Plant Protein‐Dietary Polyphenol Interactions: Implications for Protein Structural and Functional Properties and Digestibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The interaction between plant proteins and dietary polyphenols has garnered significant interest due to its impact on the structural, functional, and digestibility properties of proteins. This review explores the mechanisms underlying protein–polyphenol interactions, including noncovalent (hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions, and electrostatic forces) and covalent bonding, and their implications on structural and functional properties of proteins and their digestibility. Various factors influencing these interactions, such as polyphenol structure, protein composition, temperature, and pH, are discussed. The review examines data on the impact of polyphenols on protein digestibility, shedding light on the mechanisms underlying these modifications and emphasizing the need for a thorough understanding of these processes. It further highlights the role of polyphenols on digestive enzymes, which can either enhance or hinder their enzymatic activities. A structural and molecular levels elucidation of these interactions provides valuable insights for enhancing the functionality and efficacy of plant‐based proteins in food applications.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".