4.7 Article

Discrepancies in resistant starch and starch physicochemical properties between rice mutants similar in high amylose content

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1267281

Keywords

Rice (Oryza sativa L.); resistant starch; amylose; amylopectin; physiochemical properties

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The content of resistant starch (RS) is positively correlated with the apparent amylose content (AAC). We analyzed two Indica rice mutants with high AAC and found that their RS content differed remarkably. The difference in RS content may be attributed to the differences in fine structures of amylopectin.
The content of resistant starch (RS) was considered positively correlated with the apparent amylose content (AAC). Here, we analyzed two Indica rice mutants, RS111 and Zhedagaozhi 1B, similar in high AAC and found that their RS content differed remarkably. RS111 had higher RS3 content but lower RS2 content than Zhedagaozhi 1B; correspondingly, cooked RS111 showed slower digestibility. RS111 had smaller irregular and oval starch granules when compared with Zhedagaozhi 1B and the wild type. Zhedagaozhi 1B showed a B-type starch pattern, different from RS111 and the wild type, which showed A-type starch. Meantime, RS111 had more fa and fb1 but less fb3 than Zhedagaozhi 1B. Both mutants showed decreased viscosity and swelling power when compared with the parents. RS111 had the lowest viscosity, and Zhedagaozhi 1B had the smallest swelling power. The different fine structures of amylopectin between RS111 and Zhedagaozhi 1B led to different starch types, gelatinization properties, paste viscosity, and digestibility. In addition to enhancing amylose content, modifications on amylopectin structure showed great potent in breeding rice with different RS2 and RS3 content, which could meet the increasing needs for various rice germplasms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available