4.7 Article

Characterisation of the arabinose-rich carbohydrate composition of immature and mature marama beans (Tylosema esculentum)

Journal

PHYTOCHEMISTRY
Volume 72, Issue 11-12, Pages 1466-1472

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2011.03.027

Keywords

Marama bean; Morama bean; Tylosema esculentum; Legume; Starch; Soluble sugars; Cell wall composition; Pectin; CoMPP; Linkage analysis; HPAEC-PAD

Funding

  1. Government of Botswana
  2. Ministry of Infrastructure, Science and Technology
  3. Danish Villum Kann Rasmussen Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Marama bean (Tylosema esculentum) is an important component of the diet around the Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa where this drought resistant plant can grow. The marama bean contains roughly 1/3 proteins, 1/3 lipids and 1/3 carbohydrates, but despite its potential as dietary supplement little is known about the carbohydrate fraction. In this study the carbohydrate fraction of immature and mature marama seeds are characterised. The study shows that the marama bean contains negligible amounts of starch and soluble sugars, both far less than 1%. The cell wall is characterised by a high arabinose content and a high resistance to extraction as even a 6 M NaOH extraction was insufficient to extract considerable amounts of the arabinose. The arabinose fraction was characterised by arabinan-like linkages and recognised by the arabinan antibody LM6 and LM13 indicating that it is pectic arabinan. Two pools of pectin could be detected; a regular CDTA (1,2-diaminocyclohexane-N,N,N',N'-tetraacetic acid) or enzymatically extractable pectin fraction and a recalcitrant pectin fraction containing the majority of the arabinans, of which about 40% was unextractable using 6 M NaOH. Additionally, a high content of mannose was observed, possibly from mannosylated storage proteins. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available