1932

Abstract

As the prevalence of obesity and diabetes has continued to increase rapidly in recent years, dietary approaches to regulating glucose homeostasis have gained more attention. Starch is the major source of glucose in the human diet and can have diverse effects, depending on its rate and extent of digestion in the small intestine, on postprandial glycemic response, which over time is associated with blood glucose abnormalities, insulin sensitivity, and even appetitive response and food intake. The classification of starch bioavailability into rapidly digestible starch, slowly digestible starch, and resistant starch highlights the nutritional values of different starches. As starch is the main structure-building macroconstituent of foods, its bioavailability can be manipulated by selection of food matrices with varying degrees of susceptibility to amylolysis and food processing to retain or develop new matrices. In this review, the food factors that may modulate starch bioavailability, with a focus on food matrices, are assessed for a better understanding of their potential contribution to human health. Aspects affecting starch nutritional properties as well as production strategies for healthy foods are also reviewed, e.g., starch characteristics (different type, structure, and modification), food physical properties (food form, viscosity, and integrity), food matrix interactions (lipid, protein, nonstarch polysaccharide, phytochemicals, organic acid, and enzyme inhibitor), and food processing (milling, cooking, and storage).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-070620-013937
2021-03-25
2024-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/food/12/1/annurev-food-070620-013937.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-070620-013937&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ai Y, Hasjim J, Jane J-L. 2013. Effects of lipids on enzymatic hydrolysis and physical properties of starch. Carbohydr. Polym. 92:120–27
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Rabadi GJS, Gilbert RG, Gidley MJ. 2009. Effect of particle size on kinetics of starch digestion in milled barley and sorghum grains by porcine α-amylase. J. Cereal Sci. 50:198–204
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson AK, Guraya HS, James C, Salvaggio L 2002. Digestibility and pasting properties of rice starch heat-moisture treated at the melting temperature (Tm). Starch 54:401–9
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ao Z, Jane J-L. 2007. Characterization and modeling of the A- and B-granule starches of wheat, triticale, and barley. Carbohydr. Polym. 67:46–55
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ao Z, Quezada-Calvillob R, Simc L, Nichols BL, Rose DR et al. 2007. Evidence of native starch degradation with human small intestinal maltase-glucoamylase (recombinant). FEBS Lett 581:2381–88
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Augustin LS, Kendall CW, Jenkins DJ, Willett WC, Astrup A et al. 2015. Glycemic index, glycemic load and glycemic response: an International Scientific Consensus Summit from the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC). Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. 25:795–815
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bai Y, Wu P, Wang K, Li E, Gilbert RG 2017. Effects of pectin on molecular structural changes in starch during digestion. Food Hydrocoll 69:10–18
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barrett ML, Udani JK. 2011. A proprietary α-amylase inhibitor from white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris): a review of clinical studies on weight loss and glycemic control. Nutr. J. 10:24
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BeMiller JN, Whistler RL. 2009. Starch: Chemistry and Technology New York: Academic. , 3rd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bhattarai RR, Dhital S, Mense A, Gidley MJ, Shi Y-C. 2018. Intact cellular structure in cereal endosperm limits starch digestion in vitro. Food Hydrocoll 81:139–48
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bhattarai RR, Dhital S, Wu P, Chen XD, Gidley MJ. 2017. Digestion of isolated legume cells in a stomach-duodenum model: three mechanisms limit starch and protein hydrolysis. Food Funct 8:2573–82
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bhopatkar D, Feng T, Chen F, Zhang G, Carignano M et al. 2015. A self-assembled nanoparticle of common food constituents that carries a sparingly soluble small molecule. J. Agric. Food Chem. 63:4312–19
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Björck I, Granfeldt Y, Liljeberg H, Tovar J, Asp NG. 1994. Food properties affecting the digestion and absorption of carbohydrates. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 59:699S–705
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bordenave N, Hamaker BR, Ferruzzi MG. 2014. Nature and consequences of non-covalent interactions between flavonoids and macronutrients in foods. Food Funct 5:18–34
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brayer GD, Sidhu G, Maurus R, Rydberg EH, Braun C et al. 2000. Subsite mapping of the human pancreatic α-amylase active site through structural, kinetic, and mutagenesis techniques. Biochemistry 39:4778–91
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Butterworth PJ, Warren FJ, Grassby T, Patel H, Ellis PR. 2012. Analysis of starch amylolysis using plots for first-order kinetics. Carbohydr. Polym. 87:2189–97
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cantu-Jungles TM, Hamaker BR 2020. A new view on dietary fiber selection for predictable shifts in the gut microbiota. mBio 11:e02179–19
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chai Y, Wang M, Zhang G. 2013. Interaction between amylose and tea polyphenols modulates the postprandial glycemic response to high amylose maize starch. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61:8608–15
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chanvrier H, Uthayakumaran S, Appelqvist IAM, Gidley MJ, Gilbert EP, Lopez-Rubio A. 2007. Influence of storage conditions on the structure, thermal behavior, and formation of enzyme-resistant starch in extruded starches. J. Agric. Food Chem. 55:9883–90
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chegeni M, Amiri M, Nichols BL, Naim HY, Hamaker BR. 2018. Dietary starch breakdown product sensing mobilizes and apically activates α-glucosidases in small intestinal enterocytes. FASEB J 32:73903–11
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cheng L, Zhu X, Hamaker BR, Zhang H, Campanella OH. 2019. Complexation process of amylose under different concentrations of linoleic acid using molecular dynamics simulation. Carbohydr. Polym. 216:157–66
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chung H-J, Lim HS, Lim S-T. 2006. Effect of partial gelatinization and retrogradation on the enzymatic digestion of waxy rice starch. J. Cereal Sci. 43:353–59
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cisse F, Pletsch EA, Erickson DP, Chegeni M, Hayes AMR, Hamaker BR. 2017. Preload of slowly digestible carbohydrate microspheres decreases gastric emptying rate of subsequent meal in humans. Nutr. Res. 45:46–51
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Colonna P, Barry J-L, Cloarec D, Bornet F, Gouilloud S, Galmiche J-P. 1990. Enzymic susceptibility of starch from pasta. J. Cereal Sci. 11:59–70
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dartois A, Singh J, Kaur L, Singh H. 2010. The influence of guar gum on the in vitro starch digestibility: rheological and microstructural characteristics. Food Biophys 5:149–60
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Darwiche G, Östman EM, Liljeberg HG, Kallinen N, Björgell O et al. 2001. Measurements of the gastric emptying rate by use of ultrasonography: studies in humans using bread with added sodium propionate. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 74:254–58
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dhameja M, Gupta P. 2019. Synthetic heterocyclic candidates as promising α-glucosidase inhibitors: an overview. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 176:343–77
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dhital S, Bhattarai RR, Gorham J, Gidley MJ. 2016. Intactness of cell wall structure controls the in vitro digestion of starch in legumes. Food Funct 7:1367–79
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dhital S, Gidley MJ, Warren FJ. 2015. Inhibition of α-amylase activity by cellulose: kinetic analysis and nutritional implications. Carbohydr. Polym. 123:305–12
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dhital S, Shrestha AK, Gidley MJ. 2010. Relationship between granule size and in vitro digestibility of maize and potato starches. Carbohydr. Polym. 82:480–88
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Diaz-Sotomayor M, Quezada-Calvillo R, Avery SE, Chacko SK, Yan L et al. 2013. Sucrase-isomaltase dominates mucosal maltase activity and early rate of ad libitum starch digestion. J. Pediatr. Gastr. Nutr. 57:704–12
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dikeman CL, Fahey GC. 2006. Viscosity as related to dietary fiber: a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 46:649–63
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Do DT, Singh J, Oey I, Singh H, Frostad JM. 2020. A novel apparatus for time-lapse optical microscopy of gelatinisation and digestion of starch inside plant cells. Food Hydrocoll 104:105551
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Edwards CH, Grundy MML, Grassby T, Vasilopoulou D, Frost GS et al. 2015a. Manipulation of starch bioaccessibility in wheat endosperm to regulate starch digestion, postprandial glycemia, insulinemia, and gut hormone responses: a randomized controlled trial in healthy ileostomy participants. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 102:791–800
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Edwards CH, Warren FJ, Campbell GM, Gaisford S, Royall PG et al. 2015b. A study of starch gelatinization behaviour in hydrothermally-processed plant food tissues and implications for in vitro digestibility. Food Funct 6:3634–41
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Eelderink C, Schepers M, Preston T, Vonk RJ, Oudhuis L, Priebe MG. 2012. Slowly and rapidly digestible starchy foods can elicit a similar glycemic response because of differential tissue glucose uptake in healthy men. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 96:1017–24
    [Google Scholar]
  37. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) 2011. Scientific opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to “slowly digestible starch in starch-containing foods” and “reduction of postprandial glycaemic responses” pursuant to Article 13:5 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. Rep., EFSA Panel Diet. Prod. Nutr. Allerg., Parma, It .
