Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:40:44.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A survey of the nutritional and haemagglutination properties of legume seeds generally available in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

George Grant ,
Linda J. More ,
Norma H. McKenzie ,
James C. Stewart  and
Arpad Pusztai
George Grant
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Linda J. More
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Norma H. McKenzie
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
James C. Stewart
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Arpad Pusztai
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Eighty-five samples from fifteen different legume seed lines generally available inthe UK were examined by measurements of their net protein utilization by rats and by haemagglutination tests with erythrocytes from a number of different animal species. From these results the seeds were classified into four broad groups.

2. Group a seeds from most varieties of kidney (Phaseolus vulgaris), runner (Phaseolus coccineus) and tepary (Phaseolus acutifolius) beans showed high reactivity with all cell types and were also highly toxic.

3. Group b, which contained seeds from lima or butter beans (Phaseolus lunatus) and winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus), agglutinated only human and pronase-treated rat erythrocytes. These seeds did not support proper growth of the ratsalthough the animals survived the 10 d experimental period.

4. Group c consisted of seeds from lentils (Lens culinaris), peas (Pisum sativum), chick-peas (Cicer arietinum), blackeyed peas (Vigna sinensis), pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan), mung beans (Phaseolus aureus), field orbroad beans (Vicia faba) and aduki beans (Phaseolus angularis). These generally had low reactivity with all cells and were non-toxic.

5. Group d, represented by soya (Glycine max) and pinto (Phaseolus vulgaris) beans, generally had low reactivity with all cells but caused growth depression atcertain dietary concentrations. This growth depression was probably mainly due to antinutritional factors other than lectins.

6. Lectins from group a seeds showed many structural and immunological similarities. However the subunit composition of the lectin from the tepary bean samples was different from that of the other bean lectins in this or any other groups.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 207 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

REFERENCES

Boyd, W. C. (1963). Vox Sanguinis 8, 1–32.Google Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst 95, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. J., Pusztai, A., Watt, W. B. & Bauer, D. H. (1974). Biochimica Biophysica Acta 303, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, G., More, L. J., McKenzie, N. H. & Pusztai, A. (1982). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33, 1324–1326.Google Scholar
Greibel, C. (1950). Zeitschrift fur Lebensmittel-Undersuchung Und-Forschung 90, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, W. G. (1969). Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs, pp. 69–74 [Leiner, I. E., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jaffe, W. G. (1980). Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs, pp. 73–102 [Leiner, I. E., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jaffe, W. G., Brucher, O. & Palozzo, A. (1972). Zeitschrift fuer Immunitaetsforschung 142S, 439–447.Google Scholar
Jayne-Williams, D. J. & Burgess, C. D. (1974). Journal of Applied Bacteriology 37, 149–169.Google Scholar
Laemmli, U. K. (1970). Nature 227, 680–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsteiner, K. & Raubitschek, L. (1908). Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie und Parasitenkie 45, 660–667.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Bender, A. E. (1955). British Journal of Nutrition 9, 382–388.Google Scholar
Noah, N. D., Bender, A. E., Reaidi, G. B. & Gilbert, R. J. (1980). British Medical Journal 281, 236–237.Google Scholar
Palmer, R., McIntosh, A. & Pusztai, A. (1973). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 24, 937–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pusztai, A., Clarke, E. M. W., King, T. P. & Stewart, J. C. (1979). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 30, 843–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pusztai, A., Croy, R. R. D., Grant, G. & Stewart, J. C. (1983). Seed Proteins, pp. 53–82 [Daussant, J., Mosse, J. and Vaughan, J., editors]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pusztai, A. & Palmer, R. (1977). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 28, 620–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar