4.3 Article

In vivo (rat) and in vitro (Caco-2 cells) absorption of amino acids from legume protein isolates as compared to lactalbumin or casein

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ANIMAL NUTRITION
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 413-426

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17450390903169237

关键词

absorption; amino acids; Cicer arietinum; Lupinus angustifolius; protein isolates; rats; in vitro

资金

  1. Spanish CICyT [200403260]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The amino acid absorption from legume protein isolates (from chickpeas, CPI; and lupins, LPI) was studied in in vivo and in vitro experiments in comparison to animal proteins (casein and lactalbumin). In the in vivo experiment on rats, the diets were isoenergetic and isonitrogen (per kg diet 15.5 MJ digestible energy and 150 g protein, respectively). At 150 min after feeding, the concentration of free amino acids in arterial and portal blood plasma of rats fed legume proteins was significantly different (p0.05) from rats fed animal protein (lactalbumin). In arterial plasma the concentration for Met, Leu, Trp and Lys in rats fed legume proteins was lower than lactalbumin controls and for Val and Cys higher; in portal plasma, the concentration of free Met, Leu, Trp and Lys was lower, and the concentration of Cys was higher in rats fed legume proteins than in rats fed lactalbumin. The cumulative (total mM at 195 min after ingestion) and net absorption (% of ingested amounts) of Met, Leu, Trp and Lys were higher (p0.01) for rats fed lactalbumin as compared to those fed legume protein isolates or casein. In the in vitro study (Caco-2 cell monolayers), after 2 h incubation the transport values of all the individual amino acids in CPI and LPI, except for Glu, Val and Ile, were lower (p0.01) than for casein or lactalbumin. The results indicate that amino acids from chickpea and lupin protein isolates are absorbed at slower rates than those from animal proteins, which might explain the lower nutritional utilisation of legume storage proteins as compared with lactalbumin or casein.

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

4.3
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