ArticleAnimal bioscience2026
Evaluation of rheological properties of pork myofibrillar protein gel and physicochemical and textural properties of low-fat model sausages containing various levels of chickpea powder dried by different methods.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of gel and structural properties of pork myofibrillar protein gels using faba bean protein isolate at various salt concentrations.Animal bioscience · 2026Article
- Evaluation of drying method and various level of chickpea powder on the quality characteristics of emulsified model sausages.Animal bioscience · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the rheological properties of pork myofibrillar protein (MP) gels, as well as the physicochemical and textural properties of low-fat model sausages (LFMS) formulated with various levels of chickpea powder (CPP) processed via freezedrying (FCP) or oven-drying (OCP).
methodsPork MP gels and LFMS were prepared with varying concentrations (0%-1.5%) of CPP, either as FCP or OCP. Viscosity, cooking yield, gel strength, protein surface hydrophobicity, and sulfhydryl group levels were analyzed, in conjunction with sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and low-vacuum scanning electron microscopy (LV-SEM) investigations, to evaluate the rheological properties and protein structural changes in MP gels after CPP addition. Additionally, cooking loss, expressible moisture, texture profile, SDS-PAGE, and LV-SEM analyses were conducted to assess the physicochemical and textural properties of LFMS containing CPP. The data were analyzed using one-way and two-way ANOVA, followed by Duncan's multiple range test (p<0.05) to determine significant differences.
resultsIncreases in CPP concentration enhanced MP gel viscosity, cooking yield, and gel strength; 1.5% CPP yielded optimal water retention and structural integrity. CPP reduced protein surface hydrophobicity and sulfhydryl content while increasing disulfide bond formation, indicating improved gel network formation. SDS-PAGE confirmed myosin heavy chain reduction and the formation of higher-molecular-weight polymers. In LFMS, CPP reduced cooking loss and expressible moisture; OCP was more effective at higher levels. Texture analysis showed increased hardness and chewiness, whereas cohesiveness and springiness remained unchanged. Microscopy revealed a denser, more uniform structure in sausages containing 1.5% CPP. These changes were correlated with improved water retention and texture.
conclusionThe findings in this study suggest that CPP, particularly OCP, is a promising functional ingredient for efforts to improve meat product quality by enhancing water retention, gel strength, and texture. CPP also promotes protein polymerization, contributing to a more stable gel network.
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.