| Literature DB >> 26054242 |
Mariafe Calingacion1, Lu Fang, Lenie Quiatchon-Baeza, Roland Mumm, Arthur Riedel, Robert D Hall, Melissa Fitzgerald.
Abstract
Increasing demand for better quality rice varieties, which are also more suited to growth under sub-optimal cultivation conditions, is driving innovation in rice research. Here we have used a multi-disciplinary approach, involving SNP-based genotyping together with phenotyping based on yield analysis, metabolomic analysis of grain volatiles, and sensory panel analysis to determine differences between two contrasting rice varieties, Apo and IR64. Plants were grown under standard and drought-induced conditions. Results revealed important differences between the volatile profiles of the two rice varieties and we relate these differences to those perceived by the sensory panel. Apo, which is the more drought tolerant variety, was less affected by the drought condition concerning both sensory profile and yield; IR64, which has higher quality but is drought sensitive, showed greater differences in these characteristics in response to the two growth conditions. Metabolomics analyses using GCxGC-MS, followed by multivariate statistical analyses of the data, revealed a number of discriminatory compounds between the varieties, but also effects of the difference in cultivation conditions. Results indicate the complexity of rice volatile profile, even of non-aromatic varieties, and how metabolomics can be used to help link changes in aroma profile with the sensory phenotype. Our outcomes also suggest valuable multi-disciplinary approaches which can be used to help define the aroma profile in rice, and its underlying genetic background, in order to support breeders in the generation of improved rice varieties combining high yield with high quality, and tolerance of both these traits to climate change.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26054242 PMCID: PMC4883128 DOI: 10.1186/s12284-015-0043-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rice (N Y) ISSN: 1939-8425 Impact factor: 4.783
Figure 1A. Yields (kg ha ) of Apo and IR64 rices grown under irrigated and drought conditions (Dry Season 2012), N=48. B. Rainfall (mm) at the Experimental Station of International Rice Research Institute, Philippines during the growth of the rice samples (Dry Season 2012).
Comparison of flavour attributes in Apo and IR64 from irrigated and drought treatments with sensory qualities/attributes as previously reported by Champagne et al. ( 2010 )
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Sweet taste | + | ++ | + | + | ++ | + |
| Corn | + | + | + | |||
| Sweet aromatic | + | + | + | |||
| Astringent | ++ | + | + | + | + | |
| Water like metallic | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | + | |
| Sewer/animal | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||
| Sour/silage | ++ | + | + | + | ||
| Hay-like/musty | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | ||
aAdapted from Champagne et al. (2010).
Eight panelists indicated the strength of the perceived aromatic characteristic of the sample using a 3 point scale.
Figure 2A. PCA of metabolites detected in 12 biological samples of each Apo and IR64 from irrigated and drought treatments, N=48. B. PCA of metabolites with known flavour and low odour threshold detected in Apo and IR64 grown in irrigated and drought treatments, N=48.
Discriminating compounds, of known flavour and low odour threshold, in Apo and IR64 grown in irrigated and drought treatments
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Limonene | −0.391 | Methylbenzoate | −0.406 | 1,2,3,4-Tetramethyl benzene | 0.434 |
| n-Propylbenzene | −0.372 | Camphene | −0.401 | Tridecane | 0.425 |
| 1-Ethyl-3-methylbenzene | −0.358 | Benzonitrile | −0.379 | Phenethylacetate | 0.366 |
| Indole | 0.338 | Tetradecane | 0.368 | Benzophenone | −0.361 |
| 2-Heptanone | −0.297 | Phenol | −0.334 | 3-Methylbenzaldehyde | 0.262 |
| 2-Heptenal | −0.249 | Isopropyldodecanoate | −0.227 | Pentadecanoic acid | 0.243 |
| Hexanal | −0.233 | Decanal | −0.200 | Isomethyl ionone | 0.225 |
| 1-Hepten-3-ol | −0.231 | Benzaldehyde | −0.199 | Caryophyllene | −0.200 |
| 2-Pentylfuran | −0.216 | Octanal | −0.194 | Naphthalene | 0.199 |
| Methylstyrene | −0.201 | Heptanal | −0.193 | o-Cymene | 0.194 |
| Ethyl octanoate | −0.175 | 1-Propene-1-thiol | 0.167 | Benzaldehyde | −0.161 |
| 2-Propylfuran | −0.173 | Acetophenone | −0.102 | 1-Hexanol | 0.139 |
| α-Phellandrene | −0.168 | 4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone | −0.096 | α-Farnesene | 0.122 |
| o-Cymene | −0.118 | 2-Pentylfuran | 0.093 | 2-Methylheptane | 0.073 |
| β-Ocimene | −0.107 | 2-Methylheptane | 0.091 | 2-Ethylhexanal | −0.045 |
| 2-Octenal | −0.071 | Carvone | −0.087 | p-Xylene | −0.041 |
| 2-Butylfuran | −0.027 | Hexanal | 0.065 | 4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone | 0.036 |
| 1,3-Dimethylbenzene | −0.014 | 2,4-Hexadien-1-ol | −0.042 | Undecane | 0.028 |
| Undecane | −0.009 | Pentadecanoic acid | −0.009 | Phenol | 0.019 |
| α-Pinene | −0.001 | Indole | 0.007 | α-Phellandrene | 0.006 |
These compounds have been extracted from each of the three axes of a sparse Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis.