4.7 Article

Inhibition of Buckwheat Starch Digestion by the Formation of Starch/Bile Salt Complexes: Possibility of Its Occurrence in the Intestine

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 59, 期 11, 页码 6277-6283

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf2006326

关键词

amylase-catalyzed digestion; buckwheat starch; starch/bile salt complexes; starch/iodine complexes

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23500968] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the digestion of starch in foods, starch is mixed with bile in the duodenum. Because fatty acids and some kinds of polyphenols could bind to starch, it was postulated that bile salts might also bind to starch. The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of bile and bile salts on starch/iodine complex formation and pancreatin-induced starch digestion. Bile suppressed starch/iodine complex formation and inhibited pancreatin-induced starch digestion slightly in control buckwheat starch, but did so significantly in buckwheat starch from which fatty acids and polyphenols had been extracted. Such significant suppression and inhibition by bile were also observed in a reagent soluble starch. The effects of cholate and taurocholate on the starch/iodine complex formation and the pancreatin-induced starch digestion were essentially the same as those of bile. Bile, cholate, and taurocholate suppressed amylose/iodine complex formation more significantly than amylopectin/iodine complex formation and inhibited pancreatin-induced amylose digestion more effectively than the digestion of amylopectin. It is concluded from the results that bile salts could bind to starch, especially amylose, the helical structures of which were not occupied by other molecules such as fatty acids and polyphenols, and that the binding resulted in the inhibition of starch digestion by pancreatin. The conclusion suggests that the function of bile salts can be discussed from the point of not only lipid digestion but also starch digestion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据