Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T21:43:27.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutritive value of groundnut protein

2.* The correlation between electrophoretic pattern and nutritive value

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. Dawson
R. Dawson
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen
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. The effects of heat treatment on the proteins of the groundnut were studied by examining the electrophoretic patterns of the proteins extracted from samples of a laboratory-prepared groundnut flour after various heat treatments.

2. Marked changes in the electrophoretic pattern of the conarachin fraction were found and these changes correlated with changes in nutritive value.

3. Marked differences were found between the electrophoretic patterns of the conarachin fractions extracted from twenty commercial groundnut meals, and these differences could be correlated with nutritive value.

4. It is suggested that an examination of the electrophoretic pattern of the conarachin fraction could provide a useful and rapid means of determining the nutritive value of a groundnut meal.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 1968 , pp. 601 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1968

References

Baernstein, H. D. (1937–1938). J. biol. Chem. 122, 781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M. McC. & Woodham, A. A. (1963). J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 14, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, A. W., Carpenter, K. J. & Woodham, A. A. (1961). J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 12, 832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cama, H. R., Malik, D. A. & Nath, R. (1958). J. Nutr. 66, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, R. & Woodham, A. A. (1966). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 25, ix.Google Scholar
Duckworth, J., Woodham, A. A. & McDonald, I. (1961). J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 12, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macheboeuf, M. & Tayeau, F. (1942). Bull. Soc. chim. biol. 24, 277.Google Scholar
Moorjani, M. N. & Bhatia, D. S. (1948). J. scient. ind. Res. 13B, 113.Google Scholar
Sauberlich, H. E., Pearce, E. L. & Baumann, C. A. (1948). J. biol. Chem. 175, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sure, B. (1920). J. biol. Chem. 43, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tombs, M. P. (1965). Biochem. J. 96, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tombs, M. P. & Akroyd, P. (1967). Shandon Instrument Applications, no. 18. London: Shandon Scientific Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Woodham, A. A. & Dawson, R. (1966). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 25, viii.Google Scholar
Woodham, A. A. & Dawson, R. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. & Evans, R. E. (1948). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar