Effect of fermentation by lactobacilli on the functional — technological properties of pea protein isolates

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The effect of fermentation with three bacterial preparations: BK-Uglich-K, BK-Uglich-AB and BK-Uglich-P (Russia) on solubility, emulsifying activity, emulsion stability, foaming and foam stability of isolates preparated from two varieties of peas was studied. It has been shown that fermentation with bacterial cultures can increase the solubility of isolates at pH 3 by 4 to 17.5 times, at pH 4 — more than 3 times, at pH 5 — by 23% to 80%, at pH 6 — by 27% to 43%, at pH 7 — by 18% to 27%. Fermentation increased the index of emulsifying activity of isolates at pH 5 by 37% (in one of the varieties), the stability index of the emulsion at pH 3 by 19% to 28%, at pH 4 — by 17%, at pH 5 — by 18% (in one of the varieties), at pH 6 — by 16% to 35%. Fermentation increased the foaming of isolates at pH 3 by 2.2 times, at pH 4 by 1.4 to 2.4 times, at pH 5 and 6 by 1.8 to 4 times, at pH 7 by 2.1 to 2.4 times; at the same time, the stability of the foam of isolates at pH 4 increased by 11% to 22%, at pH 5 — by 11% to 13%, at pH 6 — by 15% (in one of the varieties), at pH 7 — 28% (in one of the varieties). The results obtained made it possible to select bacterial preparations to improve the parameters of pea protein isolates intended for the manufacture of various food products: pea cola (BK-Uglich-P), analogues of fermented milk products and analogues of milk (BK-Uglich-AB).

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

I. V. Kravchenko

Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Federal Research Centre “Fundamentals of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: ink71@yandex.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow, 119071

V. A. Furalyov

Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Federal Research Centre “Fundamentals of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: ink71@yandex.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow, 119071

E. S. Pshennikova

Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Federal Research Centre “Fundamentals of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: ink71@yandex.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow, 119071

A. N. Fedorov

Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Federal Research Centre “Fundamentals of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: ink71@yandex.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow, 119071

V. O. Popov

Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Federal Research Centre “Fundamentals of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: ink71@yandex.ru
Russian Federation, Moscow, 119071

References

  1. Meinlschmidt P., Ueberham E., Lehmann J., Schweiggert-Weisz U., Eisner P. // Food Chem. 2016. V. 205. P. 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.03.016
  2. Schlegel K., Leidigkeit A., Eisner P., Schweiggert-Weisz U. // Foods. 2019. V. 8. Р. 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8120678
  3. Lampart-Szczapa E., Konieczny P., Nogala-Kałucka M., Walczak S., Kossowska I., Malinowska M. // Food Chem. 2006. V. 96. P. 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.02.0315
  4. Liu Y., Zhu S., Li Y., Sun F., Huang D., Chen X. // Food Res. Int. 2023. V. 165. Р. 112453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.112453
  5. Schlegel K., Lidzba N., Ueberham E., Eisner P., Schweiggert-Weisz U. //Foods. 2021. V. 10. № 2. Р. 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020281
  6. Biscola V., de Olmos A. R., Choiset Y., Rabesona H., Garro M. S., Mozzi F., et al. // Beneficial Microbes. 2017. V. 8. № 4. P. 635–643. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2016.0171
  7. El Mecherfi K.-E., Lupi R., Cherkaoui M., Albuquerque M. A., Todorov S. D., Tranquet O. et al. // Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2022. V. 14. № 5. P. 779-791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-021-09808-1
  8. Lu Q., Zuo L., Wu Z., Li X., Tong P., Wu Y. et al. // Food Chemistry. 2022. V. 366 Р.130569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130569
  9. Nordström E.A., Teixeira C., Montelius C., Jeppsson B., Larsson N. // Benef. Microbes. 2021. V. 12. № 5. P. 441–465. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2020.019
  10. Muñoz R., Rivas B.L., Rodríguez H., Esteban-Torres M., Reverón I. et al. // Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2024. V. 412. P. 110555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2023.110555
  11. García Arteaga V., Leffler S., Muranyi I., Eisner P., Schweiggert-Weisz U. // Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2020. V. 4. P. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2020.12.001
  12. Vazquez-Munoz R., Dongari-Bagtzoglou A. // Front Oral Health. 2021. V. 2. P. 689382. https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2021.689382
  13. Функ И.А., Иркитова А.Н. // Acta Biologiсa Sibirica. 2015. Т.1 . №1–2. С. 85–93. https://doi.org/10.14258/abs.v1i1-2.844
  14. Стоянова Л.Г., Дбар С.Д., Полянская И.С. // Биотехнология. 2022. Т. 38. № 1. С. 3–12. https://doi.org/10.56304/S0234275822010070
  15. Illikoud N., do Carmo F.L.R., Daniel N., Jan G., Gagnaire V. // Food Res Int. 2023. V. 166. P. 112557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112557
  16. Higgins T.J., Chandler P.M., Randall P.J., Spencer D., Beach L.R., Blagrove R.J. et al. // J. Biol. Chem. 1986. V. 261. P. 11124–11130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)67357-0
  17. Stone A.K., Karalash A., Tyler R.T., Warkentin T.D., Nickerson N.T. // Food Research International. 2015. V. 76. P. 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.11.017
  18. Asen N.D., Aluko R.E. // Front Nutr. 2022. V. 9. P. 852225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.852225
  19. Ivanova P., Kalaydzhiev H., Dessev T.T., Silva C.L.M., Rustad T., Chalova V.I.J. // Food Sci. Technol. 2018. V. 55. № 9. P. 3792–3798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-018-3311-y
  20. Kravchenko I.V., Furalyov V.A., Kostyleva E.V., Sereda A.S., Kurbatova E.I., Tsurikova N.V. et al. // Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2024. V. 60. № 1. P. 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0003683824010083

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. The effect of fermentation on the solubility of pea protein isolates of the Fokor (a) and Batrak (b) varieties at different pH values: 1 - without fermentation, 2 - fermentation of BK-Uglich-K, 3 - fermentation of BK-Uglich-P, 4 - fermentation of BK-Uglich-AV.

Download (158KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Effect of pea protein fermentation on the emulsifying activity index of pea protein isolates of the Fokor (a) and Batrak (b) varieties at different pH values. 1 — without fermentation, 2 — fermentation of pea protein BK-Uglich-K, 3 — fermentation of pea protein BK-Uglich-P, 4 — fermentation of pea protein BK-Uglich-AV.

Download (263KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. Effect of fermentation on the emulsion stability index of pea protein isolates of the Fokor (a) and Batrak (b) varieties at different pH values. 1 - without fermentation, 2 - fermentation of BK-Uglich-K, 3 - fermentation of BK-Uglich-P, 4 - fermentation of BK-Uglich-AV.

Download (254KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Effect of fermentation on foaming of pea protein isolates of the Fokor (a) and Batrak (b) varieties at different pH values. 1 — without fermentation, 2 — fermentation of BK-Uglich-K, 3 — fermentation of BK-Uglich-P, 4 — fermentation of BK-Uglich-AV.

Download (212KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. Effect of BK fermentation on the foam stability of pea protein isolates of the Fokor (a) and Batrak (b) varieties after 30 and 60 min at different pH values. 1 - without fermentation, 2 - BK-Uglich-K fermentation, 3 - BK-Uglich-P fermentation, 4 - BK-Uglich-AV fermentation.

Download (402KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 Russian Academy of Sciences