Sources of Variation in the Solvent Retention Capacity Test of Wheat Flour

Abstract

type ϫ location effects in soft wheat milling characteristics and cookie quality. Similarly, milling characteristics The solvent retention capacity (SRC) test uses the ability of flour of hard and soft wheat in the presence of artificially to retain a range of solvents as a means of evaluating economically important aspects of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) quality: pentosan imposed moisture stress were influenced to a greater content, starch damage, gluten strength, and general water retention. degree by genotype and moisture regime than the inter-Inbred lines from three soft spring wheat populations ('Vanna'/'Penaaction of the two (Guttieri et al., 2001b). Previous work wawa', 'Kanto 107'/IDO488, and M2/IDO470) were produced in repliwith the SRC test demonstrated significant differences cated, irrigated trials in 2000 and 2001 to assess variance components among genotypes for the retention by flour of all four for the SRC tests. Milling yield, flour ash, flour protein, and sugar standard SRC solvents (Guttieri et al., 2001a). In consnap cookie diameter for these genotypes were determined. Flour trast, genotype ϫ environment interactions were insigsolvent (water, 500 g kg Ϫ1 sucrose, 50 g kg Ϫ1 sodium carbonate, and nificant for the four solvents. This is consistent with 50 g kg Ϫ1 lactic acid) retention capacities were measured, and variances investigations of the flour components assayed by the estimated for genotype, genotype ϫ environment interaction, and SRC test. Hong et al. (1989) found variation among error terms. The variance of genotypes for SRC values in the three populations ranged from 0.67 to 0.97 of the total variance (genotype, genotypes for pentosan content were much greater than genotype ϫ environment, and error) not attributed to main effects variation associated with genotype ϫ environment inof year and replication. Correlations among genotypes were significant teraction. Gluten strength may be determined to a and positive for water, sodium carbonate, and sucrose SRC within greater degree by year, moisture stress, and genotype all three populations (r ϭ 0.70 to 0.92, P Ͻ 0.01). In all three populathan interactions of these components (Guttieri et al., tions, these SRC values were negatively correlated with cookie diame-2000). This is not to dismiss the existence of genotype ϫ ter (r ϭ Ϫ0.54 to Ϫ0.89, P Ͻ 0.01). Correlations between lactic acid environment interaction in the determination of end-use SRC, a measure of gluten strength, and the other SRC values werequality of wheat. However, it suggests that differences complex, as was the correlation between lactic acid SRC and cookie among genotypes for many quality attributes may be diameter. This suggests that milling and baking quality could be imsufficiently large relative to the genotype ϫ environproved through manipulation of flour components using SRC selection.

Quantitative trait loci associated with soft wheat quality in a cross of good by moderate quality parents

“…The coincident QTL often corresponded to trait correlations (Table 3). The water absorption capacity traits AWRC, WA, SU, and SO were all positively correlated as has been reported by others for soft wheat (Guttieri & Souza, 2003;Ram et al, 2005;Smith et al, 2011;Cabrera et al, 2015;Hoffstetter et al, 2016). There were 10 marker-trait associations from four regions for these traits and only one was not coincident with another.…”

“…Positive correlations between these two traits have been previously reported (Guttieri et al, 2001;Knott et al, 2009). However, in a study of three soft wheat populations, just one population showed a positive correlation (0.47) between these traits (Guttieri & Souza, 2003). Lack of association of these two traits was also observed in a study of soft white wheat (Guttieri et al, 2001).…”

“…Loci associated with water absorption capacity have been identified in hard wheat (Mansur et al, 1990). Similarly, loci influencing FP, kernel hardness, and TW have been mapped (Mattern et al, 1973;Blanco et al, 1996;Sourdille et al, 1996: Prasad et al, 1999Perretant et al, 2000; about the heritability of SRCs in soft wheat have shown high heritability (Guttieri & Souza, 2003;Smith et al, 2011;Cabrera et al, 2015;Hoffstetter et al, 2016). Common QTLs for AWRC and damaged starch were observed in a hard x soft population on chromosome 4DL (Campbell et al, 2001).…”

Quantitative trait loci associated with soft wheat quality in a cross of good by moderate quality parents

“…Heritability for all traits ranged from 0.67 to 0.90 (Table 4). Others have reported similar heritability values for soft wheat quality traits (Guttieri & Souza, 2003;Smith et al, 2011;Cabrera et al, 2015;Hoffstetter et al, 2016).…”

“…Previous correlation studies of soft wheat quality traits have already shown that flour damaged starch and arabinoxylan levels may be controlled by common genetic factors (Guttieri about the heritability of SRCs in soft wheat have shown high heritability (Guttieri & Souza, 2003;Smith et al, 2011;Cabrera et al, 2015;Hoffstetter et al, 2016). Common QTLs for AWRC and damaged starch were observed in a hard x soft population on chromosome 4DL (Campbell et al, 2001).…”