Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35096925›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2021

Use of Protein Content, Amylose Content, and RVA Parameters to Evaluate the Taste Quality of Rice.

Shijie Shi, Enting Wang, Chengxuan Li, Mingli Cai, Bo Cheng, Cougui Cao, Yang Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Frontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  17. Prediction of protein content in paddy rice (Frontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Key Metabolites in Rice Quality Formation of ConventionalCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shijie ShiCollege of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.
Enting WangCollege of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.
Chengxuan LiCollege of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.
Mingli CaiCollege of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.
Bo ChengCollege of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.
Cougui CaoCollege of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.
Yang JiangCollege of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Taste quality of rice is the key to its value. However, it is greatly affected by rice types and the environment. It is a complex but necessary factor to accurately evaluate the taste quality of various types of rice in different environments. In this study, 7 different types of rice with different taste values were used as materials, and 12 nitrogen fertilizer treatments were applied to obtain 84 different rice taste values. We used protein content, amylose content, and RVA to evaluate changes in the taste value of rice. Rice with high taste value tended to have higher amylose content, peak viscosity, hold viscosity, final viscosity, and breakdown, as well as lower protein content, pasting temperature, and peak time. Protein and amylose contents affected the taste value of rice by affecting the RVA profiles except for setback. For high and low taste-value rice types, protein content could explain 66.8 and 42.9% of the variation in taste value, respectively. In the case of medium taste-value type, protein content was not enough to evaluate the taste quality of rice. Stickiness could explain 59.6% of the variation in taste value. When the protein content of rice was less than 6.61% or greater than 9.34%, it could be used to reflect the taste quality of rice. When the protein content was in between the two, protein content was not enough to reflect the taste quality of rice. Our results suggested that protein content could better reflect the taste quality change for rice, which provided a theoretical and technical basis for the accurate evaluation of the taste value of various types of rice.

Indexed as

amylosenitrogen fertilizerproteinricetaste value

Identifiers

PMID35096925
PMCPMC8793496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.