Relationships Between the Microstructure, Physical Features, and Chemical Composition of Different Maize Accessions from Latin America

Abstract

Chemical composition (moisture, total lipids, protein, and apparent amylose) and some physical features (1,000 kernel weight, hardness, and anatomical composition) were determined in 71 accessions representing races of maize from Latin America. Their microstructural characteristics (size and compaction of endosperm cell bodies, pericarp thickness, horny‐floury endosperm ratio, and morphology and size of starch granules) were also evaluated using environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM). Compaction was the most important microstructural feature of the maize kernels, representing kernel hardness. Highly compact kernels tended to be hard, with high protein, pericarp, and hard‐endosperm content and high pericarp thickness, but with low moisture, amylose content, and kernel weight and size. The opposite was observed in the least compact kernels. Highly compact kernels tended to have small, polygonal starch granules (<10 μm), while the least compact kernels contained large, spherical granules (>10 μm). These results suggest that microstructure is responsible for the physical features of maize kernels and that microstructure is related to chemical composition.

Grain quality of drought tolerant accessions within the MRI Zemun Polje maize germplasm collection

“…A large study on chemical compounds and physical properties of maize grain on 71 accessions represent- ing landraces from Latin America was conducted by Narváez-González et al (2006). The values for protein content were higher and lower for oil content compared to our experiment.…”

Genetic Factors Underlying Dry‐Milling Efficiency and Flaking‐Grit Yield Examined in US Maize Germplasm

“…Furthermore, because of the previous lack of small-scale processing methods, it was not feasible to evaluate a large number of genotypes, which is necessary to understanding the genetic basis for the trait and required to facilitate selection. In the past, DME was estimated indirectly by assessing grain quality traits found to be related to DME such as test weight (Blandino et al, 2010;Kirleis and Stroshine, 1990;Lee et al, 2007a;Pan et al, 1996;Paulsen and Hill, 1985;Pomeranz and Czuchajowska, 1987), kernel hardness (Blandino et al, 2010;Kirleis and Stroshine, 1990;Lee et al, 2007a;Litchfield and Shove, 1990;Narváez-González et al, 2006), kernel density (Kirleis and Stroshine, 1990;Wu and Bergquist, 1991), breakage susceptibility (Paulsen and Hill, 1985), and protein content (Dorsey-Redding et al, 1991;Jackson et al, 1988;Lee et al, 2005Lee et al, , 2007aPhilippeau et al, 2000;Yuan and Flores, 1996). Ideally, in maize grown for dry-milling end use, selection for DME would result in the maximizing the amount of flaking grits produced per unit of land (FGY).…”

Application of Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA) viscograms and chemometrics for maize hardness characterisation

“…2B and C). The hydration and gelatinisation process of starch from hard maize is slower than that of soft maize due to the thicker protein network present within hard maize (Narváez-González et al, 2006;Wang & Eckhoff, 2000). The RVA curve data of all three the profiles showed promising results for RVA to be used for hardness characterisation and was subjected to further multivariate data analysis (chemometrics).…”

“…This was due to hard maize producing mainly coarse particles when milled, and soft maize smaller particles (Almeida-Dominguez et al, 1997). Coarse particles have slower water diffusion, limited swelling of the starch granules and slow viscosity development (Narváez-González et al, 2006;Sahai, Buendia, & Jackson, 2001). Smaller particles have bigger surface areas that result in better and more rapid hydration, thus better gelatinisation and higher viscosity (Almeida-Dominguez et al, 1997).…”

“…Furthermore, hard kernels show a more prominent protein-to-starch adhesion effect compared to soft kernels (AlmeidaDominguez et al, 1997). The protein matrix of vitreous endosperm is thicker than that of floury endosperm (Wang & Eckhoff, 2000), and forms a barrier that slows hydration and gelatinisation (Almeida-Dominguez et al, 1997;Narváez-González et al, 2006).…”