The network-forming attributes of gluten have been investigated for decades, but no study has comprehensively addressed the differences in gluten network evolution between strong and weak wheat types (hard and soft wheat). This study monitored changes in SDS protein extractability, SDS-accessible thiols, protein surface hydrophobicity, molecular weight distribution, and secondary structural features of proteins during mixing to bring out the molecular determinants of protein network formation in hard and soft wheat dough. Soft wheat flour and dough exhibited greater protein extractability and more accessible thiols than hard wheat flour and dough. The addition of the thiol-blocking agent N-ethylmaleimide (NEM) resulted in similar results for protein extractability and accessible thiols in hard and soft wheat samples. Soft wheat dough had greater protein surface hydrophobicity than hard wheat and exhibited a larger decrease in surface hydrophobicity in the presence of NEM. Formation of high-molecular-weight (HMW) protein in soft wheat dough was primarily because of formation of disulfides among lowmolecular- weight (LMW) proteins, as indicated by the absence of changes in protein distribution when NEM was present, whereas in hard wheat dough the LMW fraction formed disulfide interaction with the HMW fraction. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy indicated formation of β-sheets in dough from either wheat type at peak mixing torque. Formation of β-sheets in soft wheat dough appears to be driven by hydrophobic interactions, whereas disulfide linkages stabilize secondary structure elements in hard wheat dough.

Structural modifications of gluten proteins in strong and weak wheat dough during mixing / S. Jazaeri, J. E. Bock, M. P. Bagagli, S. Iametti, F. Bonomi, K. Seetharaman. - In: CEREAL CHEMISTRY. - ISSN 0009-0352. - 92:1(2015), pp. 105-113. [10.1094/CCHEM-10-13-0212-R]

Structural modifications of gluten proteins in strong and weak wheat dough during mixing

S. Iametti;F. Bonomi
Penultimo
;
2015

Abstract

The network-forming attributes of gluten have been investigated for decades, but no study has comprehensively addressed the differences in gluten network evolution between strong and weak wheat types (hard and soft wheat). This study monitored changes in SDS protein extractability, SDS-accessible thiols, protein surface hydrophobicity, molecular weight distribution, and secondary structural features of proteins during mixing to bring out the molecular determinants of protein network formation in hard and soft wheat dough. Soft wheat flour and dough exhibited greater protein extractability and more accessible thiols than hard wheat flour and dough. The addition of the thiol-blocking agent N-ethylmaleimide (NEM) resulted in similar results for protein extractability and accessible thiols in hard and soft wheat samples. Soft wheat dough had greater protein surface hydrophobicity than hard wheat and exhibited a larger decrease in surface hydrophobicity in the presence of NEM. Formation of high-molecular-weight (HMW) protein in soft wheat dough was primarily because of formation of disulfides among lowmolecular- weight (LMW) proteins, as indicated by the absence of changes in protein distribution when NEM was present, whereas in hard wheat dough the LMW fraction formed disulfide interaction with the HMW fraction. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy indicated formation of β-sheets in dough from either wheat type at peak mixing torque. Formation of β-sheets in soft wheat dough appears to be driven by hydrophobic interactions, whereas disulfide linkages stabilize secondary structure elements in hard wheat dough.
Settore BIO/10 - Biochimica
2015
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/263340
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 76
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 65
social impact