Comparative study of the functional properties of three legume seed isolates: adzuki, pea and soy bean

The aim of this work was to compare functional properties including solubility, emulsifying and foaming properties of native and thermally treated adzuki, soy and pea protein isolates prepared under the same conditions. These functional properties were tested at four pH values: pH 3.0, pH 5.0, pH 7.0 and pH 8.0. The lowest solubility at all pH values were obtained for isolate of adzuki whereas isolates of soybean had the highest values at almost all pHs. Thermal treatment reduced solubility of soy and pea isolates at all pH values, whereas solubility of adzuki isolate was unchanged, except at pH 8. Native isolate of adzuki had the best emulsifying properties at pH 7.0 whereas at the other pH values some of native pea and soybean protein isolates were superior. After thermal treatment, depending on tested pH and selected variety all of three species could be a good emulsifier. Native soy protein isolates formed the most stable foams at all pHs. Thermal treatment significantly improved foaming properties of adzuki isolate, whereas reduced foaming capacity of soy and pea isolates, but could improve foam stability of these isolates at specific pH. Appropriate selection of legume seed as well as variety could have great importance in achievement of desirable functional properties of final products. All three tested species could find specific application in wide range of food products

The hidden curriculum and integrating cure- and care-based approaches to medicine

Although current literature about the “cure versus care” issue tends to promote a patient-centered approach, the disease-centered approach remains the prevailing model in practice. The perceived dichotomy between the two approaches has created a barrier that could make it difficult for medical students and physicians to integrate psychosocial aspects of patient care into the prevailing disease-based model. This article examines the influence of the formal and hidden curricula on the perception of these two approaches and finds that the hidden curriculum perpetuates the notion that “cure” and “care” based approaches are dichotomous despite significant changes in formal curricula that promote a more integrated approach. The authors argue that it is detrimental for clinicians to view the two approaches as oppositional rather than complementary and attempt to give recommendations on how the influence of the hidden curriculum can be reduced to get a both-cure-and-care-approach, rather than an either-cure-or-care-approach