The study investigates the proximate composition, non-nutrient phenols, as well as mineral profile of various chickpea cultivars. Eight cultivars, comprising four desi (BG-3062, BG-20211, BG-1053, and K-850) and four kabuli (BG-3022, BG-2024, BG-1103, BG-1108) varieties, were analyzed. The proximate composition of chickpea was assessed by AOAC method and values depicted that all cultivars had appreciable amount of protein. However, there was significant difference in protein (19.13% - 25.36%) between cultivars. The non-nutrient analysis showed total phenolic content (TPC)ranged from 101- 276 mg GAE/100g and total flavonoid content (TFC) from 0.100-0.173 mg/g. Phytate content varied between 579-891.6 mg/100g. Phenol and phytate content were higher in desi cultivars than kabuli. Mineral analysis of chickpea was done by ICP-OES method and result highlighted significant differences in calcium, chromium, and other essential minerals. Newer cultivars BG-20211 had highest iron content as well as good amount of zinc hence can be screened out for this quality. The study also compared nutritional profile of four established cultivars of chickpea over a 10 years (2009 and 2019) cropping interval. There were significant changes in protein and mineral content in established chickpea cultivars in both cropping years; whereas TPC content was in the same order of magnitude. A significant increase in phytate content was reported in the year 2019 in three out of four established cultivars. The findings suggest that these chickpea cultivars possess diverse nutritional properties and has significant impact of climate change. This emphasizes the need of targeted breeding and agricultural practices to enhance chickpea quality.
Research Article
Nutritional composition, mineral profile and phytochemical content of new and established cultivars of chickpea as effected by cropping year
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5290145/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this latest preprint version
Chickpea
TPC
TFC
Nutraceuticals
Protein
Minerals
Chickpeas, scientifically known as Cicer arietinum, are one of the oldest cultivated legumes. Also called garbanzo beans, these versatile legumes belong to the Fabaceae family. Chickpeas are distinguished by their exceptionally high protein content, rendering them an exemplary plant-based protein source for individuals adhering to vegetarian and vegan diets [1]. Furthermore, chickpeas possess a rich nutritional profile, characterized by an abundance of dietary fiber, complex carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins and essential minerals, including iron, zinc, magnesium, and potassium [2]. The synergistic combination of these nutrients confers numerous health benefits, including the promotion of digestive health, regulation of blood sugar levels, and potential mitigation of degenerative diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, thereby underscoring the significance of chickpeas as a nutritionally valuable food component. Moreover, chickpeas are replete with bioactive compounds, including antioxidants, micro minerals which have been empirically linked to mitigating inflammation and minimizing the risk of chronic life style diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer [3]. While pulses, such as chickpeas, contain various bioactive compounds that confer health benefits, some of these compounds can also exhibit ambivalent or dual properties, meaning they may have both positive and negative effects on human health, depending on the context and individual circumstances. For instance, certain polyphenols like phytate and saponins present in pulses can have both antioxidant and anti-nutrient properties, highlighting the complexity of the nutritional and biochemical effects of these compounds [4]. The dual effect of phytates emphasizes the need for further research to fully elucidate their role in human health [5]. Tannins, a class of bioactive compounds renowned for their robust antioxidant properties [6], have been found to exert a paradoxical effect on digestion. Chickpeas are also rich in minerals such as iron (important for oxygen transport in the blood), magnesium (essential for muscle function and nerve transmission), and potassium (critical for heart health and blood pressure regulation) [7].
As the global demand for nutritious and sustainable food sources grows, chickpeas stand out as a valuable crop with the potential to address both nutritional and environmental challenges. Pulses are a nutrient-rich food group that can play a crucial role in the transition towards a more sustainable food system [2, 8]. With their low environmental footprint, pulses offer a compelling solution for those seeking to reduce their ecological impact. By incorporating pulses into our diets, we can not only improve our nutritional intake but also contribute to a more sustainable food culture, making them a key driver for a dietary shift towards a healthier and more environmentally conscious food system [9]. Their adaptability to various climates and soil conditions makes them an attractive crop for farmers worldwide, contributing to food security and agricultural sustainability.
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is one of the largest and widely grown crops across the world, particularly in Afro-Asian countries. In 2022, the global chickpea trade, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India emerged as the leading importer countries, driving demand for this versatile pulse crop. Conversely, Russia, Australia, and Canada stood out as the top exporter countries [10]. Chickpeas can be broadly classified into two distinct categories, namely desi and kabuli, which exhibit disparate morphological characteristics. These differences in physical attributes have significant implications for the utilization of each type in various culinary and industrial contexts [11].
