ArticleScientific reports2025
Interlaboratory validation of an optimized protocol for measuring α-amylase activity by the INFOGEST international research network.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- In vitro digestion models in food chemistry: advancements, challenges, and applications in nutrient bioaccessibility and bioavailability.Food chemistry: X · 2026Review
- HPTLC based screening method for the evaluation of α-amylase inhibitory activity in edible flowers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The activity of α-amylases is frequently determined using a single-point assay at 20 °C. Previous work within INFOGEST "Working Group 5 - Starch digestion and amylases" identified significant interlaboratory variation with this protocol. The current study aimed to evaluate the repeatability (intralaboratory precision) and reproducibility (interlaboratory precision), measured as coefficients of variation (CVs), of a newly optimized protocol version based on four time-point measurements at 37 °C. Human saliva (a pool from ten healthy adults) and three porcine enzyme preparations (two pancreatic α-amylases and pancreatin) were tested in 13 laboratories across 12 countries and 3 continents. Assay repeatability for each lab remained below 20% for all test products and the overall repeatability was below 15%, ranging between 8 and 13% for all products. Reproducibility was greatly improved with interlaboratory CVs ranging from 16 to 21%, i.e. up to four times lower than with the original method. Five laboratories repeated the same assay at 20 °C, and the amylolytic activity of each product increased by 3.3-fold (± 0.3) from 20 to 37 °C. The newly optimized protocol is henceforth recommended to ensure precise determinations of α-amylase activity levels and to facilitate comparisons across different studies.
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.