13th International Gluten Workshop

Carlos Guzman(Editor)

UCOPressEditorial Universidad de Córdoba

International collaboration on wheat quality and safety. ........................................................................1Tatsuya Ikeda

Enhanced gluten properties in soft kernel durum wheat. .......................................................................4Craig F. Morris

Effects of drought stress and glutenins composition on durum wheat commercial varieties. ................7Ana M. Magallanes-Lopez

Proteomics in wheat gluten research: where are we standing and where are we going? ....................11Maryke T. Labuschagne

Proteomics to assess the quality of Portuguese bread wheat since 1982. ............................................14Gilberto Igrejas

Identification of the major gene associated with grain protein content on chromosome ....................182B in hard red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Yohei Terasawa

Decreasing the immunogenicity of wheat gluten for coeliac disease in humans by .............................22modifying gliadins in bread wheat, using CRISPR/Cas9 technique. Aurelie Jouanin

Genomic selection models for predicting end-use quality traits in CIMMYT ........................................25spring bread wheat. Diego Jarquin

Genomic prediction of grain yield and quality traits in the NDSU durum wheat ..................................28breeding population. Xuehui Li

Improving genomic-enabled prediction accuracy by modeling the genotype-by- ................................31environment interaction for quality traits in Kansas wheat. Reka Howard

Gluten proteins and their structure-function relationships. .................................................................34Eva Johansson

Controlling the higher demands for the quality of vital gluten in bakery applications. ........................38Markus Brunnbauer

Viscoelastic properties of wheat kernel, dough, gluten, proteins and non-gluten ................................41constituents on end-product quality. Juan de Dios Figueroa Cárdenas

Wheat gluten protein structures in processed foods and non-foods. ...................................................45Ramune Kuktaite

Use of a dual speed mixing protocol as a rapid wheat screening tool for .............................................49Alveograph W value estimation. Arnaud Dubat

Rapid micro-scale assay for functional protein fractions in wheat flour or whole meal. ......................52Bin Xiao Fu

Contents

Development of semi-automated macro- and micro-scale baking test. ...............................................56Sándor Tömösközi

Barley C-hordein as reference material for R5 antibody-based prolamin .............................................59quantification. Xin Huang

Exploiting natural and induced variation to improve the content and composition of .........................63dietary fibre in wheat grain. Alison Lovegrove

Aegilops as a source of dietary fiber and drought stress tolerance. ......................................................66Marianna Rakszegi

Variability in phenolic acid composition and content in CIMMYT durum wheat ..................................69cultivars and Mexican landraces. Barbara Laddomada

Developing new types of wheat with good processing quality at low grain .........................................72protein content. Till Pellny

Matching opposites: Defining the association between grain yield and protein ..................................75content in South African wheat. Robbie Lindeque

Evaluating pre-harvest sprouting tolerance and thousand kernel weight in .........................................78doubled haploid wheat populations. Thobeka Khumalo

The effect of fertilization level on the quantity of high molecular weight glutenin ..............................81subunits in two South-African spring wheat cultivars. Brigitta Tóth

Recent advances of the influence of foliar diseases, and their control by fungicides, ..........................84on breadmaking quality in bread wheat. Maria Constanza Fleitas

Development and deployment of biofortified and blast resistant wheat variety .................................87in Bangladesh. Velu Govindan

Assessment of genetic variability and development of high phytase and low phytic ...........................91acid genotypes in wheat. Sewa Ram

Soy lecithin as an improver during freeze bread storage. .....................................................................94Martha Z. de Miranda

Wet milling impact on starch and gluten fractions. ...............................................................................97Ana M. Magallanes-Lopez

New hard red winter wheat variety ‘Hokkai 265’ displaying high pre-harvest ....................................101sprouting tolerance and high grain protein content. Koichi Hatta

Multi-environment assessment of grain quality traits in Moroccan durum wheat germplasm. ..........103 Mona Taghouti

Genetic variability for LMW glutenin composition in the Spanish durum wheat ................................107core collection. Magdalena Ruiz

Relationship between physico-chemical and molecular grain quality parameters .............................110for Tunisian durum wheat varieties (Triticum durum L.) in different environments. Olfa Daaloul Bouacha

Grain mineral composition of wild relatives and introgressive forms in wheat breeding. ..................113Timur Savin

Content of the immunodominant 33-mer peptide from a2-gliadin in common and ..........................116ancient wheat flours determined by the G12 sandwich ELISA. Heinrich Grausgruber

