| Literature DB >> 27213446 |
Chee-Hee Se1, Khun-Aik Chuah2, Ankitta Mishra3, Ratnam Wickneswari4, Tilakavati Karupaiah5.
Abstract
Consumption of white rice predisposes some Asian populations to increased risk of type 2 diabetes. We compared the postprandial glucometabolic responses to three newly-developed crossbred red rice variants (UKMRC9, UKMRC10, UKMRC11) against three selected commercial rice types (Thai red, Basmati white, Jasmine white) using 50-g carbohydrate equivalents provided to 12 normoglycaemic adults in a crossover design. Venous blood was drawn fasted and postprandially for three hours. Glycaemic (GI) and insulin (II) indices, incremental areas-under-the-curves for glucose and insulin (IAUCins), indices of insulin sensitivity and secretion, lactate and peptide hormones (motilin, neuropeptide-Y, orexin-A) were analyzed. The lowest to highest trends for GI and II were similar i.e., UKMRC9 < Basmati < Thai red < UKMRC10 < UKMRC11 < Jasmine. Postprandial insulinaemia and IAUCins of only UKMRC9 were significantly the lowest compared to Jasmine. Crude protein and fiber content correlated negatively with the GI values of the test rice. Although peptide hormones were not associated with GI and II characteristics of test rice, early and late phases of prandial neuropeptide-Y changes were negatively correlated with postprandial insulinaemia. This study indicated that only UKMRC9 among the new rice crossbreeds could serve as an alternative cereal option to improve diet quality of Asians with its lowest glycaemic and insulinaemic burden.Entities:
Keywords: cross-breeding; glycaemic index; insulin resistance; peptide hormones; red rice
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27213446 PMCID: PMC4882720 DOI: 10.3390/nu8050308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Proximate nutrient composition (% by dry weight basis) † and cooking characteristics of test rice.
| Test Rice | Energy (kcal) | Total CHO (%) | Crude Protein (%) | Crude Lipid (%) | TDF (%) | Total Ash (%) | Available CHO (%) | Amylose (%) | TPC (% mg GAE) | Weight of Raw Rice (g) ‡ | Weight of Cooked Rice (g) ‡ | Cooking Time (min) § | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crossbred red rice | |||||||||||||
| UKMRC9 | 364 ± 1 a | 78.4 ± 0.10 b | 8.23 ± 0.12 a | 1.93 ± 0.26 a | 4.96 ± 0.16 a | 1.32 ± 0.01 a | 73.4 ± 0.26 c | 19.8 ± 0.35 a,b | 61.4 ± 2.59 b | 68.1 | 178.9 | 44 | |
| UKMRC10 | 355 ± 0 b,c | 76.2 ± 0.05 c | 7.44 ± 0.05 a,b | 2.20 ± 0.02 a | 4.25 ± 0.19 b | 1.30 ± 0.02 a | 71.9 ± 0.14 d | 19.0 ± 1.41 a,b | 81.7 ± 1.25 a | 69.5 | 181.1 | 45 | |
| UKMRC11 | 354 ± 0 c | 76.7 ± 0.57 c | 7.03 ± 0.55 b | 2.17 ± 0.01 a | 3.84 ± 0.14 b,c | 1.30 ± 0.03 a | 72.8 ± 0.42 c,d | 17.5 ± 0.71 b | 55.2 ± 2.03 b | 68.7 | 170.2 | 41 | |
| Commercial rice | |||||||||||||
| Thai red | 356 ± 1 b | 76.5 ± 0.20 c | 7.76 ± 0.15 a,b | 2.14 ± 0.08 a | 3.70 ± 0.09 c | 1.15 ± 0.00 b | 72.8 ± 0.30 c,d | 18.0 ± 1.41 b | 81.9 ± 3.53 a | 68.7 | 174.2 | 40 | |
| Basmati | 354 ± 1 c | 79.2 ± 0.26 a,b | 8.25 ± 0.36 a | 0.47 ± 0.10 b | 1.96 ± 0.08 d | 0.42 ± 0.01 c | 77.3 ± 0.34 b | 21.5 ± 0.71 a,b | 29.8 ± 1.60 c | 64.7 | 188.3 | 26 | |
| Jasmine | 349 ± 0 d | 79.6 ± 0.30 a | 6.98 ± 0.16 b | 0.26 ± 0.07 b | 0.24 ± 0.01 e | 0.15 ± 0.00 d | 79.4 ± 0.31 a | 23.0 ± 1.41 a | 16.2 ± 1.51 c | 62.9 | 180.3 | 32 | |
† Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation with each variety analyzed in duplicate samples (n = 2). Values in the same column not superscripted by the same letter are significantly different, p < 0.05 (univariate analyses of variance, followed by Tukey’s post hoc test); Raw and cooked rice weights were based on 50 g available CHO content; § Cooking time was recorded from the time the electric rice cooker was switched on to the time it automatically turned off. CHO, carbohydrate; TDF, total dietary fiber; TPC, total phenolic content.
Figure 1Baseline-adjusted trends (mean ± SEM) in postprandial plasma (a) glucose; (b) insulin and (c) lactate responses for six test rice and glucose standard, and incremental area-under-the-curve (IAUC) for postprandial (a) glycaemia; (b) insulinaemia and (c) lactataemia. § Mean values bearing the same alphabets were not significantly different (p > 0.05, univariate analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s post hoc test, ns = not significant); ηp2 = partial eta-squared, 0.01, 0.06 and 0.14 were used to denote small, moderate and large differences in measured outcomes, respectively.
Kinetic markers of postprandial glycaemic and insulin responses.
| Test Diet | GLU-Cmax (mmol/L) 1 | GLU-∆peak (mmol/L) 1 | GLU-Tmax (min) 1 | GLU-T∆0 (min) 1 | GI (%) 1 | GI Category 2 | INS-Cmax (mU/L) 1 | INS-∆peak (mU/L) 1 | IGI/HOMA-IR (×102) 1 | IGI/FPI 1 | Matsuda Index 1 | II (%) 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLU std. | 8.45 ± 0.34 | 3.43 ± 0.28 | 35.0 ± 3.4 | 121.4 ± 10.2 | 100 | - | 96.2 ± 9.96 | 90.3 ± 9.80 | 1.60 ± 0.03 | 4.91 ± 0.87 | 6.17 ± 0.64 | 100 |
| Crossbred red rice | ||||||||||||
| UKMRC9 | 7.34 ± 0.27 | 2.36 ± 0.23 | 37.5 ± 2.3 a,b | 85.8 ± 10.2 | 46 ± 7.7 | Low | 56.4 ± 5.61 | 51.5 ± 5.57 | 1.37 ± 0.03 | 4.11 ± 0.74 | 9.97 ± 0.78 | 51 ± 5.3 a |
| UKMRC10 | 8.01 ± 0.38 | 2.98 ± 0.34 | 40.0 ± 3.4 a,b | 110.2 ± 13.9 | 59 ± 8.8 | Intermediate | 63.3 ± 6.69 | 57.7 ± 6.37 | 1.41 ± 0.03 | 4.35 ± 0.98 | 8.50 ± 0.83 | 69 ± 7.7 a,b |
| UKMRC11 | 8.10 ± 0.24 | 3.08 ± 0.20 | 38.8 ± 2.2 a,b | 120.5 ± 13.8 | 63 ± 8.6 | Intermediate | 84.9 ± 10.1 | 77.1 ± 9.99 | 1.59 ± 0.04 | 4.84 ± 1.19 | 7.27 ± 0.67 | 69 ± 5.9 a,b* |
| Commercial rice | ||||||||||||
| Thai red | 7.53 ± 0.20 | 2.60 ± 0.20 | 38.8 ± 3.4 a,b | 100.5 ± 13.0 | 55 ± 8.6 | Intermediate | 67.7 ± 6.21 | 61.5 ± 5.97 | 1.43 ± 0.03 | 4.33 ± 0.85 | 8.37 ± 0.78 | 59 ± 4.0 a,b |
| Basmati | 7.37 ± 0.16 | 2.41 ± 0.12 | 35.0 ± 2.1 a | 99.6 ± 10.4 | 50 ± 5.8 | Low | 56.7 ± 4.19 | 50.9 ± 3.97 | 1.17 ± 0.02 | 3.59 ± 0.52 | 9.08 ± 0.75 | 52 ± 5.3 a,b |
| Jasmine | 8.15 ± 0.24 | 3.13 ± 0.25 | 47.5 ± 2.5 b | 136.5 ± 11.6 | 77 ± 7.3 | High | 78.7 ± 11.6 | 72.9 ± 11.6 | 1.33 ± 0.02 | 4.08 ± 0.74 | 7.04 ± 0.53 | 76 ± 7.1 b |
| 0.074 ns (0.138) | 0.063 ns (0.144) | 0.043 (0.156) | 0.075 ns (0.138) | 0.093 ns (0.132) | - | 0.061 ns (0.145) | 0.069 ns (0.141) | 0.952 ns (0.017) | 0.947 ns (0.018) | 0.058 ns (0.147) | 0.018 (0.186) | |
1 Values are expressed as mean ± SEM. Mean values within the same column superscripted by different letters were significantly different (§ p < 0.05, univariate analysis of variance with Tukey’s post hoc test; ns = not significant between rice types); 2 GI values were categorized as low (<55), intermediate (55–70) and high (>70) [19]; * One subject was excluded (n = 11) as individual GI and II values >2 standard deviations from the respective mean GI and II scores [25]; GI, glycaemic index; GLU-Cmax, maximum concentration of postprandial plasma glucose; GLU-∆peak, incremental glucose peak; GLU-Tmax, time taken to reach GLU-Cmax; GLU-T∆0, time taken for returning of plasma glucose to baseline levels; IGI/FPI, ratio of insulinogenic index to fasting plasma insulin; IGI/HOMA-IR, ratio of insulinogenic index to homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; II, insulin index; INS-Cmax, maximum concentration of postprandial plasma insulin; INS-∆peak, incremental insulin peak; ηp2 = partial eta-squared, 0.01, 0.06 and 0.14 were used to denote small, moderate and large differences in measured outcomes, respectively.
Correlation between nutrient content, cooking characteristics, glycaemic and insulin indices of test rice.
| Glycaemic Index | Insulin Index | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson’s | Pearson’s | |||
| Crude protein | −0.357 | 0.002 ** | −0.385 | 0.001 ** |
| Crude lipid | −0.133 | 0.268 | 0.006 | 0.958 |
| Total dietary fiber | −0.237 | 0.047 * | −0.134 | 0.263 |
| Total ash | −0.172 | 0.152 | −0.037 | 0.756 |
| Total amylose | 0.093 | 0.441 | −0.061 | 0.613 |
| Total phenolic content | −0.158 | 0.189 | −0.057 | 0.637 |
| Cooking time | −0.060 | 0.622 | 0.035 | 0.772 |
| Rice-to-water ratio | −0.175 | 0.145 | −0.093 | 0.442 |
| Meal serving size | −0.082 | 0.499 | −0.145 | 0.227 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 as per Pearson’s bivariate correlation test. The strength of correlation is defined as: trivial (0–0.1), weak (0.1–0.3), moderate (0.4–0.6), strong (0.7–0.9) and perfect (1.0).
Figure 2Baseline-adjusted trends in postprandial plasma (a) motilin (MTL); (b) neuropeptide-Y (NPY) and (c) orexin-A (ORXA) responses for six test rice and glucose standard. Note: Horizontal bars = smallest and largest values; Lower band = 25th percentile; Upper band = 75th percentile; (×) = median; (•) = outlier and (◊) = extreme values defined as 1.5 × (Q3 − Q1) below 25th or above 75th percentiles.