Intervention effectmodel-written summary

The germination 96 h plus autoclaving combination improved in vitro protein digestibility of cowpea seeds.

A claim from Effect of processing on antinutrients and in vitro protein digestibility of the underutilized legume, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp subsp. unguiculata · 2012

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The germination 96 h plus autoclaving combination improved in vitro protein digestibility of cowpea seeds.

Taxon
Vigna unguiculata subsp. unguiculataVigna unguiculata subsp. unguiculatae0
Treatment
germination 96 h + autoclavinge5
Outcome
in vitro protein digestibilitye5
Direction
improvede5

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata subsp. unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata subsp. unguiculata · TaxonWibowo Djatmiko ( Wie146 ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The effects of hydration, cooking, autoclaving, germination and their combination on the reduction/elimination of antinutrients and the improvement of in vitro protein digestibility of the tribal pulse, Vigna unguiculata subsp. unguiculata were investigated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–257
e5

“The combination process (germination 96 h + autoclaving) improved the in vitro protein digestibility”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 867–967

Title

Effect of processing on antinutrients and in vitro protein digestibility of the underutilized legume, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp subsp. unguiculata

V. Kalpanadevi; V.R. Mohan LWT 2012. doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2012.09.030

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-665bc5697c717fec72df83a2f2df7f0f7e5c5d669b74b644c78ed053dd37fecb · schema claims-v0.9 · position 9 in the model’s answer

processing · quality: protein · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this claim · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 10 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.