Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41074256›Full record

ArticleJournal of food science2025

GC-MS-Based Metabolomics for Understanding the Metabolite Profile of Mopane Worm (Gonimbrasia belina) and Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L).

Mpho Sebabiki Maleke, Tumisi Beiri Jeremiah Molelekoa, Jonathan Wilkin, Xi Feng, Moira Ledbetter, Oluwafemi Ayodeji Adebo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mpho Sebabiki MalekeCentre for Innovative Food Research (CIFR), Department of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Tumisi Beiri Jeremiah MolelekoaCentre for Innovative Food Research (CIFR), Department of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1090-7514
Jonathan WilkinDivision of Engineering and Food Science, School of Applied Sciences, Abertay University, Dundee, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8272-6865
Xi FengDepartment of Nutrition, Food Science, and Packaging, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA.
Moira LedbetterDepartment of Nutrition, Food Science, and Packaging, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA.
Oluwafemi Ayodeji AdeboCentre for Innovative Food Research (CIFR), Department of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3757-5137

Funding

National Research Foundation of South AfricaUniversity of Johannesburg
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Edible insects are nutritious, having high levels of protein, essential amino acids, healthy fats, vitamins, and minerals. In areas where sorghum is a primary crop, mixing this gluten-free grain with protein-rich insect powder provides a novel approach to making nutrient-rich products. Understanding the sorghum and mopane worm flours' metabolomic changes during bioprocessing can however, enhance their nutritional value and food safety. The research investigated metabolite compounds that are found in raw and processed (fermented, malted (sorghum), and ultrasonicated) mopane worms and sorghum. In the study, sorghum grains were traditionally fermented and malted at 35°C for 48 h and ultrasonicated for 10 min, at 70 Hz amplitude, while mopane worm was also traditionally fermented at 35°C for 48 h and ultrasonicated for 10 min at 70 Hz amplitudes. Obtained results showed that samples contained 67 (mopane worm) and 49 (sorghum) metabolites, which demonstrated distinct metabolic fingerprints for raw versus processed samples. The notable differences were found in lysine, threonine, and valine between the ultrasonicated sample and other treatments, while linoleic acid was the dominating compound in the ultrasonicated samples. Scyllo-inositol was the primary sugar, while lactic acid and citric acid were notable in the fermented samples. The ultrasonicated mopane worm flour had more metabolites identified than raw and fermented samples while in sorghum, the fermented sorghum had more metabolites than raw, malted, and ultrasonicated ones. These findings provide insights into optimizing processing techniques to maintain or improve the nutritional quality of both the investigated samples.

Indexed as

Gas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryMetabolomicsFermentationFood HandlingNutritive ValueSorghumbioprocessingfood safetyGC‐MSmetabolomicsmopane wormnutritional quality

Identifiers

PMID41074256
PMCPMC12514330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.