervates were also able to mask the bitter taste of plant
proteins by blocking electrostatic interactions with taste receptors, and fibrous compounds
were prepared as meat replacers.
Pectins were well suitable for many combinations with plant proteins in food systems owing
to their variety of properties resulting from botanical origin or modification. The impact of
pectin structure on the different interactions, however, has been studied only to a limited
extent, and not all results were convincing. Additional work, using well defined and
characterised pectin samples, is required for a better understanding of the interactions, aimed
at an extended plant protein application for human nutrition.
2
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical aspects of pectin plant protein interactions
2.1 Role of thermodynamic compatibility
2.2 Types and mechanisms of interactions
3. Studies of pectin - plant protein systems
3.1 Complex coacervates
3.2 Nanoparticles
3.3 Conjugates
3.4 Other studied pectin plant protein systems
4. Summary and outlook
1. Introduction
The increasing demand of a growing world population for sustainable and high-nutritional
food products enhanced the interest in the utilisation of plant proteins as food ingredients
within the last decade (Sá et al., 2020). Proteins are a main component in different terrestrial
plants such as legumes, grains, seeds, pseudocereals, almonds and nuts. The protein content
may vary from about 10% in rice to about 45% in soy beans (Sá et al., 2020). Initially, protein
concentrates and isolates were by-products of the extraction of oil (e.g. from soy and rapeseed)
or starch (e.g. from corn, wheat and potato), but nowadays, the production of plant protein
components for human consumption is a rapidly growing branch of the food industry (Sá et
al., 2020; Ebert et al., 2020). Plant proteins are incorporated and often strongly bound within
the plant cellular structure and require special extraction procedures. The production process
for the isolation of plant proteins is, therefore, often more complicated than those of animal
proteins from milk or egg. The processing parameters, such as pH, ionic strength, solvent type
and extraction temperature, may considerably affect the quality of the extracted protein and
cause at least partial denaturation. In particular, protein solubility is often reduced, which is
a key factor for protein functionality (Li & de Vries, 2018; Ebert et al., 2020; Mota da Silva et
al., 2021). The limited techno-functional properties may complicate the incorporation of plant
proteins into food products, which is widely determined by the interaction capacityand
depends in particular on protein conformation and surface properties. Techno-functional
properties of plant proteins may be additionally affected by processing conditions during food
production (Qamar et al., 2020).
Independent of the extraction process, isolated plant proteins are a mixture of different
protein fractions with varying properties. For instance, protein products with a high share of
prolamins and glutelins are less water-soluble than those containing mainly globulins and
Advertisement
3
albumins (Ebert et al., 2020). Moreover, the solubility of all proteins depends on the pH and
is minimum at the isoelectric point (pI).
Fig. 1: Plant protein types studied for their interactions with pectin.
Soy, pea and corn protein were the most studied plant proteins with regard to their
interactions with pectin (Fig. 1, Table 1). Soybeans contain about 40 - 45% protein, the main
fractions are conglycinin and glycinin with together more than 80% (Nishinari et al., 2014).
The proteins become denaturated during commercial extraction by heating steps. As a
consequence, their solubility is strongly reduced and is minimum around pH 4 - 5, in the range
of the pI. Pea proteins are contained in pea seeds with about 20% (Barać et al.,2015) and
consist of two major fractions, a globulin fraction with 65 - 80% and an albumin fraction of 20
- 35% of the total protein content (Schroeder, 1982). The pI of pea protein isolates is around
pH 4.5, and the solubility is low in this pH-range. Corn contains about 8% protein (Shukla &
Cheryan, 2001), the main fractions are zein and glutelin, with each about 40%. Zein includes
a high proportion of non-polar amino acids, this makes it hardly soluble in water below pH 11
but well soluble in aqueous solutions containing e.g. urea or anionic detergents or in apolar
solvents like ethanol. The pI of zein is around pH 6. Another protein that should be mentioned
here, though it was only seldom tested together with pectins, is from rapeseed (also named as
canola). Napin (20%) and cruciferin (60%) are the main fractions of canola protein
(Kristjansson et al., 2013; Wanasundara et al., 2016). Napin has a very high pI of about pH 9
- 11, and it is soluble in a range of pH 2 - 10. This high pI allows strong electrostatic interactions
with pectin over a broader pH-range than with most plant proteins. Other plant proteins,
which were investigated in combination with pectin were from legumes (chickpea, faba bean,
lentils), grain (rice, wheat) and potato (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Legumes
Soy
Pea
Chickpea
Lentil
Faba bean
Grains
Corn
Wheat
Rice
Others
Potato
Rapeseed
Plant proteins tested for interactions with pectin
4
Table 1: Overview of the reviewed pectin-plant protein system with information about the pectin type
and degree of methoxylation, protein type and tested pectin-protein system. HMP = high-methoxyl
pectin, LMP = low-methoxyl pectin.
