Variation in Nutritional Components in Roots from Ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa (Wedd.) Parodi) Accessions and an Interspecific Hybrid (P. ahipa × P. tuberosus (Lam.) Spreng.)
1
IRNAS-CSIC, Av. de la Reina Mercedes, 10, 41012 Sevilla, Spain
2
Biología Vegetal y Ecología, University of Seville, Pabellón de Brasil, Paseo de las Delicias s/n, 41012 Sevilla, Spain
3
Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Sobi/Plen-KU, Thorvaldsensvej 40, 3., DK-1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010005
Submission received: 18 November 2021
/
Revised: 14 December 2021
/
Accepted: 18 December 2021
/
Published: 21 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Using Our Agrobiodiversity: Plant-Based Solutions to Feed the World)
Abstract
:Among the many neglected underutilized species, tuberous Andean root crops such as the ahipas (Pachyrhizus ahipa) constitute a promising alternative for increasing diversity in nutrient sources and food security at a regional level. ahipa × P. tuberosus). A significant objective was to determine protein and free amino acids in the roots to evaluate their food quality as protein supply. The interspecific hybrids have been found to possess the root quality to provide the crop with a higher dry matter content. The high dry matter content of the P. tuberosus Chuin materials is retained in the root quality of the hybrids. Food functional components such as carbohydrates, organic acids, and proteins were determined in several ahipa accessions and a stable (non-segregating) progeny of the interspecific hybrid, X207. The X207 roots showed a significantly higher dry matter content and a lower content in soluble sugars, but no significant differences were found in starch content or organic acids compared to the ahipa accessions. Regarding the root mineral contents, Fe and Mn concentrations in X207 were significantly raised compared to the average of ahipa accessions. Among the ahipa and the hybrid, no prominent differences in protein content or protein amino acids were found, being both partially defective in providing sufficient daily intake of some essential amino acids. Root weight, a central component of root yield, was significantly higher in X207, but thorough field studies are required to substantiate the hybrid’s superior yield performance.
1. Introduction
In the Andean region, several crops have been improved by local farmers for centuries. However, they may yet be considered neglected and underutilized species (NUS). At present, they are subjected to a gradual loss of genetic variability or even verging extinction because of their reduced demand and the competition of readily marketable crops [1]. Potentially, they may contribute to regional food security while providing a wide range of functional elements for healthy diets [2,3]. For a long time, these crops have been almost ignored. However, more recently, new interest appeared for being highly nutritious and sources of functional compounds [4,5,6]. Furthermore, they constitute essential components of farm agrobiodiversity, playing a significant role by increasing food security and yield stability either by reducing pests’ impact [7] or by providing nutrients to soils, e.g., N2-fixing legumes [8].
Among these NUS, the ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa [Wedd.] Parodi) is a legume with a tuberous root that has been used from the time of the Incas and is still cultivated locally in small areas in Southern Bolivia [9]. The species provides valuable starch for food or industrial applications such as gluten-free bread or cookies and food additives [10,11,12,13,14]. The available ahipa landraces have shown competitive yield figures for Mediterranean irrigation agriculture compared to traditional starch sources, e.g., potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and sugar-beet (Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris Cultivar group Altissima Group) [15]. The ahipa roots might also provide essential amino acids, vitamins, sugars, minerals, and antioxidants with a low content of anti-nutrients (phytic acid, oxalate, tannins) [15,16]. In a previous study, Forsyth and Shewry [10] did not find storage proteins in ahipa roots but proteins related to tuber metabolism and growth. Recently, root proteins have been characterized, and their possible food applications have been suggested because their chemical properties as highly digestible components for gluten-free foods or even as emulsifiers for dressings [17].
Attempts to increase the crop dry matter yield have led to interspecific hybridization experiments involving the lowland South American species P. tuberosus (Lam.) Spreng., a related species complex holding higher dry matter contents in their roots [18]. It should be stressed that the Chuin materials are the only cultivar group within the P. tuberosus complex known to possess this trait [19]. Breeding could improve crop competitiveness even further by delivering cultivars with desirable agronomic traits, e.g., reduced flowering, shorter cycles, and mono-tuberous roots. At present, ahipa may be an attractive food to complement other traditional sources, which might be defective in some functional elements. In this report, we looked at the content of energy sources (starch, sugars, and organic acids), as well as macro- and micronutrients, and extended the analysis of structural compounds such as protein amino acids.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Material
Ahipa genotypes evaluated in this work were six different accessions of Pachyrhizus ahipa (AC216, AC229, AC521, AC524, AC525, AC526) and an F7 progeny from a hybrid between P. ahipa AC524 and P. tuberosus TC361 Chuin genotype designated as X207. Hybrid seeds (F1), supplied by M. Sørensen, were multiplied annually for seven years and continuously selected for root size and dry matter content, i.e., during the seven years of cultivation. The progenies were segregated according to leaf and root morphology, shoot/root ratio, and root dry matter content. In this study, only F6 seeds of one line of the X207 hybrid, which remained stable regarding the desired traits (root size, high dry matter content), were used. The seeds were planted in 25 L pots filled with potting mix and irrigated with drip-lines from April to October 2019. A peat-based rhizobial inoculant (PAC51) was used for coating seeds before planting [20]. Three replicates for each accession and hybrid progeny were grown outdoors at the Jardin Arvense (ETSIA, University of Seville). A slow-release fertilizer (5 g per pot, of 16-7-15 (2MgO), Floramid Permanent, Compo) was provided during the growth cycle. Traditional flower pruning recommended for increasing root yield [21] was not performed. The harvest of the roots took place 210 days after sowing. Roots and shoots were separated and weighed; then, after washing and peeling, the roots were diced for dry matter determination by drying in an oven at 65 °C for 48 h. Root samples of equal size were frozen and lyophilized for later determination of minerals and organic compounds.
2.2. Minerals
The concentration of N in the samples was determined after Kjeldahl digestion in a Technicon Autoanalyzer. The remaining macro- and micronutrients content were analyzed after acid digestion with HNO3 by ICP (Varian ICP 720-ES).
2.3. Starch Analyses
Starch was measured following sample dilution and hydrolysis recommended in the R-Biopharm Starch kit (Boehringer Mannheim). Ground samples were dissolved with DMSO and 8 M HCl by incubation at 60 °C for 1 h, cooled quickly, and adjusted to pH 4–5. Starch hydrolysis was performed with amyloglucosidase to d-glucose. d-glucose was then determined by NADPH formation after incubation with hexokinase and glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase. Starch concentration was then corrected by subtracting the initial content of soluble sugars in samples as recommended by the kit supplier, which substantially reduced the final starch concentration. The apparent content of amylose in starch from different accessions was determined according to Washington et al. [22].
2.4. Sugars
Sugars were measured in samples after extraction with hot water (90 °C, 1 h). Enzymatic kits from R-Biopharm (Boehringer Mannheim) for sucrose, d-glucose, and d-fructose were used.
2.5. Organic Acids
Malate and citrate were extracted from lyophilized samples in water and determined using enzymatic kits (L-malic and citric acid, R-Biopharm). Ascorbate content was analyzed in fresh or frozen samples. Ascorbate was assayed with a similar kit (L-ascorbic acid, R-Biopharm). However, the concentration was significantly reduced after freezing and thawing in comparison with fresh samples (0.1 vs. 0.4% dry weight), and therefore recorded values may only be considered indicative, and data are not shown.
2.6. Protein Hydrolysis and Amino Acid Analysis
For a complete analysis of root protein amino acids and free amino acids, only one accession of ahipa (AC521) and the X207 hybrid were used. Peeled roots were stored deep-frozen (−70 °C) before drying in a vacuum freeze dryer. Freeze-dried samples were dissolved in 6.0 M HCl with D,L-α aminobutyric acid as internal standard. The samples in HCl acid were gassed with nitrogen and sealed in hydrolysis tubes under nitrogen, then incubated in an oven at 110 °C for 24 h. Derivatization and chromatography of amino acids were performed as in Alaiz et al. [23]. Dried samples of protein hydrolysates were dissolved in 1 M sodium borate buffer (pH 9) and derivatized with diethyl ethoxymethylenemalonate. Separation was performed in a reversed-phase column using sodium acetate and acetonitrile as eluents [23,24]. Tryptophan was separately measured by HPLC after alkaline hydrolysis of samples [25].
2.7. Protein Determinations
Protein contents in the samples were estimated as the concentration of amino acids after the protein hydrolysis (in g amino acids 100 g dried sample−1) minus the concentration of free amino acids. In addition, estimation of root protein contents from Kjeldahl N concentration was also calculated using the conversion factor 5.1 reported by Dini et al. [17].
2.8. Statistical Analysis
From each determination, we analyzed data using a statistical package (Statistica) to perform ANOVAs in a completely randomized model, and further post hoc comparisons between genotypes (Tukey’s HSD test) were performed when Snedecor’s F was significant. When only two genotypes were compared, statistical differences between them were analyzed by Student’s t-test. Data means and their corresponding standard deviation are presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7. When F values were not statistically significant among ahipa accessions, they were pooled as ahipa replicates to compare with the hybrid.
3. Results
3.1. Variation in Root Morphology, Dry Matter Content, and Starch Yield
Tuberous roots showed a significant variation in morphology among accessions (Figure 1), from a single tuber (mono-tuberous root) to a divided root system (multi-tuberous root) with few thickened secondary roots. The X207 hybrid plants showed larger-sized tuberous roots from all ahipa accessions, except for ahipa AC229 (Figure 1, Table 1). Root dry matter content in ahipa accessions ranged from 16.7 to 20.1% (Table 1), while it reached up to 25.9% in the hybrid progeny. Meanwhile, root starch content varied from 28.3 to 35.5%, with no significant differences between genotypes. The amylose content in root starches ranged from 9.6 to 13.5 (Table 1), but significant differences were found between ahipas (mean 10.8%) and the X207 hybrid (13.5%).
3.2. Sugars
The root concentration of soluble sugars (sucrose and glucose) showed significant differences between the ahipas and the hybrid (Table 2), with a general lower sugar concentration in the hybrid. No fructose was detected in the samples.
3.3. Organic Acids
No significant differences in malate and citrate contents were found between ahipa accessions and X207 (Table 3).
3.4. Protein and Amino Acids
Total root protein concentration of the ahipa and the hybrid was somewhat similar when converting Keldahl N into protein content using Dini’s factor or calculated from the sum of total amino acids after acidic protein digestion, and no significant differences were found among genotypes (Table 4). In Table 5, the concentration of protein amino acids in root is presented. The assessment of root protein quality is reported in Table 8, where both AC521 (the only ahipa accession analyzed) and the interspecific hybrid X207 were defective in sulfur amino acids (cysteine and methionine) and tryptophan. However, they provided more than half of the nutritional requirements of several essential amino acids such as leucine, lysine, threonine, and aromatic amino acids (phenylalanine and tyrosine). Furthermore, the analysis of free amino acids in the root flesh showed asparagine as the predominant amino compound in both the ahipa and the hybrid (Table 6).
3.5. Minerals
From all the mineral elements determined in roots (Table 7), statistically significant differences were only found in Fe and Mn concentration between the ahipa accessions and the X207 hybrid, which showed a higher concentration in both nutrients.
4. Discussion
The interspecific hybrid showed higher root weight and a superior dry matter content compared to the different ahipa accessions. Interestingly, its sugar content was lower than in the ahipa accessions, but starch accumulation did not show significant differences between genotypes.
The hybridization of ahipa with a Chuin genotype of P. tuberosus proved to be a successful way of increasing root dry matter content in the ahipa species, as previously reported [18]. Although root dry matter content in the hybrid was significantly higher than in the evaluated ahipa accessions, other reports found significantly greater dry matter values in progenies of interspecific crossings [27]. In X207, root dry matter content was somewhat similar to the dry matter content of Chuin genotypes reported by Grüneberg et al. [28]. Interestingly, some ahipa accessions and the hybrid produced a significant high root yield, despite not performing flower pruning. Starch contents in P. ahipa and X207 were higher than reported values of 9.1% for the cultivated Pachyrhizus relative, P. erosus (L.) Urb., or Mexican yam bean [29], species widely distributed and cultivated mainly in Central America and Southeast Asia [9]. The amylose content in X207 was higher than the amylose content in ahipas, but still it was significantly lower than in jicama (P. erosus) (approximately 24%) [30] or other root crops such as cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) [31]. Thus, amylopectin, the main component of the stored starch in ahipas and X207, may provide interesting applications from the food to plastic industry [13,32].
Root sugars, which provide the characteristic sweet flavor of ahipa, were at a lower concentration in X207 (Table 2). The most popular use of ahipa roots is either as a fruit [33] or as fresh juice in urban markets consumed as a folk medicine [34]. Roots may supply from 8.8 ± 2.6 (X207) to 10.6 ± 2.1 (mean among ahipa accessions) mg of ascorbate in 100 g fresh weight, a concentration in the range provided by yambean or potato [29,35]. Malate and citrate contents (Table 3) reached values similar to other root or tuber crops [3,36].
Protein contents in the Pachyrhizus roots (Table 4) were significantly higher than in other roots crops used for human consumption as dietary energy sources [37]. The protein content in roots was not remarkably high. However, it was among values found in other root and tuber crops cultivated in the Andean region such as potato, racacha (Arracacia xanthorrhiza Bancr), yacón (Smallanthus sonchifolius (Poepp.) H.Rob.), cassava, or achira (Canna indica L.) [2,4,10,36]. For a human diet, the supply and composition of essential amino acids are deficient in sulfuric amino acids and tryptophan (Table 4 and Table 5). Hence, the necessary essential amino acids may be acquired from other plant or animal sources [38]. In both ahipa and the X207 hybrid, the primary amino acid found in proteins was aspartate (Table 4), as it was also reported in proteins isolated from market-purchased ahipa roots, which makes protein acidic and diverse from most plant proteins [17]. The relatively high concentration of free amino acids provided by fresh roots (Table 8), where the amide asparagine was predominant, followed by the amino acids glutamate and arginine (Table 6), deserve to studied for their nutritional and functional values. The role of non-essential amino acids in humans is a matter of interest for improving health, such as arginine as immuno-stimulant [39] or asparagine and its role in avoiding apoptosis when cellular glutamine deficiency is induced by human tumors [40].
Mineral contents in roots are good sources for macro- and micronutrients (Table 7), comparable to potato or other Andean root and tuber crops [3,36]. However, whereas most mineral contents are similar to those found in potato [36], ahipas (and especially the hybrid) might provide a significantly higher amount of Mn, which might be required in diets based on processed foods [41].
From an agronomic perspective, the interspecific hybrid X207 and a few of the ahipa accessions assessed in this study may indeed provide economic root yields if cultivated extensively without requiring the labor-intensive field operation of flower pruning [42]. In addition, the dry matter yield obtained from X207 roots is similar to that of potatoes, and it may approach the DM content of other root and tuber crops, cassava, and sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) [43], after selection and appropriate management [15].
The tuberous roots of this genus provide a valuable food source to compensate for nutritional imbalances in the diet in different regions of the world [34,44]. They are also an alternative source of fresh products for the development of new food products, e.g., gluten-free bread, cookies, and food additives [12,14], or even industrial uses such as biodegradable films [13,32].
5. Conclusions
The interspecific hybrid opens the way to boost ahipa root crop yield without the need of increasing management costs (e.g., manpower for flower pruning) while presenting nutritious properties similar to other ahipa accessions or root crops. In the future, agronomic trials for root and starch yield should be based on the hybrid or further selections from it. The variety of uses for consuming it raw or cooked, or even for industrial processing for gluten-free flours, make this species a valuable source for diet diversification.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, E.O.L.; design of the study and supervision, E.O.L. and S.R.-O.; a collection of materials and maintenance of the field experiment, Y.E.-C. and E.O.L.; data acquisition, Y.E.-C. and E.O.L.; data curation and statistical analysis, E.O.L. and S.R.-O.; interpretation of results and drafting the first manuscript, E.O.L., S.R.-O. and M.S.; writing—review and final editing, E.O.L. and M.S.; funding acquisition, E.O.L. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Partial funds from the Latincrop project (FP7/2007-2013, 613692).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable; a review of research from the scientific literature has been used.
Acknowledgments
Jardín Arvense, Cátedra Adama, University of Seville.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Jacobsen, S.E.; Sørensen, M.; Pedersen, S.M.; Weiner, J. Using our agrobiodiversity: Plant-based solutions to feed the world. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1217–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leidi, E.O.; Monteros-Altamirano, A.; Mercado, G.C.; Rodríguez, J.P.; Ramos, A.; Alandia, G.; Sørensen, M.; Jacobsen, S.-E. Andean roots and tubers as sources of functional foods. J. Funct. Foods 2018, 51, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choquechambi, L.A.; Callisaya, I.R.; Ramos, A.; Bosque, H.; Mújica, A.; Jacobsen, S.E.; Sørensen, M.; Leidi, E.O. Assessing the nutritional value of root and tuber crops from Bolivia and Peru. Foods 2019, 8, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Espín, S.; Villacrés, E.; Brito, B. Caracterización físico-química, nutricional y funcional de raíces y tubérculos andinos. In Raíces y Tubérculos Andinos: Alternativas Para la Conservación y Uso Sostenible en el Ecuador; Barrera, V.H., Tapia, C.G., Monteros, A.R., Eds.; INIAP-CIP: Quito, Ecuador, 2004; pp. 91–116. Available online: https://repositorio.iniap.gob.ec/bitstream/41000/3264/1/iniapscCD55p91.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2020).
- Graefe, S.; Hermann, M.; Manrique, I.; Golombek, S.; Buerkert, A. Effects of post-harvest treatments on the carbohydrate composition of yacon roots in the Peruvian Andes. Field Crops Res. 2004, 86, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ojansivu, I.; Ferreira, C.L.; Salminen, S. Yacon, a new source of prebiotic oligosaccharides with a history of safe use. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 22, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobsen, S.-E.; Sørensen, M.; Pedersen, S.M.; Weiner, J. Genetically modified crops versus agro-biodiversity—Which strategy should we adopt to feed the world’s population? Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 651–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodríguez, D.N.; Sørensen, M.; Leidi, E.O. Ahipa, Pachyrhizus ahipa: A legume with edible roots. Legum. Perspect. 2020, 19, 15–16. Available online: http://www.ias.csic.es/grainlegumesmagazine/legum_perspect_19.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2020).
- Sørensen, M.; Grüneberg, W.J.; Ørting, B. Ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa (Wedd.) Parodi). In Andean Roots and Tubers: Ahipa, Arracacha, Maca and Yacon; Hermann, M., Heller, J., Eds.; IPGRI: Rome, Italy, 1997; pp. 13–73. [Google Scholar]
- Forsyth, J.L.; Shewry, P. Characterization of the major proteins of tubers of yam bean (Pachyrhizus ahipa). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 1939–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doporto, M.C.; Mugridge, A.; García, M.A.; Viña, S.Z. Pachyrhizus ahipa (Wedd.) Parodi roots and flour: Biochemical and functional characteristics. Food Chem. 2011, 126, 1670–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doporto, M.C.; Sacco, F.; Viña, S.Z.; García, M.A. Quality and technological properties of gluten-free biscuits made with Pachyrhizus ahipa flour as a novel ingredient. Food Nutr. Sci. 2017, 8, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- López, O.V.; Viña, S.Z.; Pachas, A.N.A.; Sisterna, M.N.; Rohatsch, P.H.; Mugridge, A.; Fassola, H.E.; García, M.A. Composition and food properties of Pachyrhizus ahipa roots and starch. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 45, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malgor, M.; Viña, S.Z.; Dini, C. Root starches enriched with proteins and phenolics from Pachyrhizus ahipa roots as gluten-free ingredients for baked goods. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 55, 1763–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leidi, E.O.; Cobo, J.; Rodríguez-Navarro, D.N.; Fernández, M.; Semedo, J.; Marques, N.; Matos, A.; Ørting, B.; Sørensen, M.; Matos, M.C. Factors affecting root and seed yield in ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa (Wedd.) Parodi), a multipurpose legume crop. Eur. J. Agron. 2004, 20, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dini, C.; Doporto, M.C.; García, M.A.; Viña, S.Z. Nutritional profile and anti-nutrient analyses of Pachyrhizus ahipa roots from different accessions. Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dini, C.; Quiroga, A.V.; Viña, S.; García, M.A. Extraction and Characterization of Proteins from Pachyrhizus ahipa Roots: An Unexploited Protein-Rich Crop. Plant. Foods Hum. Nutr. 2021, 76, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grüneberg, W.J.; Freynhagen-Leopold, P.; Delgado-Váquez, O. A new yam bean (Pachyrhizus spp.) interspecific hybrid. Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol. 2003, 50, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delêtre, M.; Soengas, B.; Vidaurre, P.J.; Meneses, R.I.; Delgado Vásquez, O.; Oré Balbín, I.; Santayana, M.; Heider, B.; Sørensen, M. Ecotypic differentiation under farmers’ selection: Molecular insights into the domestication of Pachyrhizus Rich. ex DC. (Fabaceae) in the Peruvian Andes. Evol. Appl. 2017, 10, 498–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Navarro, D.N.; Camacho, M.; Temprano, F.; Santamaría, C.; Leidi, E.O. Assessment of nitrogen fixation potential in ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa) and its effect on root and seed yield. Expl. Agric. 2009, 45, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sørensen, M. Yam Bean (Pachyrhizus DC.). Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops; 2 (Heller, J. series ed.); Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research: Gatersleben, Germany; International Plant Genetic Resources Institute: Rome, Italy, 1996; pp. 1–141. ISBN 92-9043-282-9. [Google Scholar]
- Washington, J.M.; Box, A.; Karakousis, A.; Barr, A.R. Developing waxy barley cultivars for food, feed and malt. Barley Genet. 2000, 8, 303–306. [Google Scholar]
- Alaiz, M.; Navarro, J.L.; Girón, J.; Vioque, E. Amino acid analysis by high-performance liquid chromatography after derivatization with diethyl ethoxymethylenemalonate. J. Chromatogr. 1992, 591, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Megías, C.; Cortés-Giraldo, I.; Girón-Calle, J.; Vioque, J.; Alaiz, M. Determination of l-canavanine and other free amino acids in Vicia disperma (Fabaceae) seeds by precolumn derivatization using diethyl ethoxymethylenemalonate and reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Talanta 2015, 131, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yust, M.M.; Pedroche, J.; Girón-Calle, J.; Vioque, J.; Millan, F.; Alaiz, M.; Yust, M.D.M. Determination of tryptophan by high-performance liquid chromatography of alkaline hydrolysates with spectrophotometric detection. Food Chem. 2004, 85, 317–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millward, D.J. Amino acid scoring patterns for protein quality assessment. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108, S31–S43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Heider, B.; Tumwegamire, S.; Tukamuhabwa, P.; Ndirigwe, J.; Bouwe, G.; Bararyenya, A.; Hell, K.; Leclercq, J.; Lautié, E.; Wassens, R.; et al. Nutritional improvement of yam bean and sustainability of farming systems in Central and West Africa. Afr. Crop. Sci. Conf. Proc. 2011, 10, 93–95, ISSN 1023-070X. [Google Scholar]
- Grüneberg, W.J.; Büttner, G.; Delgado-Licon, E. Protein and starch quality of yam bean tubers. In Proceedings of the Eucarpia, International Symposium on Breeding of Protein and Oil Crops, Pontevedra, Spain, 1–4 April 1998; pp. 95–97. [Google Scholar]
