↓ Skip to main content

Intactness of cell wall structure controls the in vitro digestion of starch in legumes

Overview of attention for article published in Food & Function, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
182 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intactness of cell wall structure controls the in vitro digestion of starch in legumes
Published in
Food & Function, January 2016
DOI 10.1039/c5fo01104c
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sushil Dhital, Rewati R Bhattarai, John Gorham, Michael J Gidley

Abstract

Increasing the level of starch that is not digested by the end of the small intestine and therefore enters the colon ('resistant starch') is a major opportunity for improving the nutritional profile of foods. One mechanism that has been shown to be successful is entrapment of starch within an intact plant tissue structure. However, the level of tissue intactness required for resistance to amylase digestion has not been defined. In this study, intact cells were isolated from a range of legumes after thermal treatment at 60 °C (starch not gelatinised) or 95 °C (starch gelatinised) followed by hydrolysis using pancreatic alpha amylase. It was found that intact cells, isolated at either temperature, were impervious to amylase. However, application of mechanical force damaged the cell wall and made starch accessible to digestive enzymes. This shows that the access of enzymes to the entrapped swollen starch is the rate limiting step controlling hydrolysis of starch in cooked legumes. The results suggest that a single cell wall could be sufficient to provide an effective delivery of starch to the large intestine with consequent nutritional benefits, provided that mechanical damage during digestion is avoided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 18%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Master 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 46 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 36%
Engineering 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 1%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 63 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#13,961,912
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Food & Function
#1,440
of 4,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,584
of 393,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Food & Function
#107
of 364 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 393,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 364 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.