Plant protein
Pectin type
System
Authors
Year
Chickpea
HMP, citrus
Bilayer emulsion
Moser et al.
2020
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles
Chang et al.
2017
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles, encapsulation
Chang et al.
2017
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles, pickering emulsion
Chen et al.
2018
Corn (zein)
Pectic acid, ivy gourd
Nanoparticles, encapsulation
Dhanya et al.
2012
Corn (zein)
Pectic acid, ivy gourd
Nanoparticles, encapsulation
Dhanya et al.
2020
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles, encapsulation
Feng et al.
2020
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles, encapsulation
Hu et al.
2015
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles, encapsulation
Huang, Xiaoxia et al.
2016
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles, encapsulation
Huang, Xulin et al.
2017
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles, encapsulation
Huang, Xulin et al.
2019
Corn (zein)
HMP, apple
Nanoparticles, pickering emulsion
Jiang et al.
2019
Corn (zein)
LMP, citrus
Nanopartiacles
Liu et al.
2006
Corn (zein)
HMP, LMP , citrus / apple
Nanopartiacles
Mukhidinov et al.
2011
Corn (zein)
HMP, sugar-beet
Nanoparticles, pectin gel cover
Soltani et al.
2015
Corn (zein)
HMP, sugar-beet
Nanoparticles, pectin gel cover
Soltani et al.
2015
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles, encapsulation
Veneranda et al.
2018
Corn (zein)
HMP, LMP
Nanoparticles, pickering emulsion
Zhang et al.
2021
Corn (zein)
HMP, citrus
Nanoparticles, pickering emulsion
Zhou, F.-Z. et al.
2018
Faba bean
LMP, citrus
Bilayer emulsion
Muschiolik et al.
1989
Lentil
LMP, citrus
Coacervate, nanoparticles, interface
Jarpa-Parra et al.
2016
Pea
HMP, citrus
Bilayer emulsion
Gharsallaoui et al.
2010
Pea
HMP, citrus
Encapsulation
Guo et al.
2020
Pea
HMP, citrus
Coacervate
Lan et al.
2018
Pea
HMP, LMP, citrus
Coacervate
Lan et al.
2020
Pea
HMP, sugar-beet
Coacervate
Lan et al.
2021
Pea
HMP, LMP, citrus
Coacervate
Pillai et al.
2019
Pea
HMP, LMP, citrus
Coacervate
Pillai et al.
2020
Pea
HMP, citrus
Conjugate, interface
Tamnak et al.
2016
Pea
HMP, citrus
Conjugate, interface
Tamnak et al.
2016
Pea
HMP, LMP, citrus / apple /
sugar-beet
Coacervate
Warnakulasuriya et al.
2018
Pea
HMP, citrus
Coacervate
Wei et al.
2020
Pea
HMP, citrus
Cacervate, interface
Yi et al.
2020
Potato
HMP, sugar beet
Conjugate, interface
Li et al.
2021
Potato
HMP, LMP, citus / apple
Coacervate
Yavuz-Düzgün et al.
2020
Potato, pea
HMP, apple
Coacervate
Zeeb et al.
2018
Rapeseed (napin)
HMP, citrus
Coacervate
Amine et al.
2019
Rapeseed (napin)
HMP, LMP, citrus
Foam
Schmidt et al.
2010
Rice (glutelin)
HMP, citrus
Bilayer emulsion
Xu et al.
2017
Rice bran
HMP, citrus
Bilayer emulsion
Zang et al.
2019
Rice
HMP, citrus
Coacervate
Yang et al.
2019
Soy
HMP, citrus
Suspension
Dekkers et al.
2016
Advertisement
Loading more pages...