Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 May 22;18(5):e0255764. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255764

Rapid screening of sixty potato cultivars for starch profiles to address a consumer glycemic dilemma

Rocio Rivas 1, Edward Dratz 2, Thomas Wagner 3, Gary Secor 4, Amanda Leckband 1, David C Sands 1,*
Editor: Umakanta Sarker5
PMCID: PMC10202311  PMID: 37216356

Abstract

Potatoes are a dietary staple consumed by a significant portion of the world, providing valuable carbohydrates and vitamins. However, most commercially produced potatoes have a high content of highly branched amylopectin starch, which generally results in a high glycemic index (GI). Consumption of foods with high levels of amylopectin elicit a rapid spike in blood glucose levels, which is undesirable for individuals who are pre-diabetic, diabetic, or obese. Some cultivars of potatoes with lower amylopectin levels have previously been identified and are commercially available in niche markets in some countries, but they are relatively unavailable in the United States and Latin America. The high glycemic index of widely available potatoes presents a problematic “consumer’s dilemma” for individuals and families that may not be able to afford a better-balanced, more favorable diet. Some native communities in the Andes (Bolivia, Chile, and Peru) reportedly embrace a tradition of providing low glycemic tubers to people with obesity or diabetes to help people mitigate what is now understood as the negative effects of high blood sugar and obesity. These cultivars are not widely available on a global market. This study examines 60 potato cultivars to identify potatoes with low amylopectin. Three independent analyses of potato starch were used: microscopic examination of granule structure, water absorption, and spectrophotometric analysis of iodine complexes to identify potato cultivars with low amylopectin Differences among cultivars tested were detected by all three types of analyses. The most promising cultivars are Huckleberry Gold, Muru, Multa, Green Mountain, and an October Blue x Colorado Rose cross. Further work is necessary to document the ability of these low amylopectin cultivars to reduce blood glucose spike levels in human subjects.

Introduction

Current lifestyles have led much of the general population to become relatively sedentary and to adopt questionable eating habits, including high consumption of foods which appear to drive an alarming rise in the incidence of obesity and Type 2 diabetes worldwide [13]. This problem is especially severe in low-income populations, where inexpensive high-energy foods tend to be consumed, instead of more expensive foods that have more balanced nutrition [4]. Potatoes are a popular staple food, available to consumers at a low cost per pound that can be easily stored. Potato starch is also widely used in the food industry as a processed food ingredient [5, 6]. Most varieties of potatoes have high levels of amylopectin starch, which is highly branched and rapidly digested. High levels of amylopectin cause a rapid spike in blood glucose level that occurs after consumption of high glycemic index potatoes [2, 79].

Fig 1 illustrates the difference in response of a typical individual’s blood sugar levels to high and low glycemic index foods. Most varieties of potatoes are in the high glycemic category of foods that people with pre-diabetes, diabetes, or obesity should seek to avoid. Not only do high glycemic foods give a large spike in blood sugar levels, but the body’s response to try to bring the level down tends to cause what is referred to as an undershoot, bringing levels below its desirable amount. This low level of blood sugar tends to stimulate hunger and the desire to consume more high glycemic foods. It follows that high glycemic foods tend to cause a “roller coaster” effect on blood sugar and may cause excessive food consumption [10].

Fig 1. Typical blood plasma glucose response (mmol/l) from a high compared to a low glycemic index (GI) food.

Fig 1

The high glycemic food tends to cause an “undershoot” in the blood glucose level, below the desirable level, which also tends to stimulate hunger and consumption of additional high glycemic foods [10].

The high glycemic index of widely available potatoes presents a problematic “consumer’s dilemma” for individuals and families that may not be able to afford a better-balanced, more favorable diet [2, 79]. The food industry in some countries have addressed the high glycemic index potato problem particularly in Denmark and Australia [8, 11], by providing and promoting lower glycemic varieties of potatoes that are relatively unavailable in the United States and most other countries. Some native communities in the Andes (Bolivia, Chile, and Peru) reportedly embrace a tradition of providing low glycemic tubers to people with obesity or diabetes [12].

Potato starch consists of two major types of carbohydrates, amylose, and amylopectin [13]. Amylose, less abundant in most varieties of potato tubers, has a linear repeating glucose 1–4 linked polysaccharide backbone structure that digests relatively slowly. Amylopectin shares the glucose 1–4 linked chains and additionally contains highly branched beta 1–6 side chains that produce a broader structure [8, 1420], that digests much faster than amylose [8, 14, 15, 1719] that can present metabolic stress. Starch granule synthesis proceeds with the formation of amylose first and amylopectin branches are layered on the outside of the granules [22]. Typical high amylopectin potato starch granules have a smooth rounded surface with concentric rings, formed by amylopectin [21, 22].