Protein quality and molecular weight distribution of hard red spring wheat .....................................119millstreams in relation to bread-making quality. Kristin Whitney

Identification of a low-molecular-weight glutenin with positive effects on ........................................123parameters predicting bread-making quality. Efrain Chacón

Characterization of prolamins in Spanish durum wheat landraces .....................................................126(Triticum turgidum (L) Tell) and its relationship with quality. Patricia Giraldo

Proteomics of prolamins in Spanish bread wheat landraces with contrasting ....................................129bread-making quality potential. Elena Benavente

How wheat quality is affected by the subtropical environment. .........................................................132Juliano Luiz de Almeida

Quality parameters of advanced lines evaluated in farmers’ fields in the Yaqui Valley, ......................136Sonora, Mexico. Francisco Piñera

Some practices using GlutoPeak tester: a high shear gluten quality evaluation method. ...................140Yaşar Karaduman

41

LACC/IGW. 13th International Gluten WorkshopProceedings

Viscoelastic properties of wheat kernel, dough, gluten, proteins and non-gluten constituents on end-product qualityJuan de Dios Figueroa Cárdenas1, Zorba Josué Hernández-Estrada2, Patricia Rayas-Duarte3, Anayansi Escalante-Aburto4, Néstor Ponce-García5, Senay Simsek6.

1 CINVESTAV-Unidad Querétaro. Libramiento Norponiente 2000, Fracc. Real de Juriquilla, Querétaro, Qro., C.P. 76230 Mexico (jfigueroa@cinvestav.mx.)

2 Oklahoma State University, now at Instituto Tecnológico de Veracruz. Calz Miguel Angel de Quevedo 2779, Colonia Formando Hogar C.P. 91879, H. Veracruz, Ver. Mexico.

3 Robert M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oklahoma State University, 123 FAPC, Stillwater, OK 74078-6055, USA.

4 Universidad de Monterrey, Departamento de Nutrición, Av. Ignacio Morones Prieto 4500 Oeste, San Pedro Garza García, Nuevo León, C.P. 66238, Mexico.

5 UAEMéx, Campus “El Cerrillo”, Piedras Blancas, Toluca, Edo de México. 50200, México.6 North Dakota State University, Harris Hall 224, Dept 7670, PO Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA.

ABSTRACT During the last two centuries, researchers indicated that gluten was the main functional component of wheat dough. It was reasonable, therefore, to assume that this protein was the major determinant of viscoelasticity of the dough. However, our rheological studies using creep, and relaxation tests on gluten proteins (glutenin, gliadins) and non-gluten from Osborne proteins as well as starch, pentosans, and β-glucans indicate that the non-gluten components may not be considered merely as inert filler. The viscoelasticity was affected by several factors (water, temperature, pH, ions). The aim was to show some approaches for modifying the viscoelasticity of wheat components.

INTRODUCTIONDespite considerable research into the rheological properties of HMW-GS and LMW-GS, basic information on kernel mechanical and dough viscoelastic properties of these glutenins are limited. Rheological behavior of dough and how it is affected by external (moisture, temperature, and ions) and internal (composition) factors are far from being fully understood. In particular, water, protein, and HMW-GS have a strong influence on the performance of dough and its final products; but the available information on these effects remains unclear and sometimes conflicting. Creep viscosity of non-gluten components (′0) at optimum water absorption dough showed relatively higher influence in quality than viscosity (′1 and ′2) of proteins. The ′1 played a minor role in the quality indicators of bread studied, except for rheological properties of dough. The presence of certain HMW-GS was associated with several quality tests (Payne et al. 1987). The aim was to show some approaches for modifying the viscoelasticity of wheat components by disrupting some hydrogen-bonds in proteins, starch from kernels, flours, and doughs and improve the end-product quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Plant material and flour preparation. Nineteen wheat cultivars grown in USA were studied for dough and gluten. Additionally, 3 USA wheat classes were used including four hard red spring, two soft red winter and two soft winter wheat. Wheat samples were tempered to 12% moisture before milling on a Quadrumat Jr. (C.W. Brabender, South Hackensack, NJ) laboratory mill. Straight grade flour was blended and rebolted through an 84 SS sieve to remove foreign material. Flour was analyzed for HMW-GS composition.

Dough and gluten preparation and isolation of Osborne solubility fractions. Dough was prepared at optimum water absorption (500 BU consistency) with 48.2-51.3% moisture (calculated) and mixed to 1

42

LACC/IGW. 13th International Gluten Workshop14-17 March 2018

min past development time in a farinograph equipped with a 10 g mixing bowl (Hernández-Estrada et al. 2017). Wet gluten was isolated from flour following AACCI approved Method 38-12-02. Wheat flour was used for solubility Osborne fractionation.

Sintered tablet preparation. The sample was transferred into the die. The load on the die was gradually increased to reach 25 tonnes and maintained for 5 min before removing the tablet (Figueroa et al. 2016). Stress relaxation test and creep recovery tests. A TA.XT Plus texture analyzer (Texture Technologies) with a 25,000 g load cell was used to measure the tablets with compressive loadings using parallel plates (Figueroa et al. 2013). Sample (dough or gluten) was loaded onto an AR 1000 rheometer (TA Instruments). The parallel plate was lowered to a 2.5 mm gap, and the disc sample was retrimmed and run at controlled 25°C with 100Pa of shear stress as a function of time (Hernández-Estrada et al. 2017).

Statistical analysis. Analysis of variance was performed using the SAS, version 9.3. Multiple comparisons of means were performed using the Duncan Multiple Range test at α=0.05 level. Nonlinear regression analyses were performed with OriginPro 9 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Significant losses of grain and other food commodities are due to poor kernel quality and handling during operations such as harvesting, transportation, storage, conditioning and milling (Figueroa et al. 2013). Such loadings cause significant damage to the grains which lead to a decrease in the quality not only to the kernel but also to the dough and bread. Figueroa et al. (2013) indicated that wheat kernel has viscoelasticity memory (entropy) and the differences among genotypes can be primarily explained as the effect of HMW-GS and LMW-GS and non-gluten

components (Fig. 1). The presence of certain HMW-GS in wheat was significantly associated with several quality tests (Payne et al. 1987). Hernándes-Estrada et al. (2014, 2017) reported that the differences in quality of those proteins were explained by the viscoelasticity of allelic protein subunits. The Glu-D1 5+10 presented more viscoelasticity in

dough and gluten compared to Glu-D1 2+12 (Fig. 2). Hernández-Estrada et al. (2014, 2017) also found that wet gluten from same dough could be washed to remove most of the non-gluten components (albumins, globulins, starch and pentosans), which presented lower elastic moduli (G0, G1, G2) than dough (Fig. 2A, Table 1). This suggested that a major part of the viscoelasticity and functionality of the dough as a system is given by the non-gluten components. Table 1, shows that in dough, the Creep model viscoelasticity of G0 and η0 were related to pentosans, starch and β-glucans. The G1 and η1 were due to gliadins, albumins and globulins and LMW-GS and the G2 and η2 viscoelasticity come from HMW-GS and some LMW-GS (Hernández-Estrada et al 2015).

Figure 1. Stress relaxation in wheat kernels of Glu D1 5+10 vs. 2+12 and 2nd derivative of stress curves (farinokernel curves obtained directly from kernels using texturometer). Figueroa et al. (2013).

43

LACC/IGW. 13th International Gluten WorkshopProceedings

Figure 2. Creep test A). G0 Viscoelasticity of dough vs gluten. B). Dough viscoelasticity of LMW-GS of G1; C). Dough viscoelasticity of HMW-GS, Glu-D1 5+10 vs 2+12 of G2.

Table 1. Estimated regressed parameters of the generalized Kelvin–Voigt model for the creep tests of dough and wet gluten on Glu-D1 locus of HMW-GSa,b.

Glutenin G0 G1 G2 η0 η1 η2Subunits (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa.s) (Pa.s) (Pa.s)

Doughc

2+12 7,545 b 2,802 b 1,198 b 79,000 b 1,480 b 12,900 b5+10 8,687 a 3,725 a 1,788 a 125,000 a 1,590 a 16,900 a

Wet Glutend

2+12 1,193 b 787 b 661 b 70,000 b 1,020 b 10,300 b5+10 1,611 a 1,213 a 1,170 a 133,000 a 1,340 a 16,900 a

a Means (n=3 per cultivar) followed by a different letter within a column are significantly different (Duncan, P < 0.05). b Wet gluten under 100 Pa of shear strain hold for 100 s recorded for creep phase. G0: instantaneous shear modulus; G1, G2: shear

moduli; η1, η2: viscosity coefficients associated to λ1, λ2: retardation times; η0: steady state viscosity in creep phase. c. Hernández-Estrada et al. 2015.d. Hernández-Estrada et al. 2017.

However in wet gluten (Table 1), the viscoelasticity assigned by the Creep model retardation times to G0 and η0 were related to insoluble pentosans, β-glucans and insoluble protein, whereas G1 and η1 were due to gliadins, and LMW-GS, and G2 and η2 were due to HMW-GS and some LMW-GS (Hernández-Estrada et al. 2017). To corroborate the hypothesis that non-gluten components of wheat as a system significantly affected the viscoelastic properties, wheat flour was separated into Osborne solubility fractions (Figueroa et al. 2016). Sintered tablets made from protein fractions were evaluated using stress relaxation test (Figueroa et al. 2016) (Table 2) and creep data, which is not shown (Escalante-Aburto et al. 2017). A significant contribution of the viscoelasticity performance in tablets was given by the non-gluten components (albumins, globulins, residue, and water soluble pentosans). The data of Table 2 was consistent with the viscoelasticity of dough and wet gluten reported by Hernández-Estrada et al. (2015, 2017). As indicated from Figure 1A and 1C and Table 1, the difference in good (5+10) and poor (2+12) quality genotypes is the higher viscoelasticity (about G’ 1,500 Pa and G’’≈10,000 Pa.s) in good quality genotypes. The next question is how to improve the viscoelasticity in poor samples.

We explored some approaches for modifying the viscoelasticity of wheat components, among them the use of nixtamalization (Fig. 3). The nixtamalization processes using different Ca sources (ions and pHs) and temperatures showed different dough viscoelasticity (functionalities) for the same wheat kernel or flour with wide range of applications on end-products.

44

LACC/IGW. 13th International Gluten Workshop14-17 March 2018

REFERENCESEscalante-Aburto A, Figueroa-Cárdenas JD, Véles-Medina JJ, Ponce-García N, Hernández-Estrada ZJ, Rayas-Duarte P,

Simsek S (2017). Viscoelastic properties of tablets from Osborne fractions, pentosans, flourand bread evaluated by creep tests. International Agrophysics 31: 307-315.

Figueroa JDC, Hernández ZJE, Rayas-Duarte P, Peña RJ (2013). Stress relaxation and creep recovery tests performed on wheat kernels versus doughs: Influence of glutenins on rheological and quality properties. Cereal Foods World 58: 139-144.

Figueroa JDC, Escalante-Aburto A, Véles-Medina JJ, Hernández-Estrada ZJ, Rayas-Duarte P, Simsek S, Ponce-García N (2016) Viscoelastic properties of tablets from Osborne solubility fraction, pentosans, flour and bread using stress relaxation tests. Journal of Cereal Science 69: 207-212.

Henández-Estrada ZJ, Rayas-Duarte P, Figueroa JDC, Morales-Sánchez E (2014) Creep recovery tests to measure the effects of wheat glutenins on doughs and the relationships to rheological and breadmaking properties. Journal of Food Engineering 143: 62-68.

Hernández-Estrada ZJ, Rayas-Duarte P, Figueroa JDC (2017) Creep recovery of wet gluten and high molecular-weight glutenin composition: Relationship with viscoelasticity of dough and breadmaking quality of hard red Winter wheat. Cereal Chemistry 94: 223-229.

Payne PI, Nightingale MA, Krattiger AF, Holt LM (1987) The relationship between HMW glutenin subunit composition and the bread-making quality of British-grown wheat varieties. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 40: 51–65.

Table 2. Viscoelastic properties of sintered tablet of Osborne solubility fraction corrected by weighta.

Osborne Weight Ec ηd

Fractions (%) (%) (%)

Glutenins 1.67ed 3.11b 4.78bGliadins 5.22b 9.29b 8.65bAlbumins 3.82b 6.58b 6.71bGlobulins 0.79e 4.25b 5.49bResidueb 86.11a 71.46a 67.50aPentosans 2.67d 5.32b 6.86b

a Means (n=6), same letter in a column are not different at P < 0.05.b Residue:68% starch, insolu. protein 4% & 3% water insolu. pentosans.c E is expressed as % by weigh fraction, where E = E0+E1+E2+E3. d η is expressed as % by weight on each fraction, where η = η1+η2+η3.

Figure 3. Wheat nixtamalization with the use of 0.5% lime [Ca(OH2)] and 40°C. Control was without nixtamalization.

143