Protein quality and glycemic indexes of mango drinks fortified with a soybean/maize protein isolate with three levels of urease activity fed to weanling rats

Katia Caballero-de la Peña; Laura Acevedo-Pacheco; Aidee I. Sánchez-Reséndiz; Cristina Chuck-Hernández; Sergio O.  Serna-Saldívar

doi:10.29219/fnr.v66.8576

Katia Caballero-de la Peña Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Sciences
Laura Acevedo-Pacheco Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Sciences
Aidee I. Sánchez-Reséndiz Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Sciences
Cristina Chuck-Hernández Tecnologico de Monterrey, The Institute for Obesity Research
Sergio O. Serna-Saldívar Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Sciences

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v66.8576

Keywords: Soy Protein Isolate (SPI);, Glycemic Index;, Beverages, Mango, Protein Digestibility, Urease Activity, Artificial Sweeteners

Abstract

Introduction: Public health professionals established a direct link between obesity and the rise in high caloric beverage intake. Current recommendations promote the elimination of sweet fruit drinks from the population’s diet. One way of evading this is by modifying the drink’s nutritional characteristics regarding nutrient uptake and utilization.

Objectives: evaluate the protein quality of a soy/maize protein (SMP) and its physiological effects on nutrient intake and to assess glycemic indexes (GIs) of mango based drinks prepared with sucrose or stevia.

Materials and methods: Mango drinks were supplemented with different sources of protein (three SMP thermally treated to contain different urease activities (UA) or whey protein concentrate (WPC)) that were sweetened with sucrose or stevia/sucralose. The protein digestibility, net protein absorption (NPA), biological value (BV), net protein utilization (NPU) value and protein efficiency ratio (PER) were assessed with weanling rats. Moreover, the GIs of the mango drinks were measured in the same animal model.

Results: PER and NPA evaluated in a rat model showed that increased levels of UA decreased Biological (BV) and Net Protein Utilization (NPU) values. The GIs of the mango drinks significantly diminished with the addition of 3.5% of SMP, but unexpectedly the substitution of sucrose by stevia/sucralose did not significantly change the glycemic response.

Conclusion: the SMP isolate can be used to improve the nutritional profile and lower GIs of mango drinks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1.
Popkin BM, Armstrong LE, Bray GM, Caballero B, Frei B, Willett WC. A new proposed guidance system for beverage consumption in the United States. Am J Clin Nutr 2006; 83: 529–42. doi: 10.1093/ajcn.83.3.529

2.
Rivera J. Consumo de bebidas para una vida saludable: recomendaciones para la población mexicana. Salud Publica Mex 2008; 50: 173–95. doi: 10.1590/S0036-36342008000200011

3.
Omueti O, Oguntona EB, Jaiyeola O, Ashaye OA. Nutritional evaluation of home-prepared soy-corn milk – a protein beverage. J Nutr Food Sci 2000; 30: 128–32. doi: 10.1108/00346650010319723

4.
Akeson WR, Stahmann MA. A pepsin pancreatin digest index of protein quality evaluation. J Nutr 1964; 83: 257–61. doi: 10.1093/jn/83.3.257

5.
Konstance RP, Onwulata CI, Smith PW, Lu D, Tunick MH, Strange ED. Nutrient-based corn and soy products by twin-screw extrusion. J Food Sci 1998; 63: 864–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1998.tb17915.x

6.
Messinger, JK, Rupnow JH, Zeece MG, Anderson, RL. Effect of partial proteolysis and succinylation on functionality of corn germ protein isolate. J Food Sci 1987; 52(6): 1620–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.tb05891.x

7.
Howlett W. Acidulants in food processing. In: Furia TE, editor. Handbook of food additives. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1980; p. 225–270.

8.
Chichester DF. Antimicrobial food additives. In: Furia TE, editor. Handbook of food additives. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1980; p. 115–84.

9.
Furia TE. Sequestrants in food. In: Furia TE, editor. Handbook of food additives. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1980; p. 271–94.

10.
Ellinger RH. Phosphates in food processing. In: Furia TE, editor. Handbook of food additives. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1980; p. 617–772.

11.
Hsu HW, Vavak DL, Satterlee LD, Miller GA. A multienzyme technique for estimating protein digestibility. J Food Sci 1977; 42: 1269–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1977.tb14476.x

12.
Hervera M, Baucells MD, González G, Pérez E, Castrillo C. Prediction of digestible protein content of dry extruded dog foods: comparison of methods. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2009; 93: 366–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2008.00870.x

13.
AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. Arlington, VA: AOAC International; 2007.

14.
Food and Agriculture Organization, International Fund for Agricultural Development and World Food Programme. The state of food insecurity in the world. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome: FAO; 2014.

15.
Li C, Hu Y. In vitro and animal models to predict the glycemic index value of carbohydrate-containing foods. Trends Food Sci Technol 2022; 120: 16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.12.031

16.
Nakamura K, Yamashita T, Fujiki H, Aoyagi T, Yamauchi J, Mori T, et al. Enhanced glucose tolerance in the Brattleboro rat. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2011; 405: 64–7. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.12.126

17.
Kirpitch AR, Maryniuk MD. The 3 R’s of glycemic index: recommendations, research, and the real world. Clin Diabetes 2011; 29: 155–9. doi: 10.2337/diaclin.29.4.155

18.
Manninen AH. Protein hydrolysates in sports nutrition. Nutr Metab 2009; 6: 38. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-6-38

19.
Couto Almeida C, Guerra Monteiro ML, Carneiro da Costa-Lima BR, Silveira Alvares T, Conte-Junior CA. In vitro digestibility of commercial whey protein supplements. LWT – Food Sci Technol 2015; 61: 7–11. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.11.038

20.
Carbonaro M, Cappelloni M, Sabbadini S, Carnovale E, Nazionale I, Ardeatina V. Disulfide reactivity and in vitro protein digestibility of different thermal-treated milk samples and whey proteins. J Agric Food Chem 1997; 45: 95–100. doi: 10.1021/jf950828i

21.
El-Niely HFG. Effect of radiation processing on antinutrients, in-vitro protein digestibility and protein efficiency ratio bioassay of legume seeds. Radiat Phys Chem 2007; 76: 1050–7. doi: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2006.10.006

22.
Olguin MC, Hisano N, D’Ottavio AE, Zingale MI, Revelant GC, Calderari SA. Nutritional and antinutritional aspects of an Argentinian soy flour assessed on weanling rats. J Food Compos Anal 2003; 16: 441–9. doi: 10.1016/S0889-1575(03)00005-X

23.
Wu W, Williams WP, Kunkel ME, Acton JC, Wardlaw FB, Huang Y. Thermal effects on in vitro protein quality of red kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J Food Sci 1994; 53: 1187–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1994.tb14673.x

24.
Birk Y. Protein proteinase inhibitors in legume seed. Arch Latinoam Nutr 1996; 44: 26S–30S.

25.
Serrem C, de Kock HL, Oelofse A, Taylor JRN. Rat bioassay of the protein nutritional quality of soy-fortified sorghum biscuits for supplementary feeding of school-age children. J Sci Food Agric 2011; 91(10): 1814–21. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4389

26.
Egounlety M, Aworh OC, Akingbala JO, Houben JH, Nago MC. Nutritional and sensory evaluation of tempe-fortified maize-based weaning foods. Int J Food Sci Nutr 2002; 53: 15–27.

27.
Sarwar G. The protein digestibility – corrected amino acid score method overestimates quality of proteins containing antinutritional factors and of poorly digestible proteins supplemented with limiting amino acids in rats. J Nutr 1997; 127: 758–64. doi: 10.1093/jn/127.5.758

28.
Brindal E, Baird D, Slater A, Danthiir V, Wilson C, Bowen J, et al. The effect of beverages varying in glycaemic load on postprandial glucose responses, appetite and cognition in 10-12-year-old school children. Br J Nutr 2013; 110(3): 529–37. doi: 10.1017/S0007114512005296

29.
Jeppesen PB, Gregersen S, Poulsen CR, Hermansen K. Stevioside acts directly on pancreatic β cells to secrete insulin: actions independent of cyclic adenosine monopohosphate and adenosine triphosphate-sensitive K+-channel activity. Metabolism 2000; 49: 208–14. doi: 10.1016/S0026-0495(00)91325-8

30.
Anton SD, Martin CK, Han H, Coulon S, Cefalu WT, Geiselman P, et al. Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food intake, satiety, and postprandial glucose and insulin levels. Appetite 2010; 55: 37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.03.009

31.
Jeppesen PB, Barriocanal L, Meyer MT, Palacios M, Cañete F, Benitez S, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of oral stevioside in patients with type 2 diabetes: a long-term, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Diabetologia 2006; 49: 511–12.

32.
Suanarunsawat T, Klongpanichapak S, Rungseesantivanon S, Chaiyabutr N. Glycemic effect of stevioside and Stevia rebaudiana in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. East J Med 2004; 9: 51–6.