| Literature DB >> 36076819 |
Weimin Cheng1,2, Zhuopin Xu1,3, Shuang Fan1,2, Pengfei Zhang1, Jiafa Xia4, Hui Wang5, Yafeng Ye1, Binmei Liu1, Qi Wang1, Yuejin Wu1,3.
Abstract
The chemical composition of individual hybrid rice (F2) varieties varies owing to genetic differences between parental lines, and the effects of these differences on eating quality are unclear. In this study, based on a self-developed near-infrared spectroscopy platform, we explored these effects among a set of 143 hybrid indica rice varieties with different eating qualities. The single-grain amylose content (SGAC) and single-grain protein content (SGPC) models were established with coefficients of determination (R2) of 0.9064 and 0.8847, respectively, and the dispersion indicators (standard deviation, variance, extreme deviation, quartile deviation, and coefficient of variation) were proposed to analyze the variations in the SGAC and SGPC based on the predicted results. Our correlation analysis found that the higher the variation in the SGAC and SGPC, the lower the eating quality of the hybrid indica rice. Moreover, the addition of the dispersion indicators of the SGAC and SGPC improved the R2 of the eating quality model constructed using the composition-related physicochemical indicators (amylose content, protein content, alkali-spreading value, and gel consistency) from 0.657 to 0.850. Therefore, this new method proved to be useful for identifying high-eating-quality hybrid indica rice based on single near-infrared spectroscopy prior to processing and cooking.Entities:
Keywords: eating quality; hybrid indica rice; near-infrared spectroscopy; single-grain chemical composition
Year: 2022 PMID: 36076819 PMCID: PMC9455687 DOI: 10.3390/foods11172634
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1The high-throughput near-infrared spectral acquisition system of individual rice grains.
Statistics of amylose content and protein content of NIR single-grain composition models.
|
| Mean | Min | Max | Standard Deviation (SD) | Coefficient of Variation (CV, %) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration Set | Amylose content (%) | 284 | 13.7 | 1.3 | 27.0 | 5.0 | 36.8 |
| Protein content (%) | 269 | 8.6 | 6.4 | 10.3 | 0.8 | 9.3 | |
| Prediction Set | Amylose content (%) | 94 | 14.2 | 1.7 | 23.6 | 4.6 | 32.5 |
| Protein content (%) | 90 | 8.5 | 6.9 | 9.8 | 0.8 | 9.6 | |
Analysis of partial least squares models of rice single-grain amylose content (SGAC) and single-grain protein content (SGPC) using different pretreatments and spectral ranges.
| SGAC (%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretreatment | None | None | COE a | 1 der b | SNV c | MSC d | 1 der + SNV | 1 der + MSC | |
| Factors | 13 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 11 | |
| Calibration set | R2cal | 0.9064 | 0.8528 | 0.8414 | 0.835 | 0.7829 | 0.7915 | 0.7692 | 0.7638 |
| RMSECV | 1.54 | 1.93 | 2 | 2.04 | 2.34 | 2.29 | 2.41 | 2.44 | |
| RPD | 3.27 | 2.61 | 2.51 | 2.46 | 2.15 | 2.19 | 2.08 | 2.06 | |
| bias | −0.00532 | −0.0239 | −0.0209 | −0.0136 | −0.0072 | −0.01 | −0.00853 | 0.00979 | |
| Prediction set | R2p | 0.8628 | 0.8537 | 0.8429 | 0.7762 | 0.8298 | 0.8309 | 0.7549 | 0.7614 |
| RMSEP | 1.7 | 1.75 | 1.82 | 2.17 | 1.89 | 1.88 | 2.27 | 2.24 | |
| RPD | 2.79 | 2.68 | 2.54 | 2.12 | 2.47 | 2.45 | 2.03 | 2.07 | |
| bias | −0.438 | −0.398 | −0.232 | −0.215 | −0.348 | −0.195 | −0.222 | −0.311 | |
| Wavelength ranges (nm) | 2500–1100 | 2452.8–1188 | 2327–2194.8, 2075.3–1188 | 2452.8–1427.1, 1307.6–1175.4 | 2075.3–1685.1, 1559.3–1175.4 | 2327–1188 | 2327–2069, 1949.4–1691.4, 1571.9–1188 | 2327–2194.8, 1949.4–1188 | |
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Factors | 6 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 10 | |
| Calibration set | R2cal | 0.8321 | 0.8564 | 0.8847 | 0.8409 | 0.8351 | 0.8483 | 0.8308 | 0.8182 |
| RMSECV | 0.329 | 0.304 | 0.273 | 0.32 | 0.326 | 0.313 | 0.33 | 0.342 | |
| RPD | 2.44 | 2.64 | 2.94 | 2.51 | 2.46 | 2.57 | 2.43 | 2.35 | |
| bias | 0.00037 | 0.00196 | 0.00168 | 0.00177 | 0.0021 | 0.00666 | 0.00244 | 0.00227 | |
| Prediction set | R2p | 0.8084 | 0.8496 | 0.8895 | 0.838 | 0.8412 | 0.8383 | 0.8217 | 0.8323 |
| RMSEP | 0.378 | 0.335 | 0.287 | 0.348 | 0.344 | 0.347 | 0.365 | 0.354 | |
| RPD | 2.29 | 2.58 | 3.01 | 2.48 | 2.51 | 2.49 | 2.37 | 2.44 | |
| bias | −0.0146 | 0.0149 | −0.0169 | 0.00433 | 0.00405 | 0.0185 | 0.0125 | −0.00753 | |
| Wavelength ranges (nm) | 2500–1100 | 2201.1–1553, 1301.3–1169.1 | 2327–1936.8, 1559.3–1420.8 | 2201.1–2062.7, 1943.1–1420.8, 1301.3–1169.1 | 2327–2062.7, 1811–1553 | 2452.8–2062.7, 1685.1–1553 | 2452.8–2320.7, 2201.1–2062.7, 1559.3–1420.8 | 2327–2062.7, 1811–1553 | |
a Constant offset elimination, b First derivative, c Vector normalization, and d Multiplicative scatter correction.
Figure 2Near-infrared raw spectra (a) and vector normalized spectra (b) of individual rice grains.
Figure 3The regression analysis between taste values and sensory scores (a), and the distribution of taste value of 143 hybrid indica rice (b).
Figure 4Distribution of physicochemical indices (amylose content, protein content, alkali-spreading value, and gel consistency) and dispersion indicators (SD, variance, range, quartile deviation (QD), and CV) of SGAC and SGPC of hybrid indica rice (n = 143). (a–d): physicochemical indicators, (e–i): dispersion indicators of SGAC, and (j–n): dispersion indicators of SGPC.
Correlation coefficients between physicochemical indicators (amylose content (AC), protein content (PC), alkali-spreading value (ASV), and gel consistency (GC)), variation indicators (SD, variance, range, QD, and CV) in single-grain chemical composition, and taste value of hybrid indica rice.
| Taste Value | Physicochemical Indicators | SGAC | SGPC | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC | PC | ASV | GC | SD | Variance | Range | QD | CV | SD | Variance | Range | QD | CV | |||
| Taste Value | 1 | −0.670 ** | −0.376 ** | 0.525 ** | 0.562 ** | −0.724 ** | −0.744 ** | −0.658 ** | −0.660 ** | 0.222 ** | −0.050 | −0.045 | 0.034 | −0.205 * | 0.100 | |
| Physicochemical Indicators | AC | 1 | 0.153 | −0.241 ** | −0.448 ** | 0.346 ** | 0.361 ** | 0.303 ** | 0.354 ** | −0.772 ** | −0.022 | −0.030 | −0.026 | −0.004 | −0.082 | |
| PC | 1 | −0.268 ** | −0.283 ** | 0.170 * | 0.188 * | 0.169 * | 0.148 | −0.06 | −0.010 | −0.014 | −0.033 | −0.024 | −0.382 ** | |||
| ASV | 1 | 0.316 ** | −0.335 ** | −0.342 ** | −0.259 ** | −0.385 ** | 0.039 | −0.029 | −0.025 | 0.040 | −0.083 | 0.080 | ||||
| GC | 1 | −0.325 ** | −0.342 ** | −0.255 ** | −0.289 ** | 0.238 ** | −0.069 | −0.068 | −0.003 | −0.172 * | 0.048 | |||||
| SGAC | SD | 1 | 0.998 ** | 0.896 ** | 0.900 ** | 0.273 ** | 0.288 ** | 0.287 ** | 0.147 | 0.372 ** | 0.196 * | |||||
| Variance | 1 | 0.901 ** | 0.898 ** | 0.258 ** | 0.282 ** | 0.281 ** | 0.147 | 0.369 ** | 0.184 * | |||||||
| Range | 1 | 0.760 ** | 0.259 ** | 0.273 ** | 0.273 ** | 0.220 ** | 0.340 ** | 0.185 * | ||||||||
| QD | 1 | 0.204* | 0.261 ** | 0.262 ** | 0.142 | 0.339 ** | 0.181 * | |||||||||
| CV | 1 | 0.182 * | 0.195 * | 0.124 | 0.203 * | 0.191 * | ||||||||||
| SGPC | SD | 1 | 0.997 ** | 0.893 ** | 0.788 ** | 0.926 ** | ||||||||||
| Variance | 1 | 0.893 ** | 0.787 ** | 0.924 ** | ||||||||||||
| Range | 1 | 0.642 ** | 0.833 ** | |||||||||||||
| QD | 1 | 0.737 ** | ||||||||||||||
| CV | 1 | |||||||||||||||
* and ** denote significant differences at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
Correlation coefficients between physicochemical indicators, variation indicators (SD, variance, range, QD, and CV) in SGAC and SGPC, and taste value of hybrid indica rice with similar composition.
| Physicochemical Indicators | SGAC Dispersion Indicators | SGPC Dispersion Indicators | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC | PC | ASV | GC | SD | Variance | Range | QD | CV | SD | Variance | Range | QD | CV | |
| AC of 11–14% ( | 0.032 | −0.165 | 0.507 ** | 0.136 | −0.646 ** | −0.665 ** | −0.591 ** | −0.585 ** | −0.476 ** | −0.001 | −0.044 | 0.071 | −0.230 | 0.056 |
| AC of 14–17% ( | −0.059 | −0.465 ** | 0.470 ** | 0.462 ** | −0.490 ** | −0.502 ** | −0.399 ** | −0.335 ** | −0.328 ** | −0.048 | −0.027 | −0.009 | −0.158 | 0.129 |
| PC of 7.6–8.1% ( | −0.727 ** | 0.292 | 0.608 ** | 0.458 * | −0.282 | −0.283 | −0.198 | −0.262 | 0.439 * | 0.312 | 0.306 | 0.284 | 0.123 | 0.260 |
| PC of 8.1–8.6% ( | −0.595 ** | −0.045 | 0.366 ** | 0.424 ** | −0.686 ** | −0.706 ** | −0.650 ** | −0.568 ** | 0.142 | 0.024 | −0.006 | 0.093 | −0.078 | 0.024 |
| PC of 8.6–9.1% ( | −0.777 ** | −0.024 | 0.540 ** | 0.672 ** | −0.821 ** | −0.832 ** | −0.704 ** | −0.793 ** | 0.235 | −0.425 * | −0.436 ** | −0.307 | −0.680 ** | −0.416 * |
* and ** denote significant differences at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
Figure 5The eating quality model of hybrid indica rice using physicochemical indicators (a), and variations in SGAC and SGPC and physicochemical indicators (b).
Figure 6The box plots of taste value (a), physicochemical indicators (b–e), dispersion indices of SGAC and SGPC (f–i) for low eating quality (LEQ, taste value ≤ 75), medium eating quality (MEQ, 75 < taste value ≤ 85), and high-eating-quality (HEQ, taste value > 85) hybrid indica rice.