| Literature DB >> 29462852 |
Biao Zhang1,2, Ke Guo3,4, Lingshang Lin5,6, Cunxu Wei7,8.
Abstract
Chinese yam is an important edible starch plant and widely cultivated in China. Its rhizome and bulbil are starch storage tissues below and above ground, respectively. In this paper, starches were isolated from the rhizome and bulbil of Chinese yam, and their structural and functional properties were compared. Both starches had an oval shape with an eccentric hilum and a CA-type crystalline structure. Their short-range ordered structure and lamellar structure had no significant difference. However, the rhizome starch had a significantly bigger granule size and lower amylose content than the bulbil starch. The swelling power and water solubility were significantly lower in the rhizome starch than in the bulbil starch. The onset and peak gelatinization temperatures were significantly higher in the rhizome starch than in the bulbil starch. The rhizome starch had a significantly higher breakdown viscosity and a lower setback viscosity than the bulbil starch. The thermal stability was lower in the rhizome starch than in the bulbil starch. The rhizome starch had a significantly lower resistance to hydrolysis and in vitro digestion than the bulbil starch. The above results provide important information for the utilization of rhizome and bulbil starches of Chinese yam.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese yam; bulbil; rhizome; starch; structural and functional properties
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29462852 PMCID: PMC6017020 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23020427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Soluble sugar and starch contents in dry rhizome and bulbil a.
| Tissues | Soluble Sugar Content (%db) | Starch Content (%db) |
|---|---|---|
| Rhizome | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 84.6 ± 1.8 |
| Bulbil | 1.7 ± 0.1 ** | 66.9 ± 2.9 ** |
a Data are the means ± standard deviations, n = 3. * The bulbil data are significantly different compared with the rhizome data (** for p < 0.01).
Figure 1Morphology under normal light (A,a) and polarized light (B,b) and size distribution (C,c) of starch granules from rhizome (A–C) and bulbil (a–c) of Chinese yam. Scale bar = 20 μm.
Granule size distribution and amylose content of starches a.
| Tissues | Size Distribution b | Amylose Content (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D[4,3] (μm) | D[3,2] (μm) | d(0.1) (μm) | d(0.5) (μm) | d(0.9) (μm) | ||
| Rhizome | 17.74 ± 0.02 | 9.36 ± 0.01 | 10.51 ± 0.01 | 17.81 ± 0.02 | 26.03 ± 0.03 | 35.2 ± 0.5 |
| Bulbil | 16.42 ± 0.01 *** | 8.48 ± 0.01 *** | 10.17 ± 0.01 *** | 16.58 ± 0.01 *** | 23.64 ± 0.01 *** | 38.3 ± 0.1 ** |
a Data are the means ± standard deviations, n = 3. b D[4,3] and D[3,2] are the volume- and surface-weighted mean diameters, respectively. d(0.1), d(0.5), and d(0.9) are the granule size at which 10%, 50%, and 90% of all of the granules by volume are smaller. * The bulbil data are significantly different compared with the rhizome data (** for p < 0.01 and *** for p < 0.001).
Figure 2XRD pattern (A); FTIR spectrum (B); and SAXS profile (C) of starches from the rhizome and the bulbil of Chinese yam.
Relative crystallinity, IR ratio, and lamellar structure parameters of starches a.
| Tissues | Relative Crystallinity (%) | IR Ratio (cm−1) | Lamellar Structure Parameters b | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1045/1022 | 1022/995 | |||||
| Rhizome | 27.9 ± 1.8 | 0.71 ± 0.01 | 0.75 ± 0.04 | 0.062 ± 0.001 | 10.15 ± 0.08 | 180.7 ± 16.7 |
| Bulbil | 26.8 ± 1.8 | 0.70 ± 0.01 | 0.76 ± 0.01 | 0.062 ± 0.001 | 10.03 ± 0.20 | 161.4 ± 9.5 |
a Data are the means ± standard deviations, n = 2. b Smax, peak position; D, Bragg spacing; Imax, peak intensity.
Figure 3Swelling power (A); water solubility (B); DSC thermogram (C); and RVA profile (D) of starches from the rhizome and the bulbil of Chinese yam.
Thermal parameters of starches a.
| Tissues | To (°C) b | Tp (°C) b | Tc (°C) b | ΔT (°C) b | ΔH (J/g) b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rhizome | 73.6 ± 0.5 | 83.1 ± 0.1 | 88.6 ± 0.5 | 15.0 ± 0.9 | 12.3 ± 0.6 |
| Bulbil | 71.7 ± 0.3 ** | 81.1 ± 0.4 ** | 89.2 ± 0.8 | 17.5 ± 0.6 * | 13.0 ± 0.2 |
a Data are the means ± standard deviations, n = 3. b To, onset temperature; Tp, peak temperature; Tc, conclusion temperature; ΔT, gelatinization temperature range (Tc–To); ΔH, gelatinization enthalpy. * The data bulbil data are significantly different compared with the rhizome data (* for p < 0.05 and ** for p < 0.01).
Pasting properties of starches a.
| Tissues | PV (mPa s) b | HV (mPa s) b | BV (mPa s) b | FV (mPa s) b | SV (mPa s) b | PT (min) b | PTemp (°C) b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rhizome | 5145 ± 108 | 3752 ± 171 | 1393 ± 63 | 6065 ± 179 | 2313 ± 20 | 5.36 ± 0.04 | 88.7 ± 0.1 |
| Bulbil | 4288 ± 48 *** | 3542 ± 53 | 747 ± 14 *** | 6293 ± 37 | 2751 ± 27 *** | 5.58 ± 0.04 ** | 88.4 ± 0.4 |
a Data are the means ± standard deviations, n = 3. b PV, peak viscosity; HV, hot viscosity; BV, breakdown viscosity (PV–HV); FV, final viscosity; SV, setback viscosity (FV–HV); PT, peak time; PTemp, pasting temperature. * The data bulbil data are significantly different compared with the rhizome data (** for p < 0.01 and *** for p < 0.001).
Figure 4Thermogravimetric (A) and derivative thermogravimetric (DTG); (B) curves of starches from the rhizome and the bulbil of Chinese yam.
Figure 5Hydrolysis curve by porcine pancreatic (PPA) (A) and in vitro digestion curve by both PPA and amyloglucosidase from Aspergillus niger (AAG) (B) of starches from the rhizome and the bulbil of Chinese yam.