Environmental conditions like season, temperature, cropping practices and varietal difference have significant impact on the nutritional and functional properties of chickpea. There has been continuous improvement in chickpea varieties in India and world and the major objectives of this program include increasing production and yield, developing resistance varieties against abiotic and biotic stress, changing maturity etc. [12]. Comparatively, less emphasis has been given on nutritional and functional quality improvement of chickpea, therefore, these new varieties are required to be studied for their dietary components before making them popular production varieties [13]. In India, in recent years lots of varieties have been developed through breeding programs and mostly studied for their morphological characteristics. Hence there is limited information available on the nutritional composition of these selected seeds. These cultivars need to be studied to assess their nutritional profile and the previously developed varieties are also required to be studied to ensure their chemical composition consistency and find the effect of environmental factors. Data on climate change on nutritional profile of chickpeas is currently not available in India. The study has first time evaluated the effect of ten years cropping period (2009–2019) on protein, minerals, total phenolic compounds and phytate content of four established cultivars of chickpea.
Therefore, the studied desi and kabuli chickpeas varieties, are newly developed at IARI, New Delhi. This study has evaluated four new chickpea cultivars (two desi varieties: BG-3062, BG-20211 and two kabuli varieties: BG-3022, BG-2024), along with four established cultivars (desi BG-1053, K850 & kabuli BG-1103, BG-1108). The established cultivars were also studied for agronomic variation. The comprehensive analysis aimed to provide a detailed understanding of the varieties' nutritional benefits, functional applications, and overall value, covering aspects such as protein and fiber levels, and essential mineral levels. The findings of this research can be applied to enhance food processing techniques.
2.1 Collection of chickpea
Chickpea (cicer arientum) seeds were collected from ‘Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, India; this includes four desi (BG-3062, BG-20211, BG-1053, K-850) and four kabuli (BG-3022, BG-2024, BG-1103, BG-1108) cultivars of chickpea. Each type had two established cultivars (desi BG-1053, K850 & kabuli BG-1103, BG-1108) grown in two cropping year 2009 and 2019 and four new cultivars.
2.2 Physical Properties
The physical properties of chickpea seeds were evaluated according to Heiras-Palazuelos et al. [14]. The weight of 100 grains was measured using a DENVER instrument, while the diameter of each grain was measured using a Vernier Caliper. Additionally, the number of seeds per 100 grams was manually counted. These measurements were taken in multiple samples to ensure accuracy, providing data on the weight, size, and density of the chickpea seeds.
2.3 Chickpea flour preparation
Chickpea seeds were hand-cleaned to remove impurities, then ground into flour using a Butterfly grinder. The flour was packaged in airtight bags and refrigerated at 4-5°C to preserve quality for future analysis.
2.4 Proximate analysis
Chickpea flour samples were analyzed for nutritional content using Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 2016) standards [15], measuring moisture (952.08), fat (948.15), protein (992.23), ash (930.30), and fiber (985.29). Protein content was calculated by multiplying the nitrogen percentage by 6.25. Carbohydrate content was determined by subtracting the sum of the other components from 100, with each experiment repeated three times for accuracy and subjected to statistical analysis.
2.5 Bioactive Constituents
2.5.1 Sample extraction
A chickpea flour extract was prepared by steeping a 1:10 flour-to-methanol mixture for 24 hours, then centrifuging and filtering the solution. The resulting extract was refrigerated and stored for antioxidant activity analysis.
2.5.2 Total Phenolic Content (TPC)
The total phenolic content of the chickpea flour extract was measured using the Folin-Ciocalteu method [16]. The procedure involved mixing 1 ml of the extract with 5 ml of diluted Folin-Ciocalteu reagent and 4 ml of sodium carbonate solution, involving a 60-minute incubation and UV-VIS spectrophotometry at 765 nm. Results were expressed as gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per 100g of polyphenol, with a standard curve and triplicate analysis for accuracy.
2.5.3 Total Flavonoid Content [TFC]
The TFC activity of chickpea flour extracts was measured following the method described by Boetang, Verghese, Walker, & Ogutu [17]. Two milliliters of methanolic extract was mixed with 150 μl of 10% AlCl3. After a 10-minute interval, 1 ml of 1M NaOH and 1.2 ml of distilled water were added to the mixture. After a 10-minute incubation, the absorbance was measured at 510 nm against a blank.
2.5.4 Phytate content
Phytate content in the chickpea extract was measured using the Sadasivam and Manickam method [18]. The extract was mixed with FeCl3 and heated for 45 minutes, then cooled and centrifuged. The resulting precipitate was washed and treated with NaOH, TCA, and HNO3, before being transferred to a potassium thiocyanate solution, followed by spectrophotometric analysis at 480nm, allowing for accurate quantification of phytate content.