Researchers have found that a higher ratio of amylose/amylopectin correlates with loss of surface smoothness in starchy granules [9, 23]. We noticed when screening potato starch granules, that some potato cultivars showed a highly disrupted starch granule surface, observed under the bright field microscope at 400x, while granules from other cultivars have a smooth appearance. Thus, the surface structure of the starch granules might be useful as an initial screen for identifying promising varieties with lower amylopectin starch content, that would favor a low Glycemic Index (GI) [9, 16, 20, 24, 25]. We test this possibility by also testing the swelling capacity (water absorption capacity) of the starch of the same varieties, which has also been reported to correlate with the amylose/amylopectin ratio [18, 2529]. Finally, we used an iodine inclusion spectrophotometric method that allows quantification of amylose and amylopectin in mixtures [16, 30, 31]

Zhu et al. [32], observed that high amylose rice consumption had beneficial health effects on obese rats, by reducing blood sugar levels and body weight, which would presumably also have positive health benefits for humans [2, 23, 32, 33]. This might be consistent with beliefs and dietary recommendations about types of plants that are favorable among Native communities in Peru and Chile, but unfortunately most of their traditional potato germplasm was lost during the colonization of the region [12]. However, potato varieties maintained in seed banks or that may already have been commercialized might possess beneficial, low glycemic traits. Therefore, we screened 60 potato varieties and selections in this study to investigate the relationship between starch granule conformation, swelling power and amylose: amylopectin ratios, seeking to validate rapid screening methods for low GI potential. The favorable lines revealed from this screening study can be used for further agronomic, breeding, and human GI testing.

Methods and materials

Potato material tested

A collection of 60 potato varieties and selections of potato germplasm were obtained from research laboratories of Montana State University, the USDA potato collection [34], commercial seed producers, and private breeder Tom Wagner, Everett, Washington. These varieties were tested for low GI potential using starch granule morphology, water absorption capacity and spectrophotometric analysis of amylose and amylopectin content, as described below. The potato materials were also chosen for their favorable agronomic traits and were increased in the MSU greenhouse for testing. Three tubers of each variety or selection were analyzed as depicted in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Flow chart illustrating starch analysis conducted on 60 selected potato varieties and selections.

Fig 2

Morphological analysis of starch granules

Tubers were assayed several months after harvest. A cork-borer was used to remove a core (1cm x 1 cm) from the center medullary tissue of tubers for observation. A subsample 5 x 5 mm2 was pressed onto a microscope slide, with a gloved finger, covered with a cover slip, viewed with a bright field microscope (Nikon Eclipse E440) at 400x magnification and photographed. Starch granules from each variety or selection was numerically graded, using a grading scale assessment (GSA). The GSA was graded according to the numerical scale described in Fig 3. Samples of three different tubers of each variety or selection were examined and photographed. Each variety was given more than one rating score if the granules within the picture showed diversity, as explained further in the results section.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

The grading scale used for starch granule assessment: 0 = whole granules with smooth visible hilum 1 =. Whole smooth granules with dots 2 =. Whole smooth granules with surface alterations (wrinkles) 3 =. Whole granules with large wrinkles 4 =. Starch granule surface fractures 5 = collapsed granule.

Water absorption capacity of starch

The swelling capacity (SC) or water absorption capacity (WAC) measures the ratio between the weight of the hydrated starch flour gel and the dry flour samples. Samples with increased amylose concentrations support lower water absorption after starch jellification [2527, 3537]. WAC was evaluated using a procedure modified from Martin [36]. Potato samples were freeze dried and processed into powdered form in a coffee grinder to obtain potato flour. Thirty to forty mg of potato flour was weighed in pre-weighed 2 mL screw top glass tubes and the total weight measured to four significant figures. To each tube 1.5 ml of distilled water was added to the tubes, which were capped, vortexed, placed in a thermo-mixer (Thermo Fisher) at 92 °C. The tubes were mixed at 800 RPM for 30 minutes and centrifuged at 1000g for 10 minutes at 4° C. The supernatant was aspirated from the tubes, carefully avoiding the gelatinous layer, and the tubes reweighed. The capacity to absorb water was calculated by dividing the flour plus water weight by the dry flour weight.

