欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (9): 2538-2546.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2025.54023

• 研究简报 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于烹饪方式及回生温度筛选低升糖马铃薯品种(系)

卓峰琦1(), 唐振三2, 雷雨俊2, 程李香2, 赵甜甜1, 吕汰3, 杨晨3, 张峰1,2,*()   

  1. 1甘肃农业大学生命科学技术学院, 甘肃兰州 730070
    2省部共建干旱生境作物学国家重点实验室 / 甘肃农业大学农学院, 甘肃兰州 730070
    3天水市农业科学研究所, 甘肃天水 741001
  • 收稿日期:2025-02-18 接受日期:2025-06-03 出版日期:2025-09-12 网络出版日期:2025-06-10
  • 通讯作者: *张峰, E-mail: zhangf@gsau.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:E-mail: 2809843461@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    本研究由国家重点研发计划项目(2022YFD1602104);甘肃省高校科研创新平台项目(2024CXPT-01);甘肃省科技重大专项(21ZD11NA009);甘肃省高等学校产业支撑计划项目(2023CYZC-44)

Screening of low glycemic potato varieties (lines) based on cooking methods and regeneration temperature

ZHUO Feng-Qi1(), TANG Zhen-San2, LEI Yu-Jun2, CHENG Li-Xiang2, ZHAO Tian-Tian1, LYU Tai3, YANG Chen3, ZHANG Feng1,2,*()   

  1. 1College of Life Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
    2State Key Laboratory of Arid Land Crop Science / College of Agriculture, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
    3Tianshui Institute of Agricultural sciences, Tianshui 741001, Gansu, China
  • Received:2025-02-18 Accepted:2025-06-03 Published:2025-09-12 Published online:2025-06-10
  • Contact: *E-mail: zhangf@gsau.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    National Key Research and Development Program(2022YFD1602104);Scientific Research and Innovation Platform for Colleges and Universities of Gansu Province(2024CXPT-01);Major Science and Technology Project of Gansu Province(21ZD11NA009);Industrial Support Program for Colleges and Universities of Gansu Province(2023CYZC-44)

RichHTML

0

PDF

8

摘要： 探究马铃薯块茎烹饪方式及糊化淀粉回生温度对血糖指数的影响, 筛选优异低升糖品种, 为营养导向型品种的选育提供依据。试验以20份国内外主栽品种及高代品系为供试材料, 经烘焙、微波与蒸制加工后测定熟化块茎总淀粉、直链淀粉、膳食纤维含量及40℃、30℃与20℃回生温度下快(慢)速消化淀粉、抗性淀粉和血糖指数, 并进行差异比较及稳定性分析。结果表明, 烹饪加工后块茎总淀粉、抗性淀粉和可溶性膳食纤维含量与生块茎相比, 分别显著下降1.21% FW、8.06% FW和1.32% FW; 快(慢)速消化淀粉和不可溶性膳食纤维含量分别显著上升4.75% FW、3.20% FW和5.63% FW。相较于烘焙和蒸制加工, 微波加工后块茎血糖指数最低(69.52)。块茎血糖指数、快速消化淀粉含量随回生温度40~20℃降低显著下降, 抗性淀粉含量显著升高, 20℃回生温度处理下块茎血糖指数及快速消化淀粉含量最低, 分别为72.99、5.74% FW, 抗性淀粉含量最高(7.01% FW)。血糖指数与快速消化淀粉(r = 0.90)、慢速消化淀粉含量(r = 0.43)呈显著正相关, 与抗性淀粉(r = -0.58)和膳食纤维含量(r = -0.34)呈显著负相关。马铃薯品种Lucinda经烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后在40~20℃回生温度下血糖指数最低且稳定, 为65.26。烹饪加工后快(慢)速消化淀粉含量是影响血糖指数的主要因素, 糊化淀粉中快(慢)速消化淀粉向抗性淀粉转变速度取决于回生温度。微波加工方式是降低马铃薯块茎血糖指数的烹饪方式, 基于不同烹饪方式及回生温度筛选得到的低升糖马铃薯品种是Lucinda。

关键词: 马铃薯, 烹饪方式, 回生温度, 糊化淀粉, 血糖指数

Abstract:

This study investigated the effects of different cooking methods and starch retrogradation temperatures on the glycemic index (GI) of potato tubers, aiming to identify cultivars with inherently low GI values that could serve as candidates for nutrition-oriented breeding. Twenty major commercial cultivars and advanced breeding lines were used as experimental materials. Total starch (TS), amylose, dietary fiber, rapidly digestible starch (RDS), slowly digestible starch (SDS), resistant starch (RS), and GI were measured in baked, microwaved, and steamed tubers subjected to retrogradation at 40℃, 30℃, and 20℃. Statistical comparisons and stability analyses were conducted. The results showed that, compared to raw tubers, cooking significantly reduced the contents of TS (by 1.21% FW), RS (8.06% FW), and soluble dietary fiber (1.32% FW), while RDS, SDS, and insoluble dietary fiber increased significantly by 4.75% FW, 3.20% FW, and 5.63% FW, respectively. Among the cooking methods, microwave processing resulted in the lowest GI (69.52). As retrogradation temperature decreased from 40℃ to 20℃, GI and RDS content significantly declined, while RS significantly increased. At 20℃, the lowest GI (72.99) and RDS (5.74% FW) values were observed, along with the highest RS content (7.01% FW). GI was strongly positively correlated with RDS (r = 0.90) and SDS (r = 0.43), and negatively correlated with RS (r = -0.58) and dietary fiber content (r = -0.34). The cultivar Lucinda demonstrated consistently low and stable GI values across all cooking methods and retrogradation temperatures, with a GI of 65.26. RDS and SDS contents after cooking were identified as the main factors influencing GI, and their conversion to RS was dependent on retrogradation temperature. Microwave treatment proved to be the most effective method for reducing the GI in potato tubers. Lucinda was identified as the most promising low-GI cultivar across different cooking methods and retrogradation conditions.

Key words: potato, cooking methods, retrogradation temperature, gelatinized starch, glycemic index

表1

供试材料"

序号
Code		 品种(系)
Variety (lines)		 亲本
Parents		 序号
Code		 品种(系)
Variety (lines)		 亲本
Parents
A1 1428-1-34 Ranger Russet×0730-180 A11 1428-1-27 Ranger Russet×陇薯7号 Ranger Russet× Longshu 7
A2 1412-1 大西洋×0730-185 Atlantic×0730-185 A12 1416-5 大西洋×0730-185 Atlantic×0730-185
A3 1423-1-20 布尔班克×0730-185
Russet Burbank×0730-185		 A13 1428-1-26 Ranger Russet×陇薯7号
Ranger Russet×Longshu 7
A4 1425-1-13 Ivory Russet×陇薯7号
Ivory Russet×Longshu 7		 A14 陇薯7号
Longshu 7		 庄薯3号×菲多利 Zhuangshu 3×Fidelity
A5 Lucinda Carrera×Vivaldi A15 甘农薯18号
Gannongshu 18		 Carminelle×H0940
A6 1423-1-8 布尔班克×0730-185
Russet Burbank×0730-185		 A16 冀张薯12号
Jizhangshu 12		 大西洋×99-6-36 Atlantic×99-6-36
A7 1428-1-31 Ranger Russet×0730-180 A17 布尔班克
Russet Burbank		 Russet Burbank
A8 1402-1 大西洋×0730-185 Atlantic×0730-185 A18 希森6号
Xisen 6		 Shepody×XS9304
A9 1428-1-35 Ranger Russet×0730-180 A19 甘农薯7号
Gannongshu 7		 大西洋×陇薯7号Atlantic×Longshu 7
A10 1422-1-12 布尔班克×0730-185
Russet Burbank× 0730-185		 A20 大西洋
Atlantic		 B5141-6×Wauseon

图1

品种(系)生块茎、烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后总淀粉和直链淀粉含量 A: 烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后块茎总淀粉含量; B: 烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后块茎直链淀粉含量; CK为生块茎, 大写字母表示不同烹饪方式间差异显著(P < 0.05)。"

图2

品种(系)生块茎、烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后在40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下块茎快速消化淀粉、慢速消化淀粉和抗性淀粉含量 A: 烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后在40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下块茎快速消化淀粉含量; B: 烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后在40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下块茎慢速消化淀粉含量; C: 烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后在40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下块茎抗性淀粉含量。大写字母表示相同回生温度下不同烹饪方式间差异显著(P < 0.05), 小写字母表示相同烹饪方式下不同回生温度间差异显著(P < 0.05)。"

图3

品种(系)生块茎、烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后块茎总膳食纤维、不可溶性膳食纤维和可溶性膳食纤维含量 图中IDF、SDF和TDF分别代表不可溶性膳食纤维、可溶性膳食纤维和总膳食纤维。大写字母表示不同烹饪方式间差异显著(P < 0.05)。"

图4

品种(系)烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后在40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下块茎血糖指数及稳定性 A: 烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后在40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下块茎血糖指数; B: 烘焙、微波和蒸制加工后40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下品种(系)血糖指数稳定性; HB4~HB2、WB4~WB2和ZZ4~ZZ2代表烘焙、微波和蒸制加工40~20℃回生温度。大写字母表示相同回生温度下不同烹饪方式间差异显著(P < 0.05), 小写字母表示相同烹饪方式下不同回生温度间差异显著(P < 0.05)。"

图5

马铃薯块茎血糖指数与块茎中各指标相关性 A~C: 40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下血糖指数; D: 总淀粉; E: 直链淀粉; F~H: 40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下快速消化淀粉; I~K: 40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下慢速消化淀粉; L~N: 40℃、30℃和20℃回生温度下抗性淀粉; O: 膳食纤维。*、**分别表示在0.05、0.01水平相关性显著。"

表2

马铃薯块茎血糖指数与相关因素的逐步回归分析"

烹饪加工
Cooking
methods		 回生温度
Regeneration temperature		 回归模型
Regression
model		 R2 调整R2
Adjust R2		 P-value DW检验
DW test
烘焙Baked 40℃ Y=44.65+4.12RDS+2.19SDS 0.90 0.89 0.001 2.70
30℃ Y=44.62+4.09RDS+2.43SDS 0.90 0.89 0.001 2.04
20℃ Y=48.65+4.38RDS 0.71 0.69 0.001 2.19
微波Microwaved 40℃ Y=43.06+4.31RDS+1.84SDS 0.96 0.95 0.001 1.38
30℃ Y=40.53+4.59RDS+2.57SDS 0.97 0.97 0.001 1.84
20℃ Y=40.34+4.42RDS+3.28SDS 0.94 0.94 0.001 1.36
蒸制Steamed 40℃ Y=39.87+4.08RDS+2.79SDS 0.95 0.94 0.001 2.58
30℃ Y=39.11+4.05RDS+3.03SDS 0.97 0.97 0.001 2.66
20℃ Y=39.15+3.81RDS+3.38SDS 0.97 0.96 0.001 2.20
[1] Lal M K, Singh B, Sharma S, Singh M P, Kumar A. Glycemic index of starchy crops and factors affecting its digestibility: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol, 2021, 111: 741-755.
[2] Singh B, Raigond P, Dutt S, Lal M K, Jaiswal A, Changan S S, Koundal B. Nutrition in potato and its food products. In: Singh B, Kalia P, eds. Vegetables for Nutrition and Entrepreneurship. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023. pp 179-201.
[3] Atkinson F S, Brand-Miller J C, Foster-Powell K, Buyken A E, Goletzke J. International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values 2021: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr, 2021, 114: 1625-1632.
doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab233 pmid: 34258626
[4] Laurentin A, Edwards C A. A microtiter modification of the anthrone-sulfuric acid colorimetric assay for glucose-based carbohydrates. Anal Biochem, 2003, 315: 143-145.
doi: 10.1016/s0003-2697(02)00704-2 pmid: 12672425
[5] Jenkins D J A, Ghafari H, Wolever T M S, Taylor R H, Jenkins A L, Barker H M, Fielden H, Bowling A C. Relationship between rate of digestion of foods and post-prandial glycaemia. Diabetologia, 1982, 22: 450-455.
pmid: 6286395
[6] Soltani A, Golmakani M T, Fazaeli M, Niakousari M, Hosseini S M H. Evaluating the effect of different physical pretreatments and cooking methods on nutritional (starch digestibility) and physicochemical properties of white rice grains (Fajr cultivar). LWT, 2023, 184: 115101.
[7] Englyst H N, Kingman S M, Cummings J H. Classification and measurement of nutritionally important starch fractions. Eur J Clin Nutr, 1992, 46: S33-S50.
[8] Pycia K, Juszczak L, Gałkowska D, Witczak M. Physicochemical properties of starches obtained from Polish potato cultivars. Starch Stärke, 2012, 64: 105-114.
[9] Akerberg A K, Liljeberg H G, Granfeldt Y E, Drews A W, Björck I M. An in vitro method, based on chewing, to predict resistant starch content in foods allows parallel determination of potentially available starch and dietary fiber. J Nutr, 1998, 128: 651-660.
pmid: 9482777
[10] Wang S J, Li C L, Copeland L, Niu Q, Wang S. Starch retrogradation: a comprehensive review. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe, 2015, 14: 568-585.
[11] Lal M K, Kumar A, Raigond P, Dutt S, Changan S S, Chourasia K N, Tiwari R K, Kumar D, Sharma S, Chakrabarti S K, et al. Impact of starch storage condition on glycemic index and resistant starch of cooked potato (Solanum tuberosum) tubers. Starch Stärke, 2021, 73: 1900281.
[12] Park E Y, Baik B K, Lim S T. Influences of temperature-cycled storage on retrogradation and in vitro digestibility of waxy maize starch gel. J Cereal Sci, 2009, 50: 43-48.
[13] Tian J H, Chen S G, Chen J C, Liu D H, Ye X Q. Cooking methods altered the microstructure and digestibility of the potato. Starch Stärke, 2018, 70: 1700241.
[14] Kumar A, Sahoo U, Lal M K, Tiwari R K, Lenka S K, Singh N R, Gupta O P, Sah R P, Sharma S. Biochemical markers for low glycemic index and approaches to alter starch digestibility in rice. J Cereal Sci, 2022, 106: 103501.
[15] Shah A, Wang Y C, Tao H, Zhang W C, Cao S Q. Insights into the structural characteristics and in vitro starch digestibility on parboiled rice as affected by ultrasound treatment in soaking process. Food Chem X, 2023, 19: 100816.
[16] 段惠敏, 刘玲玲, 夏露露, 袁剑龙, 程李香, 陈爱荣, 张峰. 低升糖型马铃薯品种的筛选. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57: 2295-2308.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.12.003
Duan H M, Liu L L, Xia L L, Yuan J L, Cheng L X, Chen A R, Zhang F. Screening of low glycemic potato varieties. Sci Agric Sin, 2024, 57: 2295-2308 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.12.003
[17] Engelen L, de Wijk R A, Prinz J F, Janssen A M, Weenen H, Bosman F. The effect of oral and product temperature on the perception of flavor and texture attributes of semi-solids. Appetite, 2003, 41: 273-281.
pmid: 14637326
[18] Liu K S, Liu Q. Enzymatic determination of total starch and degree of starch gelatinization in various products. Food Hydrocoll, 2020, 103: 105639.
[19] 焦梦悦, 高涵, 王伟娜, 田益玲. 四种测定直链淀粉和支链淀粉方法的比较. 食品工业科技, 2019, 40(12): 259-264.
Jiao M Y, Gao H, Wang W N, Tian Y L. Comparison of four methods for the determination of amylose and amylopectin. Sci Technol Food Ind, 2019, 40(12): 259-264 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[20] Brodkorb A, Egger L, Alminger M, Alvito P, Assunção R, Ballance S, Bohn T, Bourlieu-Lacanal C, Boutrou R, Carrière F, et al. INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food digestion. Nat Protoc, 2019, 14: 991-1014.
doi: 10.1038/s41596-018-0119-1 pmid: 30886367
[21] Li C, Hu Y M. Effects of acid hydrolysis on the evolution of starch fine molecular structures and gelatinization properties. Food Chem, 2021, 353: 129449.
[22] Fernandes J M, Madalena D A, Pinheiro A C, Vicente A A. Rice in vitro digestion: application of INFOGEST harmonized protocol for glycemic index determination and starch morphological study. J Food Sci Technol, 2020, 57: 1393-1404.
doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-04174-x pmid: 32180635
[23] 中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会, 国家市场监督管理总局. 食品中膳食纤维的测定: GB 5009.88-2023. 北京:中国标准出版社, 2023.
National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, State Administration for Market Regulation. Determination of dietary fiber in food: GB 5009.88-2023. Beijing: China Standard Press, 2023 (in Chinese).
[24] 严威凯. 品种选育与评价的原理和方法评述. 作物学报, 2022, 48: 2137-2154.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.11105
Yan W K. A critical review on the principles and procedures for cultivar development and evaluation. Acta Agron Sin, 2022, 48: 2137-2154 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.11105
[25] 段惠敏, 王郁, 程李香, 撒刚, 夏露露, 张峰. 马铃薯块茎末端糖化适应性、稳定性及薯条加工型品种(系)筛选. 作物学报, 2023, 49: 262-276.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.24024
Duan H M, Wang Y, Cheng L X, Sa G, Xia L L, Zhang F. Tuber sugar-end adaptability, stability, and screening of French fries processing varieties in potato. Acta Agron Sin, 2023, 49: 262-276 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[26] García-Alonso A, Goñi I. Effect of processing on potato starch: in vitro availability and glycaemic index. Nahrung, 2000, 44: 19-22.
pmid: 10702994
[27] Jayanty S S, Diganta K, Raven B. Effects of cooking methods on nutritional content in potato tubers. Am J Potato Res, 2019, 96: 183-194.
doi: 10.1007/s12230-018-09704-5
[28] Wang B X, Chen S Y, Huang C H, Lin Y C, Liang Y X, Xiong W Y, Zhang B, Liu R, Ding L. Comparative study on the structural and in vitro digestion properties of starch within potato parenchyma cells under different cooking methods. Int J Biol Macromol, 2022, 223: 1443-1449.
[29] Oyeyinka S A, Umaru E, Olatunde S J, Joseph J K. Effect of short microwave heating time on physicochemical and functional properties of Bambara groundnut starch. Food Biosci, 2019, 28: 36-41.
doi: 10.1016/j.fbio.2019.01.005
[30] Oyeyinka S A, Akintayo O A, Adebo O A, Kayitesi E, Njobeh P B. A review on the physicochemical properties of starches modified by microwave alone and in combination with other methods. Int J Biol Macromol, 2021, 176: 87-95.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.02.066 pmid: 33577814
[31] Thomas S, Vásquez-Benítez J D, Cuéllar-Cepeda F A, Mosquera- Vásquez T, Narváez-Cuenca C E. Vitamin C, protein, and dietary fibre contents as affected by genotype, agro-climatic conditions, and cooking method on tubers of Solanum tuberosum Group Phureja. Food Chem, 2021, 349: 129207.
[32] Ma Z Q, Yi C P, Wu N N, Tan B. Steaming retains more phenolics, dietary fiber, and antioxidant activities than cooking for rice with different milling processes. Cereal Chem, 2022, 99: 664-679.
[33] Kapcum C, Pasada K, Kantiwong P, Sroysang B, Phiwtawee J, Suphantharika M, Belur P D, Agoo E M G, Janairo J I B, Wongsagonsup R. Effects of different cooking methods on chemical compositions, in vitro starch digestibility and antioxidant activity of taro (Colocasia esculenta) corms. Int J Food Sci Technol, 2022, 57: 5144-5154.
[34] Xie Y L, Yan M X, Yuan S S, Sun S M, Huo Q G. Effect of microwave treatment on the physicochemical properties of potato starch granules. Chem Cent J, 2013, 7: 113.
doi: 10.1186/1752-153X-7-113 pmid: 23835351
[1] 朱锦程, 杨秋华, 程李香, 李文丽, 石明明, 李惠霞, 张峰. 马铃薯抗南方根结线虫种质资源筛选及相关生理反应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2307-2317.
[2] 尹丽娜, 张锐, 陈国欢, 白磊, 李俊, 郭华春, 杨芳. 不同马铃薯品种块茎创伤愈合能力的比较[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2399-2411.
[3] 贾小霞, 齐恩芳, 文国宏, 马胜, 黄伟, 吕和平, 李建武, 曲亚英, 丁宁. 中早熟马铃薯‘陇薯20号’高效再生体系建立及抗草铵膦种质创制[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2285-2294.
[4] 李秋云, 李世贵, 范军亮, 刘昊天, 赵晓斌, 吕硕, 王艳浩, 岳云, 张宁, 司怀军. 离子锌和纳米锌对马铃薯生理特性、产量及品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1838-1849.
[5] 邵顺伟, 陈卓, 兰振东, 蔡兴奎, 邹华芬, 李晨曦, 唐景华, 朱熙, 张彧, 董建科, 金辉, 宋波涛. 基于BSA-seq技术的块茎芽眼深度QTL定位分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(7): 1725-1735.
[6] 杨双, 白磊, 郭华春, 缪亚生, 李俊. 马铃薯叶片表皮毛形态特征、类型与发育过程[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1582-1598.
[7] 徐杰, 夏露露, 唐振三, 李文丽, 赵甜甜, 程李香, 张峰. 马铃薯块茎蒸制和烘焙后嗅味品质分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(5): 1409-1420.
[8] 赵喜娟, 张帆, 刘圣宣, 覃骏, 陈惠兰, 林原, 罗红兵, 刘易, 宋波涛, 胡新喜, 王恩爽. 4种马铃薯内源激素提取方法优化及其在块茎解除休眠过程中的含量分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(4): 1050-1060.
[9] 苏明, 吴佳瑞, 洪自强, 李翻过, 周甜, 吴宏亮, 康建宏. 西北半干旱区马铃薯块茎淀粉形成及产量对磷肥减量的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(3): 713-727.
[10] 宋倩娜, 宋慧洋, 李京昊, 段永红, 梅超, 冯瑞云. 马铃薯转录因子StFBH3对非生物逆境胁迫的响应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(1): 247-259.
[11] 祁稼民, 许春苗, 肖斌. 马铃薯TIFY基因家族的全基因组鉴定及表达分析[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(9): 2297-2309.
[12] 周洪源, 杨慧芹, 罗威, 石振明, 马玲. 马铃薯绿原酸调控因子的筛选与功能鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(7): 1740-1749.
[13] 刘园园, 董建科, 应静文, 梅文祥, 程刚, 郭晶晶, 焦文标, 宋波涛. 利用野生种Solanum boliviense创制马铃薯抗寒种质[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(6): 1384-1393.
[14] 刘震, 陈丽敏, 李志涛, 朱金勇, 王玮璐, 齐喆颖, 姚攀锋, 毕真真, 孙超, 白江平, 刘玉汇. 马铃薯ARM基因家族的全基因组鉴定及表达分析[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(6): 1451-1466.
[15] 赵娜, 刘宇曦, 张朝澍, 石瑛. 不同马铃薯淀粉含量差异的转录组学解析[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(6): 1503-1513.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2