Giuseppina Mandalari1,2, Zara Merali3, Peter Ryden3, Simona Chessa1, Carlo Bisignano2, Davide Barreca2, Ersilia Bellocco2, Giuseppina Laganà2, Richard M Faulks1, Keith W Waldron4. 1. The Model Gut, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich, NR4 7UA, UK. 2. Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche, Biologiche, Farmaceutiche ed Ambientali, University of Messina, Sal. Sperone 31, 98166, Messina, Italy. 3. The Biorefinery Centre, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich, NR4 7UA, UK. 4. The Biorefinery Centre, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich, NR4 7UA, UK. keith.waldron@ifr.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The term bioaccessibility refers to the proportion of a nutrient released from a complex food matrix during digestion and, therefore, becoming potentially available for absorption in the gastrointestinal tract. In the present study, we assessed the starch and protein bioaccessibility from a range of wheat endosperm products differing in particle size. METHODS: Five porridge meals (size A, flour, mean particle size 0.11 mm, size B, small, mean particle size 0.38 mm, size C, semolina, mean particle size 1.01 mm, size D, medium, mean particle size 1.44 mm, size E, large, mean particle size 1.95 mm) with theoretically different postprandial glycaemic responses were subjected to oral processing in vitro, followed by simulated gastric and duodenal digestion. RESULTS: A significant increase (P < 0.001) in starch degradation was observed in size A (52%) compared with size E (25%). Both sizes C and D gave less, although not significantly, digestible starch (32 and 28%, respectively). The glucose release significantly decreased as the particle size of the meal increased (92.16% detected for size A vs 47.39% for size E). In agreement with starch degradation and glucose release, size A gave the most digestible protein. CONCLUSIONS: This data provide further evidence that, by decreasing the size of wheat endosperm, starch release and glycaemic response are enhanced. We also showed that protein bioaccessibility followed a similar trend as for starch digestion. Finally, these results support the hypothesis that different degrees of starch encapsulation elicit different blood glucose responses.
PURPOSE: The term bioaccessibility refers to the proportion of a nutrient released from a complex food matrix during digestion and, therefore, becoming potentially available for absorption in the gastrointestinal tract. In the present study, we assessed the starch and protein bioaccessibility from a range of wheat endosperm products differing in particle size. METHODS: Five porridge meals (size A, flour, mean particle size 0.11 mm, size B, small, mean particle size 0.38 mm, size C, semolina, mean particle size 1.01 mm, size D, medium, mean particle size 1.44 mm, size E, large, mean particle size 1.95 mm) with theoretically different postprandial glycaemic responses were subjected to oral processing in vitro, followed by simulated gastric and duodenal digestion. RESULTS: A significant increase (P < 0.001) in starch degradation was observed in size A (52%) compared with size E (25%). Both sizes C and D gave less, although not significantly, digestible starch (32 and 28%, respectively). The glucose release significantly decreased as the particle size of the meal increased (92.16% detected for size A vs 47.39% for size E). In agreement with starch degradation and glucose release, size A gave the most digestible protein. CONCLUSIONS: This data provide further evidence that, by decreasing the size of wheat endosperm, starch release and glycaemic response are enhanced. We also showed that protein bioaccessibility followed a similar trend as for starch digestion. Finally, these results support the hypothesis that different degrees of starch encapsulation elicit different blood glucose responses.
Entities:
Keywords:
Glycaemic response; In vitro models; Starch digestion; Wheat endosperm
Authors: Cathrina H Edwards; Frederick J Warren; Peter J Milligan; Peter J Butterworth; Peter R Ellis Journal: Food Funct Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: David J A Jenkins; Cyril W C Kendall; Livia S A Augustin; Silvia Franceschi; Maryam Hamidi; Augustine Marchie; Alexandra L Jenkins; Mette Axelsen Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Carolina Gonzalez-Anton; Maria C Rico; Estefania Sanchez-Rodriguez; Maria D Ruiz-Lopez; Angel Gil; Maria D Mesa Journal: Nutrients Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Cathrina H Edwards; Myriam Ml Grundy; Terri Grassby; Dafni Vasilopoulou; Gary S Frost; Peter J Butterworth; Sarah Ee Berry; Jeremy Sanderson; Peter R Ellis Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: L Kirsty Pourshahidi; Eduardo Caballero; Alejandro Osses; Barry W Hyland; Nigel G Ternan; Chris I R Gill Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 5.614