Spectrophotometric analysis of starch properties

Rundle [30] first reported a marked difference in iodine inclusion and absorption spectra between amylose and amylopectin and developed a spectrophotometric method that allows quantification of both components in mixtures. We used this spectrophotometric method, following modifications by Jarvis and Walker [31] and Fajardo, et al. [16], to quantify the amylose/amylopectin ratios. 20 mg of freeze-dried potato flour was suspended in 2ml of 80% ethanol in a 15 ml plastic tube and briefly mixed with a Vortex Shaker to suspend the flour. Samples were centrifuged at room temperature for 60 seconds at top speed in a clinical centrifuge and the supernatant carefully removed. This washing procedure was repeated twice with the same solvent. The resulting washed starch (pellet) was mixed with 5ml of water and 5ml of 1 M KOH in the same tube and vortexed. It is important to use ultra-pure water in the analysis for reproducible results. Also, the absorbance value of the iodine solution at 550 nm versus solvent should be near 0.1, as the iodine solution is light and age sensitive, which will increase the absorbance [16]. Precision in the preparation of the iodine and the amylopectin/amylose solutions is crucial to obtaining reliable/reproducible amylose and amylopectin determinations. Since we are determining the proportion of amylose content rather than the exact amount of amylose in the potato starch, there is no purification step needed for the isolation of pure starch from the potato powder as used by other determination methods. One ml of this mixture was transferred into a 50 ml tube, neutralized with 5ml of 0.1M HCl, mixed with 0.5 ml of Lugol solution [31], and adjusted to 50ml final volume with distilled water. The samples were prepared in triplicate and allowed to stand for 15 min at room temperature, before measurement to stabilize the inclusion of the iodine. Each sample was placed in a one cm plastic spectrophotometer cuvette and absorption spectra recorded from 480–800 nm, versus a distilled water blank, using a Genesis 10 UV Instrument (Thermo-Fisher Scientific). The spectra were analyzed using the Vision Lite software (Thermo-Fisher). The data obtained was processed using the statistical software Stat Plus: Mac LE 2009.

Results

Morphological analysis of starch granules

We noticed that for most potato varieties and selections, virtually all the granules in each sample were quite similar in appearance. In other cases, there was a high diversity of granular appearance. For these cases, two scores were assigned, as shown in Table 1 with a rough percentage of the granules the scores represented. Fig 4 shows that the granules in the common commercial varieties Russet Burbank and Yukon Gold, known to have a high amylopectin content (72% and 69% respectively), showed very smooth granules, with a distribution in the sizes of their granules. The previously shown grading scale in Fig 3 dictated that the granules in Fig 4 fit a GSA rating of 1.

Table 1. GSA rating and range of uniformity of starch granules ratings from the 60 potato varieties and selections tested.

Variety or Selection GSA Rating % Uniformity
Bjorna 5 55–60
Bzura 5 70–75
Huckleberry Gold 5 100
I 1035 5 90–95
Laram K’anchali 5 75–80
Muru 5 100
Olalla 5 75–80
Arma 4 45–50
Bolivian Blizzard 4 80–85
Bareroot River 4 85–90
I 1036 4 85–90
Multa 4 60–65
Green Mountain 3 60–65
Iker 3 45–50
Juice Valley 3 45–50
Lumper 3 50–55
Marble Gold 3 85–90
Monona 3 35–40
Oct Blue 3 85–90
Oct Blue x Col Rose 3 85–90
Pirola 3 65–70
Biddy Taro 2 65–70
Bison 2 90–95
C97007 2 85–90
Cherry red 2 80–85
Katelidan 2 45–50
Norland 2 75–80
Papa Amorga 2 85–90
Purple Valley 2 65–70
Red Pontiac 2 50–55
Allegany 1 20–30
Anolla 1 35–40
Asun 1 45–50
Bolivian Spring 1 90–95
Russet Burbank 1 90–95
Charlotte 1 90–95
Chella x Bulk Clover 1 90–95
Garnet Chile 1 90–95
Golden Anniversary 1 85–90
Goldra 1 80–85
Leona 1 85–90
Mich Oct x John T 1 85–90
NH x SPG 1 45–50
Nicola 1 45–50
Phytophyter 1 35–40
Picasso 1 45–50
Rush Share 1 45–50
Sangre 1 45–50
Sassy Lassy 1 85–90
Skagit Magic 1 90–95
Violet Butter 1 40–45
X gem 1 60–75
Yukon Gold 1 80–85
Arcilla-597779 0 100
Chelan 0 100
Chipitiquilla 0 100
Dark Red Norland 0 100
Fontenay 0 100
Rose Valley 0 100
Studebaker x Nordic Oct 0 100

Fig 4. Bright field microscopic photos of starch granules of Yukon Gold (left) and Russet Burbank (right) at 400x.

Fig 4

These granules were given a GSA rating of 1, according to the Grading Scale shown in Fig 3.

In other potato samples, there was considerable diversity of granular appearance. For these cases, two scores were assigned, as shown in Table 1 with a rough percentage of the granules each of the scores represented. The previously shown grading scale in Fig 3 dictated that the granules in Fig 4 fit a GSA rating of 1.

In contrast, the starch granules in only a few of the potato varieties showed significant rough, granular surfaces, and thus had much higher GSA values. Huckleberry Gold, Muru, and Mich-Oct have GSA ratings of 5, as shown in Fig 5, where 90–95% of the total granules observed presented collapsed surfaces, the other 5–10% correspond to granules with minor irregularities. The variety Multa graded 4 GSA with 60–65% of the granules presenting a surface fracture level, and the 35–40% corresponded to minor irregularities.

Fig 5. Starch granule images from left to right are Huckleberry Gold, Muru, Multa, Bzura, and Michigan October.

Fig 5

The GSA ratings and percent starch granules in the GSA rating of 60 varieties and selections are listed in Table 1.

Water absorption capacity of starch

During the development of the assay to measure the water absorption capacity (WAC), we found that it was essential to handle the samples very carefully after the final centrifugation, with minimum vibration, since complete removal of the supernatant was difficult in some samples. The WAC data for 60 varieties and selections, is shown with standard deviations in Table 2. The ten varieties with the lowest water absorption were the same as those with the highest GSA scores. These included Huckleberry Gold, Muru, Bzura, Michigan October, and the F-1 hybrid Michigan October X Colorado Rose (Fig 2). The October Blue x Colorado Rose hybrid was ranked third lowest in its relative capacity to absorb water.

Table 2. Water absorption capacity (WAC) and standard deviations of 60 potato varieties and selections.

Variety Water Absorption Capacity WAC Standard Deviation
Monona 21.6 ± 2.3
Chipitiquilla 21.5 ±
Skagit Magic 20.8 ± 2.3
Picasso 20.5 ±
Cherry red 20.3 ± 1.7
C97007 20 ± 1.2
Katelidan 19.4 ± 3.9
Purple Valley 18.3 ± 4.5
Bison 18.2 ± 2.3
Rose Valley 18 ± 1.6
Garnet Chili 17.8 ± 2.2
Chelan 17.4 ±
Nicola 17.3 ± 2.1
Iker 17.2 ± 1.6
Phytophyter 17 ± 2.1
Dark Red Norland 16.9 ± 4.1
Juice Valley 16.4 ± 2.4
Bolivian Spring 16.1 ± 3.7
Charlotte 15.8 ± 2.8
Golden Anniversary 15.7 ± 2.8
Goldra 15.7 ± 2.7
Pirola 15.7 ± 0.9
Asun 15.6 ± 3
Anolla 15.5 ± 0.9
Laram K’anchali 15.5 ± 1.2
I 1035 15.4 ± 5
Bjorna 15.4 ± 2.1
Sassy Lassy 15.2 ± 2.3
Chella x Bulk Clover 15.1 ± 1.1
NH x SPG 14.9 ± 1.2
Sangre 14.9 ± 0.5
Violet Butter 14.7 ± 1.3
Arma 14.5 ± 2.6
I 1036 14 ± 3.1
Studebaker x Nordic Oct 13.8 ± 1.9
Bzura 13.7
Rush Share 13.6 ± 1.1
X Gem 13.6 ± 0.8
Leona 13.4 ± 1
Bolivian Blizzard 13.2 ± 1.7
Olalla 13.2 ± 1.6
Bareroot River 13.1 ± 3.2
Arcilla-597779 12.9 ± 1.2
Allegany 12.9 ± 1.9
Green Mountain 12.8 ± 1.3
Lumper 12.7 ± 1.3
Multa 12.3 ± 1.8
Biddy Taro 12.2 ± 0.6
Fontenay 12.1 ± 1.3
Marble Gold 12 ± 1.1
Oct Blue 12 ±
Norland 11.5 ± 0.8
Yukon Gold 11.2 ± 2.1
Red Pontiac 10.9 ± 2
Papa Amorga 10.6 ± 0.7
Muru 10.5 ± 0.6
Mich Oct x John T 10.4 ± 0.3
Oct Blue x Col Rose 9.9 ± 0.9
Huckleberry Gold 9.5 ± 0.7
Russet Burbank 9.5 ± 0.8

Determination of amylose percentage

We encountered a wide range of variation in spectrophotometric evaluation when we assessed amylose percentage, using the Jarvis and Walker approach [31]. Fajardo et al. [16], in contrast, reported that using absorbance changes at the optimum wavelengths can provide highly consistent results. This can be seen in Fig 6. Fajaro, et al. [16] found that the maximum absorbance of the amylose-iodine complex was at 620 nm and the maximum absorbance of the amylopectin-iodine complex was at 550 nm. Thus, the percent amylose can be determined from absorbances at the peak wavelengths of each species as follows [16]:

Amylose%=y=107.7x77.4

Where x = A620nm/A550nm, measured against the reagent blank.

