Magnitude Differences in Bioactive Compounds, Chemical Functional Groups, Fatty Acid Profiles, Nutrient Degradation and Digestion, Molecular Structure, and Metabolic Characteristics of Protein in Newly Developed Yellow-Seeded and Black-Seeded Canola Lines

Abstract

Recently, new lines of yellow-seeded (CS-Y) and black-seeded canola (CS-B) have been developed with chemical and structural alteration through modern breeding technology. However, no systematic study was found on the bioactive compounds, chemical functional groups, fatty acid profiles, inherent structure, nutrient degradation and absorption, or metabolic characteristics between the newly developed yellow- and black-seeded canola lines. This study aimed to systematically characterize chemical, structural, and nutritional features in these canola lines. The parameters accessed include bioactive compounds and antinutrition factors, chemical functional groups, detailed chemical and nutrient profiles, energy value, nutrient fractions, protein structure, degradation kinetics, intestinal digestion, true intestinal protein supply, and feed milk value. The results showed that the CS-Y line was lower (P ≤ 0.05) in neutral detergent fiber (122 vs 154 g/kg DM), acid detergent fiber (61 vs 99 g/kg DM), lignin (58 vs 77 g/kg DM), nonprotein nitrogen (56 vs 68 g/kg DM), and acid detergent insoluble protein (11 vs 35 g/kg DM) than the CS-B line. There was no difference in fatty acid profiles except C20:1 eicosenoic acid content (omega-9) which was in lower in the CS-Y line (P < 0.05) compared to the CS-B line. The glucosinolate compounds differed (P < 0.05) in terms of 4-pentenyl, phenylethyl, 3-CH3-indolyl, and 3-butenyl glucosinolates (2.9 vs 1.0 μmol/g) between the CS-Y and CS-B lines. For bioactive compounds, total polyphenols tended to be different (6.3 vs 7.2 g/kg DM), but there were no differences in erucic acid and condensed tannins with averages of 0.3 and 3.1 g/kg DM, respectively. When protein was portioned into five subfractions, significant differences were found in PA, PB1 (65 vs 79 g/kg CP), PB2, and PC fractions (10 vs 33 g/kg CP), indicating protein degradation and supply to small intestine differed between two new lines. In terms of protein structure spectral profile, there were no significant differences in functional groups of amides I and II, α helix, and β-sheet structure as well as their ratio between the two new lines, indicating no difference in protein structure makeup and conformation between the two lines. In terms of energy values, there were significant differences in total digestible nutrient (TDN; 149 vs 133 g/kg DM), metabolizable energy (ME; 58 vs 52 MJ/kg DM), and net energy for lactation (NEL; 42 vs 37 MJ/kg DM) between CS-Y and CS-B lines. For in situ rumen degradation kinetics, the two lines differed in soluble fraction (S; 284 vs 341 g/kg CP), potential degradation fraction (D; 672 vs 590 g/kg CP), and effective degraded organic matter (EDOM; 710 vs 684 g/kg OM), but no difference in degradation rate. CS-Y had higher digestibility of rumen bypass protein in the intestine than CS-B (566 vs 446 g/kg of RUP, P < 0.05). Modeling nutrient supply results showed that microbial protein synthesis (MCP; 148 vs 171 g/kg DM) and rumen protein degraded balance (DPB; 108 vs 127 g/kg DM) were lower in the...

On a Molecular Basis, Investigate Association of Molecular Structure with Bioactive Compounds, Anti-Nutritional Factors and Chemical and Nutrient Profiles of Canola Seeds and Co-Products from Canola Processing: Comparison Crusher Plants within Canada and within China as well as between Canada and China

“…In the international economy, canola has become a central issue as the second most abundant oil source [ 1 ] with the valuable co-product of oil extraction: high quality protein rich meal [ 2 ]. Canola was modified from rapeseed [ 3 ] by Canadian plant breeders [ 4 ] to obtain plant with low levels of “erucic acid” in the oil (<2% of total fatty acids in the oil) and low levels of glucosinolates in the non-oil part (<30 μmol in its defatted meal) [ 5 , 6 , 7 ].…”