ReviewCurrent research in food science2025
Elucidating the role of compositional and processing variables in tailoring the technological functionalities of plant protein ingredients.
Review in Current research in food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional and Interfacial Responses of Honeybee Pupa Water-Soluble Proteins to pH, Ionic Strength, and Sucrose.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An Exploratory Study on the Impact of MIPEF-Assisted Extraction on Recovery of Proteins, Pigments, and Polyphenols from Sub-Standard Pea Waste.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of pH shift and high pressure homogenization on the structure and techno-functional properties of protein extracts from substandard peas.Current research in food science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although various plant protein (PP) ingredients are available on the market, their application in foods is not trivial, and food companies are struggling to identify PP ingredients fitting the intended use. To fill this gap, abundant literature has appeared but data are hardly comparable due to the absence of a recognized classification of PP ingredients accounting not only for protein purity but also for the process history, and of standardised protocols for technological functionality assessment. In this review, a comprehensive analysis of comparable literature data was thus carried out to elucidate the effect of composition and processing variables on PP technological functionalities. The review presents four sections describing: (i) the approach followed for the construction of a database of PP ingredient functionalities; (ii) the composition and processing factors relevant to PP ingredients; (iii) PP ingredient functional properties and methods used for their determination; (iv) the effect of composition and processing factors on PP ingredient functionalities. This analysis showed legume proteins to present the highest solubility and interfacial properties while pseudocereal ones the highest water-holding capacity. Although pure ingredients show higher functionalities, non-protein components could contribute to interfacial properties. Alkaline extraction, isoelectric precipitation and freeze-drying is the process mostly used in academic research to obtain PP ingredients. However, other extraction, purification, and drying methods can be properly combined, resulting in specific PP ingredient functionalities. Overall, this review highlights that, besides protein purity and source, knowledge of the processing history is required to select PP ingredients with desired functionalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.