Next Article in Journal
Guava Fruit and Acacia pennata Vegetable Intake Association with Frailty of Older Adults in Northern Thailand
Next Article in Special Issue
Lupin Kernel Fibre: Nutritional Composition, Processing Methods, Physicochemical Properties, Consumer Acceptability and Health Effects of Its Enriched Products
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Discretionary Food and Drink Intake Based on a Short Web-Based Sugar-Rich Food Screener and a Validated Web-Based 7-Day Dietary Record
Previous Article in Special Issue
Lupins and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/nu14061188
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Legume Proteins and Peptides as Compounds in Nutraceuticals: A Structural Basis for Dietary Health Effects

by
Marina Carbonaro
1,* and
Alessandro Nucara
2
1
Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA), Research Centre for Food and Nutrition, Via Ardeatina 546, 00178 Rome, Italy
2
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università Sapienza di Roma, Piazzale A. Moro 2, 00185 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2022, 14(6), 1188; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14061188
Submission received: 29 January 2022 / Revised: 8 March 2022 / Accepted: 9 March 2022 / Published: 11 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Legumes for Human Nutrition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the current climate of food security, quality aspects of legume crops have primary market economic and health impact. Legume proteins and peptides have been discovered to have a role far beyond supplying amino acids for growth and maintenance of body tissues. Several proteins (enzymatic inhibitors, lectins, storage globulins) and peptides derived from them (lunasin, hydrophobic peptides) have shown anticarcinogenic, hypocholesterolemic, glucose-lowering, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and immunostimulant properties. Further understanding of how structural features of legume proteins affect in vivo digestion and production of bioactive sequences represents a key step in the valorization of nutraceutical potentiality of legume proteins and peptides derived from them. In this work, the relationship between structure and bioavailability of protein and peptides are reviewed and discussed.

1. Introduction

Legumes have a potential to add to the nutritional quality of foods and many options have been suggested for their inclusion in novel food preparation with improved nutritional and functional values.
Proteins represent one of the most concentrated nutrients in legumes, and they can be easily used as components in innovative human foods. In addition, legumes have higher protein content than cereals: therefore, they represent a primary source of amino acids for humans. Proteins extracted from legumes are an important font of proteins of plant origin, that can be consumed as an alternative to meat proteins [1].
Legumes, i.e., Glycine max (soybean) and Phaseolus species (beans), are grown in the tropical and subtropical areas of the world. It has been recognized that legumes have a primary role in the sustainability of agriculture, enhancing soil quality through nitrogen fixation.
Grain legumes (pulses) are included in the traditional diets of many countries. Indeed, dietary guidelines recommend increasing their consumption, especially in developed countries, due to their potential health benefits. They represent main sources of proteins and minerals (iron, zinc, calcium), while having a low amount of lipids, with the exception of soybean, peanut, and lupin (30–35%). Legume seeds contain low amounts of saturated fats. On the other hand, they are rich in carbohydrates (up to 60%), primarily starch, and in many vitamins (thiamine, niacin, biotin, riboflavin, folic acid). Moreover, legumes are a primary source of total dietary fiber (up to 37%) [1]. For this reason, they are a low-glycaemic food [2].
Epidemiological studies have highlighted a correlation between regular intake of legume seeds and maintenance of a good health status in humans. In meta-analyses of prospective observational studies, consumption of legumes has been related with a low risk of coronary heart disease [3,4].
The word “nutraceutical” was coined in the United States in 1989 to define “a food, or components of a food, that provides health benefits, including the prevention and treatment of diseases” [5].
Nutraceutical properties of legumes have been ascribed to non-nutrient compounds —isoflavones, alkaloids, phytates, saponins—and to a number of proteins such as enzymatic (protease and amylase) inhibitors, lectins, storage proteins—as well as to peptides [1]. It is worth reminding that most of these components have originally been considered as antinutrients, because of their adverse effects on nutrient metabolism [1].

2. Grain Legume Proteins

Legume proteins have attracted interest from the food industry. Indeed, they have a low cost, and good functional and nutritional attributes [6].
Proteins are accumulated in legume seeds during development inside protein bodies (storage vacuoles) and provide ammonia, carbon, and amino acids during seed development and to proteins. Proteins represent from about 20% in most legumes to 40% in soybean seeds [1]. Storage proteins are prevailing in legume seeds.
According to Osborne classification [7] storage proteins are divided into globulins, albumins, glutelins, and prolamins. Globulins are extracted in salt solutions, albumins are soluble in water, glutelins are soluble in acids or bases, and prolamins are soluble in ethanol [7]. Globulins are predominant in legume seeds, while prolamins and glutelins are prominent in cereals seeds [8]. Legumin, vicilin, and convicilin are the globulins present in legumes. Depending on the source, seeds usually present one or two predominant types of 81 storage proteins. Seed storage proteins also include enzymes, protease 82 inhibitors (trypsin, chymotrypsin, and amylase inhibitors), lectins, defense proteins, and others.
According to their sedimentation coefficient, globulins are divided into 7S and 11S oligomeric proteins. The 7S proteins are called vicilins, the 11S proteins are named legumins. The 7S/11S ratio is variable inside seeds and is dependent on the different legume species.
In Phaseolus vulgaris L., the predominant globulin is phaseolin, which accounts for 50% of total protein content, while in Vicia faba L. the most abundant globulin is vicilin (30% of total proteins). In Lens culinaris L. vicilin and legumin account for 72% and 11% of total proteins, respectively. In Cicer arietinum L. legumin and vicilin represent 66.5% and 12% of total protein content, respectively. In addition to the 7S and 11S proteins there are also the 2S proteins (monomeric proteins) [9].
Storage proteins are mostly oligomeric proteins. The 7S globulins are typically trimers (MW about 150 kDa), while the 11S proteins form hexamers (MW about 350–400 kDa), or higher association of subunits, such as the 15–18S globulins found in soybean globulins. From these oligomeric proteins, subunits can be released under dissociating conditions or upon thermal treatment. Reassociation of subunits can result in high-molecular weight aggregates with low susceptibility to digestion [10].
Other proteins present in legume seeds have antinutritional effects. The most important are protease inhibitors (Kunitz and Bowman–Birk inhibitors) and lectins, which have presented some adverse effects on animals and humans. However, the effects of these proteins are lost after processes preceding consumption (cooking, fermentation, germination, or dehulling) [11].
Globulins contain high content of aspartic acid and glutamic acids while albumins are rich in lysine and sulfur-containing amino acids [12]. Sulfur amino acids (methionine and cysteine) and tryptophan are limiting amino acids in legumes. On the other hand, they have a high amount of lysine, a property that makes them complementary to cereal proteins.
Because most of the albumin have higher sulfur amino acid content than globulin, strategies to increase this class of proteins in the seed is relevant. Among these, increasing the proportion of embryo axis to endosperm because the percentage of albumin is higher in the axis than in the endosperm [13]. Among globulins, legumins (11S proteins) have a higher sulfur amino acid content than 7S globulins. Therefore, increasing the legumin to vicilin ratio can result in an increase in sulfur amino acids in the seed. In the complex, plant proteins (legumes and cereals) have a lower nutritional quality than animal proteins.
Besides amino acid composition, studies focused on amino acid availability have pointed out that structural properties of plant proteins, making them resistant to gastrointestinal proteolysis, further lower the nutritional quality, because of limited bioavailability of essential amino acids [14]. Although trypsin inhibitors of many legumes are relatively high sulfur containing proteins, those of Phaseolus vulgaris L. and Glycine max L. (Bowman–Birk inhibitors) appear not to be readily digested in the rat gut [15].
Legume protein functional properties have been modified by application of several methods, such as thermal treatment, ultrasonication, and high pressure that affect protein structure [16]. In particular, high pressure caused a gradual unfolding of structure with improvement in solubility and emulsifying activity of kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) isolate, due to the formation of soluble aggregates [17,18].
On the other hand, foaming properties of pea proteins were not improved by thermal treatment. An increase in hydrophobicity as a consequence of changes in structure was observed. Heat treatment induced loss of the oligomeric assembly, subunit denaturation with exposure of hydrophobic and sulfhydryl groups and reassociation into protein aggregates with modified surface properties and limited protein solubility [10,19,20].
Kidney bean and lentil protein isolates showed an improvement in solubility and emulsifying activity with the application of high pressure. However, after high pressure treatment, emulsion properties of kidney bean hydrolysate were impaired, as evidenced by secondary structure modifications (in particular, a shift in amide I and II of the infrared spectrum) [21].
When chickpea protein isolate was subjected to ultrasound treatment, an improvement in solubility, emulsifying, foaming and gel properties was observed [22].
Owing to their biocompatibility, film formation and functional (probiotics) properties, legume proteins have also been used in the encapsulation of several compounds [23]. They are effective for the preservation of probiotic and labile compounds during gastrointestinal digestion [24]. Folate, α-tocopherol, ascorbic acid, and phytase have been incapsulated in protein isolates from pea and chickpea, with 62–100% encapsulation efficiency and good release in the gastrointestinal tract [25,26].

3. Nutraceutical Properties of Legume Proteins

The health benefits of consumption of legume seeds have been reported in relation to many diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, the ageing process, immune response, diabetes, weight control, osteoporosis, digestive tract diseases, and mental health [27,28,29].
Small peptides, partially digested proteins and intact proteins from soybean, lupin, lentil, chickpea, pea, and the common bean, exert hormone-like activities [30,31]. Specific beneficial effects in humans include cardiovascular protection, anticancer activity, bone protection, control of weight, immune cell action, insulin sensitivity, control of inflammation and of type 2 diabetes mellitus [32,33,34,35]. Some examples of bioactive proteins and peptides derived from legume seeds are presented in Table 1.
Enzyme inhibitors present in legume seeds have been found to be active in the control of proteases, amylases, and glycosidases. These enzymes are involved in the mechanism of defense against exogenous attack (insects and microorganisms) [37].
Once inactivated, proteins known as antinutritional factors, that is protease inhibitors and lectins, have been reported to show health effects. Protease inhibitors are active towards inflammation and cancer [38]. Regular consumption of legumes has been shown to reduce the risk of several cancers, such as colon, prostate, gastric, and pancreatic cancer. Anticarcinogenic properties have been attributed to enzymatic inhibitors, especially Bowman–Birk inhibitors (BBI) [39,40]. Soybean, lentil, and pea BBI have been found to be active in the prevention and suppression of colon, liver, lung, prostate and mammalian cancers induced by chemical and physical agents, soybean BBI being particularly effective [41].
Control of protease activity by protease inhibitors may be responsible for their anticancer power.
α-Amylase inhibitors have shown antidiabetic activity and, therefore, potential applications in the control of obesity. Similarly, α-glucosidase inhibitors have been proposed in the treatment of diabetes. Delay of digestion and absorption of carbohydrates helps in the control of postprandial hyperglycemia in the diabetic patient.
Lectins are blood grouping substances, immunomodulators and tissue markers. One property of lectins is their ability to combine with sugars and glycoconjugates. Lectins have been shown to have a role in the prevention of cancers, in the activation of immune system, and in antimicrobial and insecticidal mechanisms. In addition, they may be used in the control of obesity [42].
Hypocholesterolemic, glucose, and blood pressure-lowering actions have been reported for both proteins and peptides by in vitro and clinical studies. Conglutin γ from lupin has been demonstrated to bind insulin (Kd = 9 × 10−5 M), thus controlling glucose plasma levels [43].
High biological properties of protein extracts of local varieties of Phaseolus vulgaris L., such as antiradical, anti α-amylase, and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitory activity [44], as well as influence on intestinal permeability, have recently been described [45].

