4.7 Article

Ultrastructure of individual and compound starch granules in isolation preparation from a high-quality, low-amylose rice, ilpumbyeo, and its mutant, G2, a high-dietary fiber, high-amylose rice

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 53, 期 22, 页码 8745-8751

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf051194a

关键词

ultrastructure; starch granules; compound starch granules; high-amylose rice; microfilament; SEM; TEM; high-voltage EM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ultrastructures of isolated starch granules from llpumbyeo (IP), a low-amylose japonica rice, and its mutant, Goami2 (G2), a high-amylose rice, which have extreme contrasts in physicochemical properties, cooking qualities, and susceptibility to amylolytic enzymes, were compared. In isolated preparation, IP consisted entirely of well-separated individual starch granules (ISG), whereas G2 consisted of two populations, the large voluminous bodies and the smaller forms, the ISGs. High-voltage electron microscopy revealed that each of the voluminous bodies consisted of tightly packed smaller subunits, the ISGs, indicating that they represent the compound starch granules (CSGs) of G2. This suggests that the structural as well as functional unit of G2 involved in food processing is, unlike IP and other ordinary rices, not ISG but is primarily CSG. ISGs located at the periphery of CSGs were fused to each other with adjacent ones forming a thick band or wall encircling the entire circumference. The periphery of ISGs separated from CSGs of G2 consisted of thin radially oriented filaments arranged side by side along the entire granule surface, whereas no such filaments occurred in ISG of IP. It appears that the thick band and the peripheral filaments surrounding CSGs and ISGs, respectively, function as a structural barrier that limits the entrance of water into the granules and subsequent absorption, causing the low swelling power, incomplete gelatinization, and finally poor quality of cooked rice in G2.

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

4.7
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