4.5 Article

Pasting properties of transgenic lines of a commercial bread wheat expressing combinations of HMW glutenin subunit genes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREAL SCIENCE
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 344-349

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcs.2010.02.002

关键词

Cereal; Breeding; HMW-GS; Pasting; GM; Wheat

资金

  1. Spanish C.I.C.Y.T. [AGL2007-65685-C02- 01]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) of the UK
  3. BBSRC [BBS/E/C/00004953] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/C/00004953] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seven transgenic lines of a commercial wheat (Triticum aestivum L) cultivar expressing transgenic subunits 1Ax1,1Dx5 and 1Dy10, alone or in combination have been developed. Pasting properties were determined in these transgenic lines using a Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA) in order to determine the possible impact of HMW-GS transgene expression on the starch properties. Expression of the HMW-GS transgenes increased the proportions of the corresponding 1Ax, 1Dx and 1Dy subunits affecting significantly the ratios of HMW-GS:LMW-GS and x-type:y-type HMW-GS. Starch granule size distribution varied significantly among all transgenic lines, with the Anza control and transgenic line T616 (expressing subunits 1Ax1 and 1Dy10) showing the highest and the lowest percentage of B granules, respectively. All transgenic lines increased the water-binding capacities (WBC) at 25 degrees C and 90 degrees C. Line T606 (expressing subunits 1Ax 1 and 1Dx5) and line T590 (expressing subunit 1Dy10) showed the lowest and the highest values for peak viscosity, respectively. Notably, lines expressing only transgenic x-type subunits (T580, T581 and 1606). with high ratios of x-type:y-type HMW-GS, had low peak viscosities, final viscosities and breakdown viscosities. Line T590 had the highest breakdown viscosity while lines T606 and T581 had the lowest. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据