4. Structure–Digestibility Relationship of Legume Proteins

The structural properties of legume proteins, by imparting high stability during gastrointestinal digestion, have been reported to play an important role in their in vivo bioactivity and release of bioactive sequences [46,47].
Major structural properties of legume proteins that have been described with nutraceutical activity are reported in Table 2.
The anticarcinogenic effect of BBI towards colon cancer has been related to the native conformation of the inhibitory domain, the inhibitor being found intact in several organs (liver, lung) after ingestion [40]. In particular, trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors of the BBI class of both soybean and pea seeds have been found to present anticarcinogenic effects: soybean inhibitors are active toward colon, liver, lung, esophagus, and breast cancers, while pea inhibitors present anti-proliferative activity toward colon cancer [41,42].
Preservation of the conformation of conglutin γ has resulted in being a prerequisite for insulin binding and hypoglycemic activity of the protein, tested in a rat model [43]. Similar properties have been found for the basic 7S globulin, a protein with 64% identity to conglutin γ isolated from soybean seed and built up by two disulfide-bridged subunits of 27 and 16 kDa [43].
Trypsin inhibitors and lectins have been shown to be internalized by the small intestinal villi of rat [48]. These proteins are very stable during processing and gastrointestinal digestion [36].
In addition to stability conferred by disulfide bonds, hydrophobicity is known to affect the physicochemical properties (hydration, gelation, emulsification, foaming, adhesion) of plant proteins, with a consequence on both absorption and nutritional properties. Soybean protein extract showed an average hydrophobicity of 6.44 kJ per residue and control of bitterness of soy hydrolysates in relation to hydrophobicity was successful to increase their functionality.
In oligomeric storage proteins of legume seeds, stabilization conferred by hydrophobic patches between monomers is likely to decrease susceptibility to proteolysis, especially after technological processing [10]. As a consequence, essential amino acids and bioactive peptides may be imprisoned inside stable complexes that are no longer digested [36].
Other adverse effects may include immunological reactions promoted by soluble and stable protein complexes [48]. Major allergens that have been found to be responsible for sensitization are α- and β-conglutins from lupin. Peanut, lentil, and soybean allergens have also been identified. The major lentil allergen is Len c1 (a 48 kDa vicilin), while 33 proteins from soybean (7–71 kDa) have been found to be allergenic. Stability of these proteins during gastrointestinal digestion has been reported as a major cause for their allergenicity [36,49].
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) has recently been employed to analyze the relationship between structure and bioavailability of food protein by examination of the amide I of the spectrum [46]. FTIR has demonstrated that the secondary structure of several plant proteins, such as legume proteins, is dominated by contributions from β-sheet conformation and, to this respect, it markedly differs from that of animal proteins, characterized by α-helix structure (Figure 1).
Legume proteins presented quite a lower α-helix to β-sheet ratio than cereal proteins (0.47 and 1.1, respectively) [46]. A different α-helix to β-sheet ratio was found in a recent study on several varieties of P. vulgaris coming from different countries, with cannellini and borlotti varieties showing the highest values (form 0.47 to 0.56) (Figure 2).
Moreover, β-sheet content of legume proteins has been found to account for the formation of stable intermolecular complexes upon thermal treatment. A high correlation between β-sheet content and protein digestibility has been found for food proteins and for both native and heated legume proteins [46]. Hydrophobic amino acids (alanine, valine, methionine, isoleucine, phenylalanine), together with cysteine, have been found in the small intestinal content of rats fed with legume proteins, further supporting the role of the structural properties of these proteins on the overall nutritional quality [14].
3D structure and surface features of the Bowman–Birk inhibitor are presented in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. It is evident that this protein is dominated by β-sheet conformation and by large hydrophobic areas on the surface. Stability is conferred by seven disulfide bridges in a small molecular weight protein (8 kDa). Other legume seed proteins (storage globulins, α-amylase inhibitors) have been shown to present similar conformational attributes. These features limit digestibility and digestion rate of the protein in the gastrointestinal tract [46,50].
Exogenous factors may also adversely affect digestibility of legume proteins: these include interaction with other compounds such as carbohydrates, tannins, phytates, lipid, trypsin inhibitors, and lectins [14,36].
Structural properties of legume proteins are likely to also have a role on bioavailability of some micronutrients, such as Fe.
Legume (lentil, chickpea, and pea) seed ferritin concentrates (30–45 mg Fe/100 g) have been investigated for the relationship between structure and resistance to digestion [51]. A correlation between concentration in Asx + Glx of the different legume proteins and iron content was found.
Most of the iron was released by pepsin digestion. Therefore, these iron-rich protein extracts are candidates in the production of functional foods to be used in place of inorganic iron against iron deficiency anemia. The two ferritin polypeptides showed a loose structure, as evidenced by intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy. This property likely enabled protein degradation and iron release at low pH in the stomach [51].
In another study, determination of Cu, Fe, and protein absorption in the small intestine of rat has been carried out in single-dose experiments [52]. After thermal treatment of legume seeds, most (about 80%) of compounds was extracted in the insoluble fraction. Absorption of proteins, Cu, and Fe in this fraction was low, indicating that insolubilization negatively influences protein, Cu, and Fe absorption from legumes. Increased hydrophobicity of legume proteins after thermal treatment induced protein aggregation and precipitation into insoluble complexes.
These findings suggest that the structure of legume proteins is likely to affect bioavailability not only of essential amino acids, but also that of some micronutrients, such as Cu and Fe.

5. Structural Traits of Bioactive Peptides

Similarly to bioactive peptides from animal proteins (milk, meat), those derived from legume proteins are characterized by: (i) a short length (2–20 amino acids); (ii) proline, lysine, arginine, and hydrophobic amino acids; (iii) low susceptibility to digestion [53,54].
Proteolytic digestion of soybean 7S protein produces a pentapeptide (Leu–Leu–Pro–His–His) that has shown antioxidant activity. An Arg–Gly–Asp tripeptide has been found to be the adhesion region of soy lunasin to the cells, adhesion being a prerequisite for its anticarcinogenic properties [55].
Lunasin is a peptide with 44 amino acids and a high content in Asp, extracted from soybean 2S albumins and then isolated from cereal (wheat, barley, rye) proteins [56]. Besides lunasin, Val–Pro–Tyr and γ-glutamyl peptides from soybean also have anti-inflammatory properties [57]. Hydrophobic peptides from soybean also present anticarcinogenic properties [58].
The antioxidant activity of 28 short-chain peptides attributed to Leu–Leu–Pro–His–His have been examined: the tripeptide Pro–His–His has been shown to be active as metal chelator or radical scavenger, increasing the antioxidant properties of soy protein hydrolysate [59].
Recently, several peptides with antioxidant properties and a high amino acid score have been isolated after hydrolysis of legume proteins [60].
It has also been shown that proteins with low content of Met–Gly and Lys–Arg, i.e., soy and fish proteins, lower cholesterol level [61].
Besides specific residues, charge properties, hydrogen bonding and hydrophobicity are believed to influence both susceptibility to proteolysis and peptide absorption, besides the physiological functions of peptides.
Modern in silico techniques, such as quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models, consisting in analysis of homology similarity, are available for the screening of the origin of bioactive peptides [62,63,64]. These approaches have allowed the discovery of bioactive peptides, based on their sequence similarity.
Results from bioinformatic predictions have indicated that fragments with probability to be produced are hydrophilic and, therefore, are present at the external surface of the protein. These regions contain a high percentage of random coil (46%) and low amounts of β-sheet (17%) [65].
Bioinformatic tools, based on different algorithms, may help in predicting enzymatic hydrolysis of proteins to account for proteolytic process designs.

