Abstract
The study was conducted to investigate chemical composition, mineral profile, tannin content, and effect of cooking on in vitro protein digestibility , and separation and identification of free and bound phenolic acids of Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita) and Indian sorghum cultivar (namely CSH5). Chemical composition of the two sorghum cultivars was determined. Sudanese cultivar showed significantly (p<0.05) high moisture, ash, protein, and fat while Indian cultivar was significantly higher (P<0.05) in fiber and carbohydrate contents. Cupper, calcium, iron, phosphorus, potassium, and sodium were determined for the two cultivars. Results revealed that, Sudanese cultivar was significantly higher (P<0.05) in cupper, calcium, iron, and sodium while Indian cultivar was significantly higher (P<0.05) in phosphorus and potassium content. Tannin content in Sudanese cultivar was significantly (P<0.05) higher compared to Indian cultivar. Effect of cooking on in vitro protein digestibility revealed that cooking significantly (P<0.05) reduced the in vitro protein digestibility of the two sorghum cultivars. The phenolic acids (PAs) as free and bound form content were separated and identified using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for the two sorghum cultivars. Syringic, p-coummaric, ferulic acid were detected as free form of phenolic acids of Indian cultivar while gallic , protocatechuic, gentisic, caffeic, p-coummaric , and ferulic acids were detected in free form of Sudanese cultivar. Gallic, protocatechuic , gentisic, and p-coummaric were not detected in free form in Indian cultivar while syringic acid was not detected in Sudanese cultivar in free form. Indian cultivar contained high caffeic and ferulic acid in free form compared to Sudanese cultivar. Syringic , caffeic, p- coummaric and ferulic acids were detected in bound form in Indian cultivar while gallic, protocatechuic, caffeic, p-coummaric and ferulic acid were detected in bound form in Sudanese cultivar. Gallic, protocatechuic and gentisic acids were not detected in free and bound form in Indian cultivar while p-coummaric acid was only detected in bound form in Indian cultivar. Syringic, caffeic, p-coummaric and ferulic acids content in bound form were high in Indian cultivar than Sudanese cultivar. Generally phenolic acids of the two cultivars exist mostly in bound form.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 20
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar had higher moisture, ash and protein.
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sudanese cultivar showed significantly (p<0.05) high moisture, ash, protein, and fat”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar had higher fat.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sudanese cultivar showed significantly (p<0.05) high moisture, ash, protein, and fat”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Indian cultivar had higher fiber and carbohydrate contents.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Indian cultivar was significantly higher (P<0.05) in fiber and carbohydrate contents”
e1“Indian sorghum cultivar (namely CSH5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar had higher cupper, calcium and iron contents.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sudanese cultivar was significantly higher (P<0.05) in cupper, calcium, iron, and sodium”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar had higher sodium.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sudanese cultivar was significantly higher (P<0.05) in cupper, calcium, iron, and sodium”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Indian cultivar had higher phosphorus and potassium contents.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Indian cultivar was significantly higher (P<0.05) in phosphorus and potassium content”
e1“Indian sorghum cultivar (namely CSH5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar had higher tannin content than Indian cultivar.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tannin content in Sudanese cultivar was significantly (P<0.05) higher compared to Indian cultivar”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cooking reduced in vitro protein digestibility in both cultivars.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cooking significantly (P<0.05) reduced the in vitro protein digestibility of the two sorghum cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Indian cultivar contained free syringic, p-coummaric and ferulic acid.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Syringic, p-coummaric, ferulic acid were detected as free form of phenolic acids of Indian cultivar”
e1“Indian sorghum cultivar (namely CSH5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar contained free gallic, protocatechuic and gentisic acids.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gallic , protocatechuic, gentisic, caffeic, p-coummaric , and ferulic acids were detected in free form of Sudanese cultivar”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar contained free caffeic, p-coummaric and ferulic acids.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gallic , protocatechuic, gentisic, caffeic, p-coummaric , and ferulic acids were detected in free form of Sudanese cultivar”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Indian cultivar lacked free gallic, protocatechuic and gentisic acids.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Gallic, protocatechuic , gentisic, and p-coummaric were not detected in free form in Indian cultivar”
e1“Indian sorghum cultivar (namely CSH5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar lacked free syringic acid.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“syringic acid was not detected in Sudanese cultivar in free form”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Indian cultivar had higher free caffeic and ferulic acid.
- Material
- CSH5e1
- Outcome
- caffeic and ferulic acid in free forme0
- Direction
- highe0
- Comparator
- Sudanese cultivare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Indian cultivar contained high caffeic and ferulic acid in free form compared to Sudanese cultivar”
e1“Indian sorghum cultivar (namely CSH5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Indian cultivar contained bound syringic, caffeic and p-coummaric acids.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Syringic , caffeic, p- coummaric and ferulic acids were detected in bound form in Indian cultivar”
e1“Indian sorghum cultivar (namely CSH5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Indian cultivar contained bound ferulic acid.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Syringic , caffeic, p- coummaric and ferulic acids were detected in bound form in Indian cultivar”
e1“Indian sorghum cultivar (namely CSH5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar contained bound gallic, protocatechuic and caffeic acids.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gallic, protocatechuic, caffeic, p-coummaric and ferulic acid were detected in bound form in Sudanese cultivar”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sudanese cultivar contained bound p-coummaric and ferulic acid.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gallic, protocatechuic, caffeic, p-coummaric and ferulic acid were detected in bound form in Sudanese cultivar”
e1“Sudanese sorghum cultivar (namely feterita)”
Claim · model-written summary
Indian cultivar had higher bound syringic, caffeic and p-coummaric acids.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Syringic, caffeic, p-coummaric and ferulic acids content in bound form were high in Indian cultivar than Sudanese cultivar”
e1“Indian sorghum cultivar (namely CSH5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Phenolic acids in both cultivars were mostly bound.
- Outcome
- phenolic acids of the two cultivars exist mostly in bound forme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Generally phenolic acids of the two cultivars exist mostly in bound form”
t0“Sorghum Cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
processing · quality: protein · SorghumPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.