Fig 6. Spectra of solutions of known concentrations of potato starch polysaccharide mixtures of amylose (amilosa) and amylopectin.

Fig 6

The spectrum marked Yodo is the iodine containing reagent solution blank.

The amylose ratings of 60 potato varieties and selections are shown in Table 3. We screened the 60 potato varieties in triplicate to provide the standard deviations in Table 3. The potato varieties with a higher concentration of amylose are Green Mountain, Muru, Bzura, Multa, Huckleberry Gold, and the F-1 cross October Blue X Colorado Rose. These samples also had high surface alterations of their starch granules, which supports our initial hypothesis that surface roughness was due to higher amylose content.

Table 3. Amylose content (%) of 60 potato varieties and selections.

Variety Amylose (%)
Green Mountain 60.9
Muru 59.0
Bzura 50.4
Multa 44.7
Huckleberry Gold 44.7
Oct Blue x Col Rose 43.8
Laram K’anchali 43.8
NH x SPG 40.4
Lumper 39.7
Anolla 39.5
Bjorna 38.3
Iker 37.1
Sassy Lassy 37.1
X Gem 36.6
Chipitiquilla 35.7
Red Pontiac 35.0
Bolivian Blizzard 34.7
Phytophyter 34.5
Papa Amorga 34.2
Skagit Magic 34.2
Oct Blue 33.6
Dark Red Norland 33.3
Juice Valley 33.3
Studebaker x Nordic Oct 32.9
Cherry Red 32.8
Marble Gold 32.7
Fontenay 32.5
Nicola 32.3
Leona 32.3
Arma 31.9
Mich Oct x John T 31.8
Arcilla-597779 31.4
Pirola 31.2
Rose Valley 31.2
Violet Butter 30.9
Norland 30.8
Bolivian Spring 30.7
Katelidan 30.7
I 1035 30.4
I 1036 30.4
Yukon Gold 30.4
Olalla 30.0
Biddy Taro 29.8
Bareroot River 29.2
Sangre 28.9
Goldra 28.8
Garnet Chile 28.3
Asun 27.7
Monona 27.6
C97007 27.4
Charlotte 27.1
Chelan 26.6
Rush Share 26.6
Bison 26.2
Golden Anniversary 25.0
Allegany 24.1
Chella x Bulk Clover 24.0
Picasso 23.9
Purple Valley 23.9
Russet Burbank 23,7

Calculation of potential glycemic index based on amylose percentage

Moreira’s study in 2012 [38] measured the blood sugar levels in subjects two hours after eating a starchy meal with a known concentration of amylose and reported a correlation equation where x is the amylose percentage of total starch content and GIp is the GI potential value (GIp). Using this relationship and the amylose content of potato varieties and selections, a GIp can be calculated (Table 4).

Table 4. Predicted glycemic index (GIP) of 52 potato varieties and selections calculated using the equation described by Moreira [38].

GIp = Glycemic Index potential.

Variety % amylose GI potential Variety % amylose GI potential
Green Mountain 60.9 (14.69) Mich Oct x John T 31.8 73.28
Muru 59.0 (8.94) Arcilla-597779 31.4 74.43
Bzura 50.4 16.93 Pirola 31.2 75.14
Huckleberry 44.7 34.18 Rose Valley 31.2 75.14
Multa 44.7 34.18 Violet Butter 30.9 75.90
Oct Blue x Col Rose 43.8 37.06 Norland 30.8 76.17
NH x SPG 40.4 47.12 Bolivian Spring 30.7 76.65
Lumper 39.7 49.35 Katelidan 30.7 76.66
Anolla 39.5 49.99 I 1035 30.4 77.31
Bjorna 38.3 53.57 Yukon Gem 30.4 77.31
Iker 37.1 57.15 I 1036 30.4 77.51
Sassy Lassy 37.1 57.22 Olalla 30.0 78.72
X gem 36.6 58.62 Biddy Taro 29.8 79.28
Chipitiquilla 35.7 61.45 Bareroot River 29.2 81.13
Red Pontiac 35.0 63.54 Sangre 28.9 81.99
Bolivian Blizzard 34.7 64.46 Goldra 28.8 82.25
Phytophyter 34.5 65.17 Garnet Chile 28.3 83.65
laram K’anchali 34.2 65.81 Asun 27.7 85.70
Skagit Magic 34.2 65.81 Monona 27.6 85.73
Papa Amorga 34.2 65.96 C97007 27.4 86.43
Oct Blue 33.6 67.76 Charlotte 27.1 87.37
Dark Red Norland 33.3 68.68 Chelan 26.6 88.81
Juice Valley 33.3 68.75 Rush Share 26.6 88.89
Studebaker x Nordic Oct 32.9 69.77 Bison 26.2 89.97
Cherry Red 32.8 70.12 Golden Anniversary 25.0 93.81
Marble Gold 32.7 70.58 Allegany 24.1 96.44

The GIp for Green Mountain and Muru, the two varieties with the highest percentage of amylose have negative values, which suggests that such high amylose samples were outside the range of Moreira’s equation.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient tests were performed to study the possible relationship between granular surface appearance of starch granules (GSA), granule absorption capacity (GAC), and amylose content by spectrophotometric analysis in multiple potato varieties and selections. There was a negative correlation between GAC and amylose content r2 = -0.34, p>0.01), confirming the hypothesis that amylose inhibits water absorption by potato starch. There was a positive correlation between GSA scores and the amylose content of the potato starch (r2 = 0.46, p <0.05). These comparisons can be seen in Table 5. These results agree with other observations with potatoes [39] and peas, as high amylose peas are more wrinkled and cause a much lower insulin response in humans than smooth peas [40]. The wrinkled peas also have a lower capacity to absorb water [41].

Table 5. Compilation of traits of seven selected cultivars with the most favorable starch content, compared to three cultivars with high amylopectin content.

Variety % Amylose Content Starch Granule Ranking Water Absorption
Green Mountain 61 3 13
Muru 59 5 10
Bzura 50 5 13
Huckleberry Gold 45 5 9
Multa 45 5 12
Oct. Blue x Col Red 44 3 9
Monona 28 2 22
Picasso 24 1 21
Purple Valley 24 2 18

Discussion

Nutrition data indicates that consumption of potatoes with higher concentrations of amylose is expected to have a lower Glycemic Index and would be expected to provide health benefits for people that have prediabetes, diabetes and/or obesity. A lower sugar release during digestion due to differences of digestibility of amylose and amylopectin is expected to cause a lower sugar spike and lower release of insulin [4, 12, 32, 40, 42]. Furthermore, high insulin release tends to lead to an undershoot in desirable blood sugar levels (hypoglycemia), stimulating hunger, increased food consumption and potential weight gain, as illustrated in Fig 1.

By testing 60 potato cultivars, we have been able to identify the six most promising candidate cultivars for further agronomic evaluation for consumer acceptability. Those samples are as follows: Huckleberry Gold, Muru, Bzura, October Blue x Colorado Rose, Multa, and Green Mountain. In addition to the consumer dilemma on choices of affordable healthy foods, there is the Breeders’ Dilemma, that is the conflict between improved food nutrition that often reduces agronomic yield. However, agronomic yield usually drives the choice of varieties grown [43]. To pursue our efforts to identify nutritionally favorable potato varieties, we identified patterns in potato starch properties that could be used in rapid screening. By screening of 60 potato lines, patterns were identified in the microscopic appearance of starch granules, confirmed by direct starch content assays, that permits rapid initial screening of candidate potato varieties for increased amylose contain and potentially lower Glycemic Index. This rapid screening system will potentially foster elevation of nutrition as a priority in plant breeding. This work now will be followed by glycemic index measurements and agronomic fitness [40, 43, 44] on the most promising potato varieties.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. Supporting files contain information on where to locate the strains of potato.

Funding Statement

This paper was supported by Western SARE Project SW12-108, Montana State University Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