6. Conclusions

The structural properties of legume proteins, as also evidenced by FT-IR analysis, by imparting high stability during processing and gastrointestinal digestion, are likely to affect their bioactivity and production of bioactive peptides.
Further knowledge of the relationships between structure and bioactivity of protein and peptides from legume seeds is required to optimize their use as nutraceuticals, to increase peptide production, and to improve bioavailability of bioactive sequences. Such information may also be useful in planning strategies for eliminating the risk of adverse reactions, such as allergenicity, consequent to consumption of legumes for sensitive population groups, another aspect that has partially been related to high protein stability in the gastrointestinal tract.

Author Contributions

Funding acquisition, writing-original paper preparation, writing—review and editing, M.C.; writing—original paper preparation, writing—review and editing, A.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was partially funded by Ministry of Agricultural, Alimentary and Forestry Policies (MiPAAF) “Programma di rilancio leguminose da granella per alimentazione umana—PROLEGU” Project 2019–2023.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Carbonaro, M. Nutraceutical perspectives of pulses. In Pulse Foods: Processing, Quality and Nutraceutical Applications, 2nd ed.; Tiwari, B.K., Gowen, A., Mckenna, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 423–460. [Google Scholar]
  2. Rebello, C.I.; Greenway, F.L.; Finley, J.W. A review of the nutritional value of legumes and their effects on obesity and its related co-morbidities. Obes. Rev. 2014, 15, 392–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bechthold, A.; Boeing, H.; Schwedhelm, C.; Hoffmann, G.; Knuppel, S.; Iqbal, K.; De Henauw, S.; Michels, N.; Devleesschauwer, B.; Schlesinger, S.; et al. Food groups and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke and heart failure: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 1071–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Conti, M.V.; Guzzetti, L.; Panzeri, D.; De Giuseppe, R.; Coccetti, P.; Labra, M.; Cena, H. Bioactive compounds in legumes: Implications for sustainable nutrition and health in the elderly population. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 117, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Diplock, A.T.; Aggett, P.J.; Ashwell, M.; Bornet, F.; Fern, E.B.; Roberfroid, M.B. Scientific concepts of functional foods in Europe: Consensus document. Br. J. Nutr. 1999, 81, S1–S27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Prandi, B.; Zurlini, C.; Cicognini, I.M.; Cutroneo, S.; Di Massimo, M.; Bondi, M.; Brutti, A.; Sforza, S.; Tedeschi, T. Targeting the nutritional value of proteins fron legumes by-products through mild extraction technologies. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 695793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Osborne, T.B. The Vegetable Proteins, 2nd ed.; Longmans, Green and Co.: London, UK, 1924. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rajnincová, D.; Spaleková, A.; Galová, Z.; Romanavá, K. The protein profile of cereals, pseudocereals and legumes. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 7, 49–53. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mittal, R.; Nagi, H.; Sharma, P.; Sharma, S. Effect of processing on chemical composition and antinutritional factors in chickpea flour. J. Food Sci. Eng. 2012, 2, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Carbonaro, M.; Cappelloni, M.; Nicoli, S.; Lucarini, M.; Carnovale, E. Solubility-digestibility relationship of legume proteins. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 3387–3394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Champ, M.M.-J. Non-nutrient bioactive substances of pulses. Br. J. Nutr. 2002, 88 (Suppl. S3), 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Venkidasamy, B.; Selvaraj, D.; Nile, A.S.; Ramalingam, S.; Kai, G.; Nile, S.H. Indian pulses: A review on nutritional, functional and biochemical properties with future perspectives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 228–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ingram, G.; Doll, N. Embryo-endosperm interactions. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. Ann. Rev. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carbonaro, M.; Grant, G.; Cappelloni, M.; Pusztai, A. Perspectives into factors limiting in vivo digestion of legume proteins: Antinutritional compounds or storage proteins? J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 742–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Moreno, F.J.; Clemente, A. 2S albumin storage proteins: What makes them food allergens? Open Biochem. J. 2008, 2, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Gharibzahedi, S.M.T.; Smith, B. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on the quality and functionality of protein isolates, concentrates, and hydrolysates derived from pulse legumes: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 107, 466–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tang, C.E. Thermal denaturation and gelation of vicilin-rich protein isolates from three Phaseolus legumes: A comparative study. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 8, 1380–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yin, S.W.; Tang, C.H.; Wen, Q.B.; Li, L. Functional properties and in vitro trypsin digestibility of red kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) protein isolate: Effect of high-pressure treatment. Food Chem. 2008, 110, 938–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chao, D.; Aluko, R.E. Modification of the structural, emulsifying, and foaming properties of an isolated pea protein by thermal pretreatment. Cyta J. Food 2018, 16, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lu, Z.X.; He, J.F.; Zhang, Y.C.; Bing, D.J. Composition, physicochemical properties of pea proteins and its application in functional foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 2593–2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ahmed, J.; Al-Ruwaih, N.; Mulla, M.; Rahman, M.H. Effect of high pressure treatment on functional, rheological and structural properties of kidney bean protein isolate. LWT 2018, 91, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, K.; Bai, Y.; Li, B.; Xu, W. Effect of high intensity ultrasound on physicochemical, interfacial and gel properties of chickpea protein isolate. LWT 2020, 129, 109563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sharif, H.R.; Williams, P.A.; Sharif, M.K.; Abbas, S.; Majeeh, H.; Masamba, K.G.; Safdar, W.; Zhong, F. Current progress in the utilization of native and modified legume proteins as emulsifiers and encapsulants—A review. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 76, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Afzaal, M.; Saeed, F.; Aamir, M.; Usman, I.; Ashfaq, I.; Ikram, A.; Hussain, M.; Anjum, F.M.; Waleed, M.; Suleria, H. Encapsulating properties of legume proteins: Recent updates & perspectives. Int. J. Food Prop. 2021, 24, 1603–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ariyarathna, I.R.; Karunaratne, D.N. Use of chickpea protein for encapsulation of folate to enhance nutritional potency and stability. Food Bioprod. Proc. 2015, 95, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gharibzahedi, S.M.T.; Smith, B. Legume proteins are smart carriers to encapsulate hydrophilic and hydrophobic bioactive compounds and probiotic bacteria. A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 21, 1250–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Messina, M.J. Legumes and soybeans: Overview of their nutritional profiles and health effects. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1999, 70, 439S–450S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. McCrory, M.A.; Hamaker, B.R.; Lovejoy, J.C.; Eichelsdoerfer, P.E. Pulse consumption, satiety, and weight management. Adv. Nutr. 2010, 1, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Becerra-Thomás, N.; Papandreou, C.; Salas-Salvadó, J. Legume consumption and cardiometabolic health. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10, S437–S450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Moreno-Valdespina, C.A.; Luna-Vital, D.; Camacho-Ruiz, R.M.; Mojica, L. Bioactive proteins and phytochemicals from legumes: Mechanisms of action preventing obesity and type-2 diabetes. Food Res. Int. 2020, 130, 108905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hernandez-Velazquez, I.; Sanchez-Tapia, M.; Ordaz-Nava, G.; Torres, N.; Tovar, A.R.; Galvez, A. Black bean protein concentrates ameliorates hepatic steatosis by decreasing lipogenesis and increasing fatty acid oxidation in rats fed a high fat-sucrose diet. Food Funct. 2021, 12, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gonzaléz-Montoya, M.; Cano-Sampedro, E.; Mora-Escobedo, R. Bioactive peptides from legumes as anticancer therapeutic agents. Int. J. Cancer Clin. Res. 2017, 4, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jahan-Mihan, A.; Luhovyy, B.L.; Khoury, D.E.L.; Anderson, G.H. Dietary proteins as determinants of metabolic and physiologic functions of the gastrointestinal tract. Nutrients 2011, 3, 574–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Chan-Zapata, I.; Sandoval-Castro, C.; Segura-Campos, M.R. Proteins and peptides from vegetable sources as therapeutic adjuvants for the type 2 diabetes mellitus. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Jakubczyk, A.; Karas, M.; Zlotek, U.; Szymanowska, U. Identification of potential inhibitory peptides of enzymes involved in the metabolic syndrome obtained by simulated gastrointestinal digestion of fermented bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seeds. Food Res. Int. 2017, 100, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Carbonaro, M.; Maselli, P.; Nucara, A. Structural aspects of legume proteins and nutraceutical properties. Food Res. Int. 2015, 76, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Grosse-Holz, F.M.; van der Hoornm, R.A.L. Juggling jobs: Roles and mechanisms of miltifunctional protease inhibitors in plants. New Phytol. 2017, 210, 794–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Cud-Gallegos, M.S.; Corzo-Ríos, L.J.; Jiménez-Martinez, C.; Sánchez-Chino, X.M. Protease inhibitors from plants as therapeutic agents—A review. Plant Foods Hum.Nutr. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kennedy, A.R. Chemopreventive agents: Protease inhibitors. Pharmacol. Ther. 1998, 78, 167e209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Clemente, A.; Gee, J.M.; Johnson, I.T.; MacKenzie, D.A.; Domoney, C. Pea (Pisum sativum L.) protease inhibitors from the Bowman Birk class influence the growth of human colorectal adenocarcinoma HT29 cells in vitro. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 8979–8986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Birk, Y. Protease Inhibitors as Cancer Chemo Preventive Agents; Troll, W., Kennedy, A.R., Eds.; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 97–106. [Google Scholar]
  42. Roy, F.; Boye, J.I.; Simpson, B.K. Bioactive proteins and peptides in pulse crops: Pea, chickpea and lentil. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 432–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Scarafoni, A.; Magni, C.; Duranti, M. Molecular nutraceutics as a mean to investigate the positive effects of legume seed proteins on human health. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 18, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mojica, L.; González de Meija, E. Characterization and comparison of protein and peptide profiles and their biological activities of improved common bean cultivars (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Mexico and Brazil. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2015, 70, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Schisano, C.; Narciso, V.; Maisto, M.; Annunziata, G.; Grieco, P.; Sommella, E.M.; Tenore, G.C.; Novellino, E. In vitro effects of protein fractions from Controne beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L. ecotype Controne) on intestinal permeability, ACE and α-amylase activities. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2019, 254, 2311–2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Carbonaro, M.; Maselli, P.; Nucara, A. Relationship between digestibility and secondary structure of raw and thermally treated legume proteins: A Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopic study. Amino Acids 2012, 43, 911–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Li, Y.; Yu, J. Research progress in structure-activity relationship of bioactive peptides. J. Med. Food 2015, 18, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Pusztai, A.; Grant, G.; Bardocz, S.; Baintner, K.; Gelencser, E.; Ewen, S.W. Both free and complexed trypsin inhibitors stimulate pancreatic secretion and change duodenal enzyme levels. Am. J. Physiol. 1997, 272, G340–G350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rougé, P.; Culerrier, R.; Sabatier, V.; Granier, C.; Rancé, F.; Barre, A. Mapping and conformational analysis of IgE-binding epitopic regions on the molecular surface of the major Ara h 3 legumin allergen of peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Mol. Immunol. 2009, 46, 1067–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gitlin-Domagalska, A.; Maciejewska, A.; Debowski, D. Bowman-Birk inhibitors: Insights into family of multifunctional proteins and peptides with potential therapeutical applications. Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gesinde, F.A.; Udechukwu, M.C.; Aluko, R.E. Structural and functional characterization of legume seed ferritin concentrates. J. Food Biochem. 2018, 42, e12498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Carbonaro, M.; Grant, G.; Mattera, M.; Aguzzi, A.; Pusztai, A. Investigation of the mechanisms affecting Cu and Fe bioavailability from legumes. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2001, 84, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chakrabartim, S.; Guha, S.; Maiumder, K. Food-derived bioactive peptides in human health: Challenges and opportunities. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Amigo, L.; Hernández-Ledesma, B. Current evidence on the bioavailability of food bioactive peptides. Molecules 2020, 25, 4479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ohashi, Y.; Onuma, R.; Naganuma, T.; Ogawa, T.; Naude, R.; Nokihara, K.; Muramoto, K. Antioxidant properties of tripeptides revealed by a comparison of six different assays. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2015, 21, 695–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Alaswad, A.A.; Krishnan, H.B. Immunological investigation for the presence of lunasin, a chemopreventive soybean peptide, in the seed of diverse plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 2901–2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Guha, S.; Majumder, K. Structural-features of food-derived bioactive peptides with anti-inflammatory activity: A brief review. J. Food Biochem. 2019, 43, e12531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kim, S.E.; Kim, H.H.; Kim, J.Y.; Kang, Y.I.; Woo, H.J.; Lee, S.E. Anticancer activity of hydrophobic peptides from soy proteins. Biofactors 2000, 12, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Shahidi, F.; Zhing, Y. Novel antioxidants in food quality preservation and health promotion. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2010, 112, 930–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Matemu, A.; Nakamura, S.; Katayama, S. Health benefits of antioxidative peptides derived from legume proteins with a high amino acid score. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Erdmann, K.; Cheung, B.W.; Schröder, H. The possible roles of food-derived bioactive peptides in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2008, 19, 643–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zulvana, A.H.; Andriati, N.; Sri, A.; Widiastuti, S. In silico approach in evaluation of jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis) canavalin protein as precursors of bioactive peptides with dual antioxidant and angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitor. Mater. Sci. Forum 2019, 948, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zou, T.-B.; He, T.-P.; Li, H.-B.; Tang, H.W.; Xia, E.-Q. The structure-activity relationship of the antioxidant peptides from natural proteins. Molecules 2016, 21, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wen, C.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Duan, Y.; Ma, H. Plant protein-derived antioxidant peptides: Isolation, identification, mechanism of action and application in food systems: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 105, 308–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dziuba, J.; Niklewicz, M.; Iwaniak, I.; Darewicz, M.; Minkiewicz, P. Bioinformatic-aided prediction for release possibilities of bioactive peptides from plant proteins. Acta Aliment. Hung. 2004, 33, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nutrients 14 01188 g001 550
Figure 1. Analysis of proteins of Castelluccio lentil PGI (protected geographical indication) by FTIR. The amide I band was deconvolved by gaussian contributes. A1: intermolecular aggregates; β: β-sheet; α: α-helix; T: turns, A2: β-aggregates. (Carbonaro and Nucara, personal communication).
Figure 1. Analysis of proteins of Castelluccio lentil PGI (protected geographical indication) by FTIR. The amide I band was deconvolved by gaussian contributes. A1: intermolecular aggregates; β: β-sheet; α: α-helix; T: turns, A2: β-aggregates. (Carbonaro and Nucara, personal communication).
Nutrients 14 01188 g001
Nutrients 14 01188 g002 550
Figure 2. Ratio between percentage of α-helix and β-sheet secondary structures for common bean varieties (red points and dashed line). Dashed line is a guide for the eyes. In the inset the score-plot of PC1 and PC2 obtained from a PCA analysis on fit results is reported. (Carbonaro and Nucara, personal communication).
Figure 2. Ratio between percentage of α-helix and β-sheet secondary structures for common bean varieties (red points and dashed line). Dashed line is a guide for the eyes. In the inset the score-plot of PC1 and PC2 obtained from a PCA analysis on fit results is reported. (Carbonaro and Nucara, personal communication).
Nutrients 14 01188 g002
Nutrients 14 01188 g003 550
Figure 3. 3D structure (a) and surface properties (b) of soybean Bowman–Birk inhibitor as rendered by Jmol software using the coordinates available in the Brookhaven Protein Data Bank (http://www.rcsb.org/pdb) (accessed on 15 December 2021). Surface color mapping: blue for hydrophilic, red for hydrophobic regions.
Figure 3. 3D structure (a) and surface properties (b) of soybean Bowman–Birk inhibitor as rendered by Jmol software using the coordinates available in the Brookhaven Protein Data Bank (http://www.rcsb.org/pdb) (accessed on 15 December 2021). Surface color mapping: blue for hydrophilic, red for hydrophobic regions.
Nutrients 14 01188 g003
Table
Table 1. Legume proteins and peptides with nutraceutical properties (modified from reference [36]).
Table 1. Legume proteins and peptides with nutraceutical properties (modified from reference [36]).
PrecursorName/SequenceNutraceutical Activity
Soy trypsin/chymotrypsin inhibitorKunitz/Bowman Birk inhibitorAnticancer, anti-inflammatory, weight control
Soy amylase inhibitorsα-Amylase inhibitorAntiobesity, antidiabetic, anticancer
Jack bean haemagglutininsConcanavalin A, LectinsAnticancer, immunostimolant
Bean, soy storage 7S globulinsPhaseolin, conglycinin, 7S protein α’ chainHypocholesterolemic
Soy storage 11S globulinsHydrophobic peptidesACE-inhibitory
Soy 2S albuminsLunasinImmunostimolant, anticancer, ipotensive
Lupin/soy conglutin γConglutinHypoglycemic, hypocholesterolemic
Soy proteinsYPFVV, LPYPR, IAVPGEVAACE-inhibitory, antioxidant, opioid agonist
Fermented soybeanLVQGSAntihypertensive
Table
Table 2. Major structural properties of legume proteins with nutraceutical activity (modified from reference [36]).
Table 2. Major structural properties of legume proteins with nutraceutical activity (modified from reference [36]).
ProteinMW (KDa)Structure Type aα-Helix (%)β-Sheet (%)N° of SS
Kunitz trypsin inhibitor b21.5Globular, monomeric640–602
Bowman–Birk inhibitor b8Globular, monomeric0607
α-Amylase inhibitors c12–60Globular, monomeric/dimeric/tetrameric15–3025–602–5
Concanavalin A d110Globular, tetrameric0470
Phaseolin e150Globular, trimeric16370
Glycinin b340Globular, oligomeric153622
Conglycinin b200Globular, oligomeric15312
Conglutin γ f200Globular, tetrameric153524
a In phosphate-buffered saline, pH 7.0; b From soybean; c From cereals and legumes; d From jack bean; e From common bean; f From lupin.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carbonaro, M.; Nucara, A. Legume Proteins and Peptides as Compounds in Nutraceuticals: A Structural Basis for Dietary Health Effects. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1188. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14061188

AMA Style

Carbonaro M, Nucara A. Legume Proteins and Peptides as Compounds in Nutraceuticals: A Structural Basis for Dietary Health Effects. Nutrients. 2022; 14(6):1188. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14061188

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carbonaro, Marina, and Alessandro Nucara. 2022. "Legume Proteins and Peptides as Compounds in Nutraceuticals: A Structural Basis for Dietary Health Effects" Nutrients 14, no. 6: 1188. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14061188

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop