Developing Protein‐Enriched Wholegrain Bread With Different Plant Protein Isolates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bread is a widely consumed staple food across the world; however, it often lacks a complete amino acid profile. This study aims to determine the suitability of commercially available plant protein isolates for the development of protein-enriched wholewheat bread, while preserving desired quality characteristics. Three protein isolates, soy protein isolate (SPI), pea protein isolate 1 (PPI1), and pea protein isolate 2 (PPI2), were assessed for their structural and functional properties, then incorporated in wholegrain bread formulations at 5%, 10%, and 15%, followed by assessment of dough properties and end-use baking quality. The protein content of the isolates ranged from 80% to 90%, with PPI2 having the highest protein concentration. SPI had the highest denaturation temperature at 85.54°C ± 0.31°C and exhibited superior foam and emulsion stability at 81.94% and 94.21%, respectively. PPI1 had the highest solubility at 20.85%, whereas PPI2 had the highest surface hydrophobicity value at 152,645. Additionally, SPI formed the strongest gels with the lowest minimum gelation concentration of 12%. Increasing the protein concentration in the bread formulations resulted in a decrease in firmness, loaf volume, and specific volume. Breads with the 5% SPI had the highest loaf volume of 342 ± 7.6 mL, favorable textural properties, and L* values of 39.40 ± 2.13 for the crust and 45.83 ± 1.57 for the crumb, making it the more suitable protein isolate for protein-enriched bakery applications. The addition of plant-based proteins presents a viable solution for addressing the increasing consumer demand for both nutritious and sustainable food options.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".