- Noman, A.S.M.; Hoque, M.A.; Haque, M.M.; Pervin, F.; Karim, M.R. Nutritional and anti-nutritional components in Pachyrhizus erosus L. tuber. Food Chem. 2007, 102, 1112–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevenson, D.G.; Jane, J.; Inglett, G.E. Characterisation of jícama (Mexican Potato) (Pachyrhizus erosus L. Urban) starch from taproots grown in USA and Mexico. Starch/Stärke 2007, 59, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odeku, O.A. Potentials of tropical starches as pharmaceutical excipients: A review. Starch/Stärke 2013, 65, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, O.V.; García, M.A. Starch films from a novel (Pachyrhizus ahipa) and conventional sources: Development and characterization. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2012, 32, 1931–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grau, A. Ahipa, la legumbre tuberosa de los Andes. Ciencia Hoy 1997, 7, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez, J.P.; Ørting, B.; Andreasen, C.; Jacobsen, S.E.; Sørensen, M. Trends and drivers of on-farm conservation of the root legume ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa) in Bolivia over the period 1994/96–2012. Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol. 2018, 65, 449–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgos, G.; Auqui, S.; Amoros, W.; Salas, E.; Bonierbale, M. Ascorbic acid concentration of native Andean potato varieties as affected by environment, cooking and storage. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2009, 22, 533–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burlingame, B.; Mouillé, B.; Charrondière, R. Nutrients, bioactive non-nutrients and anti-nutrients in potatoes. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2009, 22, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shewry, P. Tuber storage proteins. Ann. Bot. 2003, 91, 755–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hou, Y.; He, W.; Hu, S.; Wu, G. Composition of polyamines and amino acids in plant-source foods for human consumption. Amino Acids 2019, 51, 1153–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andlauer, W.; Fürst, P. Nutraceuticals: A piece of history, present status and outlook. Food Res. Int. 2002, 35, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Fan, J.; Venneti, S.; Cross, J.R.; Takagi, T.; Bhinder, B.; Djaballah, H.; Kanai, M.; Cheng, E.H.; Judkins, A.R.; et al. Asparagine plays a critical role in regulating cellular adaptation to glutamine depletion. Mol. Cell 2014, 56, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Freeland-Graves, J.H.; Mousa, T.Y.; Kim, S. International variability in diet and requirements of manganese: Causes and consequences. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2016, 38, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ørting, B.; Grüneberg, W.J.; Sørensen, M. Ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa (Wedd.) Parodi) in Bolivia. Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol. 1996, 43, 435–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandrasekara, A. Roots and tubers as functional foods. Bioactive Mol. Food 2018, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanklan, A.S.; Ahouangonou, S.; Becker, H.C.; Pawelzik, E.; Grüneberg, W.J. Evaluation of the storage root-forming legume yam bean (Pachyrhizus spp.) under West African conditions. Crop. Sci. 2007, 47, 1934–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Root morphology in representative samples of the ahipa accessions and the interspecific hybrid X207.
Figure 1.
Root morphology in representative samples of the ahipa accessions and the interspecific hybrid X207.
Table 1.
Root weight (g plant−1) and root dry matter, starch, and amylose content (in % dry weight) in six different ahipa accessions and the X207 P. ahipa × P. tuberosus hybrid. Mean ± standard deviation. Below, significance of Snedecor’s F for the genotypic source of variation and Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 1.
Root weight (g plant−1) and root dry matter, starch, and amylose content (in % dry weight) in six different ahipa accessions and the X207 P. ahipa × P. tuberosus hybrid. Mean ± standard deviation. Below, significance of Snedecor’s F for the genotypic source of variation and Tukey’s HSD test.
| Genotype | Root Weight | Dry Matter | Starch | Amylose |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC216 | 121.7 ± 67.4 | 20.1 ± 2.9 | 30.8 ± 11.4 | 10.7 ± 1.1 |
| AC229 | 416.6 ± 88.8 | 18.4 ± 1.8 | 29.6 ± 2.2 | 11.4 ± 1.1 |
| AC521 | 287.9 ± 23.2 | 17.7 ± 0.8 | 32.0 ± 1.9 | 10.5 ± 0.9 |
| AC524 | 189.2 ± 38.8 | 19.1 ± 1.4 | 35.5 ± 6.1 | 10.8 ± 1.4 |
| AC525 | 327.6 ± 107.1 | 16.7 ± 2.1 | 32.6 ± 6.9 | 9.6 ± 1.3 |
| AC526 | 85.1 ± 40.2 | 19.9 ± 2.3 | 30.5 ±1.2 | 11.8 ± 1.8 |
| X207 | 429.4 ± 184.5 | 25.9 ± 1.8 | 28.3 ± 4.7 | 13.5 ± 2.2 |
| F | p < 0.05 | p < 0.01 | ns | ns |
| HSD | 4.7 | 5.5 | - | - |
ns, not significant.
Table 2.
Sucrose and glucose contents in roots of six different accessions and the P. ahipa × P. tuberosus hybrid X207 (in % dry weight). Mean ± standard deviation. Significance of Snedecor’s F for the genotypic source of variation and Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 2.
Sucrose and glucose contents in roots of six different accessions and the P. ahipa × P. tuberosus hybrid X207 (in % dry weight). Mean ± standard deviation. Significance of Snedecor’s F for the genotypic source of variation and Tukey’s HSD test.
| Genotype | Sucrose | Glucose |
|---|---|---|
| AC216-145 | 7.08 ± 0.27 | 2.33 ± 0.13 |
| AC229-150 | 9.34 ± 1.30 | 3.50 ± 0.47 |
| AC521 | 10.72 ± 0.84 | 4.27 ± 0.33 |
| AC524 | 8.54 ± 0.89 | 3.46 ± 0.37 |
| AC525-171 | 8.82 ± 0.49 | 2.11 ± 0.13 |
| AC526 | 10.21 ± 0.60 | 3.94 ± 0.25 |
| X207 | 6.22 ± 0.52 | 1.55 ± 0.12 |
| F | p < 0.001 | p < 0.01 |
| HSD | 2.1 | 0.8 |
Table 3.
Malate and citrate contents in roots of six different accessions and the X207 hybrid (P. ahipa × P. tuberosus). Means in % dry weight ± standard deviation. Significance of Snedecor’s F for the genotypic source of variation and Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 3.
Malate and citrate contents in roots of six different accessions and the X207 hybrid (P. ahipa × P. tuberosus). Means in % dry weight ± standard deviation. Significance of Snedecor’s F for the genotypic source of variation and Tukey’s HSD test.
| Genotype | Malate | Citrate |
|---|---|---|
| AC216-145 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 0.16 ± 0.03 |
| AC229-150 | 0.31 ± 0.07 | 0.14 ± 0.04 |
| AC521 | 0.20 ± 0.04 | 0.15 ± 0.01 |
| AC524 | 0.26 ± 0.07 | 0.39 ± 0.04 |
| AC525-171 | 0.37 ± 0.06 | 0.14 ± 0.03 |
| AC526 | 0.19 ± 0.03 | 0.08 ± 0.02 |
| X207 | 0.29 ± 0.05 | 0.22 ± 0.04 |
| F | ns | ns |
| HSD | - | - |
ns, not significant.
Table 4.
Root protein content in accession AC521 and the hybrid X207 (P. ahipa × P. tuberosus). Lipids and fibers determined only in ahipa AC521. Mean ± standard deviation. Values in g × 100 g dry matter−1.
Table 4.
Root protein content in accession AC521 and the hybrid X207 (P. ahipa × P. tuberosus). Lipids and fibers determined only in ahipa AC521. Mean ± standard deviation. Values in g × 100 g dry matter−1.
| Genotype | Proteins 1 | Proteins 2 | Lipids | Fibers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC521 | 4.15 ± 0.04 | 4.87 ± 1.07 | 0.54 ± 0.02 | 7.91 ± 0.24 |
| X207 | 4.36 ± 0.09 | 6.24 ± 1.77 | nd | nd |
1 Protein concentration calculated as the total amount of amino acids determined after protein digestion minus the free amino acids determined in similar samples. 2 Protein concentration calculated using the N to protein conversion factor of 5.1 [17]. nd, not determined.
Table 5.
Protein amino acids in roots of ahipa AC521 and the interspecific hybrid X207. Means in g × 100 g dry weight−1 ± standard deviation.
Table 5.
Protein amino acids in roots of ahipa AC521 and the interspecific hybrid X207. Means in g × 100 g dry weight−1 ± standard deviation.
| Amino Acid | AC521 | X207 |
|---|---|---|
| Asp + Asn | 2.23 ± 0.017 | 3.29 ± 0.007 |
| Glu + Gln | 0.37 ± 0.002 | 0.30 ± 0.016 |
| Ser | 0.19 ± 0.011 | 0.15 ± 0.000 |
| His | 0.12 ± 0.002 | 0.14 ± 0.002 |
| Gly | 0.12 ± 0.003 | 0.10 ± 0.001 |
| Thr | 0.12 ± 0.003 | 0.12 ± 0.004 |
| Arg | 0.23 ± 0.005 | 0.44 ± 0.006 |
| Ala | 0.16 ± 0.003 | 0.12 ± 0.004 |
| Pro | 0.56 ± 0.036 | 0.39 ± 0.033 |
| Tyr | 0.08 ± 0.003 | 0.09 ± 0.002 |
| Val | 0.20 ± 0.009 | 0.24 ± 0.058 |
| Met | 0.01 ± 0.002 | 0.00 ± 0.000 |
| Cys | 0.02 ± 0.001 | 0.02 ± 0.003 |
| Ile | 0.15 ± 0.003 | 0.13 ± 0.001 |
| Trp | 0.01 ± 0.002 | 0.01 ± 0.001 |
| Leu | 0.19 ± 0.002 | 0.14 ± 0.003 |
| Phe | 0.13 ± 0.001 | 0.10 ± 0.001 |
| Lys | 0.19 ± 0.005 | 0.18 ± 0.003 |
Table 6.
Free amino acids in roots of ahipa AC521 and the interspecific P. ahipa × P. tuberosus hybrid X207. Means in g × 100 g dry weight−1 ± standard deviation.
Table 6.
Free amino acids in roots of ahipa AC521 and the interspecific P. ahipa × P. tuberosus hybrid X207. Means in g × 100 g dry weight−1 ± standard deviation.
| Amino Acid | AC521 | X207 |
|---|---|---|
| Asp | 0.099 ± 0.004 | 0.100 ± 0.001 |
| Glu | 0.066 ± 0.002 | 0.065 ± 0.000 |
| Asn | 0.616 ± 0.018 | 1.097 ± 0.011 |
| Ser | 0.035 ± 0.000 | 0.030 ± 0.001 |
| Gln | 0.005 ± 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 |
| His | 0.017 ± 0.001 | 0.023 ± 0.001 |
| Gly | 0.010 ± 0.000 | 0.009 ± 0.000 |
| Thr | 0.010 ± 0.001 | 0.031 ± 0.000 |
| Arg | 0.040 ± 0.001 | 0.134 ± 0.001 |
| Ala | 0.016 ± 0.000 | 0.006 ± 0.000 |
| Pro | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 |
| Tyr | 0.007 ± 0.002 | 0.015 ± 0.000 |
| Val | 0.031 ± 0.001 | 0.044 ± 0.005 |
| Met | 0.001 ± 0.002 | 0.000 ± 0.000 |
| Cys | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.000 ± 0.000 |
| Ile | 0.019 ± 0.001 | 0.024 ± 0.000 |
| Trp | 0.008 ± 0.001 | 0.000 ± 0.000 |
| Leu | 0.007 ± 0.000 | 0.016 ± 0.000 |
| Phe | 0.013 ± 0.001 | 0.010 ± 0.000 |
| Lys | 0.006 ± 0.000 | 0.018 ± 0.000 |
Table 7.
Comparison of the concentration of minerals in roots from six ahipa accessions and the interspecific hybrid X207. Mean ± standard error. Statistical significance of the difference between both genotypes was determined by Student’s t-test.
Table 7.
Comparison of the concentration of minerals in roots from six ahipa accessions and the interspecific hybrid X207. Mean ± standard error. Statistical significance of the difference between both genotypes was determined by Student’s t-test.
| Genotype | K | Ca | Mg | P | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| g × 100 g dry matter−1 | |||||
| Ahipas | 0.82 ± 0.06 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.02 |
| X207 | 0.79 ± 0.11 | 0.13 ± 0.03 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 0.15 ± 0.03 |
| t | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Fe | Mn | Cu | Zn | B | |
| mg × kg dry matter−1 | |||||
| Ahipas | 24.9 ± 2.1 | 2.3 ± 0.9 | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 8.4 ± 1.2 | 4.8 ± 0.5 |
| X207 | 35.7 ± 3.6 | 6.7 ± 1.5 | 0.9 ± 0.6 | 10.3 ± 2.0 | 6.0 ± 0.8 |
| t | p < 0.05 | p < 0.05 | ns | ns | Ns |
| Co | Mo | Ni | V | Na | |
| Ahipas | 0.43 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.0 |
| X207 | 0.47 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.8 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.1 |
| t | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
ns, not significant.
Table 8.
Quality assessment of root proteins according to their essential amino acid scoring pattern from ahipa AC521 and interspecific hybrid P. ahipa × P. tuberosus X207.
Table 8.
Quality assessment of root proteins according to their essential amino acid scoring pattern from ahipa AC521 and interspecific hybrid P. ahipa × P. tuberosus X207.
| Amino Acid | Pattern 1 | AC521 | X207 |
|---|---|---|---|
| His | 27 | 110 | 122 |
| Ile | 35 | 102 | 88 |
| Leu | 75 | 62 | 44 |
| Lys | 73 | 62 | 57 |
| SAA 2 | 35 | 23 | 17 |
| AAA 3 | 73 | 70 | 64 |
| Thr | 42 | 66 | 67 |
| Trp | 12 | 19 | 16 |
| Val | 49 | 101 | 114 |
1 Tissue amino acid pattern based on amino acid composition of whole-body protein (in mg × g protein−1). Source: Milward [26]. 2 SAA, sulfur amino acids (met + cys). 3 AAA, aromatic amino acids (Phe + Tyr).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Leidi, E.O.; Ech-Chliah, Y.; Rossini-Oliva, S.; Sørensen, M. Variation in Nutritional Components in Roots from Ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa (Wedd.) Parodi) Accessions and an Interspecific Hybrid (P. ahipa × P. tuberosus (Lam.) Spreng.). Agronomy 2022, 12, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010005
AMA Style
Leidi EO, Ech-Chliah Y, Rossini-Oliva S, Sørensen M. Variation in Nutritional Components in Roots from Ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa (Wedd.) Parodi) Accessions and an Interspecific Hybrid (P. ahipa × P. tuberosus (Lam.) Spreng.). Agronomy. 2022; 12(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010005
Chicago/Turabian StyleLeidi, Eduardo O., Youssef Ech-Chliah, Sabina Rossini-Oliva, and Marten Sørensen. 2022. "Variation in Nutritional Components in Roots from Ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa (Wedd.) Parodi) Accessions and an Interspecific Hybrid (P. ahipa × P. tuberosus (Lam.) Spreng.)" Agronomy 12, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010005
APA StyleLeidi, E. O., Ech-Chliah, Y., Rossini-Oliva, S., & Sørensen, M. (2022). Variation in Nutritional Components in Roots from Ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa (Wedd.) Parodi) Accessions and an Interspecific Hybrid (P. ahipa × P. tuberosus (Lam.) Spreng.). Agronomy, 12(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010005
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