  • 1.Sami Waqas, et al. "Effect of diet on type 2 diabetes mellitus: A review." International journal of health sciences 11.2 (2017): 65. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Camire ME, Kubow S, Donnelly DJ. Potatoes and human health. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009;49(10):823–40. doi: 10.1080/10408390903041996 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Seidell JC. Obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes—A worldwide epidemic. In: British Journal of Nutrition. 2000. doi: 10.1017/s000711450000088x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Diabetes Federation I. Worldwide toll of diabetes. 2019. https://www.diabetesatlas.org/en/sections/worldwide-toll-of-diabetes.html
  • 5.de Haan S, Rodriguez F, Singh J, Kaur L. Chapter 1—Potato Origin and Production. In: Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology. 2016. p. 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zaheer K, Akhtar MH. Recent advances in potato production, usage, and nutrition. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fernandes G, Velangi A, Wolever TMS. Glycemic index of potatoes commonly consumed in North America. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105(4). doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2005.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ek KL, Brand-Miller J, Copeland L. Glycemic effect of potatoes. Food Chem. 2012;133(4). [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vamadevan V, Bertoft E. Structure-function relationships of starch components. Vol. 67, Starch/Staerke. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wolever TMS, Jenkins DJA, Jenkins AL and Josse RG. 1991. The glycemic index: Methodology and clinical implications. Am J Clin Nutr 54:846–854 doi: 10.1093/ajcn/54.5.846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tenduis M, Low-carb potatoes on the rise. Fresh Plaza. 2018; 7: 18. https://www.freshplaza.com/article/2193080/low-carb-potatoes-on-the-rise. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sarkar D., Walker-Swaney J., & Shetty K. (2020). Food diversity and indigenous food systems to combat diet-linked chronic diseases. Current developments in nutrition, 4 (Supplement_1), 3–11. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzz099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hofvander P, Andersson M, Larsson CT, Larsson H. Field performance and starch characteristics of high-amylose potatoes obtained by antisense gene targeting of two branching enzymes. Plant Biotechnol J. 2004;2(4). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2004.00073.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Singh J, Kaur L. Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology. Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chung HJ, Li XQ, Kalinga D, Lim ST, Yada R, Liu Q. Physicochemical properties of dry matter and isolated starch from potatoes grown in different locations in Canada. Food Res Int. 2014;57. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fajardo D., Jayanty S.S., Jansky S.H. Rapid High Throughput Amylose Determination in Freeze Dried Potato Tuber Samples. J. Vis. Exp. (80), e50407, doi: 10.3791/50407 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hoover R. Composition, molecular structure, and physicochemical properties of tuber and root starches: A review. Carbohydr Polym. 2001;45(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Karlsson ME, Leeman AM, Björck IME, Eliasson AC. Some physical and nutritional characteristics of genetically modified potatoes varying in amylose/amylopectin ratios. Food Chem. 2007;100(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Moongngarm A. Chemical compositions and resistant starch content in starchy foods. Am J Agric Biol Sci. 2013;8(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mukerjea R, Mukerjea R, Robyt JF. Starch biosynthesis: experiments on how starch granules grow in vivo. Carbohydr Res. 2009;344(1). doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2008.09.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pietrzyk S, Fortuna T, Juszczak L, Gałkowska D, Bączkowicz M, Łabanowska M, et al. Influence of amylose content and oxidation level of potato starch on acetylation, granule structure and radicals’ formation. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;106. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.07.177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Smith AM. The biosynthesis of starch granules. Vol. 2, Biomacromolecules. 2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Man J, Yang Y, Zhang C, Zhou X, Dong Y, Zhang F, et al. Structural changes of high-amylose rice starch residues following in vitro and in vivo digestion. J Agric Food Chem. 2012;60(36):9332–41. doi: 10.1021/jf302966f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tester RF, Karkalas J, Qi X. Starch—Composition, fine structure and architecture. Journal of Cereal Science. 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kaur L, Singh J, McCarthy OJ, Singh H. Physico-chemical, rheological and structural properties of fractionated potato starches. J Food Eng. 2007;82(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Singh N, Sandhu KS, Kaur M. Characterization of starches separated from Indian chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. J Food Eng. 2004; [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zheng Y, Wang Q, Li B, Lin L, Tundis R, Loizzo MR, et al. Characterization and prebiotic effect of the resistant starch from purple sweet potato. Molecules. 2016;21(7). doi: 10.3390/molecules21070932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Li G, Zhu F. Amylopectin molecular structure in relation to physicochemical properties of quinoa starch. Carbohydr Polym. 2017;164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Vamadevan V, Bertoft E. Observations on the impact of amylopectin and amylose structure on the swelling of starch granules. Food Hydrocoll. 2020;103. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rundle RE. The Configuration of Starch in the Starch-Iodine Complex. V. Fourier Projections from X-Ray Diagrams. J Am Chem Soc. 1947;69(7). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jarvis CE, Walker JRL. Simultaneous, rapid, spectrophotometric determination of total starch, amylose, and amylopectin. J Sci Food Agric. 1993;63(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zhu L, Gu M, Meng X, Cheung SCK, Yu H, Huang J, et al. High-amylose rice improves indices of animal health in normal and diabetic rats. Plant Biotechnol J. 2012;10(3):353–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2011.00667.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shu X, Backes G. in a Barley Variety Collection. 2012; [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 34.USDA. Potato seed bank. https://wisconsinpotatoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/DC-FlyIn-flyer.jpg
  • 35.Shi YC, Capitani T, Trzasko P, Jeffcoat R. Molecular structure of a low-amylopectin starch and other high-amylose maize starches. J Cereal Sci. 1998;27(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Martin JM, Talbert LE, Habernicht DK, Lanning SP, Sherman JD, Carlson G, et al. Reduced Amylose Effects on Bread and White Salted Noodle Quality. Cereal Chem. 2004;81(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sasaki T, Matsuki J. Effect of wheat starch structure on swelling power. Cereal Chem. 1998;75(4). [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Moreira, T. S. (2012). The role of starch physicochemical properties in determining the glycaemic index of novel potato varieties (Order No. MR86015). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (1353628029). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/role-starch-physicochemical-properties/docview/1353628029/se-2?accountid=28148
  • 39.Lynch D. R., Liu Q.; Tam T. R.; Bizimungu B.; Chen Q., Harris P.; Chik C. L.; and Skjodt N. M. (2007). Glycemic Index A Review and Implications for the Potato Industry. Amer J of Potato Res (2007) 84:179–190 [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Megdal PA, Siemsen D, Sands D, Dratz EA, Handelman GJ. Facile fingerstick insulin analysis: Application to monitoring postprandial insulin responses to snack foods. J Diabetes. 2010;2(1):28–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-0407.2009.00051.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kosson R, Czuchajowska Z, Pomeranz Y. Smooth and Wrinkled Peas. 1. General Physical and Chemical Characteristics. J Agric Food Chem. 1994;42(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wong J. M., & Jenkins D. J. (2007). Carbohydrate digestibility and metabolic effects. The Journal of nutrition, 137(11), 2539S–2546S. doi: 10.1093/jn/137.11.2539S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sands DC, Morris CE, Dratz EA, Pilgeram AL. Elevating optimal human nutrition to a central goal of plant breeding and production of plant-based foods. Vol. 177, Plant Science. 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.07.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Soh N, Brand-Miller J. The glycaemic index of potatoes: the effect of variety, cooking method and maturity. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999. Apr;53(4):249–54. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Umakanta Sarker

11 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-22200

Rapid screening methods of potato cultivars for low glycemic traits

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sands,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 25 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Umakanta Sarker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In order to enhance reproducibility, we ask that you provide within the manuscript or supplemental further details, such as the vendor, variety etc. of the samples used in the study.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Alpha amylase inhibitory activity (AAIA) of potatoes might have a significant role in lowering Glycemic Index (Low GI) in potatoes so AAIA related enzymatic data should be added to validate the result.

2. All tested potatoes have standard deviation data except Chipitiquilla, Picasso, Chelan, Bzura, Oct Blue. It needs to be explained.

3. In amylose (%) and potential glycemic index equations, R2 value should be mentioned with equation obtained.

4. More explanations are needed regarding your calculation of potential glycemic index. You are referring Moreira’s study in 2012 only but need to clarify the adopted equation, logic, condition and justification as you did not conduct any in vivo experiments on GI (AUC method).

5. When denoting correlation between two variables, you have to express in r (Small letter) not r2. (GSC score & Amylose and GAC & Amylose). For conducting Pearson’s correlation coefficient tests what is your level of significance?

Reviewer #2: Duplicate (or redundant) publication is the publication of a paper that is substantially similar to a published paper by the same author, without acknowledging the source and without obtaining the permission of the original copyright holder. There may be superfluous differences between the original and the second paper, such as a new title or a modified abstract, but the data set and findings stay the same.Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. All parties should adhere to accepted guidelines for ethical reporting. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available. Sources of funding, institutional affiliations and conflicts of interest must be declared in the publication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Habibul Bari Shozib

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_PONE-D-21-22200__HBS_30.7.21.doc

Decision Letter 1

Umakanta Sarker

9 May 2022

Rapid screening methods of potato cultivars for low glycemic traits

PONE-D-21-22200R1

Dear Dr. Sands,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Umakanta Sarker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Habibul Bari Shozib

Acceptance letter

Umakanta Sarker

3 Feb 2023

PONE-D-21-22200R1

Rapid Screening of Sixty Potato Cultivars for Starch Profiles to Address a Consumer Glycemic Dilemma

Dear Dr. Sands:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Umakanta Sarker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review_PONE-D-21-22200__HBS_30.7.21.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review notes pg 1_PONE-D-21-22200__HBS_30.7.21.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. Supporting files contain information on where to locate the strains of potato.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES