Next Article in Journal
Computational Screening of Newly Designed Compounds against Coxsackievirus A16 and Enterovirus A71
Next Article in Special Issue
Dried and Fermented Powders of Edible Algae (Neopyropia yezoensis) Attenuate Hepatic Steatosis in Obese Mice
Previous Article in Journal
Inhibition of Filamentous Thermosensitive Mutant-Z Protein in Bacillus subtilis by Cyanobacterial Bioactive Compounds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Gamma Irradiation on Different Phytochemical Constituents of Dried Rose Hip (Rosa canina L.) Fruits
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sizes, Components, Crystalline Structure, and Thermal Properties of Starches from Sweet Potato Varieties Originating from Different Countries

1
Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Physiology of Jiangsu Province/Joint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture & Agri-Product Safety of the Ministry of Education, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
2
Co-Innovation Center for Modern Production Technology of Grain Crops of Jiangsu Province/Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Crop Genomics and Molecular Breeding, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
3
Xuzhou Institute of Agricultural Sciences in Jiangsu Xuhuai District, Xuzhou 221131, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Molecules 2022, 27(6), 1905; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27061905
Submission received: 2 March 2022 / Revised: 11 March 2022 / Accepted: 14 March 2022 / Published: 15 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Food Chemistry)

Abstract

:
Sweet potato is a root tuber crop and an important starch source. There are hundreds of sweet potato varieties planted widely in the world. Starches from varieties with different genotype types and originating from different countries have not been compared for their physicochemical properties. In the research, starches from 44 sweet potato varieties originating from 15 countries but planted in the same growing conditions were investigated for their physicochemical properties to reveal the similarities and differences in varieties. The results showed that the 44 starches had granule size (D[4,3]) from 8.01 to 15.30 μm. Starches had different iodine absorption properties with OD680 from 0.259 to 0.382 and OD620/550 from 1.142 to 1.237. The 44 starches had apparent amylose content from 19.2% to 29.2% and true amylose content from 14.2% to 20.2%. The starches exhibited A-, CA-, CC-, or CB-type X-ray diffraction patterns. The thermograms of 44 starches exhibited one-, two-, or three-peak curves, leading to a significantly different gelatinization temperature range from 13.1 to 29.2 °C. The significantly different starch properties divide the 44 sweet potato varieties into different groups due to their different genotype backgrounds. The research offers references for the utilization of sweet potato germplasm.

1. Introduction

Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), an important root tuber crop, provides food and energy for people, especially in Asia and Africa [1]. Sweet potato contains 15–30% and 46–68% starch in its wet and dry root tuber, respectively, among different varieties, and has become the first choice for producing starch due to its short growth cycle, strong environment adaptability, low planting cost, and high yield in the world, especially in developing countries [2,3]. Starch isolated from the sweet potato root tuber has been used to produce noodles and vermicelli. In addition, it is also a good thickening agent in cooking foods and an important raw material in producing syrup, film, lactic acid, ethanol, and other chemicals [4,5]. The applications of starch are influenced by its physicochemical properties including size, components, crystalline structure, and thermal properties [3,6,7,8,9].
Sweet potato is planted widely in the world, and has hundreds of varieties or lines due to artificial selection, natural hybrids, and mutations [1,4]. The root tuber of sweet potato has different colored skin and flesh, but starch properties have no significant correlation with skin and flesh color, and are determined by the genotypes of varieties [2,10,11]. Starches from different sweet potato varieties have been studied for their structures, functional properties, and applications [10,12,13,14]. For example, Collado et al. [12] investigated the genetic variation in physical properties of sweet potato starches from 44 genotypes adapted to Philippine conditions, and found that wide variation and distinctly different pasting properties exist among genotypes. Zhu and Xie [14] studied the swelling power, water solubility, rheological properties, gelatinization, and retrogradation of starches from seven New Zealand sweet potatoes, and concluded that the starch properties from different varieties exhibit significant diversity due to their different internal unit chain parameters of amylopectin. Kim et al. [13] compared the physicochemical properties of starches from eight Korean sweet potato varieties including purple-, orange-, and white/cream-fleshed tubers. The starches exhibit polygonal and semi-oval shapes with different granule sizes among different varieties, and have A- and CB-type X-ray diffraction patterns. The pasting properties, amylose contents and water binding capacities of starches are closely related to the chain length distribution of amylopectin, and have no relationship with tuber color. Similar results are also reported in starches from eight Chinese sweet potato varieties with light yellow-, orange-, and purple-fleshed tubers. The molecular structure of amylose and amylopectin exhibits differences among different varieties, and is the main influencing factor in determining starch physicochemical properties [10]. Though the above references have reported the differences in starches from different varieties, the varieties originate from the same country or region in the same report. At present, no research reports the starch properties of sweet potato varieties originating from different countries. The growing environment and field management significantly influence the development and properties of starch in plant resources [15,16,17,18]. In addition, the measuring and analysis methods of starch properties also affect the property parameters. Therefore, it is necessary to study the characteristics of starches from sweet potato varieties originating from different countries but planted in the same growing conditions.
In this research, 44 sweet potato varieties originating from 15 countries were planted in the same conditions, and their starches were isolated and investigated for granule size, iodine absorption, amylose content, crystalline structure, and thermal properties. The hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out to reveal the differences in sweet potato varieties based on the starch property parameters. The objective of this study was to evaluate the germplasm resources of sweet potato starch. This research offers some references for the utilization of sweet potato germplasm.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Granule Morphology and Size Distribution of Starch

The granule morphology and size are important properties of starch, affecting functional properties and applications of starch [9]. The morphologies of isolated starches were observed under normal and polarized light (Figure 1). Starch granules had round, polygonal, oval, and semi-oval shapes, and contained small and large granules with typical “Maltese crosses” having the hila in the center of the granules. No significant differences in starch morphology were observed among all sweet potato varieties. Similar morphology has also been reported in sweet potato starch [19,20]. However, the granule size distributions exhibited significant differences among some sweet potato starches (Table 1). The surface- (D[3,2]) and volume-weighted mean diameter (D[4,3]) are usually used to indicate the size of starch, and ranged from 3.866 to 7.681 μm and from 8.013 to 15.296 μm among 44 sweet potato starches, respectively. The starch size in this study agreed with the previous report of sweet potato starch [2,19,20]. The starch size is influenced by plant source, variety genotype, plant physiology, and growing environment [9,21,22].

2.2. Iodine Absorption and Amylose Content of Starch

Starch contains amylose and amylopectin. Both amylose and amylopectin influence the absorption of starch and iodine [23]. In this research, the iodine absorption spectra of 44 starches were analyzed (data not shown), and the iodine absorption parameters including the value of optical density (OD) at 550 nm (OD550), 620 nm (OD620), and 680 nm (OD680) were measured. The OD680 is usually defined as blue value (BV) of starch, and displays the iodine binding capacity of starch [24]. The ratio of OD620 to OD550 (OD620/550) can reflect the relative proportion of long chains in starch [23]. The OD680 and OD620/550 ranged from 0.259 to 0.382 and from 1.142 to 1.237 among 44 starches, respectively (Table 2), indicating that amylose and amylopectin were different among these starches.
Amylose content is the important structure parameter, determining the applications of starch [25,26]. The amylose content is usually determined with the iodine colorimetry method according to the OD620 of starch–iodine complex. However, the iodine colorimetry usually overestimates the amylose content of starch because of the branch-chains of amylopectin that can bind the iodine. Therefore, the amylose content determined by iodine colorimetry is called the apparent amylose content (AAC) [23]. In this study, the AAC varied from 19.2% to 29.2% (Table 2), and is in the range of sweet potatoes reported by previous references [14,19,27]. The concanavalin A (Con A) precipitate method can accurately determine the amylose content to avoid the overestimation of amylose content. Using this method, starch is completely dissolved into amylose and amylopectin, and separated into two aliquots. The Con A specifically binds and precipitates the amylopectin in an aliquot, and the remaining amylose in the supernatant is hydrolyzed by amylolytic enzymes to glucose, which is measured with glucose oxidase/peroxidase reagent for determining the quality of amylose. The amylose and amylopectin in another aliquot are similarly hydrolyzed to glucose for measuring their quality. The amylose content is the quality percentage of amylose to both amylose and amylopectin. The measured amylose content is not influenced by the purity and moisture of starch, and is usually defined as true amylose content (TAC) [23]. The TAC ranged from 14.2% to 20.2% among 44 sweet potato starches (Table 2). The TAC was significantly lower than AAC in all starches, and the ΔAC (AAC–TAC) was significantly different among different varieties from 4.0% to 11.8%, indicating that varieties with different genotype backgrounds had significantly different amylopectin structure with different iodine binding capacity. The amylose is biosynthesized simply by granule-bound starch synthase I (GBSSI) encoded by the Waxy (Wx) gene in plant storage tissue, and amylopectin is biosynthesized complexly by soluble starch synthases (SSSs), starch branching enzymes (SBEs), and starch debranching enzymes (DBEs) [28]. There are many Wx alleles responsible for amylose synthesis from low to high in different varieties of the same species [29]. The SSSs, SBEs, and DBEs have many isoforms, and their quality and activities determine the amylopectin structure [30]. In this research, sweet potato varieties originate from different countries and areas. Their different genotype backgrounds with different qualities and activities of GBSSI, SSSs, SBEs, and DBEs led to different amylose contents and amylopectin structures among 44 sweet potato varieties.
The hierarchical cluster analysis based on OD680, OD620/550, AAC, and TAC was carried out to investigate the differences and similarities between sweet potato varieties (Figure 2). The 44 sweet potato varieties were divided into cluster 1 (C1) and cluster 2 (C2). The C2 contained 16 sweet potato varieties with OD680 from 0.259 to 0.319, OD620/550 from 1.167 to 1.237, AAC from 19.2% to 25.3%, and TAC from 15.0% to 20.2%. The C1 was further divided into two subgroups of C1A and C1B. The C1A contained eight sweet potato varieties with OD680 from 0.303 to 0.382, OD620/550 from 1.146 to 1.186, AAC from 25.0% to 29.2%, and TAC from 14.2% to 17.7%, and the C1B contained 20 varieties with OD680 from 0.284 to 0.326, OD620/550 from 1.142 to 1.222, AAC from 21.8% to 28.3%, and TAC from 14.5% to 19.7% (Figure 2; Table 2). The ΔAC ranged from 4.0% (PE04) to 6.6% (US02) in C2, from 6.8% (US06) to 9.6% (NG01) in C1B, and from 10.1% (PH01) to 11.8% (JP06) in C1A (Table 2), indicating that amylopectin structure plays an important role in influencing starch components and iodine absorption. Though some varieties originated from the same area, their genotypes exhibited significant differences. For example, for 15 varieties (JP01-JP15) originating from Japan, there were three, six, and six varieties in C1A, C1B and C2, respectively.

2.3. Crystalline Structure of Starch

The branch-chains of amylopectin can form A- and B-type crystallinity, which can be detected by X-ray diffraction (XRD). The XRD patterns of 44 starches are presented in Figure 3. Starches from plant tissues have A-, B-, and C-type. A- and B-type starch contains only A- and B-type crystallinity, respectively, but C-type starch simultaneously contains both A- and B-type crystallinities. According to the ratio of A- to B-type crystallinities from high to low, C-type starch is usually further classified into CA-, CC-, and CB-type. The CC-type starch has diffraction peaks at 2θ 5.6°, 15°, 17°, and 23°; CA-type starch exhibits significant shoulder peak at 2θ 18°, a characteristic peak of A-type crystallinity; and CB-type starch has significant shoulder peaks at 2θ 22° and 24°, two characteristic peaks of B-type crystallinity [7,31]. In this study, 44 sweet potato varieties had A-, CA-, CC-, and CB-type starches (Figure 3). The JP14 starch was A-type, the PE06 starch was CB-type, the AO01, CB01, CN02, JP01, JP06, JP12, JP13, JP15, ML01, PE01, PE04, PH01, PH02, TH01, TZ01, US03, US06, and US07 starches were CA-type, and the other starches were CC-type (Figure 3). The A-, CA-, CC-, and CB-type starches have been reported in sweet potato varieties [10,13,14,19], but the B-type starch has not been reported in references. Genkina et al. [16,32] reported that the soil temperature determines the crystallinity of sweet potato starch. The root tuber synthesizes A-type starch in soil temperature above 33 °C and B-type starch in soil temperature below 15 °C. In fact, the temperature, moisture, and amylopectin branch-chain length all influence the crystal conformation during starch synthesis. The low temperature, wet condition, and amylopectin long branch-chains tend to form B-type crystallinity, and the high temperature, dry condition, and amylopectin short branch-chains tend to form A-type crystallinity [33]. In this study, all varieties grew in the same environment, and underwent the same soil temperature and moisture variation during starch synthesized and accumulated. The expression and activities of starch synthesis related enzymes were different among the 44 sweet potato varieties because their different genotypes responded to the variation in soil temperature differently, leading to different crystalline structures among the 44 sweet potato starches. The RC of starch was measured, and ranged from 15.9% to 27.3% among 44 starches (Figure 3). The RC of starch is affected by amylose, amylopectin, crystallinity, and granule size [7,24,34].

2.4. Thermal Properties of Starch

The thermal properties are mainly functional properties and an important index for evaluating starch applications. The differential scanning calorimetric (DSC) thermograms of the 44 starches are shown in Figure 4. Significantly different thermograms were observed among the 44 sweet potato starches. These thermograms were divided into three types of one-peak thermogram (namely, JP14, JP06, ML01, and MY01), two-peak thermogram (namely, JP04, CN03, US04, and PE05), and three-peak thermogram (namely, JP10, AO01, US01, and TZ01) according to their peak patterns (Figure 4). The gelatinization onset (To), peak (Tp), and conclusion temperature (Tc) ranged from 52.2 to 73.8 °C, from 59.7 to 80.0 °C, and from 75.3 to 86.9 °C among the 44 varieties, respectively. The gelatinization temperature range (ΔT) varied from 13.1 to 29.2 °C, and the gelatinization enthalpy (ΔH) ranged from 10.7 to 16.9 J/g (Table 3). The large gelatinization parameter variation among the 44 varieties was mainly due to the significantly different thermal curves. Similar thermal properties have been shown in different sweet potatoes from different references [13,19,35,36,37]. For example, Osundahunsi et al. [37] reported one-peak thermogram with gelatinization temperature from 67 to 75 °C in sweet potato varieties white-skinned TIS-1499 and red-skinned TIB-2. Kim et al. [13] reported the ΔT from 13.0 to 36.7 °C among eight sweet potato varieties. Lee and Lee [36] reported the ΔT from 24.0 to 28.0 °C among three sweet potato varieties. Duan et al. [35] reported a two-peak DSC curve in sweet potato variety Jishu 25. Genkina et al. [32] fitted the two-peak DSC curve of sweet potato starch into two gelatinization peaks with the low gelatinization temperature peak for B-type crystallinity and the high gelatinization temperature peak for A-type crystallinity. Guo et al. [38] fitted one-, two-, and three-peak DSC curves of different sweet potato starches into three gelatinization peaks, and the low, middle, and high gelatinization temperature peaks are the gelatinization of B-, C-, and A-type starch granules, respectively, meaning that sweet potato root tuber contains A-, B-, and C-type starch. In the present study, the different proportions of A-, B-, and C-type starch in sweet potatoes led to the different patterns of DSC curves among the 44 sweet potato starches.
The hierarchical cluster analysis based on Tp, Tc, ΔT, and ΔH was carried out to investigate the differences and similarities between sweet potato varieties (Figure 5). The JP14 was divided into one cluster (C2), and exhibited significant differences to the other sweet potato varieties in cluster 1 (C1) because JP14 starch had a typical one-peak DSC pattern with the highest gelatinization temperature and the most narrow ΔT among the 44 sweet potato starches. The cluster 1 contained two subclusters of C1A and C1B. The C1A had 21 sweet potato varieties with Tp, Tc, ΔT, and ΔH from 59.7 to 77.1 °C, from 75.3 to 86.7 °C, from 22.0 to 29.2 °C, and from 10.7 to 15.0 J/g, respectively. The C1B had 22 sweet potato varieties with Tp, Tc, ΔT, and ΔH from 66.8 to 77.5 °C, from 78.8 to 85.4 °C, from 18.0 to 23.9 °C, and from 13.2 to 16.9 J/g, respectively. It is noteworthy that some varieties from the same country, such as the JP01-JP15 varieties originating from Japan, were distributed into different groups, indicating that varieties from the same country had significantly different thermal properties.

2.5. Relationships of Starch Properties and Cluster Analysis of Sweet Potato Varieties

The relationships between starch properties were analyzed (Table 4). Among the 44 sweet potato starches, the granule size (D[4,3]) had no significant relationship with amylose content, RC, and thermal properties except the ΔT. The OD680 was significantly positively correlated to AAC, TAC, and ΔH, the OD620/550 was negatively correlated to AAC, TAC, Tp, Tc, and ΔH, and the AAC, TAC, and RC were positively correlated to Tp, Tc, and ΔH. Amylose and amylopectin are important components in starch, especially amylose, its content significantly affects the physicochemical properties and applications of starch [23,25,26]. Although granule size also influences the starch thermal properties [9,34], the thermal properties of starch were mainly affected by amylose content (AAC, TAC), amylopectin structure (OD620/550), and crystal structure (RC) in sweet potato (Table 4).
The hierarchical cluster analysis based on D[4,3], OD680, OD620/550, AAC, TAC, RC, Tp, Tc, ΔT, and ΔH was further carried out to investigate the differences and similarities between sweet potato varieties (Figure 6). The JP14 was divided into cluster 2 (C2), and the other sweet potato varieties were divided into cluster 1 (C1), indicating that JP14 had significantly different starch properties, especially for its thermal properties. The result also agreed with their crystalline structure that only JP14 had A-type starch. In cluster 2, the 43 sweet potato varieties were divided into different groups, showing that they had different starch properties due to different genotype backgrounds.
Though the 44 sweet potato varieties were divided into different clusters according to their starch properties (Figure 6), it is noteworthy that the growing conditions significantly affect starch properties in sweet potato, especially for temperature [16] and fertilizer treatment [21]. Recent study also shows that starch physicochemical properties are affected significantly by varieties, growing locations, and their interaction in sweet potato [39]. In this study, the sweet potato varieties originating from different countries were planted in the same place and cultivated conditions to avoid the effects of growing environment on starch properties. However, the selected growing conditions are significantly different from growth habits of varieties in their original country. Therefore, the starch properties of sweet potato varieties in the present study might be different from those in their original countries.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Plant Materials

The 44 sweet potato varieties were randomly chosen, and their fresh root tubers were provided by Sweetpotato Research Institute, China Agricultural Academy of Sciences. These germplasm resources are all public varieties or landraces, and conserved in National Sweetpotato Genebank in Xuzhou, China. Among the 44 varieties, 15 were from Japan, 7 from United States, 6 from Peru, 4 from China, 2 Philippines, and the others from Angola, Argentina, Cambodia, Congo, Morocco, Mali, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, and Tanzania. Their accession IDs and original areas are listed in Table 5. These sweet potato varieties were planted simultaneously in the farm of Xuzhou Sweetpotato Research Center (32°27′ N, 117°29′ E), Jiangsu Province, China, on April 28, and harvested on 26 October 2020. The soil in the experimental field was yellow fluvo-aquic soil with a sandy texture. The available K, available P, hydrolysable N, total N, and organic matter in 0–20 cm soil layer before the experiment were 95 mg kg−1, 19.7 mg kg−1, 94.2 mg kg−1, 1.06 g kg−1, and 16.2 g kg−1, respectively, and its pH was 7.54. The fertilizer including 75 kg ha−1 P2O5 (calcium superphosphate) and 120 kg ha−1 K2O (potassium chloride) was applied as base fertilizer in the ridge before planting. The seedlings were planted in 5 rows with 90 cm between rows and 20 cm between hills. The temperature and rainfall of growing location during sweet potato growth stage are presented in Table 6.

3.2. Isolation of Starch

Starches from fresh root tubers were prepared following the method of Guo et al. [2]. Briefly, the root tubers were washed cleanly and cut into some pieces. The sample was homogenized in H2O with a home blender. The tissue suspension was filtered through four layers of gauze, and the residue was homogenized and filtered again to release more starch. The filtrate was filtered through 100-, 200-, and 300-mesh sieve, successively, and centrifuged (3000× g, 5 min). The starch precipitate was washed 5 times with H2O and 3 times with anhydrous ethanol. Finally, the starch was dried at 40 °C for 2 d, and ground into powder through 100-mesh sieve.

3.3. Granule Morphology and Size Analysis of Starch

Isolated starch in 25% glycerol was viewed and photographed with a polarized light microscope (BX53, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) under normal and polarized light. Starch size was analyzed with a laser size analyzer (Mastersizer 2000, Malvern, Worcestershire, UK) according to the procedures of Guo et al. [2]. The obscuration of starch–water suspension was about 12%, and the sample was stirred at 2000 rpm during analysis.

3.4. Analysis of Starch–Iodine Absorption

Starch was dispersed in dimethyl sulfoxide and stained with iodine solution according to the procedures of Man et al. [24]. Briefly, 10 mg starch in 5 mL dimethyl sulfoxide containing 10% 6.0 M urea was heated at 95 °C for 1 h. The starch suspension was swirled at intervals of 15 min during heating. The dispersed amylose and amylopectin (1 mL) was colorized for 20 min with iodine solution (1 mL of 0.2% I2 and 2% KI) in 50 mL volumetric flask diluted with H2O. The sample was scanned from 400 to 900 nm using a spectrophotometer (BioMate 3S, Thermo Scientific, Chino, CA, USA).

3.5. Measurement of Amylose Content

The apparent amylose content was determined using the absorption value of starch–iodine complex at 620 nm [24]. The true amylose content was measured using concanavalin A precipitation method through an Amylose/Amylopectin Assay Kit (K-AMYL, Megazyme, Bray, Ireland).

3.6. XRD Analysis of Starch

Starch was analyzed with an X-ray diffractometer (XRD) (D8, Bruker, Karlsruhe, Germany). Before analysis, the sample was moisturized for 1 week at 25 °C in a desiccator containing a saturated solution of NaCl with a relative humidity about 75%. The testing setting contained an X-ray beam at 200 mA and 40 kV and scanning range of diffraction angle from 2θ 3 to 40° with a step size of 0.02°. The relative crystallinity (RC) was evaluated with the percentage of diffraction peak area to total diffraction area over the diffraction angle 2θ 4 to 30° following the method of Wei et al. [40].

3.7. DSC Analysis of Starch

The 5 mg starch and 15 μL water were mixed and sealed hermetically in an aluminum pan. After equilibrating for 2 h at room temperature, the sample was heated from 25 to 130 °C at 10 °C/min using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC 200-F3, Netzsch, Selb, Germany).

3.8. Statistical Analysis

The statistical differences between data from varieties were detected using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by Tukey’s test using the SPSS 19.0 Statistical Software Program. The Pearson correlation analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis were also evaluated using SPSS 19.0 Statistical Software Program. Prior to the analysis, the normal distribution of structural property parameters was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test with SPSS 16.0. Only structural property parameters with their significances of normal distributions over 0.05 were used to evaluate the Pearson correlation and hierarchical cluster analysis.

4. Conclusions

Starches from 44 sweet potato varieties originating from 15 countries were investigated for their sizes, amylose contents, crystalline structures, and thermal properties. The D[4,3], AAC, TAC, and ΔAC (AAC–TAC) ranged from 8.01 to 15.30 μm, from 19.2% to 29.2%, from 14.2% to 20.2%, and from 4.0% to 11.8% among the 44 starches, respectively. Starches had A-, CA-, CC-, and CB-type with RC from 19.5% to 27.3%. One-, two-, and three-peak DSC curves were detected, and the To, Tp, Tc, and ΔT ranged from 52.2 to 73.8 °C, from 59.7 to 80.0 °C, from 75.3 to 86.9 °C, and from 13.1 to 29.2 °C among the 44 starches, respectively. Based on starch property parameters, the 44 sweet potato varieties were divided into different groups. This research offers references for the utilization of sweet potato germplasm resources.

Author Contributions

C.W. and Q.C. conceived the study and designed the experiments; Y.L., L.Z., L.S. and L.L. performed the experiments; Y.L. and L.Z. wrote the original draft manuscript; and C.W. reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors discussed the contents of the manuscript and approved the submission. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFD1000705, 2018YFD1000700), Accurate Identification of Sweetpotato Excellent Germplasm Resources (19211139), and Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Samples of some starches are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 24 October 2021).
  2. Guo, K.; Liu, T.; Xu, A.; Zhang, L.; Bian, X.; Wei, C. Structural and functional properties of starches from root tubers of white, yellow, and purple sweet potatoes. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 89, 829–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Moorthy, S.N.; Naskar, S.K.; Shanavas, S.; Radhika, G.S.; Mukherjee, A. Physicochemical characterization of selected sweet potato cultivars and their starches. Int. J. Food Prop. 2010, 13, 1280–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Song, H.G.; Choi, I.C.; Lee, J.S.; Chung, M.N.; Yoon, C.S.; Han, J. Comparative study on physicochemical properties of starch films prepared from five sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) cultivars. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 189, 758–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Truong, V.D.; Avula, R.Y.; Pecota, K.V.; Yencho, G.C. Sweetpotato production, processing, and nutritional quality. In Handbook of Vegetables and Vegetable Processing; Siddiq, M., Uebersax, M.A., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 811–838. [Google Scholar]
  6. Emmambux, M.N.; Taylor, J.R.N. Morphology, physical, chemical, and functional properties of starches from cereals, legumes, and tubers cultivated in Africa: A review. Starch 2013, 65, 715–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. He, W.; Wei, C. Progress in C-type starches from different plant sources. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 73, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hoover, R. Composition, molecular structure, and physicochemical properties of tuber and root starches: A review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2001, 45, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lindeboom, N.; Chang, P.R.; Tyler, R.T. Analytical, biochemical and physicochemical aspects of starch granule size, with emphasis on small granule starches: A review. Starch 2004, 56, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, H.; Yang, Q.; Ferdinand, U.; Gong, X.; Qu, Y.; Gao, W.; Ivanistau, A.; Feng, B.; Liu, M. Isolation and characterization of starch from light yellow, orange, and purple sweet potatoes. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 160, 660–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, Y.; Shi, D.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Chen, X.; Yang, X.; Xiong, H.; Bhattarai, G.; Ravelombola, W.; Olaoye, D.; et al. Transcript profiling for regulation of sweet potato skin color in Sushu8 and its mutant Zhengshu20. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 148, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Collado, L.S.; Mabesa, R.C.; Corke, H. Genetic variation in the physical properties of sweet potato starch. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 4195–5201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, J.; Ren, C.; Shin, M. Physicochemical properties of starch isolated from eight different varieties of Korean sweet potatoes. Starch 2013, 65, 923–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhu, F.; Xie, Q. Rheological and thermal properties in relation to molecular structure of New Zealand sweetpotato starch. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 83, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ahmed, S.; Ru, W.; Han, H.; Cheng, L.; Bian, X.; Li, G.; Jin, L.; Wu, P.; Bao, J. Fine molecular structure and its effects on physicochemical properties of starches in potatoes grown in two locations. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 97, 105172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Genkina, N.K.; Noda, T.; Koltisheva, G.I.; Wasserman, L.A.; Tester, R.F.; Yuryev, V.P. Effects of growth temperature on some structural properties of crystalline lamellae in starches extracted from sweet potatoes (Sunnyred and Ayamurasaki). Starch 2003, 55, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, H.; Liu, Y. Effects of variety and growth location on the chain-length distribution of rice starches. J. Cereal Sci. 2019, 85, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Tappiban, P.; Sraphet, S.; Srisawad, N.; Wu, P.; Han, H.; Smith, D.R.; Bao, J.; Triwitayakorn, K. Effects of cassava variety and growth location on starch fine structure and physicochemical properties. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 108, 106074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Waramboi, J.G.; Dennien, S.; Gidley, M.J.; Sopade, P.A. Characterisation of sweetpotato from Papua New Guinea and Australia: Physicochemical, pasting and gelatinisation properties. Food Chem. 2011, 126, 1759–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, L.; Zhao, L.; Bian, X.; Guo, K.; Zhou, L.; Wei, C. Characterization and comparative study of starches from seven purple sweet potatoes. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 80, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guo, K.; Bian, X.; Jia, Z.; Zhang, L.; Wei, C. Effects of nitrogen level on structural and functional properties of starches from different colored-fleshed root tubers of sweet potato. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 164, 3235–3242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jane, J.L.; Kasemsuwan, T.; Leas, S.; Zobel, H.; Robyt, J.F. Anthology of starch granule morphology by scanning electron microscopy. Starch 1994, 46, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lin, L.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Wei, C. Evaluation of the molecular structural parameters of normal rice starch and their relationships with its thermal and digestion properties. Molecules 2017, 22, 1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Man, J.; Lin, L.; Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Wei, C. Different structures of heterogeneous starch granules from high-amylose rice. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 11254–11263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Richardson, P.H.; Jeffcoat, R.; Shi, Y.C. High-amylose starches: From biosynthesis to their use as food ingredients. MRS Bull. 2000, 25, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhong, Y.; Zhu, H.; Liang, W.; Li, X.; Liu, L.; Zhang, X.; Yue, H.; Xue, J.; Liu, X.; Guo, D. High-amylose starch as a new ingredient to balance nutrition and texture of food. J. Cereal Sci. 2018, 81, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zheng, Y.; Wang, Q.; Li, B.; Lin, L.; Tundis, R.; Loizzo, M.R.; Zheng, B.; Xiao, J. Characterization and prebiotic effect of the resistant starch from purple sweet potato. Molecules 2016, 21, 932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Crofts, N.; Nakamura, Y.; Fujita, N. Critical and speculative review of the roles of multi-protein complexes in starch biosynthesis in cereals. Plant Sci. 2017, 262, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, L.; Sreenivasulu, N.; Liu, Q. Waxy editing: Old meets new. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 963–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tian, Z.; Qian, Q.; Liu, Q.; Yan, M.; Liu, X.; Yan, C.; Liu, G.; Gao, Z.; Tang, S.; Zeng, D.; et al. Allelic diversities in rice starch biosynthesis lead to a diverse array of rice eating and cooking qualities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 21760–21765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Cheetham, N.W.H.; Tao, L. Variation in crystalline type with amylose content in maize starch granules: An X-ray powder diffraction study. Carbohydr. Polym. 1998, 36, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Genkina, N.K.; Wasserman, L.A.; Noda, T.; Tester, R.F.; Yuryev, V.P. Effects of annealing on the polymorphic structure of starches from sweet potatoes (Ayamurasaki and Sunnyred cultivars) grown at various soil temperatures. Carbohydr. Res. 2004, 339, 1093–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pérez, S.; Baldwin, P.M.; Gallant, D.J. Structural features of starch granules I. In Starch: Chemistry and Technology, 3rd ed.; BeMiller, J., Whistler, R., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 149–192. [Google Scholar]
  34. Dhital, S.; Shrestha, A.K.; Hasjim, J.; Gidley, M.J. Physicochemical and structural properties of maize and potato starches as a function of granule size. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 10151–10161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Duan, W.; Zhang, H.; Xie, B.; Wang, B.; Zhang, L. Impacts of nitrogen fertilization rate on the root yield, starch yield and starch physicochemical properties of the sweet potato cultivar Jishu 25. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Lee, B.H.; Lee, Y.T. Physicochemical and structural properties of different colored sweet potato starches. Starch 2017, 69, 1600001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Osundahunsi, O.F.; Fagbemi, T.N.; Kesselman, E.; Shimoni, E. Comparison of the physicochemical properties and pasting characteristics of flour and starch from red and white sweet potato cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 2232–2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Guo, K.; Zhang, L.; Bian, X.; Cao, Q.; Wei, C. A-, B- and C-type starch granules coexist in root tuber of sweet potato. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 98, 105279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shi, L.; Li, Y.; Lin, L.; Bian, X.; Wei, C. Effects of variety and growing location on physicochemical properties of starch from wweet potato root tuber. Molecules 2021, 26, 7137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wei, C.; Qin, F.; Zhou, W.; Yu, H.; Xu, B.; Chen, C.; Zhu, L.; Wang, Y.; Gu, M.; Liu, Q. Granule structure and distribution of allomorphs in C-type high-amylose rice starch granule modified by antisense RNA inhibition of starch branching enzyme. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 11946–11954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Morphologies of starch granules under normal light and polarized light. Scale bar = 20 μm.
Figure 1. Morphologies of starch granules under normal light and polarized light. Scale bar = 20 μm.
Molecules 27 01905 g001aMolecules 27 01905 g001b
Figure 2. Hierarchical cluster analysis of 44 sweet potato varieties based on OD680, OD620/550, AAC, and TAC in Table 2.
Figure 2. Hierarchical cluster analysis of 44 sweet potato varieties based on OD680, OD620/550, AAC, and TAC in Table 2.
Molecules 27 01905 g002
Figure 3. XRD patterns of starches from different sweet potato varieties. The relative crystallinity (RC) is given in the parenthesis after accession ID.
Figure 3. XRD patterns of starches from different sweet potato varieties. The relative crystallinity (RC) is given in the parenthesis after accession ID.
Molecules 27 01905 g003
Figure 4. DSC thermograms of starches from different sweet potato varieties.
Figure 4. DSC thermograms of starches from different sweet potato varieties.
Molecules 27 01905 g004
Figure 5. Hierarchical cluster analysis of the 44 sweet potato varieties based on Tp, Tc, ΔT, and ΔH in Table 3.
Figure 5. Hierarchical cluster analysis of the 44 sweet potato varieties based on Tp, Tc, ΔT, and ΔH in Table 3.
Molecules 27 01905 g005
Figure 6. Hierarchical cluster analysis of the 44 sweet potato varieties based on D[4,3], OD680, OD620/550, AAC, TAC, RC, Tp, Tc, ΔT, and ΔH in Table 4.
Figure 6. Hierarchical cluster analysis of the 44 sweet potato varieties based on D[4,3], OD680, OD620/550, AAC, TAC, RC, Tp, Tc, ΔT, and ΔH in Table 4.
Molecules 27 01905 g006
Table 1. Granule size distribution of starches from 44 sweet potato varieties.
Table 1. Granule size distribution of starches from 44 sweet potato varieties.
Accession IDd(0.2) (μm)d(0.5) (μm)d(0.8) (μm)D[3,2] (μm)D[4,3] (μm)
AO017.573 ± 0.002 mn12.817 ± 0.005 tu19.452 ± 0.005 γ6.226 ± 0.002 s13.464 ± 0.004 x
AR017.480 ± 0.002 lm10.881 ± 0.003 l14.967 ± 0.007 l5.986 ± 0.002 o11.023 ± 0.005 l
CB017.166 ± 0.002 j10.331 ± 0.003 i14.071 ± 0.003 h5.689 ± 0.002 ij10.383 ± 0.003 h
CG016.466 ± 0.001 f10.084 ± 0.001 h14.492 ± 0.002 i5.335 ± 0.001 f10.333 ± 0.001 gh
CN017.586 ± 0.020 mn10.911 ± 0.036 l14.808 ± 0.052 k5.732 ± 0.010 l10.941 ± 0.036 k
CN027.355 ± 0.003 k11.003 ± 0.004 m15.402 ± 0.007 m5.675 ± 0.003 i11.161 ± 0.005 m
CN036.762 ± 0.004 h11.099 ± 0.006 n16.654 ± 0.006 r5.920 ± 0.001 m11.648 ± 0.005 o
CN0411.111 ± 0.002 z14.669 ± 0.001 β18.705 ± 0.000 z7.612 ± 0.001 ζ14.456 ± 0.001 γ
JP017.159 ± 0.001 j11.018 ± 0.004 m15.878 ± 0.010 o6.208 ± 0.003 rs11.399 ± 0.006 n
JP026.785 ± 0.003 h10.426 ± 0.006 j14.935 ± 0.009 l5.698 ± 0.002 jk10.727 ± 0.006 j
JP035.283 ± 0.003 a8.340 ± 0.005 b12.391 ± 0.009 e4.932 ± 0.003 c8.737 ± 0.007 d
JP046.398 ± 0.003 f9.227 ± 0.003 f12.460 ± 0.003 e5.039 ± 0.001 d9.185 ± 0.002 e
JP0510.568 ± 0.002 y14.811 ± 0.003 γ19.935 ± 0.005 δ7.681 ± 0.001 η14.929 ± 0.003 δ
JP068.966 ± 0.001 u13.578 ± 0.002 x19.356 ± 0.004 γ6.946 ± 0.001 z13.997 ± 0.003 z
JP077.504 ± 0.001 m12.269 ± 0.003 r18.221 ± 0.006 x6.052 ± 0.001 p12.746 ± 0.004 t
JP0810.271 ± 0.003 x13.945 ± 0.005 z18.245 ± 0.008 x7.344 ± 0.003 δ13.890 ± 0.006 y
JP097.187 ± 0.070 j9.931 ± 0.130 g13.066 ± 0.167 g5.718 ± 0.038 kl9.862 ± 0.120 f
JP107.297 ± 0.002 k10.948 ± 0.003 lm15.379 ± 0.004 m5.945 ± 0.002 n11.150 ± 0.003 m
JP116.017 ± 0.005 d8.651 ± 0.006 d11.652 ± 0.009 c4.924 ± 0.004 c8.623 ± 0.007 c
JP128.211 ± 0.004 r12.410 ± 0.003 s17.660 ± 0.001 v6.764 ± 0.001 x12.790 ± 0.002 t
JP135.207 ± 0.021 a8.012 ± 0.031 a11.189 ± 0.108 a3.866 ± 0.011 a8.013 ± 0.051 a
JP148.795 ± 0.004 t12.749 ± 0.007 t17.508 ± 0.012 u6.746 ± 0.002 x12.922 ± 0.008 u
JP156.978 ± 0.004 i10.518 ± 0.006 k14.773 ± 0.011 k5.551 ± 0.003 h10.691 ± 0.008 ij
MA015.855 ± 0.002 c8.992 ± 0.005 e12.772 ± 0.010 f5.083 ± 0.002 e9.176 ± 0.006 e
ML017.974 ± 0.004 p12.117 ± 0.009 q17.128 ± 0.015 s6.210 ± 0.003 rs12.360 ± 0.010 r
MY019.431 ± 0.004 w13.803 ± 0.007 y19.183 ± 0.013 β7.513 ± 0.002 ε14.113 ± 0.009 α
NG017.663 ± 0.005 no12.449 ± 0.011 s18.598 ± 0.023 y6.331 ± 0.004 t13.037 ± 0.015 v
PE019.132 ± 0.252 v14.378 ± 0.123 α20.965 ± 0.166 ζ6.968 ± 0.040 α14.901 ± 0.016 δ
PE029.038 ± 0.001 uv12.832 ± 0.001 u17.368 ± 0.002 t7.002 ± 0.001 β12.955 ± 0.001 u
PE037.392 ± 0.002 kl11.090 ± 0.003 n15.682 ± 0.003 n6.194 ± 0.002 r11.391 ± 0.003 n
PE048.187 ± 0.005 qr11.730 ± 0.006 p15.961 ± 0.007 o6.481 ± 0.003 u11.857 ± 0.006 q
PE056.663 ± 0.010 g10.426 ± 0.013 j14.943 ± 0.017 l5.470 ± 0.004 g10.643 ± 0.013 i
PE065.732 ± 0.002 b8.491 ± 0.005 c11.799 ± 0.010 d4.943 ± 0.003 c8.606 ± 0.006 c
PH018.325 ± 0.006 s14.328 ± 0.011 α22.233 ± 0.011 η6.841 ± 0.002 y15.296 ± 0.007 ε
PH027.930 ± 0.005 p12.871 ± 0.007 u19.051 ± 0.008 α6.594 ± 0.002 w13.409 ± 0.007 x
TH017.754 ± 0.003 o11.517 ± 0.005 o16.121 ± 0.007 p6.313 ± 0.003 t11.747 ± 0.005 p
TZ018.105 ± 0.005 q13.467 ± 0.008 w20.448 ± 0.012 ε6.506 ± 0.004 v14.211 ± 0.008 β
US015.797 ± 0.002 bc8.460 ± 0.003 c11.488 ± 0.003 b4.682 ± 0.002 b8.417 ± 0.002 b
US028.318 ± 0.003 s12.302 ± 0.004 r17.192 ± 0.009 s6.846 ± 0.002 y12.583 ± 0.006 s
US037.479 ± 0.003 lm12.132 ± 0.008 q17.856 ± 0.017 w6.124 ± 0.004 q12.555 ± 0.011 s
US046.576 ± 0.004 g10.584 ± 0.008 k15.694 ± 0.014 n5.707 ± 0.004 jk11.045 ± 0.009 l
US057.362 ± 0.003 k11.482 ± 0.006 o16.521 ± 0.008 q5.929 ± 0.003 mn11.792 ± 0.006 p
US069.025 ± 0.001 u13.153 ± 0.004 v18.263 ± 0.010 x7.169 ± 0.001 γ13.452 ± 0.006 x
US076.203 ± 0.002 e9.900 ± 0.002 g14.609 ± 0.002 j5.556 ± 0.001 h10.321 ± 0.002 g
Sig.0.3220.4100.6710.8490.422
The d(0.2), d(0.5), and d(0.8) are the granule size at which 20%, 50%, and 80% of all the granules by volume are smaller. The D[3,2] and D[4,3] are the surface- and volume-weighted mean diameter, respectively. Sig.: the significance of normal distribution of the 44 samples by Shapiro–Wilk test. Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. The values with different letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Iodine absorption parameters and amylose contents of starches.
Table 2. Iodine absorption parameters and amylose contents of starches.
Accession IDOD680OD620/550AAC (%)TAC (%)ΔAC (%)
AO010.307 ± 0.004 ghijk1.164 ± 0.026 abcdefg25.6 ± 0.8 ijk17.4 ± 0.7 efghi8.2
AR010.324 ± 0.006 klmno1.222 ± 0.023 gh26.5 ± 0.7 jklm17.4 ± 0.2 efghi9.1
CB010.281 ± 0.007 bcd1.192 ± 0.004 abcdefgh22.2 ± 0.7 cd16.4 ± 0.1 cdefgh5.8
CG010.329 ± 0.011 no1.157 ± 0.003 abcd28.2 ± 0.9 mno17.7 ± 0.4 fghi10.5
CN010.300 ± 0.007 efghi1.155 ± 0.001 abc24.9 ± 0.6 fghij17.1 ± 0.2 efghi7.8
CN020.306 ± 0.007 ghijk1.160 ± 0.012 abcde25.7 ± 0.8 ijkl18.2 ± 0.4 hij7.5
CN030.308 ± 0.002 ghijkl1.208 ± 0.011 cdefgh21.8 ± 0.2 bcd14.7 ± 0.3 abc7.1
CN040.295 ± 0.005 defghi1.186 ± 0.017 abcdefgh23.6 ± 0.5 defgh15.7 ± 0.6 abcde7.9
JP010.303 ± 0.004 fghij1.183 ± 0.004 abcdefgh24.5 ± 0.6 efghi17.2 ± 0.4 efghi7.3
JP020.294 ± 0.004 defghi1.191 ± 0.007 abcdefgh23.5 ± 0.2 defgh16.6 ± 0.5 defgh6.9
JP030.291 ± 0.005 cdefgh1.218 ± 0.019 efgh23.2 ± 0.7 cdef17.7 ± 0.3 fghi5.5
JP040.336 ± 0.003 o1.185 ± 0.011 abcdefgh28.3 ± 0.4 mno17.7 ± 0.3 fghi10.6
JP050.299 ± 0.007 defghi1.237 ± 0.028 h23.4 ± 0.9 cdefgh17.1 ± 0.9 efghi6.3
JP060.327 ± 0.007 mno1.158 ± 0.015 abcd27.9 ± 0.6 mno16.1 ± 0.3 bcdefg11.8
JP070.337 ± 0.003 o1.186 ± 0.001 abcdefgh28.5 ± 0.2 no17.2 ± 0.5 efghi11.3
JP080.304 ± 0.001 ghij1.174 ± 0.012 abcdefg25.0 ± 0.4 fghij16.4 ± 0.1 cdefgh8.6
JP090.312 ± 0.007 ijklmn1.200 ± 0.006 abcdefgh25.5 ± 0.9 ijk17.1 ± 0.2 efghi8.4
JP100.304 ± 0.009 ghij1.167 ± 0.016 abcdefg25.2 ± 1.1 ghij20.2 ± 0.9 k5.0
JP110.291 ± 0.006 cdefgh1.181 ± 0.002 abcdefgh23.4 ± 0.5 cdefgh17.6 ± 0.4 efghi5.8
JP120.260 ± 0.005 a1.209 ± 0.015 cdefgh19.3 ± 0.5 a15.0 ± 0.5 abcd4.3
JP130.282 ± 0.003 bcde1.189 ± 0.025 abcdefgh22.3 ± 0.7 cd16.7 ± 0.7 defgh5.6
JP140.326 ± 0.002 mno1.169 ± 0.019 abcdefg28.3 ± 0.2 nmo19.7 ± 0.4 jk8.6
JP150.310 ± 0.008 hijklm1.161 ± 0.015 abcdef25.8 ± 0.8 ijkl17.2 ± 0.3 efghi8.6
MA010.319 ± 0.008 jklmno1.192 ± 0.014 abcdefgh22.9 ± 0.8 cde17.4 ± 0.8 efghi5.5
ML010.303 ± 0.003 fghij1.160 ± 0.014 abcde25.4 ± 0.5 hijk17.4 ± 0.0 efghi8.0
MY010.323 ± 0.008 klmno1.142 ± 0.006 a27.8 ± 0.4 mno18.3 ± 0.6 hij9.5
NG010.325 ± 0.005 lmno1.179 ± 0.014 abcdefgh27.4 ± 0.6 lmno17.8 ± 0.6 fghi9.6
PE010.382 ± 0.013 p1.146 ± 0.015 ab29.2 ± 1.3 o17.7 ± 0.7 fghi11.5
PE020.284 ± 0.008 bcdef1.197 ± 0.028 abcdefgh22.1 ± 0.7 cd14.5 ± 0.3 ab7.6
PE030.281 ± 0.002 bcd1.206 ± 0.011 cdefgh21.7 ± 0.3 bcd16.1 ± 0.6 bcdefg5.6
PE040.259 ± 0.010 a1.212 ± 0.021 cdefgh19.2 ± 0.9 a15.2 ± 0.1 abcd4.0
PE050.296 ± 0.009 defghi1.158 ± 0.011 abcd24.4 ± 0.8 efghi16.0 ± 0.9 bcdef8.4
PE060.303 ± 0.006 fghij1.160 ± 0.010 abcde25.0 ± 0.6 fghij14.2 ± 0.1 a10.8
PH010.331 ± 0.002 o1.180 ± 0.010 abcdefgh27.8 ± 0.2 mno17.7 ± 0.3 fghi10.1
PH020.303 ± 0.007 fghij1.190 ± 0.003 abcdefgh24.3 ± 0.5 efghi16.5 ± 0.7 cdefgh7.8
TH010.299 ± 0.003 defghi1.193 ± 0.038 abcdefgh24.3 ± 0.2 efghi18.0 ± 0.2 ghij6.3
TZ010.320 ± 0.007 jklmno1.162 ± 0.044 abcdef27.2 ± 0.5 klmn17.9 ± 0.1 fghi9.3
US010.298 ± 0.002 defghi1.177 ± 0.010 abcdefg24.4 ± 0.2 efghi18.2 ± 0.4 hij6.2
US020.311 ± 0.003 ijklm1.205 ± 0.010 bcdefgh25.3 ± 0.3 ghijk18.7 ± 0.2 ijk6.6
US030.274 ± 0.008 abc1.220 ± 0.018 fgh21.5 ± 1.0 bc16.2 ± 0.1 bcdefg5.3
US040.270 ± 0.003 ab1.203 ± 0.018 bcdefgh20.2 ± 0.3 ab15.2 ± 0.7 abcd5.0
US050.331 ± 0.007 o1.178 ± 0.010 abcdefg27.8 ± 0.9 mno17.7 ± 0.4 fghi10.1
US060.294 ± 0.003 defghi1.215 ± 0.026 defgh23.4 ± 0.1 cdefg16.6 ± 0.2 defgh6.8
US070.290 ± 0.006 cdefg1.193 ± 0.039 abcdefgh23.4 ± 0.8 cdefg17.5 ± 0.3 efghi5.9
Sig.0.0940.5880.3060.1710.336
AAC: apparent amylose content; TAC: true amylose content; ΔAC: the difference between AAC and TAC (AAC–TAC); Sig.: the significance of normal distribution of the 44 samples by Shapiro–Wilk test. Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. The values with different letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Thermal property parameters of starches.
Table 3. Thermal property parameters of starches.
Accession IDTo (°C)Tp (°C)Tc (°C)ΔT (°C)ΔH (J/g)
AO0157.4 ± 0.6 fgh71.6 ± 0.1 klm82.7 ± 0.6 jklmn25.3 ± 1.2 klmnop13.6 ± 0.1 bcdefghijk
AR0159.8 ± 0.6 jklm71.8 ± 0.4 lmn82.9 ± 0.0 jklmno23.2 ± 0.6 ghijklm14.3 ± 0.0 fghijklm
CB0156.7 ± 0.5 def76.5 ± 0.4 vw84.5 ± 0.3 nopqr27.9 ± 0.2 qr14.2 ± 0.3 efghijklm
CG0157.3 ± 0.3 efg70.5 ± 0.6 ij84.2 ± 1.0 mnopqr26.9 ± 0.7 opqr13.8 ± 0.0 cdefghijkl
CN0164.2 ± 0.2 qr75.3 ± 0.3 tu85.4 ± 0.4 pqrst21.3 ± 0.2 cdefgh16.9 ± 0.5 o
CN0264.0 ± 0.0 pqr73.6 ± 0.1 pqr84.8 ± 0.4 opqr20.8 ± 0.4 cdefg16.8 ± 0.5 o
CN0354.4 ± 0.2 bc65.8 ± 0.7 d76.6 ± 1.2 ab22.2 ± 1.0 efghi12.6 ± 0.3 bcd
CN0458.0 ± 0.1 fghi70.2 ± 0.0 ij80.4 ± 0.1 defgh22.5 ± 0.1 efghi14.7 ± 0.0 ijklm
JP0158.3 ± 0.1 fghij70.5 ± 0.1 ij81.5 ± 0.4 efghij23.3 ± 0.5 ghijklm13.0 ± 0.2 bcdefg
JP0258.7 ± 0.0 ghijk70.6 ± 0.6 ijk80.0 ± 0.4 defg21.3 ± 0.4 cdefgh14.7 ± 0.2 hijklm
JP0359.6 ± 0.0 ijkl72.9 ± 0.1 op82.4 ± 0.8 ijklm22.8 ± 0.8 fghijk13.7 ± 0.1 cdefghijkl
JP0455.6 ± 1.5 cd69.9 ± 0.1 hij81.7 ± 1.7 fghijk26.2 ± 2.2 nopq15.0 ± 0.6 jklmn
JP0554.3 ± 0.1 bc65.7 ± 0.1 d75.7 ± 1.1 ab21.4 ± 1.2 cdefgh12.3 ± 0.0 bc
JP0662.4 ± 0.2 no72.6 ± 0.1 mno80.3 ± 0.3 defgh18.0 ± 0.5 b14.9 ± 0.3 jklmn
JP0761.0 ± 0.4 lmn66.8 ± 0.1 e79.7 ± 0.1 de18.7 ± 0.3 bc14.7 ± 0.3 hijklm
JP0858.1 ± 0.0 fghij69.1 ± 0.1 gh80.5 ± 0.5 defghi22.4 ± 0.5 efghi14.6 ± 0.1 hijklm
JP0962.6 ± 0.2 nopq68.0 ± 0.1 f82.0 ± 0.0 hijkl19.5 ± 0.2 bcd15.3 ± 0.2 mn
JP1059.1 ± 0.1 hijk72.1 ± 0.1 mno86.1 ± 0.1 rst27.0 ± 0.0 pqr14.6 ± 0.3 hijklm
JP1158.8 ± 0.1 ghijk70.8 ± 0.1 jkl84.2 ± 0.0 mnopqr25.4 ± 0.1 lmnopq14.1 ± 0.6 efghijklm
JP1252.2 ± 0.3 a68.8 ± 0.1 fg80.1 ± 0.1 defgh27.9 ± 0.1 qr10.7 ± 0.5 a
JP1357.5 ± 0.0 fgh77.1 ± 0.2 wx86.7 ± 0.0 st29.2 ± 0.0 r14.2 ± 0.6 fghijklm
JP1473.8 ± 0.0 s80.0 ± 0.0 y86.9 ± 0.1 t13.1 ± 0.1 a16.2 ± 0.1 no
JP1562.5 ± 0.7 nop74.1 ± 0.0 rs83.1 ± 0.1 jklmno20.6 ± 0.8 cdefg14.3 ± 0.1 fghijklm
MA0156.8 ± 0.4 def63.9 ± 0.1 c78.8 ± 0.4 cd22.1 ± 0.1 defghi12.7 ± 0.0 bcde
ML0164.1 ± 1.1 pqr76.7 ± 0.3 vwx83.6 ± 0.6 klmnop19.5 ± 1.8 bcd14.1 ± 0.7 efghijklm
MY0164.4 ± 1.2 r76.8 ± 0.0 vwx84.9 ± 0.1 opqrs20.5 ± 1.1 cdefg15.0 ± 0.7 jklmn
NG0159.1 ± 0.0 hijk69.9 ± 0.1 hij79.3 ± 0.2 d20.2 ± 0.2 bcdef14.0 ± 0.2 defghijklm
PE0160.3 ± 0.0 klm72.5 ± 0.4 mno84.7 ± 0.6 opqr24.4 ± 0.6 ijklmno14.7 ± 0.2 hijklm
PE0253.3 ± 0.3 ab59.9 ± 0.2 a75.3 ± 0.1 a22.0 ± 0.2 defghi13.0 ± 0.3 bcdefg
PE0353.9 ± 0.0 b61.4 ± 0.1 b76.5 ± 0.8 ab22.6 ± 0.8 efghij12.8 ± 0.2 bcde
PE0454.6 ± 0.5 bc65.0 ± 0.0 d77.4 ± 0.6 bc22.9 ± 0.1 fghijkl12.3 ± 0.1 b
PE0555.8 ± 0.1 cde67.9 ± 0.3 f81.8 ± 0.3 fghijk26.1 ± 0.4 nopq13.3 ± 0.1 bcdefghi
PE0654.8 ± 0.3 bc59.7 ± 0.7 a77.2 ± 0.2 bc22.4 ± 0.1 efghi12.9 ± 0.7 bcdef
PH0163.8 ± 0.2 opqr75.0 ± 0.1 st83.6 ± 0.2 klmnop19.8 ± 0.0 bcde14.9 ± 0.5 jklmn
PH0257.8 ± 0.1 fgh69.6 ± 0.4 ghi78.8 ± 0.1 cd21.0 ± 0.0 cdefg13.2 ± 0.1 bcdefgh
TH0161.0 ± 0.2 lmn77.5 ± 0.0 x84.9 ± 0.1 opqrs23.9 ± 0.3 hijklmn15.1 ± 0.5 klmn
TZ0156.6 ± 0.1 def76.0 ± 0.0 uv84.0 ± 0.4 lmnopq27.4 ± 0.5 pqr13.5 ± 0.1 bcdefghij
US0160.2 ± 0.1 klm71.8 ± 0.4 lmn85.3 ± 0.6 pqrst25.1 ± 0.6 jklmnop14.9 ± 0.1 jklmn
US0259.0 ± 1.0 ghijk71.6 ± 0.7 klmn80.6 ± 0.1 defghi21.6 ± 1.1 defgh13.7 ± 0.3 cdefghijk
US0360.3 ± 0.1 klm74.0 ± 0.3 qrs85.8 ± 0.8 qrst25.5 ± 0.9 mnopq14.4 ± 0.3 ghijklm
US0457.9 ± 0.1 fghi69.9 ± 0.1 hij79.9 ± 0.1 def22.0 ± 0.1 defghi14.9 ± 0.3 jklmn
US0560.0 ± 0.1 klm73.1 ± 0.1 opq81.9 ± 0.3 ghijk21.9 ± 0.1 defghi15.2 ± 0.5 lmn
US0661.4 ± 0.7 mn74.5 ± 0.4 rst83.6 ± 0.1 klmnop22.2 ± 0.8 defghi14.3 ± 0.9 fghijklm
US0759.5 ± 0.0 ijkl72.7 ± 0.4 nop82.0 ± 0.3 hijkl22.5 ± 0.3 efghi14.2 ± 0.5 efghijklm
Sig.0.0090.1800.1890.1280.224
To, Tp and Tc: onset, peak, and conclusion temperature of gelatinization, respectively; ΔT and ΔH: gelatinization temperature range and enthalpy, respectively; Sig.: the significance of normal distribution of the 44 samples by Shapiro–Wilk test. Data are means ± standard deviations, n = 3. The values with different letters in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Correlation coefficients between starch property parameters.
Table 4. Correlation coefficients between starch property parameters.
D[4,3]OD680OD620/550AACTACRCTpTc
OD6800.273
OD620/550−0.066−0.501 **
AAC0.2510.908 **−0.619 **
TAC0.0060.483 **−0.304 *0.593 **
RC−0.0360.164−0.1060.1870.583 **
Tp0.1220.183−0.300 *0.343 *0.602 **0.625 **
Tc−0.1440.201−0.416 **0.354 *0.646 **0.632 **0.858 **
ΔT−0.327 *−0.2890.070−0.323 *−0.1130.018−0.0150.205
ΔH−0.0290.372 *−0.423 **0.522 **0.498 **0.338 *0.590 **0.623 **
The analysis is based on property parameters with the significance of normal distribution over 0.05. The RC is relative crystallinity, and its significance of normal distribution is 0.067. The other abbreviations and their normal distributions are listed in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. * and ** indicate the significance at the p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 levels, respectively.
Table 5. List of sweet potato accessions used in this study.
Table 5. List of sweet potato accessions used in this study.
Accession ID
Used in This Study
Origin Accession ID in China
National Sweetpotato Genebank
Accession Name without Origin Accession ID
in China National Sweetpotato Genebank
Original Area
AO01 AngolaAngola
AR01SY00332 Argentina
CB01 Cambodia 1Cambodia
CG01 Congo 2Congo
CN01SY00018 China
CN02SY00019 China
CN03SY00192 China
CN04SY00215 China
JP01SY00075 Japan
JP02SY00081 Japan
JP03SY00083 Japan
JP04SY00087 Japan
JP05SY00145 Japan
JP06SY00147 Japan
JP07SY00148 Japan
JP08SY00159 Japan
JP09SY00369 Japan
JP10 AyamurasakiJapan
JP11 Hongyao 2Japan
JP12 HongyouJapan
JP13 Japanese BlackJapan
JP14 Kokei 14Japan
JP15 Okinawa 100Japan
MA01SY00089 Morocco
ML01SY00091 Mali
MY01SY00130 Malaysia
NG01SY00219 Nigeria
PE01SY00175 Peru
PE02SY00183 Peru
PE03SY00190 Peru
PE04SY00283 Peru
PE05 Peru 1Peru
PE06 Peru 384Peru
PH01SY00114 Philippines
PH02SY00118 Philippines
TH01 Taizi 1506Thailand
TZ01 TanzaniaTanzania
US01SY00001 United States
US02SY00003 United States
US03SY00004 United States
US04SY00006 United States
US05SY00014 United States
US06SY00025 United States
US07SY00277 United States
Table 6. The climatic data of Xuzhou city in 2020.
Table 6. The climatic data of Xuzhou city in 2020.
MonthAverage Low Temperature (°C)Average High Temperature (°C)Total Rainfall (mm)
Apr10 ± 421 ± 416
May18 ± 327 ± 536
Jun22 ± 230 ± 4340
Jul22 ± 229 ± 3359
Aug25 ± 232 ± 372
Sep19 ± 229 ± 32
Oct11 ± 420 ± 218
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Y.; Zhao, L.; Shi, L.; Lin, L.; Cao, Q.; Wei, C. Sizes, Components, Crystalline Structure, and Thermal Properties of Starches from Sweet Potato Varieties Originating from Different Countries. Molecules 2022, 27, 1905. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27061905

AMA Style

Li Y, Zhao L, Shi L, Lin L, Cao Q, Wei C. Sizes, Components, Crystalline Structure, and Thermal Properties of Starches from Sweet Potato Varieties Originating from Different Countries. Molecules. 2022; 27(6):1905. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27061905

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Yibo, Lingxiao Zhao, Laiquan Shi, Lingshang Lin, Qinghe Cao, and Cunxu Wei. 2022. "Sizes, Components, Crystalline Structure, and Thermal Properties of Starches from Sweet Potato Varieties Originating from Different Countries" Molecules 27, no. 6: 1905. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27061905

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop