Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Durum wheat particle size affects starch and protein digestion in vitro

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
European Journal of Nutrition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mikulíková D, Kraic J (2006) Natural sources of health promoting starch. J Food Nutr Res 45:69–76

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gee GM, Faulks RM, Johnson IT (1991) Physiological effects of retrograded, alpha-amylase-resistant cornstarch in rats. J Nutr 121:44–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Blaak EE, Antoine JM, Benton D, Björck I, Bozzetto L, Brouns F, Diamant M, Dye L, Hulshof T, Holst JJ, Lamport DJ, Laville M, Lawton CL, Meheust A, Nilson A, Normand S, Rivellese AA, Theis S, Torekov SS, Vinoy S (2012) Impact of postprandial glycaemia on health and prevention of disease. Obes Rev 13:923–984

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jenkins DJA, Kendall CWC, Augustin LSA, Franceschi S, Hamidi M, Marchie A, Jenkins AL, Axelsen M (2002) Glycemic index: overview of implications in health and disease. Am J Clin Nutr 76:266S–273S

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wolever TMS (2000) Dietary carbohydrates and insulin actions in humans. Br J Nutr 83:S97–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Edwards CH, Grundy ML, Grassby T, Vasilopoulou D, Frost GS, Butterworth PJ, Berry SEE, Sanderson J, Ellis PR (2015) Manipulation of starch bioaccessibility in wheat endosperm to regulate starch digestion, postprandial glycemia, insulinemia and gut hormone responses: a randomised controlled trial in healthy ileostomy participants. Am J Clin Nutr 102:791–800

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dona AC, Pages G, Gilbert RG, Kuchel PW (2010) Digestion of starch: in vivo and in vitro kinetic models used to characterise oligosaccharide or glucose release. Carb Pol 80:599–617

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Edwards CH, Warren FJ, Milligan PJ, Butterworth PJ, Ellis PR (2014) A novel method for classifying starch digestion by modelling the amylolysis of plant foods using first-order enzyme kinetic principles. Food Funct 5:2751–2758

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pitino I, Randazzo CL, Mandalari G, Lo Curto A, Faulks RM, Le Marc Y, Bisignano C, Caggia C, Wickham MS (2010) Survival of Lactobacillus rhamnosus strains in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Food Microbiol 27:1121–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mandalari G, Bisignano C, Filocamo A, Chessa S, Sarò M, Torre G, Faulks RM, Dugo P (2013) Bioaccessibility of pistachio polyphenols, xanthophylls, and tocopherols during simulated human digestion. Nutrition 29:338–344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mandalari G, Grundy ML, Grassby T, Parker ML, Cross KL, Chessa S, Bisignano C, Barreca D, Bellocco E, Laganà G, Butterworth PJ, Faulks RM, Wilde PJ, Ellis PR, Waldron KW (2014) The effects of processing and mastication on almond lipid bioaccessibility using novel methods of in vitro digetion modelling and micro-structural analysis. Br J Nutr 112:1521–1529

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mandalari G, Faulks RM, Rich GT, Lo Turco V, Picout DR, Lo Curto RB, Bisignano G, Dugo P, Dugo G, Waldron KW, Ellis PR, Wickham MS (2008) Release of protein, lipid and vitamin E from almond seeds during digestion. J Agric Food Chem 56:3409–3416

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. AOAC (2000) Official methods of analysis of AOAC international, 17th edn. AOAC, Arlington, VA (Chapter 4)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Merrill AL, Watt BK (1973) Energy value of foods: basis and derivation. In: Agriculture handbook no. 74. Washington, DC, ARS United States Department of Agriculture

  15. Edwards CH, Warren FJ, Campbell GM, Gaisford S, Royall PG, Butterworth PJ, Ellis PR (2015) A study of starch gelatinisation behaviour in hydrothermally-processed plant food tissues and implications for in vitro digestibility. Food Funct 6:3634–3641

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lebenthal E (1987) Role of salivary amylase in gastric and intestinal digestion of starch. Dig Dis Sci 32:1155–1157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mackie DA, Pangborn RM (1990) Mastication and its influence on human salivary flow and α-amylase secretion. Physiol Behav 47:593–595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosenblum JL, Irwin CL, Alpers DH (1988) Starch and glucose oligosaccharides protect salivary-type amylase activity at acid pH. Am J Physiol 254:G775–G780

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mursu J, Virtanen JK, Rissanen TH, Tuomainen TP, Nykänen I, Laukkanen JA, Kortelainen R, Voutilainen S (2011) Glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of acute myocardial infarction in Finnish men: the Kuopio Ishcaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 21:144–149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Oba S, Nagata C, Nakamura K, Fujii K, Kawachi T, Takatsuka N, Shimizu H (2010) Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and intake of carbohydrate and rice in relation to risk of mortality from stroke and its subtypes in Japanese men and women. Metabolism 59:1574–1582

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Silva FM, Kramer CK, Crispim D, Azevedo MJ (2015) A high-glycemic index, low-fiber breakfast affects the postprandial plasma glucose, insulin, and ghrelin responses of patients with type 2 diabetes in a randomised clinical trial. J Nutr 145:736–741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gonzales-Anton C, Rico MC, Sanchez-Rodriguez E, Ruiz-Lopez MD, Gil A, Mesa MD (2015) Glycemic responses, appetite ratings and gastrointestinal hormone responses of most common breads consumed in Spain. A randomised control trial in healthy humans. Nutrients 7:4033–4053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mann J (2007) Dietary carbohydrate: relationship to cardiovascular disease and disorders of carbohydrate metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr 61:S100–S111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wolever TM (2013) Is glycaemic index (GI) a valid measure of carbohydrate quality? Eur J Clin Nutr 67:522–531

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Meynier A, Goux A, Atkinson FS, Brack O, Vinoy S (2015) Postprandial glycemic response: how is it influenced by characteristics of cereal products? Br J Nutr 113(12):1931–1939

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Prof. Peter R. Ellis and Dr. Cathrina H Edwards for providing the durum wheat samples. This research was funded by the BBSRC DRINC grants BB/H004866/1 and BB/H004874/1 and the University of Messina.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Model Gut, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich, NR4 7UA, UK

    Giuseppina Mandalari, Simona Chessa & Richard M. Faulks

  2. Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche, Biologiche, Farmaceutiche ed Ambientali, University of Messina, Sal. Sperone 31, 98166, Messina, Italy

    Giuseppina Mandalari, Carlo Bisignano, Davide Barreca, Ersilia Bellocco & Giuseppina Laganà

  3. The Biorefinery Centre, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich, NR4 7UA, UK

    Zara Merali, Peter Ryden & Keith W. Waldron

Authors
  1. Giuseppina Mandalari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zara Merali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Ryden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simona Chessa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlo Bisignano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Davide Barreca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ersilia Bellocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giuseppina Laganà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Richard M. Faulks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Keith W. Waldron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith W. Waldron.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mandalari, G., Merali, Z., Ryden, P. et al. Durum wheat particle size affects starch and protein digestion in vitro. Eur J Nutr 57, 319–325 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-016-1321-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-016-1321-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation