| Title |
Efficiency of selected food ingredients on protein efficiency ratio, glycemic index and in vitro digestive properties
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-018-3109-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. B. Anusha, Naveen Shivanna, G. Phani Kumar, K. R. Anilakumar |
| Abstract |
The human body on exposure to high-altitude, undergoes many physiological challenges. The cardiopulmonary reserves are favoured against the digestive system. Hence, the efficiency of digestion is compromised to a great extent, which leads to anorexia, hypophagia, epigastralgia, dyspepsia, nausea, and peptic ulcers. The present study was focused on in vitro digestive influence of selected food ingredients viz. cardamom, carom, cumin, coriander, fennel, fenugreek, ginger, pepper, star anise, turmeric, papaya, orange, pineapple, liquorice, valerian, and tarragon on the activities of digestive enzymes of rat pancreas, duodenum, and small intestine. In-vitro antioxidant activities of the above food ingredients were also carried out with respect to their radical scavenging activity against DPPH·, NO·, and ferrous reducing antioxidant power. All the studied food ingredients showed a comparative range of free radical scavenging activity. Further, pineapple has shown enhanced enzymatic activity of pancreatic amylase, trypsin and chymotrypsin among the tested samples with 432, 252, and 86%, respectively. However, all food ingredients showed inhibitory effect towards maltase activity, while the sucrose activity was enhanced in tarragon compared to control. Almost all the selected food ingredients have been observed to have low glycemic index and low protein efficiency ratio except pineapple. The results suggested that ample merit in the use of pineapple extract can be carried forward for the formulation of highly digestible foods for extreme environmental conditions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Librarian | 2 | 5% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Chemical Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,505,836
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#639
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,392
of 333,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#38
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.