4.6 Article

Nutritionally Important Starch Fractions of Rice Cultivars Grown in Southern United States

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
卷 75, 期 5, 页码 H137-H144

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01627.x

关键词

digestibility; resistant starch; rice; slowly digestible starch; starch

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary starches can be classified into 3 major fractions according to in vitro digestibility as rapidly digestible (RDS), slowly digestible (SDS), and resistant starch (RS). Literature indicates that SDS and/or RS have significant implications on human health, particularly glucose metabolism, diabetes management, colon cancer prevention, mental performance, and satiety. In this study, the nutritionally important starch fractions (RDS, SDS, and RS) in cooked rice were assayed in vitro, making use of 16 cultivars grown in 5 southern U. S. rice growing locations (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas). RDS, SDS, and RS were 52.4% to 69.4%, 10.3% to 26.6%, and 1.2% to 9.0%, respectively, of cooked rice dry weight. Cultivar, location, and cultivar-by-location interaction contributed to the variations in RDS, SDS, and RS contents. Means pooled across locations indicated that SDS was higher for the Louisiana samples than those from Texas, whereas RS was higher for the Texas samples than those from Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Some cultivars were identified to possess high levels of RS (for example, Bowman and Rondo) or SDS (for example, Dixiebelle and Tesanai-2) and were also stable across growing locations. Apparent amylose content correlated positively with RS (n = 80, r = 0.54, P <= 0.001), negatively with RDS (n = 80, r = -0.29, P <= 0.05), and insignificantly with SDS (n = 80, r = 0.21, P > 0.05). RS and SDS were not collinear (n = 80, r = -0.18, P > 0.05); it does not follow that a cultivar high in RS will also be high in SDS, and vice versa. The observed differences in RDS, SDS, and RS among the samples are indicative of wide genetic diversity in rice.

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

4.6
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