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Englyst HN, Kingman SM, Cummings JH. 1992. Classification and measurement of nutritionally important starch fractions. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 46:33–50
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Englyst HN, Veenstra J, Hudson GJ. 1996. Measurement of rapidly available glucose (RAG) in plant foods: a potential in vitro predictor of the glycaemic response. Br. J. Nutr. 75:327–37
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Englyst K, Goux A, Meynier A, Quigley M, Englyst H et al. 2018. Inter-laboratory validation of the starch digestibility method for determination of rapidly digestible and slowly digestible starch. Food Chem 245:1183–89
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Englyst KN, Englyst HN. 2005. Carbohydrate bioavailability. Br. J. Nutr. 94:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Englyst KN, Vinoy S, Englyst HN, Lang V. 2003. Glycaemic index of cereal products explained by their content of rapidly and slowly available glucose. Br. J. Nutr. 89:329–40
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Fardet A, Hoebler C, Baldwint PM, Bouchet B, Gallant DJ, Barry JL. 1998. Involvement of the protein network in the in vitro degradation of starch from spaghetti and lasagne: a microscopic and enzymatic study. J. Cereal Sci. 27:133–45
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ferruzzi MG, Hamaker BR, Bordenave N. 2020. Phenolic compounds are less degraded in presence of starch than in presence of proteins through processing in model porridges. Food Chem 309:125769
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Foster-Powell K, Holt SHA, Brand-Miller JC. 2002. International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 76:5–56
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gelders GG, Vanderstukken TC, Goesaert H, Delcour JA. 2004. Amylose-lipid complexation: a new fractionation method. Carbohydr. Polym. 56:447–58
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Genkina NK, Kiseleva VI, Martirosyan VV. 2015. Different types of V amylose-lipid inclusion complexes in maize extrudates revealed by DSC analysis. Starch 7:752–55
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Goñi I, Garcia-Alonso A, Saura-Calixto F. 1997. A starch hydrolysis procedure to estimate glycemic index. Nutr. Res. 17:427–37
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gourineni V, Stewart ML, Skorge R, Sekula BC. 2017. Slowly digestible carbohydrate for balanced energy: in vitro and in vivo evidence. Nutrients 9:1230
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Granfeldt Y, Björck I. 1991. Glycemic response to starch in pasta: a study of mechanisms of limited enzyme availability. J. Cereal Sci. 14:47–61
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Guo P, Yu J, Wang S, Wang S, Copeland L 2018. Effects of particle size and water content during cooking on the physicochemical properties and in vitro starch digestibility of milled durum wheat grains. Food Hydrocoll 77:445–53
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Guraya HS, James C, Champagne ET 2001. Effect of enzyme concentration and storage temperature on the formation of slowly digestible starch from cooked debranched rice starch. Starch 53:131–39
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gustafsson K, Asp N-G, Hagander B, Nyman M. 1994. Dose-response of boiled carrots and effects of carrots in lactic acid in mixed meals on glycemic response and satiety. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 48:386–96
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hallfrisch J, Behall KM. 2000. Mechanisms of the effects of grain on insulin and glucose response. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 19:320S–25
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hamaker BR, Bugusu BA. 2003. Sorghum proteins and food quality Paper presented at the 2003 Afripro Conference, Pretoria, S. Afr. http://www.afripro.org.uk/papers/Paper08Hamaker.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Han J, BeMiller JN. 2007. Preparation and physical characteristics of slowly digesting modified food starches. Carbohydr. Polym. 67:366–74
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hasek LY, Phillips RJ, Zhang G, Kinzig KP, Kim CY et al. 2018. Dietary slowly digestible starch triggers the gut-brain axis in obese rats with accompanied reduced food intake. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 62:1700117
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hasjim J, Lee S-O, Hendrich S, Setiawan S, Ai Y, Jane J-L 2010. Characterization of a novel resistant-starch and its effects on postprandial plasma-glucose and insulin responses. Cereal Chem 87:257–62
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Heaton KW, Marcus SN, Emmett PM, Bolton CH. 1988. Particle size of wheat, maize, and oat test meals: effects on plasma glucose and insulin responses and on the rate of starch digestion in vitro. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 47:675–82
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Heitmann T, Wenzig E, Mersmann A. 1997. Characterisation of three different potato starches and kinetics of their enzymatic hydrolysis by an α-amylase. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 20:259–67
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Holm J, Björck I, Asp N-G, Sjöberg L-B, Lundquist I. 1985. Starch availability in vitro and in vivo after flaking, steam-cooking and popping of wheat. J. Cereal Sci. 3:193–206
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Holm J, Koellreutter B, Würsch P. 1992. Influence of sterilization, drying and oat bran enrichment of pasta on glucose and insulin responses in healthy subjects and on the rate and extent of in vitro starch digestion. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 46:629–40
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Htoon A, Shrestha AK, Flanagan BM, Lopez-Rubio A, Bird AR et al. 2009. Effects of processing high amylose maize starches under controlled conditions on structural organization and amylase digestibility. Carbohydr. Polym. 75:236–45
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Jacobs H, Delcour JA. 1998. Hydrothermal modifications of granular starch, with retention of the granular structure: a review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 46:2895–905
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Jenkins DJ, Thorne MJ, Wolever TM, Jenkins AL, Rao AV, Thompson LU. 1987. The effect of starch-protein interaction in wheat on the glycemic response and rate of in vitro digestion. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 45:946–51
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Taylor RH, Barker H, Fielden H et al. 1981. Glycemic index of foods: a physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 34:362–66
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kaur A, Chen T, Green S, Mutlu E, Martin B et al. 2019. Physical inaccessibility of a resistant starch to Bacteroidetes shifts mouse gut microbiota to butyrogenic Firmicutes. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 63:1081012
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Kingman SM, Englyst HN. 1994. The influence of food preparation methods on the in-vitro digestibility of starch in potato. Food Chem 49:181–86
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Lee BH, Rose DR, Lin AHM, Quezada-Calvillo R, Nichols BL, Hamaker BR. 2016. Contribution of the individual small intestinal α-glucosidases to digestion of unusual α-linked glycemic disaccharides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 64:6487–94
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Li E, Dhital S, Hasjim J. 2014. Effects of grain milling on starch structures and flour/starch properties. Starch 66:15–27
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Li M, George J, Hunter S, Hamaker BR, Mattes RD, Ferruzzi MG. 2019. Potato product form impacts in vitro starch digestibility and glucose transport but only modestly impacts 24 h blood glucose response in humans. Food Funct 10:1846–55
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Li M, Ndiaye C, Corbin S, Foegeding EA, Ferruzzi MG. 2020. Starch-phenolic complexes are built on physical CH-π interactions and can persist after hydrothermal treatments altering hydrodynamic radius and digestibility of model starch-based foods. Food Chem 308:125577
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Li M, Pernell C, Ferruzzi M G. 2018. Complexation with phenolic acids affect rheological properties and digestibility of potato starch and maize amylopectin. Food Hydrocoll 77:843–52
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Liatis S, Grammatikou S, Poulia KA, Perrea D, Makrilakis K. 2010. Vinegar reduces postprandial hyperglycaemia in patients with type II diabetes when added to a high, but not to a low, glycaemic index meal. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 64:727–32