2.6 Mineral Analysis
Chickpea flour's mineral content was analyzed using ICP-OES (Agilent 5800), following Gunduz et al. method [19]. The instrument was optimized for sensitivity and minimal interference, and samples were prepared using ash solution. The ICP-OES operating conditions included a radiofrequency power of 1450 W, plasma gas flow rate of 15 L/min, auxiliary gas flow rate of 0.2 L/min, nebulizer gas flow rate of 0.8 L/min, sample flow rate of 1.5 L/min, axial view mode, peak area reading, 15 s source equilibration time, 50 s read delay, and argon as the plasma gas. The analysis provided accurate measurements of mineral content, with precise operating conditions ensuring reliable results.
3. Statistical Analysis
A comprehensive analysis was conducted to evaluate the proximate composition and mineral analysis of the chickpea flour. The data were collected in triplicates and presented as mean values. Additionally, mineral profiling was performed to provide a detailed understanding of the flour's composition. To determine significant differences among the samples, statistical analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA followed by the Duncan test, with a significance level set at p<0.05. The IBM SPSS statistics 16 software was employed to facilitate the analysis, providing a robust and reliable evaluation of the data.
4.1 Physical Properties of selected chickpea cultivars
The physical properties of different chickpea cultivars are shown in Figure 1. Significant difference was seen in the 100-grain weight of desi and kabuli varieties of chickpea. Desi variety shows the weight range 18.19±0.42 to 27.08±1.03g while kabuli variety shows higher value (26.71±0.58 to 33.98±0.50 g) per 100-grain weight. The diameter of chickpea seeds ranged from 4±1 to 7.5±0.5mm. K-850 shows the higher seed diameter (7.5±0.5mm) while BG-3062 looks smaller (4±1mm) in all the selected cultivars. Number of grains in per 100g was higher in desi cultivar BG-20211 (571±0.00) while lowest in kabuli variety BG-3022 (294±0.5). These findings were consistent with earlier studies that showed notable size disparities between desi and kabuli cultivars, mostly as a result of their distinct genetic backgrounds [20].
4.2 Proximate composition of different cultivars of Chickpea
Eight chickpea cultivars analyzed in 2019, comprising four desi (BG-3062, BG-20211, BG-1053, K-850) and four kabuli (BG-3022, BG-2024, BG-1103, BG-1108) types, underwent proximate analysis, with the results presented in Figure 2. The protein content ranged from 19.13% to 25.36%, with the highest value in cultivar K-850 (25.36% ± 1.83%), followed by BG-2024 (24.56% ± 1.88%). According to Pasha, Anjum, and Morris [21], a higher protein content is indicative of good quality functional food products. In this study, the ash content of chickpea flour ranged from 2.63% to 3.73%, with cultivar BG3022 exhibiting the highest ash content at 3.73% and cultivar BG-3062 showing the lowest at 2.63%. This variation in ash content may impact the overall quality and functionality of the chickpea flour. Ash is a measure of the mineral content in food, as it is what remains after water and organic acids are removed through heating. Minerals are not destroyed by heat because they have lower volatility compared to other components in food (22). The fat content of chickpeas ranged from 2.5% to 4.24%. The cultivar BG3022 had the highest fat content at 4.24±0.32%, while the BG3062 cultivar had the least fat content at 2.5±0.22%. Previous studies have reported varying fat content in Bengal gram, ranging from 2.05% to 7.42% [23, 24, and 25]. In contrast, the current study found that chickpea cultivars contain a moderate amount of fiber, ranging from 3.1% to 4.5%. The desi cultivar BG-3062 had the highest fiber content (4.5%), followed by K-850 (4.3%), and the lowest was in BG-1053 (3.1%). Additionally, the carbohydrate content of the chickpeas was substantial, ranging from 53.74% to 62.2%, making them a good source of energy. These findings highlight the nutritional value of chickpeas, with variations in fiber and carbohydrate content across different cultivars. The results showed that the cultivar BG1103 had the maximum carbohydrate content i.e. 62.2±0.32%, followed by BG3062 (59.87±0.13%). A comparison of established cultivars for their proximate composition over a span of ten years showed that the values for ash content were not affected by the cropping year. However, the protein content in desi cultivars (BG1103 and K850) increased by 7.2% and 10.2%, respectively, while it decreased by 18.93% and 30.84% in kabuli cultivars (BG-1053 and BG-1108), after a decade gap. The variation in protein content among chickpea cultivars may be attributed to environmental factors such as temperature, fertility, and soil conditions, as suggested by Zheng and Wang [26]. This is consistent with the findings of Pace et al. [27], who observed fluctuations in protein and nitrogen-free extract (NFE) content in sweet potatoes over a one-year period. These studies indicate that environmental influences can significantly impact the nutritional composition of crops, leading to variations in protein content and other nutritional components. Our study also observed similar results, noting that the location and genotypes greatly influenced all chickpea cultivars. Yegrem et al. [28] conducted study on chickpea and their analysis of eleven chickpea varieties showed moisture levels ranged from 10.85% to 12.06%, protein levels roved from 16.21% to 19.28%, crude fat levels roamed from 5.24% to 6.43%, carbohydrate levels arrayed in between 59.61% to 63.34%, ash levels outlined from 3.11% to 4.19%, and crude fiber levels traversed from 5.92% to 7.49%. In 2021, Yegrem [29] outlined the moisture levels ranging from 5.73% to 12.10%, ash levels from 2.47% to 3.87%, total lipid levels from 3.77% to 7.41%, and protein content ranged from 12.02% to 24.91% in different Ethiopian chickpea varieties. The nutritional compositions found in this study are comparable to existing values reported in previous research. Yegrem et al. [28] discovered significant variations in the nutritional composition of eleven chickpea varieties over a two-year period [2018-2019], suggesting that genetic factors contribute to these differences. Similar findings were reported by Yegrem et al. [29]. Additionally, some studies have noted slightly higher fat content in chickpeas [1, 28, 30, and 31]. These results indicate that both genetic and environmental factors can influence the nutritional composition of chickpeas, leading to variations in proximate values among different cultivars and growing conditions.
4.3 Non-nutrient composition of different Chickpea Cultivars
Dry legumes, such as chickpeas, are a vital food source and offer numerous health benefits due to their high content of polyphenols and flavonoids [32]. The bioactive compound content of the tested desi and kabuli chickpea genotypes is presented in Table 1. Notably, the total phenolic content (TPC) of chickpea varied from 101 to 276 mg Gallic Acid Equivalent (GAE) per 100g, highlighting the significant presence of phenolic compounds in these legumes. This range suggests that different chickpea genotypes may offer varying levels of antioxidant activity and potential health benefits. The highest TPC content was observed in BG3062 cultivars followed by K850, BG20211, BG1103, BG1108, BG3022, BG2024 and BG1053 respectively. TPC content in desi cultivar was significantly higher than kabuli cultivars, when the established cultivars were compared over a duration of 10 years the value remained almost similar to the previous values. de Camargo et al. [33] reported higher TPC content than our result (31.5-17.3 mg GAE/100g) while Johnson et al. [2] reported TPC content from 56.4-259.1 mgGAE/100g in the selected variety of chickpea. Ferreira et al. [1] reported free phenolic content 369.47 mg/100g while bound phenolic content 109.01 mg/100g in raw chickpea. Phenolic chemicals are of great importance since they contribute to the seed color, sensory features, and various biological traits. In this study desi cultivars with darker seed coat showed better phenolic content. TPC enables for the assessment of phenolic compound content or presence in a sample. Phenolic chemicals display redox properties that account for their antioxidant effects. These variations could be attributed to the grain type, being different varietals, harvest conditions, and extraction procedures. The Total Flavonoid Content (TFC) of chickpea cultivars varied from 0.100 to 0.173 mg/g, with the highest content found in cultivar BG-3062 (0.173±0.06 mg Quercetin Equivalent (QE)/g), followed by BG-20211 and K-850, respectively (Table 2). These values are comparable to those reported by Saleh et al. [34], who found
total phenols and total flavonoids in chickpeas to be 5.68 mg Gallic Acid Equivalent (GAE)/g and 8.43 mg Quercetin/g, respectively. The correlation between total phenolic content and seed color in chickpeas has been observed in numerous studies, suggesting that seed color may be an indicator of the antioxidant potential of chickpea grains. A slight decline in TFC content was recorded in 2019. The variation in TFC among cultivars may be attributed to genetic factors, environmental influences, or a combination of both. Analyzed chickpea genotypes are therapeutic functional foods since they have their abundance of bioactive chemicals, including phenolics and flavonoids, and high protein content. Chickpea seed flour can supplement a balanced diet and enhance functional foods.
Phytate content of the studied chickpea cultivars ranged from 579-891.6 mg/100g. Higher phytate content was found in BG-1103, K850 and BG-20211 followed by BG-3022 while lower amount of phytate was reported in BG-3062 and BG-1053. Sinkovic et al. [35] reported higher phytate content in chickpea 1116mg/100g DW, this outlined the comparatively lower phytate content in our experimented cultivars. Comparatively desi cultivars of chickpea except BG3022 exhibited more phytate content than kabuli. Cropping year showed considerable variation in amount of phytate content in all four cultivars. BG1103 (13.98%), K850 (9.83%) and BG1053 (5.4%) cultivars showed increase in phytate content whereas BG1108 showed decline (14.85%) in phytate content in the year 2019 in comparison to 2009 [36]. Phytic acid, a non-protein antinutrient, has the ability to complex micro- and macroelements, as well as reduce mineral and protein bio-functions and complex enzyme ion cofactors. Recent studies by Sinkovic et al. [35] and Upadhyay et al. [37] have highlighted the potential health benefits of small amounts of phytic acid, a compound often considered an antinutrient. Research has shown that moderate levels of phytic acid may offer several nutritional advantages, including lowering blood glucose levels, preventing dental cavities, reducing the risk of colon cancer, and exhibiting antioxidant activity. These findings suggest that phytic acid, in small quantities, may have beneficial effects on human health, challenging its traditional classification as a solely negative compound. This new understanding of phytic acid's role in nutrition highlights the importance of reevaluating its impact on human health and potentially harnessing its benefits. To minimize the loss of micronutrients, it is advised to consume 25 mg or less of phytate per 100 g of diet. However, the pulses examined in this study exhibited significantly higher levels of phytic acid, which can be reduced by soaking and boiling.
The impact of climate change was observed to be highest on phytate content. The established cultivars grown in year 2019 had significantly high content of phytate. In contrast, TPC content was not changed in all established cultivars. When we compared the important meteorological data of climate change of year 2009 and 2019, we found that important changes, max temperature was increased from 29.5 to 37. 4 in year 2019, an increase of about 8degrees during months of 1st Nov to 31st March. A maximum rainfall of 55.8 mm was recorded in month of Jan 2019 in contrast to the negligible rainfall in the year 2009. Similarly relative humidity was also less in year 2019 in comparison to 2009 (Supplementary material S1 and S2). Impact of specific environmental conditions on phytate content is not available however, it is known that phytate is the major storage of phosphorus in plants which deposits in aleurone layer of seeds during its maturity. It also participates in metabolic pathways of plant and acts as antioxidant, hence it is assumed that climate change particularly extreme temperatures (max and min) and untimely rainfall may be responsible for high phytate formation in chickpea grown in 2019.
4.4 Mineral Analysis of different chickpea cultivars
Chickpeas, like other plants, are a rich source of essential minerals such as iron, zinc, calcium, potassium, phosphorus, and magnesium, which are present in their edible parts like leaves and seeds [38]. However, the mineral content in chickpeas can vary significantly depending on factors like agricultural practices, genotype, and environmental conditions, as highlighted in previous studies [39, 40, and 41]. This variability emphasizes the importance of considering these factors to optimize mineral content in chickpeas. Table 2 represents the mineral profiling of selected varieties of different chickpea cultivars. Calcium content was found highest in BG20211 whereas phosphorus was highest in BG3022. The mean value of Calcium (Ca) in BG-20211 (142.13±0.13mg/100g) followed by BG-3022 and K850. The chromium content in the chickpea cultivars varied, with the highest value of 0.23 mg/100g found in BG-1108, followed closely by BG-3062 and BG-2024, which had similar values. In contrast, the lowest chromium content of 0.09 mg/100g was observed in the K-850 cultivar. This variation in chromium content highlights the differences in mineral composition among the chickpea cultivars. Copper content in chickpea was highest in BG-1108 followed by BG-1053. BG-1108 and BG-20211 are outstanding iron varieties showing higher iron content. Iron and copper are important in plant metabolism and nitrogen fixation. Potassium was highest observed in BG-1053 (1373.13±1.45 mg/100g). The magnesium content in the chickpea cultivars was found to be highest in BG-3062, with a mean value of 116.45 ± 0.24 mg/100g, followed closely by BG-1053. This indicates that BG-3062 is a rich source of magnesium, an essential mineral that plays a crucial role in various bodily functions including good heart health. The presence of magnesium in significant amounts in these chickpea cultivars makes them a nutritious addition to a healthy diet. Magnesium plays a crucial role in resistance to biotic and abiotic stress, contributing to the plant's adaptation strategies to the environment [42], especially in the context of climate change. The mean value of manganese (Mn) in BG-1108 was highest followed by BG-3022 and BG-1103. The phosphorus content ranged from 377.51 to 827.99 mg/100g. BG-3022 cultivar appeared having the highest phosphorus followed by K-850, while the lowest phosphorus content was determined in BG-3062. The BG-1053 contained highest value of sulphur followed by BG-3062. Zn content was high in kabuli type compared to desi type. Zinc had maximum value in BG-2024 (8.58±0.02mg/100g) while K-850 contained lowest zinc content among the studied cultivars. Yegrem et al, [28] reported Ca (164.31-211.67 mg/100g), Fe (5.86-6.73 mg/100g), Mg (107.54-123.90 mg/100g) and Zn (1.61-2.59 mg/100g) content in 11 chickpea varieties. This shows that Fe, Mg and Zn were comparatively higher in current study. Table 2 also shows that boron (B) content was highest in BG-20211 (2.40±0.00 mg/100g) followed by BG-1103 where it recorded as 2.03±0.01mg/100g. BG-1108 cultivar appeared having the lowest boron content (1.18±0.01 mg/g). Sharma et al. [36] performed the mineral analysis of four established cultivars in 2009 and reported that iron and zinc content were high in BG1103, K850 and BG1053, these values were decreased while iron and zinc were increased in BG1108 from previous values (2009). Zinc content in kabuli cultivars was higher than desi types. New chickpea cultivars BG2024 and BG3022 are identified as outstanding varieties with highest zinc content and appreciable amount of iron. The variations in the mineral profile of seeds can be attributed to diverse agricultural practices, soil types, the use of different fertilizers or pesticides/herbicides, as well as genetic factors.
Pulses are thought to be high in micronutrient. In India, there has been progressive drop in pulse consumption along with per capita availability of pulses in financial year 2023 (47.1g/day) from previous years against the recommended value of 60g/day (per capita requirement), despite an increase in mineral deficiencies [43]. Chickpea is a major legume consumed in India hence contributes to protein micromineral requirement of maximum vegetarian population, this emphasizes the need of judicious selection of variety. The new chickpea varieties were found to be rich in essential minerals such as calcium, iron, and zinc, which play vital roles in the body. This is particularly significant for populations in developing countries in North America, Europe, and South Asia, where deficiencies in these minerals are highly prevalent. The increased mineral content in these new varieties can help address these deficiencies, providing a nutritious solution for vulnerable populations. The enhanced levels of calcium, iron, and zinc can contribute to improved overall health, making these chickpea varieties a valuable resource for combating mineral deficiencies. A newly developed chickpea that is high in minerals shows great potential for helping populations with mineral deficiencies. By adding important minerals like iron, zinc, and calcium to a legume that is commonly eaten, it directly addresses nutritional gaps. This is especially important in areas where diets usually lack these nutrients, which can lead to many people having deficiencies and health problems related to them. For instance, iron is needed to make hemoglobin and prevent anemia, zinc is important for immune function and healing wounds, and calcium is essential for keeping bones healthy and preventing osteoporosis. Hence newly developed variety should introduced for consumption among population to address the deficiencies as well as promoted for cultivation.
This study explores the nutritional properties of eight chickpea cultivars, emphasizing their significance in food and health industries. Chickpeas come in two main varieties, desi and kabuli, which differ significantly in their nutritional profiles. Notably, desi chickpeas tend to have a higher protein content than their kabuli counterparts, making them a potentially more protein-rich option. Furthermore, desi chickpeas are richer in phenolic and flavonoid compounds, which are powerful antioxidants that offer various health benefits. These differences in nutritional profiles make desi chickpeas a valuable choice for those seeking a more protein-rich and antioxidant-dense food option. These compounds are crucial for their antioxidant properties, which help prevent chronic diseases and promote overall health. The kabuli cultivars, while varying in protein content, also displayed unique nutritional profiles, including essential minerals like iron, zinc, and magnesium, highlighting chickpeas as a valuable source of micronutrients.
Study represents comprehensive data on effect of climate change on phenolic compounds present in desi and kabuli types. Total phenolic content remained consistent in established cultivars after 10 year gap. New kabuli cultivar BG2024 is rich in nutritional parameters like protein, zinc and iron whereas desi cultivar BG3062 is copious in term of phenolic compounds. Hence these varieties have promising option for expanding cultivation. These findings offer practical implications for breeders, food scientists, and consumers. Breeders can develop improved varieties with enhanced properties, food scientists can optimize chickpea use in products, and consumers can make informed choices based on nutritional content. This comprehensive analysis highlights chickpeas' role in promoting health and enhancing food quality.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ …………………..
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge ‘Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, India’ for providing the chickpea samples.
Author Contributions Conceptualization: Prashansa, Neelam Yadav; Methodology: Prashansa; Formal analysis and investigation: Prashansa, Neelam Yadav; Writing - original draft preparation: Prashansa, Neelam Yadav; Writing - review and editing: Prashansa, Neelam Yadav, Rajendra Prasad; Resources: Rajendra Prasad; Supervision: Neelam Yadav.
Financial interests: The authors declare they have no financial interests.
Funding: No funding was received for conducting this study.
Declarations Ethical Approval Not applicable.
Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests.
- Ferreira, C. D., Bubolz, V. K., da Silva, J., Dittgen, C. L., Ziegler, V., de Oliveira Raphaelli, C., & de Oliveira, M. (2019). Changes in the chemical composition and bioactive compounds of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) fortified by germination. LWT, 111, 363-369.
- Johnson, J. B., Walsh, K. B., Bhattarai, S. P., & Naiker, M. (2021). Partitioning of nutritional and bioactive compounds between the kernel, hull and husk of five new chickpea genotypes grown in Australia. Future Foods, 4, 100065.
- Kaur, R., & Prasad, K. (2021). Technological, processing and nutritional aspects of chickpea (Cicer arietinum)-A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 109, 448-463.
- Mudryj, A. N., Yu, N., & Aukema, H. M. (2014). Nutritional and health benefits of pulses. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 39(11), 1197-1204.
- Champ, M. M. J. (2002). Non-nutrient bioactive substances of pulses. British Journal of Nutrition, 88(S3), 307-319.
- Margier, M., Georgé, S., Hafnaoui, N., Remond, D., Nowicki, M., Du Chaffaut, L., ... & Reboul, E. (2018). Nutritional composition and bioactive content of legumes: Characterization of pulses frequently consumed in France and effect of the cooking method. Nutrients, 10(11), 1668.
- Kato, C. G., Gonçalves, G. D. A., Peralta, R. A., Seixas, F. A. V., de Sá-Nakanishi, A. B., Bracht, L., ... & Peralta, R. M. (2017). Inhibition of α‐amylases by condensed and hydrolysable tannins: focus on kinetics and hypoglycemic actions. Enzyme Research, 2017(1), 5724902.Duranti, M. (2006). Grain legume proteins and nutraceutical properties. Fitoterapia, 77(2), 67-82.
- Lestienne, I., Icard-Vernière, C., Mouquet, C., Picq, C., & Trèche, S. (2005). Effects of soaking whole cereal and legume seeds on iron, zinc and phytate contents. Food chemistry, 89(3), 421-425.
- Bharadwaj, C., Tripathi, S., Soren, K. R., Thudi, M., Singh, R. K., Sheoran, S., ... & Varshney, R. K. (2021). Introgression of “QTL‐hotspot” region enhances drought tolerance and grain yield in three elite chickpea cultivars. The Plant Genome, 14(1), e20076.
- FAOSTAT. Top 20 countries production of chick peas. (2022). Available at: www. fao.org/home/en
- Carbas, B., Machado, N., Oppolzer, D., Ferreira, L., Queiroz, M., Brites, C., ... & Barros, A. I. (2020). Nutrients, antinutrients, phenolic composition, and antioxidant activity of common bean cultivars and their potential for food applications. Antioxidants, 9(2), 186.
- Samtiya, M., Aluko, R. E., & Dhewa, T. (2020). Plant food anti-nutritional factors and their reduction strategies: an overview. Food Production, Processing and Nutrition, 2, 1-14.
- Röös, E., Carlsson, G., Ferawati, F., Hefni, M., Stephan, A., Tidåker, P., & Witthöft, C. (2020). Less meat, more legumes: prospects and challenges in the transition toward sustainable diets in Sweden. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 35(2), 192-205.
- Heiras-Palazuelos, M. J., Ochoa-Lugo, M. I., Gutiérrez-Dorado, R., López-Valenzuela, J. A., Mora-Rochín, S., Milán-Carrillo, J., ... & Reyes-Moreno, C. (2013). Technological properties, antioxidant activity and total phenolic and flavonoid content of pigmented chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 64(1), 69-76.
- AOAC Official Methods of Analysis. (2016). 20th Edn. Arlington: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc.
- Slinkard, K., & Singleton, V. L. (1977). Total phenol analysis: automation and comparison with manual methods. American journal of enology and viticulture, 28(1), 49-55.
- Boetang, J., Verghese, M., Walker, L. T., & Ogutu, S. (2008). Effect of processing on antioxidant contents in selected dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). LWT-Food Science and Technology, 41, 1541-1547.
- Sadasivam, S. (1992). Biochemical Methods for Agricultural Sciences.
- Gunduz, N., Ceylan, H., Guler, M. O., & Tekinay, A. B. (2017). Intracellular accumulation of gold nanoparticles leads to inhibition of macropinocytosis to reduce the endoplasmic reticulum stress. Scientific reports, 7(1), 40493.
- Wood, J. A., Knights, E. J., Harden, S., & Choct, M. (2012). Milling performance and other quality traits affected by seed shape in isogenic lines of desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of agricultural science, 4(10), 244.
- Pasha, I., Anjum, F. M., & Morris, C. F. (2010). Grain hardness: a major determinant of wheat quality. Food Science and Technology International, 16(6), 511-522.
- Liu, K. (2019). Effects of sample size, dry ashing temperature and duration on determination of ash content in algae and other biomass. Algal Research, 40, 101486.
- Kaur, M., & Singh, N. (2005). Studies on functional, thermal and pasting properties of flours from different chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. Food chemistry, 91(3), 403-411.
- Shad, M. A., Pervez, H., Zafar, Z. I., Zia-Ul-Haq, M., & Nawaz, H. (2009). Evaluation of biochemical composition and physicochemical parameters of oil from seeds of desi chickpea varieties cultivated in arid zone of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot, 41(2), 655-662.
- Wood, J. A., & Grusak, M. A. (2007). Nutritional value of chickpea. In Chickpea breeding and management (pp. 101-142). Wallingford UK: CABI.
- Zheng, W., & Wang, S. Y. (2001). Antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds in selected herbs. Journal of Agricultural and Food chemistry, 49(11), 5165-5170.
- Pace, R. D., Dull, G. G., & Phills, B. R. (1985). Proximate composition of sweet potato greens in relation to cultivar, harvest date, crop year and processing. Journal of Food Science, 50(2), 537-538.
- Yegrem, L., Mengestu, D., Legesse, O., Abebe, W., & Girma, N. (2022). Nutritional compositions and functional properties of New Ethiopian chickpea varieties: Effects of variety, grown environment and season. International Journal of Food Properties, 25(1), 1485-1497.
- Yegrem, L. (2021). Nutritional composition, antinutritional factors, and utilization trends of Ethiopian chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International journal of food science, 2021(1), 5570753.
- Jahreis, G., Brese, M., Leiterer, M., Schaefer, U., & Boehm, V. (2015). Legume flours: Nutritionally important sources of protein and dietary fiber. Ernahrungs umschau, 63(02), 36-42.
- Alajaji, S. A., & El-Adawy, T. A. (2006). Nutritional composition of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as affected by microwave cooking and other traditional cooking methods. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 19(8), 806-812.
- Segev, A., Badani, H., Kapulnik, Y., Shomer, I., Oren‐Shamir, M., & Galili, S. (2010). Determination of polyphenols, flavonoids, and antioxidant capacity in colored chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of food science, 75(2), S115-S119.
- de Camargo, A. C., Concepción Alvarez, A., Arias-Santé, M. F., Oyarzún, J. E., Andia, M. E., Uribe, S., ... & Bridi, R. (2022). Soluble free, esterified and insoluble-bound phenolic antioxidants from chickpeas prevent cytotoxicity in human hepatoma HuH-7 cells induced by peroxyl radicals. Antioxidants, 11(6), 1139.
- Saleh, H. M., Hassan, A. A., Mansour, E. H., Fahmy, H. A., & El-Bedawey, A. E. F. A. (2019). Melatonin, phenolics content and antioxidant activity of germinated selected legumes and their fractions. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 18(3), 294-301.
- Sinkovič, L., Rakszegi, M., Pipan, B., & Meglič, V. (2023). Compositional traits of grains and groats of barley, oat and spelt grown at organic and conventional fields. Foods, 12(5), 1054.
- Sharma, S., Yadav, N., Singh, A., & Kumar, R. (2013). Nutritional and antinutritional profile of newly developed chickpea (Cicer arietinum L) varieties. International Food Research Journal, 20(2).
- Upadhyay, J., Tiwari, N., Durgapal, S., Jantwal, A., & Kumar, A. (2022). Phytic acid: As a natural antioxidant. In Antioxidants Effects in Health (pp. 437-450). Elsevier.
- USDA nutrient database (2010). Nutritional composition of chickpea (raw) ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4778. Agricultural research services United States department of agriculture. National nutrient database for standard reference.
- Sarpras, M., Ahmad, I., Rawoof, A., & Ramchiary, N. (2019). Comparative analysis of developmental changes of fruit metabolites, antioxidant activities and mineral elements content in Bhut jolokia and other Capsicum species. LWT, 105, 363-370.
- Esayas, K., Shimelis, A., Ashebir, F., Negussie, R., Tilahun, B., & Gulelat, D. (2011). Proximate composition, mineral content and antinutritional factors of some capsicum (Capsicum annum) varieties grown in Ethiopia. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Ethiopia, 25(3).
- Guil-Guerrero, J. L., Martínez-Guirado, C., del Mar Rebolloso-Fuentes, M., & Carrique-Pérez, A. (2006). Nutrient composition and antioxidant activity of 10 pepper (Capsicum annuun) varieties. European Food Research and Technology, 224, 1-9.
- Jiao, C., Zhang, J., Wang, X., & He, N. (2023). Plant magnesium on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau: Spatial patterns and influencing factors. Science of the Total Environment, 862, 160743.
- Keelery S (2024) Daily availability of pulses per capita in India FY 2011-2023. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/980339. Published 9 September 2024.
Tables 1 to 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section
No competing interests reported.