| Literature DB >> 34336359 |
Rong Wang1, Xia Wei1,2, Hongpan Wang1, Linshu Zhao3, Cengli Zeng4, Bingrui Wang5, Wenying Zhang1, Luxiang Liu3, Yanhao Xu2.
Abstract
The chemical method for the determination of the resistant starch (RS) content in grains is time-consuming and labor intensive. Near-infrared (NIR) and attenuated total reflectance mid-infrared (ATR-MIR) spectroscopy are rapid and nondestructive analytical techniques for determining grain quality. This study was the first report to establish and compare these two spectroscopic techniques for determining the RS content in wheat grains. Calibration models with four preprocessing techniques based on the partial least squares (PLS) algorithm were built. In the NIR technique, the mean normalization + Savitzky-Golay smoothing (MN + SGS) preprocessing technique had a higher coefficient of determination (R c 2 = 0.672; R p 2 = 0.552) and a relative lower root mean square error value (RMSEC = 0.385; RMSEP = 0.459). In the ATR-MIR technique, the baseline preprocessing method exhibited a better performance regarding to the values of coefficient of determination (R c 2 = 0.927; R p 2 = 0.828) and mean square error value (RMSEC = 0.153; RMSEP = 0.284). The validation of the developed best NIR and ATR-MIR calibration models showed that the ATR-MIR best calibration model has a better RS prediction ability than the NIR best calibration model. Two high grain RS content wheat mutants were screened out by the ATR-MIR best calibration model from the wheat mutant library. There was no significant difference between the predicted values and chemical measured values in the two high RS content mutants. It proved that the ATR-MIR model can be a perfect substitute in RS measuring. All the results indicated that the ATR-MIR spectroscopy with improved screening efficiency can be used as a fast, rapid, and nondestructive method in high grain RS content wheat breeding.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34336359 PMCID: PMC8298176 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5599388
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Wheat samples in the calibration set and the grain RS content measured by the chemical method.
| Wheat samples | Grain RS content (%) |
|---|---|
| Shannong7859 | 0.220 ± 0.013 |
| Karagan | 0.242 ± 0.011 |
| Baiqimai | 0.288 ± 0.013 |
| Fan6 | 0.308 ± 0.018 |
| Mace | 0.373 ± 0.020 |
| Fretes-3 | 0.395 ± 0.021 |
| Mazhamai | 0.417 ± 0.025 |
| Dabaimai | 0.474 ± 0.022 |
| Ganmai8hao | 0.491 ± 0.025 |
| Huaimai16 | 0.504 ± 0.032 |
| Zhongyou16 | 0.536 ± 0.031 |
| Youzimai | 0.541 ± 0.032 |
| Lumai1hao | 0.549 ± 0.033 |
| Honglidangnianlao | 0.562 ± 0.034 |
| Sumai3hao | 0.597 ± 0.041 |
| Xinmai19 | 0.606 ± 0.043 |
| Jinmai2148 | 0.642 ± 0.042 |
| Mingxian169 | 0.648 ± 0.045 |
| Yanzhan4110 | 0.718 ± 0.056 |
| Jinan2hao | 0.721 ± 0.053 |
| Jinan17hao | 0.741 ± 0.052 |
| Jinan13 | 0.750 ± 0.054 |
| Geerhongmai | 1.677 ± 0.084 |
| Zijiehong | 2.177 ± 0.103 |
| Shuilizhan | 2.238 ± 0.152 |
| Muzongzhuoga | 2.399 ± 0.112 |
| Shite14 | 0.758 ± 0.052 |
| Kord CL Plus | 0.758 ± 0.055 |
| Xuzhou21 | 0.761 ± 0.061 |
| Sankecun | 0.780 ± 0.063 |
| Zheng6fu | 0.793 ± 0.062 |
| Diyouzao | 0.847 ± 0.065 |
| N553 | 0.892 ± 0.061 |
| Kopara 73 | 0.910 ± 0.062 |
| Honghuamai | 0.919 ± 0.076 |
| Yunmai34 | 0.938 ± 0.075 |
| Miannong4hao | 1.008 ± 0.075 |
| Meiqianwu | 1.046 ± 0.073 |
| Jinmai8hao (Jinzhong849) | 1.082 ± 0.076 |
| Ningmai9hao | 1.091 ± 0.071 |
| Wenmai6hao (Yumai49) | 1.119 ± 0.078 |
| Jiahongmai | 1.139 ± 0.071 |
| AUS 19399 | 1.200 ± 0.072 |
| Liuyuehong | 1.232 ± 0.083 |
| Jiangmai | 1.379 ± 0.083 |
| Huzhuhong | 1.487 ± 0.083 |
| Zang2726 | 1.533 ± 0.086 |
| Honghuazao | 1.615 ± 0.083 |
| Heshangmai | 2.548 ± 0.107 |
| Wujiangzhuo | 2.601 ± 0.155 |
| Baihuamai | 3.348 ± 0.167 |
Wheat samples in the validation set and grain RS content determined by both the chemical method and the best ATR-MIR and NIR calibration models.
| Wheat samples | Grain RS content (%) | Relative error (RE) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical measured | ATR-MIR predicted | NIR predicted | ATR-MIR RE | NIR RE | |
| Xiaokouhong | 0.267 ± 0.011 | 0.332 ± 0.041 | 0.591 ± 0.085 | 24.345 | 121.348 |
| Yu30691-1-3 | 0.615 ± 0.032 | 0.423 ± 0.032 | 0.834 ± 0.088 | 31.212 | 35.610 |
| Hongpidongmai | 0.784 ± 0.041 | 0.864 ± 0.065 | 1.019 ± 0.091 | 10.204 | 29.974 |
| Tanori | 0.887 ± 0.063 | 0.861 ± 0.073 | 0.661 ± 0.093 | 2.931 | 25.479 |
| Hongpixiaomai | 0.991 ± 0.068 | 1.160 ± 0.082 | 0.684 ± 0.082 | 17.053 | 30.979 |
| PI94365 | 1.028 ± 0.065 | 0.998 ± 0.081 | 0.814 ± 0.091 | 2.918 | 20.817 |
| Huadong6hao | 1.172 ± 0.072 | 0.892 ± 0.093 | 0.937 ± 0.105 | 23.891 | 20.051 |
| Tumangmai | 1.230 ± 0.083 | 1.093 ± 0.101 | 1.506 ± 0.132 | 11.138 | 22.439 |
| Mahon Demias | 1.365 ± 0.085 | 1.216 ± 0.097 | 1.131 ± 0.139 | 10.916 | 17.143 |
| Chixiaomai | 1.508 ± 0.095 | 1.637 ± 0.105 | 1.054 ± 0.108 | 8.554 | 30.106 |
| Baitiaoyu | 1.725 ± 0.105 | 1.487 ± 0.127 | 1.398 ± 0.153 | 13.797 | 18.957 |
| Mangxiaomai | 2.288 ± 0.112 | 1.798 ± 0.153 | 1.587 ± 0.186 | 21.416 | 30.638 |
| Lanhuamai | 2.842 ± 0.117 | 2.200 ± 0.194 | 1.851 ± 0.225 | 22.590 | 34.870 |
RE, the ratio between the measured value minus the predicted value divided by the measured value.
Figure 1ATR-MIR and NIR spectra of wheat grain samples obtained in this study. (a) ATR-MIR spectra obtained in the range between 525 and 4000 cm−1 without pretreatment. (b) NIR spectra obtained in the range between 950 and 1650 nm without pretreatment.
Develop and screening for the best calibration model for resistant starch in wheat grain samples using ATR-MIR and NIR spectra.
| Spectroscopy | Preprocessing methods | Calibration | Internal cross-validation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| RMSEC |
| RMSEP | RPD | ||
| NIR | Original | 0.641 | 0.403 | 0.482 | 0.493 | 1.363 |
| MN | 0.673 | 0.384 | 0.526 | 0.472 | 1.424 | |
| MN + MSC | 0.671 | 0.385 | 0.523 | 0.474 | 1.418 | |
| MN + SGS | 0.672 | 0.385 | 0.552 | 0.459 | 1.464 | |
|
| ||||||
| ATR-MIR | Original | 0.922 | 0.188 | 0.804 | 0.303 | 2.218 |
| Baseline | 0.937 | 0.169 | 0.828 | 0.284 | 2.366 | |
| Baseline + GFS | 0.935 | 0.171 | 0.826 | 0.286 | 2.35 | |
| Baseline + SGS | 0.935 | 0.171 | 0.825 | 0.287 | 2.341 | |
R 2, determination coefficient of calibration; R2, determination coefficient of prediction; RMSEC, root mean square error of calibration; RMSEP, root mean square error of prediction; RPD, residual predictive deviation; MN, mean normalization; MSC, multiplicative scatter correction; SGS, Savitzky–Golay smoothing; GFS, Gaussian filter smoothing.
Figure 2Relation between the measured values and the predicted values for the grain resistance starch content by the calibration models obtained by ATR-MIR and NIR. (a) The calibration model obtained by ATR-MIR. (b) The calibration model obtained by NIR.
Figure 3The external validation of the best ATR-MIR and NIR models. (a) The ATR-MIR model using the baseline preprocessing method. (b) The NIR model using the MN + SGS pretreatment method.
Figure 4Application of the best ATR-MIR model to screen the high grain RS content mutant lines from wheat mutant library.
Verification of the best ATR-MIR calibration model screened high grain RS wheat mutants by the chemical measured method.
| YUW-RSH1 | YUW-RSH2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATR-MIR predicted (%) | Chemical measured (%) | ATR-MIR predicted (%) | Chemical measured (%) | |
| Replication 1 | 2.623 | 2.487 | 2.378 | 2.121 |
| Replication 2 | 2.245 | 2.66 | 1.945 | 2.199 |
| Replication 3 | 2.791 | 2.569 | 2.025 | 2.058 |
| Variance analysis | 2.553 ± 0.311a | 2.572 ± 0.090a | 2.116 ± 0.230a | 2.126 ± 0.071a |