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Liljeberg H, Björck I. 1998. Delayed gastric emptying rate may explain improved glycaemia in healthy subjects to a starchy meal with added vinegar. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 52:368–71
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Liljeberg H, Granfeldt Y, Björck I. 1992. Metabolic responses to starch in bread containing intact kernels versus milled flour. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 46:561–75
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Liljeberg HG, Lonner CH, Björck IM. 1995. Sourdough fermentation or addition of organic acids or corresponding salts to bread improves nutritional properties of starch in healthy humans. J. Nutr. 125:1503–11
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lopez-Rubio A, Flanagan BM, Shrestha AK, Gidley MJ, Gilbert EP. 2008. Molecular rearrangement of starch during in vitro digestion: toward a better understanding of enzyme resistant starch formation in processed starches. Biomacromolecules 9:1951–58
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Ludwig DS. 2002. The glycemic index: physiological mechanisms relating to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. JAMA 287:2414–23
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Luo K, Wang X, Zhang G. 2019. Starch and β-glucan in a whole-grain-like structural form improve hepatic insulin sensitivity in diet-induced obese mice. Food Funct 10:5091–101
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Luo K, Zhang G. 2018. Nutritional property of starch in a whole-grain-like structural form. J. Cereal Sci. 79:113–17
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Luo S, Zeng Z, Mei Y, Huang K, Wu J et al. 2020. Improving ordered arrangement of the short-chain amylose-lipid complex by narrowing molecular weight distribution of short-chain amylose. Carbohydr. Polym. 240:116359
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Ma J, Stevens JE, Cukier K, Maddox AF, Wishart JM et al. 2009. Effects of a protein preload on gastric emptying, glycemia, and gut hormones after a carbohydrate meal in diet-controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 32:1600–2
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Martinez MM, Li C, Okoniewska M, Mukherjee I, Vellucci D, Hamaker B. 2018. Slowly digestible starch in fully gelatinized material is structurally driven by molecular size and A and B1 chain lengths. Carbohydr. Polym. 197:531–39
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Mettler S, Schwarz I, Colombani PC. 2009. Additive postprandial blood glucose-attenuating and satiety-enhancing effect of cinnamon and acetic acid. Nutr. Res. 29:723–27
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Miao M, Jiang B, Cui SW, Zhang T, Jin Z 2015a. Slowly digestible starch: a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 55:1642–57
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Miao M, Jiang B, Jiang H, Zhang T, Li X. 2015b. Interaction mechanism between green tea extract and human α-amylase for reducing starch digestion. Food Chem 186:20–25
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Miao M, Jiang B, Jin Z, BeMiller JN 2018. Microbial starch-converting enzymes: recent insights and perspectives. Compr. Revi. Food Sci. 17:1238–60
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Miao M, Jiang B, Zhang T. 2009. Effect of pullulanase debranching and recrystallization on structure and digestibility of waxy maize starch. Carbohydr. Polym. 112:214–21
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Miao M, Jiang H, Jiang B, Li Y, Cui SW, Jin Z 2013. Elucidation of structural difference in theaflavins for modulation of starch digestion. J. Funct. Foods 5:2024–29
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Miao M, Li R, Jiang B, Cui SW, Zhang T, Jin Z 2014. Structure and physicochemical properties of octenyl succinic esters of sugary maize soluble starch and waxy maize starch. Food Chem 151:154–60
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Miao M, Zhang T, Mu W, Jiang B. 2010. Effect of controlled gelatinization in excess water on digestibility of waxy maize starch. Food Chem 119:41–48
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Miao M, Zhang T, Mu W, Jiang B. 2011. Structural characterizations of waxy maize starch residue following in vitro pancreatin and amyloglucosidase synergistic hydrolysis. Food Hydrocoll 25:214–20
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Mishra S, Monro JA. 2009. Digestibility of starch fractions in wholegrain rolled oats. J. Cereal Sci. 50:61–66
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Monro JA, Mishra S. 2010. Glycemic impact as a property of foods is accurately measured by an available carbohydrate method that mimics the glycemic response. J. Nutr. 140:1328–34
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Morgan LM. 1998. The role of gastrointestinal hormones in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and homeostasis: effects of gastric inhibitory polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 26:216–22
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Murray SM, Patil AR, Fahey GC Jr., Merchen NR, Wolf BW et al. 1998. Apparent digestibility of a debranched amylopectin-lipid complex and resistant starch incorporated into enteral formulas fed to ileal-cannulated dogs. J. Nutr. 128:2032–35
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Nichols BL, Quezada-Calvillo R, Robayo-Torres CC, Ao Z, Hamaker BR et al. 2009. Mucosal maltase-glucoamylase plays a crucial role in starch digestion and prandial glucose homeostasis of mice. J. Nutr. 139:684–90
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Östman E, Granfeldt Y, Persson L, Björck I. 2005. Vinegar supplementation lowers glucose and insulin responses and increases satiety after a bread meal in healthy subjects. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 59:983–88
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Owen B, Wolever TMS. 2003. Effect of fat on glycaemic responses in normal subjects: a dose-response study. Nutr. Res. 23:1341–47
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Peng S, Xue L, Leng X, Yang R, Zhang G, Hamaker BR. 2015. Slow digestion property of octenyl succinic anhydride modified waxy maize starch in the presence of tea polyphenols. J. Agric. Food Chem. 63:2810–19
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Pletsch EA, Hamaker BR. 2018. Brown rice compared to white rice slows gastric emptying in humans. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 72:367–73
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Quezada-Calvillo R, Sim L, Ao Z, Hamaker BR, Quaroni A et al. 2008. Localization of luminal starch substrate “brake” on maltase-glucoamylase activity within the glucoamylase subunit. J. Nutr. 138:685–92
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Rasmussen HE, Hamaker B, Rajan KB, Mutlu E, Greene SJ et al. 2017. Starch-entrapped microsphere fibers improve bowel habit and gastrointestinal symptoms in those with unsatisfactory bowel movements in a randomized, double-blind, controlled, dose-ranging human trial. Nutr. Res. 44:27–37
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Regand A, Chowdhury Z, Tosh SM, Wolever TM, Wood P. 2011. The molecular weight, solubility and viscosity of oat β-glucan affect human glycemic response by modifying starch digestibility. Food Chem 129:297–304
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Robin F, Mérinat S, Simon A, Lehmann U. 2008. Influence of chain length on α-1,4-D-glucan recrystallization and slowly digestible starch formation. Starch 60:551–58
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Rose DJ, Venema K, Keshavarzian A, Hamaker BR. 2010. Starch-entrapped microspheres show a beneficial fermentation profile and decrease in potentially harmful bacteria during in vitro fermentation in fecal microbiota obtained from patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Br. J. Nutr. 103:1514–24
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Rosén LAH, Silva LOB, Andersson UK, Holm C, Östman EM, Björck IME. 2009. Endosperm and whole grain rye breads are characterized by low post-prandial insulin response and a beneficial blood glucose profile. Nutr. J. 8:42
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Rovalino-Córdova AM, Fogliano V, Capuano E. 2018. A closer look to cell structural barriers affecting starch digestibility in beans. Carbohydr. Polym. 181:994–1002
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Sajilata MG, Shinghal RS, Kulkarni PK. 2006. Resistant starch: a review. Comp. Rev. Food Sci. F 5:1–17
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Salmerón J, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Wing AL, Willett WC. 1997. Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. JAMA 277:472–77
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Sanromán A, Murado MA, Lema JM. 1996. The influence of substrate structure on the kinetics of the hydrolysis of starch by glucoamylase. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 59:329–36
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Schmidt LCR. 2019. Investigating phenolic-mediated protein matrix development for potential control of cereal starch digestion PhD Thesis, Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN:
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Severijnen C, Abrahamse E, van der Beek EM, Buco A, van de Heijning BJM et al. 2007. Sterilization in a liquid of a specific starch makes it slowly digestible in vitro and low glycemic in rats. J. Nutr. 137:2202–7
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Shin SI, Choi HJ, Chung KM, Hamaker BR, Park KH, Moon TW. 2004. Slowly digestible starch from debranched waxy sorghum starch: preparation and properties. Cereal Chem 81:404–8
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Simsek M, Quezada-Calvillo R, Ferruzi MG, Nichols BL, Hamaker BR. 2015. Dietary phenolic compounds selectively inhibit the individual subunits of maltase-glucoamylase and sucrase-isomaltase with the potential of modulating glucose release. J. Agric. Food Chem. 63:3873–79
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Simsek M, Quezada-Calvillo R, Nichols BL, Hamaker BR. 2017. Phenolic compounds increase the transcription of mouse intestinal maltase-glucoamylase and sucrase-isomaltase. Food Funct 8:1915–24
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Slaughter SL, Ellis PR, Butterworth PJ. 2001. An investigation of the action of porcine pancreatic α-amylase on native and gelatinized starches. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1525:29–36
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Sun L, Miao M. 2020. Dietary polyphenols modulate starch digestion and glycaemic level: a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 60:541–55
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Sun L, Warren FJ, Gidley MJ. 2018a. Soluble polysaccharides reduce binding and inhibitory activity of tea polyphenols against porcine pancreatic α-amylase. Food Hydrocoll 79:63–70
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Sun L, Warren FJ, Gidley MJ, Guo Y, Miao M. 2018b. Mechanism of binding interactions between young apple polyphenols and porcine pancreatic α-amylase. Food Chem 283:468–74
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Szczodrak J, Pomeranz Y. 1991. Starch and enzyme-resistant starch from high-amylose barley. Cereal Chem 68:589–96
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Todesco T, Rao AV, Bosello O, Jenkins DJ. 1991. Propionate lowers blood glucose and alters lipid metabolism in healthy subjects. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 54:860–65
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Tufvesson F, Eliasson AC. 2000. Formation and crystallization of amylose-monoglyceride complex in a starch matrix. Carbohydr. Polym. 43:359–65
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Venkatachalam M, Kushnick MR, Zhang G, Hamaker BR. 2009. Starch-entrapped biopolymer microspheres as a novel approach to vary blood glucose profiles. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 28:583–90
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Venn BJ, Mann JI. 2004. Cereal grains, legumes and diabetes. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 58:1443–61
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Vinoy S, Laville M, Feskens EJ 2016. Slow-release carbohydrates: growing evidence on metabolic responses and public health interest. Summary of the symposium held at the 12th European Nutrition Conference (FENS 2015). Food Nutr. Res. 60:31662
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Vinoy S, Normand S, Meynier A, Sothier M, Louche-Pelissier C et al. 2013. Cereal processing influences postprandial glucose metabolism as well as the GI effect. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 32:79–91
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Warren FJ, Butterworth PJ, Ellis PR. 2013. The surface structure of a complex substrate revealed by enzyme kinetics and Freundlich constants for α-amylase interaction with the surface of starch. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1830:3095–101
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Wolever TMS, Jenkins DJA, Kalmusky J, Giordano C, Giudici S et al. 1986. Glycemic response to pasta: effect of surface area, degree of cooking, and protein enrichment. Diab. Care 9:401–4
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Xu H, Zhang G. 2014. Slow digestion property of microencapsulated normal corn starch. J. Cereal Sci. 60:99–104
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Yang W, Hattori M, Kawaguchi T, Takahashi K. 1998. Properties of starches conjugated with lysine and poly(lysine) by the Maillard reaction. J. Agric. Food Chem. 46:442–45
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Ye F, Miao M, Huang C, Lu K, Jiang B, Zhang T. 2014. Elucidation of substituted ester group position in octenylsuccinic anhydride modified sugary maize soluble starch. J. Agric. Food Chem. 62:11696–705
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Yiu SH, Wood PJ, Weisz J. 1987. Effects of cooking on starch and β-glucan of rolled oats. Cereal Chem 64:373–79
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Yu W, Zou W, Dhital S, Wu P, Gidley MJ et al. 2018. The adsorption of α-amylase on barley proteins affects the in vitro digestion of starch in barley flour. Food Chem 241:493–501
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Zhang B, Dhital S, Flanagan FM, Gidley MJ. 2014. Mechanism for starch granule ghost formation deduced from structural and enzyme digestion properties. J Agric. Food Chem. 62:760–71
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Zhang B, Dhital S, Flanagan BM, Luckman P, Halley PJ, Gidley MJ. 2015. Extrusion induced low-order starch matrices: enzymic hydrolysis and structure. Carbohydr. Polym. 134:485–96
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Zhang G, Ao Z, Hamaker BR. 2006a. Slow digestion property of native cereal starches. Biomacromolecules 7:3252–58
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Zhang G, Ao Z, Hamaker BR. 2008a. Nutritional property of endosperm starches from maize mutants: a parabolic relationship between slowly digestible starch and amylopectin fine structure. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56:4686–94
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Zhang G, Hamaker BR. 2009. Slowly digestible starch: concept, mechanism, and proposed extended glycemic index. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 49:852–67
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Zhang G, Hamaker BR. 2017. The nutritional property of endosperm starch and its contribution to the health benefits of whole grain foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 57:3807–17
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Zhang G, Hasek LY, Lee BH, Hamaker BR. 2015. Gut feedback mechanisms and food intake: a physiological approach to slow carbohydrate bioavailability. Food Funct 6:1072–89
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Zhang G, Maladen M, Campanella OH, Hamaker BR. 2010. Free fatty acids electronically bridge the self-assembly of a three-component nanocomplex consisting of amylose, protein, and free fatty acids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58:9164–70
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Zhang G, Sofyan M, Hamaker BR. 2008b. Slowly digestible state of starch: mechanism of slow digestion property of gelatinized maize starch. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56:4695–702
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Zhang G, Venkatachalam M, Hamaker BR. 2006b. Structural basis for the slow digestion property of native cereal starch. Biomacromolecules 7:3259–66
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Zhang J, Luo K, Zhang G. 2017. Impact of native form oat β-glucan on starch digestion and postprandial glycemia. J. Cereal Sci. 73:84–90
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Zhou X, Ying YN, Hu BL, Pang YH, Bao JS. 2018. Physicochemical properties and digestibility of endosperm starches in four indica rice mutants. Carbohydr. Polym. 195:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Zhu LJ, Liu QQ, Wilson JD, Gu MH, Shi YC. 2011. Digestibility and physicochemical properties of rice (Oryza sativa L.) flours and starches differing in amylose content. Carbohydr. Polym. 86:1751–59
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Zou W, Schulz BL, Tan X, Sissons M, Warren FJ et al. 2019. The role of thermostable proteinaceous α-amylase inhibitors in slowing starch digestion in pasta. Food Hydrocoll 90:241–47
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Zou W, Sissons M, Warren FJ, Gidley MJ, Gilbert RG. 2016. Compact structure and proteins of pasta retard in vitro digestive evolution of branched starch molecular structure. Carbohydr. Polym. 152:441–49
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-070620-013937
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-food-070620-013937
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error