Protein and Starch Content in the Collection of Barley Samples in the Conditions of the Northern Trans-Urals

Gubanov Mikhail Valeryevich, Opanasyuk Irina Vladimirovna, Vera Mikhailovna Gubanova and Raisa Ivanovna Belkina^*

^*Correspondence: Raisa Ivanovna Belkina, Department of Technology of Storage and Processing, Crop Production FSBEI HE Northern Trans- Ural SAU Tyumen, Russia, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

The main storage compound that determines the nutritional value of cereals are protein and starch. For their formation, plastic substances are most intensively supplied from the vegetative organs of plants to the grains in the grain filling phase [1-5]. Depending on the ratio between the content of nitrogenous substances and carbohydrates, the indicator of grain protein content of individual genotypes is considered [6-9].

According to previous studies, the protein content in large, medium and small grains of Kutulukskaya wheat variety was 12.0-12.7%, starch in the grains of Kinelskaya 60 wheat variety was 70.2-78.8 %, the protein content was almost at the same level (12.0-13.0%), the starch content in grains of various sizes was lower– 68.7-75.2%.

Grain crops also differ in the accumulation of proteins of individual fractions and their quantitative ratio [10-16].

The influence of meteorological factors on the process of synthesis of grain storage compound is established. It is shown that if the protein content in grain increased under adverse growing conditions (e.g., drought), it is not due to an enhanced synthesis and inhibition of starch deposits [17-20].

In the conditions of the Volga forest-steppe, preceding crops and fertilizers had a positive effect on the protein content in barley grain [21-24]. When barley is grown according to its preceding crop– peas with fertilizers based on a grain yield of 4 t/ha, the protein content in the barley grain reached 14.9%, the amount of starch in the grain was 53.3%. To increase the nutritional value of feed, it is proposed to bare-grained barley, this forms a grain with a higher protein content in comparison with chaffy forms [25-27]. Popolzukhin et al. [28,29] presented the biochemical characteristics of the grain of new chaffy barley varieties grown in the Omsk region. The protein content in the grain of the new varieties of barley Gift of Siberia and Sasha for three years of research was 13.5 and 13.6%, starch content-55.2 and 53.9%, fat content-2.2 and 2.1%, respectively.

The purpose of the research

To give a biochemical characteristic of the grain samples of the barley collection grown in the Northern forest-steppe of the Tyumen region.

Materials and Methodology

The research has been carried out on leached, low-power, heavy-loam chernozemic soil in 2011-2013 on the experimental field of the Northern TRANS-Urals State Agrarian University.

The samples of the collection of Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution "Federal Research Center the N. I. Vavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources" have been studied in the amount of 127 samples, the standard was adopted for Acha chaffy barley variety. The research has been conducted in accordance with the" Guidelines for the study and preservation of the world collection of barley and oats " [30].

The study of the biochemical composition of grain has been carried out on the basis of the laboratory of biochemistry and molecular biology of Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution "Federal Research Center the N. I. Vavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources". The protein and starch content in the grain was evaluated by infrared spectroscopy using the Infratec 1241 Grain Analyzer (Sweden).

For the distribution of samples of barley protein content based on the group's International classification of CMEA of the genus Hordeum L.: 1– ery low (less than 8.1%); 2–very low (8.1-9.0%); 3–low (9.1-10.0%); 4 low (10.1-12.0%); 5 – medium (12.1-13.0%); 6–medium (13.1-14.0%); 7–high (14.1-15.0%); 8 – high (15.1-17.0%); 9–very high (over 17%).

There were no samples with a protein content of up to 10% or more than 17% in the collection, so we accepted the values of groups from 4 to 8, which were given the appropriate numbering: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (Table 1). Еhere were тo samples with a protein content of up to 10% or more than 17% in the collection, so we accepted the values of groups from 4 to 8, which were given the appropriate numbering: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (Table 1).

Table 1: Weight of 1000 grains and the amount of starch in the grain of samples of the barley collection, differing in protein content, 2011-2013.

According to the Table 1, the largest number of samples (38%) was in the fourth group, where the protein content was 14.1-15.0%, 29% of samples corresponded to the third group (13.1-14.0%), and 22%–to the fifth (15.1-17.0%). In the first and second groups, the number of samples is significantly lower (4 and 7%).

The highest medium weight of 1000 grains was observed in barley samples of the fourth group (48.7 g), the fifth (48.6 g) and the first (48.3 g).

The samples of the third group value of feature below – 46,3 g, and samples of the second group, where the protein content of 12.1 to 13.0%, the lowest share of 43.7 g.

The limits of variation of mass of 1000 grains greater in groups with high protein content. The range of variation of the trait was 14.0 g, 13.2 g, 17.8 g, 23.2 g, 25.6 g, which indicates a significant increase in the groups with a protein content of 13.1 to 17.0%.

The starch content in the samples of the first and second groups at the level of 61.6% and 60.7%, then there is a downward trend: from 60.1 to 58.6%. The limits of variation in the starch content of barley samples, as well as the mass of 1000 grains, are more significant in groups with a high protein content. In the same groups, the range of variation of the trait is much higher: 12.1% and 13.5%. In the first, second and third groups, this indicator is lower: 2.2%; 6.9%; 3.6%, respectively.

The starch/protein ratio content decreased from 5.3 (the first group) to 3.8 (the fifth group).

The largest amount of variation was observed in the samples of the fifth group (1.9) and the fourth (1.1). In the other groups, this indicator was at the level of 0.4-0.6.

Taking the high value of the protein content in barley grain intended for feed purposes into consideration, it was advisable to present the characteristics of high-protein samples (more than 15% protein) and other characteristics. Table 2 shows the samples of the fifth group, all of them significantly exceed the protein content of Acha barley variety approved for use in the region (an excess of 2.4-4.2%).

Table 2: Characteristics of high-protein barley samples from the VIR collection, 2011-2013.

A number of these samples had a high starch content (60.6-60.8%) and were worse in this indicator than Kedr and Bakhus from the Krasnoyarsk region, Mutant 2207 from Germany.

It should be noted that many samples of this group can form large and full-weight grains. Viking (K-30471) from Germany (58.2 g) and Luka (K-30899) from the Kemerovo region (58.1 g) were characterized by the highest weight of 1000 grains. Such varieties as I. AHOR 2542/63 from Ethiopia (K-20024), Aria from Sweden (K-20508), Anadolu 86 (K-30319) and Obruk 86 (K-30320) from Turkey, L-5 Krinichniy (K-30439) from Belarus, Karabalyk 5 (K-30774) from the Chelyabinsk region, Pervotselinnik (K-30895) from the Orenburg region, Sokol (K-30827) and Zernogradsky (K-30453) from the Rostov region significantly exceeded the standard for this feature (by 4-7G).

Special attention should be paid to the samples of the collection with a complex of high indicators and exceeding the standard for yield. Their characteristics are shown below.

Pervotselinnik from the Orenburg region (K-30895): protein content of 16%, starch-59.1%, weight of 1000 grains-50.3 g, exceeding the standard yield of 10%.

Luka from the Kemerovo region (K-30899): protein content of 16.2%, starch–58.8%, weight of 1000 grains–58.1 g, exceeding the standard yield of 21%.

Thus, the samples of chaffy barley from the VIR collection grown in the Northern forest-steppe of the Tyumen region are classified into five groups according to the protein content in the grain. Most of the samples (60%) were in groups with a protein content above 14%. The average weight of 1000 grains were almost at the same level (48.3-48.7 g) in the group with low protein content and in the groups with high protein content. The starch content in the grain of barley samples was characterized by a downward trend from the group with a low percentage of protein to the groups with medium and high protein content. The starch/protein ratio was 5.3 in the low-protein group, 4.8–4.4 in the medium-protein group, and 4.1–3.8 in the high-protein group. The samples combining a high protein content with a high mass of 1000 grains, as well as high-protein samples with a high mass of 1000 grains that exceeded the standard yield by 10-21%, have been selected. These samples can become a valuable base line for creating new barley varieties in the region.

References

1. 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.
2. Jeon JS, Ryoo N, Hahn TR, et al. Starch biosynthesis in cereal endosperm. Plant Physiol Biochem 2010; 48:383-392.
3. Huisheng Z, Shanshan T, Zhifen P, et al. Effect of main grain components on the starch swelling power of the Tibetan hull-less barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum). Chinese J Applied Environ Biol 2017; 193-199.
4. Kong X., Kasapis S., Zhu P., Sui Z., Bao J., Corke H. Physicochemical and structural characteristics of starches from Chinese hull�less barley cultivars. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 2016, 51(2): 509-518 (doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12984).
5. Zheng Y, Wang Z. Protein accumulation in aleurone cells, sub-aleurone cells and the center starch endosperm of cereals. Plant Cell Reports 2014; 33:1607â??1615.
6. Barmeier G, Hofer K, Schmidhalter U. Mid-season prediction of grain yield and protein content of spring barley cultivars using high-throughput spectral sensing. Eur J Agronomy 2017; 90:108-116.
7. Maphosaa L, Langridgea P, Taylorb H, et al. Genetic control of grain protein, dough rheology traits and loaf traits in a bread wheat population grown in three environments. J Cereal Sci 2015; 64:147-152.
8. BeljkaÅ¡ B, MatiÄ? J, MilovanoviÄ? I, et al. Rapid method for determination of protein content in cereals and oilseeds: Validation, measurement uncertainty and comparison with the Kjeldahl method. Accreditation Quality Assurance 2010; 15:555â??561.
9. Loussert C, Popineau Y, Mangavel C. Protein bodies ontogeny and localization of prolamin components in the developing endosperm of wheat caryopses. J Cereal Sci 2008; 47:445â??456.
10. Xiong F, Yu XR, Zhou L, et al. The influence of nitrogen on the development and accumulation of protein bodies in the developing endosperm of wheat caryopses. Mol Biol Reports 2014; 41:689-695.
11. Nunes-Miranda JD, Bancel E, Viala D, et al. Wheat glutenin: the â??tailâ? of the 1By protein subunits. J Proteomics 2017; 169:136-142.
12. Zhao L, Pan T, Cai C, et al. Application of whole sections of mature cereal seeds to visualize the morphology of endosperm cell and starch and the distribution of storage protein. J Cereal Sci 2016; 71:19-27.
13. Herpen TWJM, Cordewener JHG, Klok HJ, et al. The origin and early development of wheat glutenin particles. J Cereal Sci 2008; 48:870-877.
14. Tsukaguchi T, Nitta S, Matsuno Y. Cultivar differences in the grain protein accumulation ability in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Field Crops Res 2016; 192:110-117.
15. Usha Rani G, Satyanarayana Rao V, Lal Ahmad M, et al. Character association and path coefficient analysis of grain yield and yield components in maize (Zea mays L.). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 2017; 6:4044-4050.
16. Dupont FM, Altenbach SB. Molecular and biochemical impacts of environmental factors on wheat grain development and protein synthesis. J Cereal Sci 2003; 38:33-146.
17. Malik AH, Kuktaite R, Johansson E. Combined effect of genetic and environmental factors on the accumulation of proteins in the wheat grain and their relationship to bread-making quality. J Cereal Sci 2013; 57:170-174.
18. Merchuk-Ovnat L, Fahima T, Krugman T, et al. Ancestral QTL alleles from wild emmer wheat improve grain yield, biomass and photosynthesis across enviroinments in modern wheat. Plant Sci 2016; 251:23-34.
19. Hirel B, Le Gouis J, Ney B, et al. The challenge of improving nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants: towards a more central role for genetic variability and quantitative genetics within integrated approaches. J Exp Botany 2007; 58:2369â??2387.
20. Savchenko IV. Genetic resources-the basis of food security in Russia. Achievements of science and technology of the agro-industrial complex 2016; 30:5-8.
21. Bakaeva NP, Shulaeva Yu G. The content of total protein and starch in the grain of various varieties of spring wheat in the middle volga region. Agricultural Biol 2005; 39-44.
22. Ostapenko AV, Tobolova GV. Application of the oat prolamine electrophoresis method for determining the hybrid nature of F1 grains. Bulletin Krasgau 2017; 14-21.
23. Zamaidinov A. The Influence of technology of cultivation of barley on the accumulation of protein and starch in the grain. Collection of scientific works of all-Russian scientific research Institute of sheep breeding and goat breeding 2014; 2:90-92.
24. Belkina RI, Gubanov MV, Gryaznov AA, et al. Grain quality genotypes hulled and hulless barley in the conditions of Northern Zauralye. Agri-food policy in Russia 2015; 22-25.
25. Gryaznov A. Naked barley in conditions of unstable humidification: Monograph. Kurtamysh: LLC "Kurtamysh printing house" 2014..
26. Gryaznov A. Naked barley in pig feeding. Issues of legal regulation in veterinary medicine 2015; 2:289-291.
27. Belkina RI, Gubanov MV, Gubanova VM. Productivity of varieties of filmy and naked barley in the Northern forest-steppe of the Tyumen region. Proceedings of the Orenburg state Agrarian University 2017; 5:54-55.
28. Popolzukhin PV, Aniskov NI, Nikolaev PN, et al.. New medium-early variety of spring fodder barley gift of Siberia bulletin of the altai state agrarian University. 2015; 10:12-17.
29. Loskutov IG, Kovaleva ON, Blinova EV. Guidelines for the study and preservation of the world collection of barley and oats-St. Petersburg 2012; 63.