3.8 Article

The concentrations and distribution of phytic acid-phosphorus and other mineral nutrients in wild-type and low phytic acid1-1 (lpa1-1) corn (Zea mays L.) grains and grain parts

Journal

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/B04-146

Keywords

corn (Zea mays L.); phytic acid-phosphorus; low phytic acid1-1 (lpa1-1) grains; mineral nutrients; globoids; electron microscopy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comparison of mineral nutrient and phytic acid-phosphorus (PA-P) distribution in the grains of wild-type (WT) and low phytic acid1-1 (lpa1-1) corn (Zea mays L.) was conducted to determine how the lpa1-1 mutation influences mineral element concentrations in different grain parts and impacts the structure of phosphorus-rich inclusions (globoids) in the grain cells. This is the first report regarding total phosphorus (P) and PA-P concentrations in scutellum and root-shoot axis portions of cereal embryos of WT in comparison to its matching lpa1-1 genotype. In WT, 95% of the grain PA-P was located in the embryo, mostly in the scutellum. The lpa1-1 mutation reduced whole-grain PA-P by 62% but influenced the scutella more than the root-shoot axes and rest-of-grain fractions. In spite of the lpa1-1 mutants containing greatly reduced PA-P, whole-grain amounts of Mg, Fe, and Mn were higher in lpa1-1 than in WT, K and Zn were similar, and Ca was lower. Iron was 1/3 higher in lpa1-1 grains than WT while Ca was 18% lower. Decreased phytic acid in lpa1-1 grains resulted in reduction in globoid size in both scutellum and aleurone layer cells. Most lpa1-1 aleurone globoids were non-spherical and scutellum globoids were clusters of small spheres while WT globoids were large discrete spheres. X-ray analyses of globoids in both grain types revealed major amounts of P, K, and Mg and traces of Ca, Fe, and Zn. Both grain types contained almost no mineral nutrient stores in the starchy endosperm.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available