Starches properties from soft, medium-hard, and hard Brazilian wheat upon annealing

Bárbara Biduskiab*, Stefani Werlanga; Rosana Colussic, Vania Zanella Pintod, Elessandra da Rosa

Zavarezeb, Luiz Carlos Gutkoskie, Telma Elita Bertolina

a
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos, Universidade de Passo Fundo

(UPF), Rio Grande do Sul, Passo Fundo, 99260-000, Brazil. Email: babi_biduski@gmail.com;

teh_werla@hotmail.com, telma@upf.br.

b
Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia Agroindustrial, Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel), Rio

Grande do Sul, Pelotas, RS, 96010-900, Brazil. Email: elessandrad@yahoo.com.br

c
Centro de Ciências Químicas, Farmacêuticas e de Alimentos (CCQFA), Universidade Federal de Pelotas

(UFPel), Rio Grande do Sul, Pelotas, RS, 96010-900, Brazil. Email: rosana_colussi@yahoo.com.br

d
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos, Universidade Federal da Fronteira

Sul (UFFS), Paraná, Campus Laranjeiras do Sul, 85301-970, Brazil. Email: vania_vzp@hotmail.com

e
Programa de Pós-graduação em Alimentos e Nutrição, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de

Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 22290-240, Brazil. Email: lcgutkoski@gmail.com

*Corresponding author: Biduski, B. babi_biduski@hotmail.com

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:
10.1002/star.202100267.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Keywords: gel texture; pasting properties; physical modification; Triticum aestivum L.

Abstract

Wheat kernel hardness is influenced by starch and protein association into the wheat grain.

Therefore, starch properties may differ and result in different properties after physical modification.

Starches isolated from hard, medium-hard and soft Brazilian wheat were modified by annealing and

evaluated by physicochemical, pasting and thermal properties, and crystallinity. Soft and hard wheat

starches had the highest amylose content and were not influenced by annealing treatment. Relative

crystallinity (RC) was higher in medium-hard wheat starch due to the lowest amylose content.

However, it was not influenced by annealing treatment. In contrast, soft and hard wheat starches

increased RC after annealing. Moreover, annealing reduced the pasting properties profile of all

starches by decreasing viscosity (peak and final), breakdown and setback; consequently, gel texture

was also reduced. A decrease in swelling power was also noticed after annealing treatment. Wheat

kernel hardness has influenced into properties of both native and annealed starches.

1. Introduction

Starch is a saccharide polymer, a source of energy for the human population [1]. It comprises

two α-glucan chains, the amylose, essentially linear with long chains and amylopectin, with long and

slightly branched chains [2]. The ratio of these polymers is genetic related, and amylopectin is the major

[2,3]
component in most starches , being different biological sources promoting unique architecture,

characteristics and properties [4]. Its versatility used as an ingredient can be from adhesive and binding,

paper making, corrugating, construction, paints, coatings, chemical, pharmaceutical, textiles, oilfield,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

and food and feed [5]. Maize, potato, cassava or tapioca, and wheat are the starch sources most used

commercially [6].

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is a cereal with a diversity of thousands of cultivars/varieties and

economic and nutritional importance as staple food worldwide [7]. These properties are mainly related

to the quantity and quality of proteins (mainly gluten) and starch and non-starch carbohydrates [7,8].

[6]
Its mature endosperm comprises 65–67% of starch , classified as A-type, disk or lenticular shape,

and B-type, spherical or polygonal shape [9]. The wheat starch properties are affected by the wheat

kernels texture, genetic origin, milling process, amylose content, shape/size of the granules,

environmental conditions [7,9–11].

Granule type can influence starch susceptibility modification as A- and B-type starch granules

have different properties and compositions. A-type is known for the higher relative crystallinity,

[12,13]
amylose content and lower digestibility than B-type starch granule . Although soft wheat has

slightly higher A-type granule starch than hard wheat, soft wheat shows lower relative crystallinity

and amylose content than hard wheat [7,14]. Therefore, not only the ratio of A- and B-type starch can

influence the extension of modification but also the starch macromolecules organization into the

wheat grain. Grain hardness reflects the character of endosperm texture, as well as the wheat genetic

environment mainly controls it. Variation in grain hard index was related to the binding degree among

starch granules, lipids and proteins in wheat seed, which may impact starch granules properties [12].

Besides, annealing modification is significantly affected by the crystallization characteristics of the

starch [15].

Few studies have evaluated starch from wheat produced in Brazil. When it comes to starch

[16]
modification, the data is even scarcer Mattioda et al. studied the effect of Brazilian hard wheat

hydration at different temperatures on starch properties. The authors reported that at 53 °C, the

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

water entry starch granule and the granule size increase. However, incomplete gelatinization only

occurs in the grains hydrated at 60 °C. Also, Brazilian wheat genotypes (13 samples) had starch

digestibility evaluated. Two distinct groups were noticed: the first exhibited less than 60% of starch

hydrolysis and the second showed more than 70% of starch hydrolysis [17].

Modification can change the native starch properties and enhance and extend its applications

[1,5,18,19]
. Physical modifications are an environmentally friendly approach [5] and are commonly based

[1,18]
on moisture and temperature combinations, such as annealing . Annealing is a hydrothermal

treatment in which starch is incubated in excess water at temperatures below the gelatinization and

[19–21]
above the glass transition . This modification can promote increasing in gelatinization

temperatures [20,22], gelatinization enthalpy, increase/decrease swelling power and solubility, amylose

leaching, and in vitro enzyme and acid hydrolysis with no consistent trend, especially for pasting

[19,20,23,24] [20]
properties . Those changes can be different in wheat's small and large starch granules .

Also, a slight change was suggested after annealing in the radial organization of structure on the

micron length scale within granules [21].

Several hypotheses have been proposed to interpret the annealing effect on starch properties,

including crystalline perfection [22], crystal thickening [25], increased interaction between starch chains

[26]
, elongation of the double helix or crystalline lamellae [23], and stabilization or weakening of starch

structure through amylose reorganization or removal from amylopectin clusters [22]. As reported by

Colussi et al. [13], starch properties of A- and B-type granules are dependent on kernel texture (hard or

soft wheat). Therefore, it is essential to identify the changes in wheat starch by annealing depending

on wheat kernel texture.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Material

Wheat Brazilian cultivars ORS Vintecinco, Marfim, and Jadeite, classified as soft, medium-hard

and hard, respectively, were provided by OR Sementes, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. All the

chemical reagents used were ASC grade.

2.2. Starch isolation

The wheat flours were produced using a laboratory wheat mill (CD1, Chopin Technologies,

Cedex, France), according to method n° 26-10 da AACC [27]. Starch isolation from flour was as described

[28]
by Bello-Pérez et al. , with some modifications. A consistent and homogeneous dough, prepared

using wheat flour (200 g) and distilled water, was sunken in water for 30 min. The dough was washed

over an 80-mesh sieve and the starchy suspension was decanted for 16 h, the water drained, and the

slurry centrifuged at 9,000 g for 15 min. The starch was resuspended with 0.1 mol L-1 NaCl and toluene

(7:1) for 24 h at 25 °C, under constant stirring. The suspension was centrifuged, the supernatant

discarded, and the mud top layer removed. The starch was resuspended in distilled water, centrifuged

and oven-dried with air circulation at 40 °C, up to 11% of moisture. The wheat starches extraction

yield from all cultivars was ~45% with approximately 99% purity (~0.17% proteins and ~0.15% lipids).

2.3. Annealing

The wheat starches were suspended with distilled water (50% w/v) and incubated 5 °C below

the gelatinization temperature by Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC), in an oven with air

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

circulation [21]. The following temperatures were applied for soft, medium-hard and hard wheat starch:

52, 52 and 49 °C, respectively. The samples were filtered, washed with distilled water, centrifuged at

9 000 g for 15 min, and oven-dried with air circulation at 40 °C for 16 h up to 11% of moisture.

2.4. Amylose content

Amylose content of defatted starches was determined using an iodometric method after the

[29]
dissolution in dimethyl sulfoxide solution (90%, v/v) . The absorbance was measured at 600 nm

(6705UV/Vis, Jenway, UK). Amylose content was calculated based on a standard curve of pure potato

amylose (A0512, Sigma-Aldrich Co., USA).

2.5. Wide angle X-ray diffraction (WAXD) analysis

X-ray powder diffraction analysis of starches was carried out on a diffractometer (XRD-6000,

Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan), with Cu Kα radiation in the 2ɵ range of 5–40°, scan speed of 1 °.min-1 at 30

kV tube voltages and 30 mA tube current. The starch relative crystallinity (RC) was calculated by fitting

and deconvoluting the diffractograms curves using a Gaussian model using Fityk Software (version

1.3.1)[31] and taking the ratio of upper area to total diffraction area. Gaussian functions were used to

fit the experimental curves as suggested by Lopez-Rubio et al. [30].

2.6. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)

The thermal properties of starches were obtained by Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)

(TA-60WS, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). Starch (2.5 mg, dry weight) was weighed in an aluminum pan,

added by water (1:3, w/v). The pans were hermetically sealed and allowed to equilibrate for 24 h. The

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

sample pan was heated from 20 °C to 120 °C, at a heating rate of 10 °C min-1, under nitrogen

atmosphere (40 mL h-1).

2.7. Swelling power and solubility

The swelling power (SP) and solubility (SL) of starches were determined according to Leach,

[32]
Mccowen and Schoch , with some modifications. Starch (1 g) was mixed with 50 mL of distilled

water (50 °C) and heated at 60 °C, 70 °C, 80 °C and 90 ºC for 1 h. The samples were cooled down and

centrifuged at 1,000 g for 20 min. The SP was measured by the sedimented paste weight (g g-1) and

the SL by the solid content of the supernatant (%).

2.8. Pasting properties and gel texture

The pasting properties of wheat starches were analyzed by a Rapid Visco-Analyzer (RVA 3,

Newport Scientific, Australia) using profile Standard Analysis 1, according to method nº 76-21.01

(AACC, 2010).

After the RVA analysis, the gelatinized samples were sealed and kept at room temperature (~25

°C) for 24 h. The gel texture profile analysis (TPA) was performed by a Texture Analyzer (TA.XT plus,

Stable Micro Systems, UK) by two-cycle compression with a 20 mm diameter probe (P/20) at 0.5 mm.s-

1
. The hardness, gumminess and cohesiveness were reported.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

2.9. Statistical analysis

The results were evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the average values were

compared by Tukey test at 5% significance level (p<0.05). The t-test made the comparison of two

groups at 5% significance.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Amylose content

The soft wheat starches, both native and annealed, showed the lowest amylose content (Table

1). The wheat kernels texture, cultivars/varieties, as well as environmental conditions affect the

enzymes involved in the conversion of sucrose to starch [10]. The main enzymes are starch synthases,

ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase (AGPase) and granule bound starch synthase, which are sensitive to

drought and other abiotic stress [10].

The annealing modification did not alter the amylose content of the wheat starches from

different cultivars. Depending on the annealing conditions, an increase in amylose content is expected

due to the internal disruption of starch granules structure, which may crack amylopectin into amylose

[33]
.

However, as annealing mainly acts on the amorphous regions, it can promote some changes

in the structure organization. For example, increase in granule stability, starch crystallites perfection,

formation of new double helices, the interaction between glucan chains, increasing in contrast

[21,34]
between crystalline and amorphous lamella , which may not reflect on amylose content.

Furthermore, amylose is more sensitive to annealing modification than amylopectin. Therefore,

annealing treatment has more significant effects on the properties of high amylose content

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

starches[35]. Duyen et al.[36] reported that rice starch with medium amylose content (about 23%)

increased relative crystallinity after annealing treatment. Also, the increase in amylose content can

reduce the swelling power of starches.

3.2. Wide angle X-ray diffraction (WAXD) analysis

Starch helices are organized into either the A- or B-type crystal cells related to the number of

water molecules. A-type is known to contain eight water molecules, while B-type comprises 36 water

[37]
molecules with more open helices . All native and modified wheat starches presented an A-type

diffraction pattern, characterized by singles peaks at 15° and 23° and a double peak at 17° and 18°

(2θ) (Figure 1 and Supplementary material). Besides, a peak at 20° (V-type) was observed, which can

be attributed to a polymorph of wheat starch resulting from an inclusion complex of amylose helices

and lipids [38]. A-type crystallites comprise H-bonded parallel-stranded helices, one double helix at the

corner and another at the center of the crystal unit cell. According to Qiao et al. [37], such close-packed

helices allow for only four water molecules in the inner of the unit cell.

Moreover, water molecules cannot be removed from the monoclinic crystal cells of A-type

starch unless a complete disruption of its crystalline structure occurs. Cereal grains, such as wheat,

are cropped in a relatively dry environment contain mainly an A-type crystalline structure. Qiao et al.

[37]
proposed that the B-type crystalline structure from tubers, roots, stems, and fruits can be related

to the excess water molecules that govern the crystalline starch type during plant growth.

[39]
As previously reported, annealing did not change the wheat starches diffraction patterns .

However, a slight increase in RC for soft and hard wheat starches was noticed (Figure 1). The increased

RC of annealed starch is due to the induced realignment of the melted crystallites, the formation of

new crystallites, and the existing crystallites' completeness [40]. The higher RC of medium-hard wheat

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

starch can result from lower amylose content than soft and hard wheat starches since, as reported by

Su et al. [1], the greater amylose content results in lower relative crystallinity of starch.

3.3. Differential scanning calorimetry

All samples presented a single-peaked gelatinization endotherm (Table 2). Annealing increased

onset and peak gelatinization temperatures and decreased the gelatinization temperature range (∆T)

(Table 2). The starch granules reorientation upon annealing promotes strengthening of intragranular

bonded forces, which require the most intensive heating before granules structural disintegration and

paste formation occurs [19,20,25].

DSC onset represents the melting temperature of the weakest crystallites in a granular starch

[20]
is linked to a glass transition that allows non-ordered chains to become mobile and facilitate double

[21]
helix melting . As the peak temperature represents a measure of crystalline perfection, the

annealing promoted decreasing in crystal defects and an increase in the thickness of the crystallites

[22]
. The lamellar starch crystals gain stability upon annealing via thickening, and crystal surface energy

decreases in starches with intermediate amylose and amylopectin ratio [25]. Also, a slight change was

suggested after annealing the radial organization of structure on the micron length scale within

granules [21].

Soft and medium-hard wheat starches decreased enthalpy after annealing, while hard wheat

starch had no alteration (Table 2). The annealed hard wheat starch required the same energy as the

native counterpart to promote some molecular order changes and disrupt stabilizing hydrogen bonds

from the crystalline lamellae. The enthalpy changes upon annealing have been shown to remain

unchanged, increase, or less often decrease, depending on starch sources [19,20]. The enthalpy required

for gelatinization mainly reflects the loss of double helices molecular order by rupturing the stabilizing

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 [41]
hydrogen bonds . On the other hand, ΔH indicates either the absence of crystal melting,

(re)formation during annealing, or both in compensating levels [25]. Also, it can represent no changes

in double-helical order or the number of hydrogen bond links [22].

3.4. Swelling power and solubility

The swelling power (SP) and solubility (SL) of all wheat starches increased by the increasing

temperature from 60°C to 90°C (Figures 2a, 2c, and 2e). The starch from all wheat cultivars had similar

swelling power at 60 °C, while the hard wheat starch had the lowest SP at 90 °C.

Hydrogen bonds stabilize the amylose double helices and amylopectin side chains. When

hydrated starch granules are heated at high temperatures, the hydrogen bonds are broken and

replaced with water [42]. The new hydrogen linkages between free hydroxyl groups of glucan chains

[3]
and water molecules induce the granular swelling process . However, amylose chains retard the

swelling of the granules, probably by imposing a stabilizing effect on their granule structure [3].

Granules swelling pattern is related to the structural type of the amylopectin component. For

some cereals with typical amylose content, such as oat, rye and barley, the branched amylose is mostly

confined into the amorphous lamellae and interacts with the intermediate length inter-block

segments of amylopectin. In contrast, linear amylose mainly penetrates the stacks of lamellae,

resulting in a relatively stable structure, which allows swelling [3].

The starch granules hydrate, swell and hold the water, favoring amylose solubilization and

exudation [42]. These phenomena are driven by amylose and amylopectin content, molecules hydrogen

bonding, amylose content, lateral chains of amylopectin, the presence of phospholipids, lipids, and

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

association of lipids with amylose, granule size and the presence of holes and channels. Cereal starches

contain a higher amount of amylose-lipids complex [3], limiting amylose leaching.

Annealing decreased the swelling power and increased the wheat starches solubility, except for

the soft wheat starch, which the solubility decreased at 60 °C and 70 °C and decreased at 80 °C and

90°C (Figure 2). Annealing has been shown to reduce often and increase amylose leaching at

temperatures below 100 °C in wheat starches [19,20,23,24]. The increasing amylose leaching is associated

with a very low order of the amylose-amylopectin chain's association within the crystalline lamellae

since it involves the interaction of long amylose chains with the short exterior chains amylopectin.

These weak interactions are disrupted during the annealing reorganization of starch chains, resulting

[43]
in more amylose leaching from modified starches . The decrease in amylose leaching has been

attributed to the amylose/amylose and/or amylose/amylopectin interactions, decreased granular

[19,23,43]
swelling, and increased V-amylose–lipid content . The amylose–lipid complex showed

significant correlations with the swelling power of Japanese wheat varieties and popular commercial

[44] [45]
wheat classes from the USA, Canada and Australia . Gomes et al. suggested that annealing

promotes a reorganization of starch molecules, causing the double helices to acquire a more organized

configuration. The authors report that the increase in the molecular organization is responsible for

reducing starches swelling power and solubility. It reinforces the previously suggested hypothesis that

annealing increases the integrity of starch granules. According to Tester et al. [23], amylopectin crystals

are perfected by annealing and, consequently, restrict the swelling of the granules.

3.5. Pasting and gel properties

Soft wheat starch showed a different RVA profile, except for the setback, in which the initial and

final viscosities were higher, and the breakdown was lower than medium- and hard wheat starches

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

(Table 3). Amylose content, amylopectin structure, and amylose-lipids complexes are the major

[7]
factors that influence wheat starches pasting properties . Also, wheat kernels texture,

cultivars/varieties, milling process, amylose content, shape and size of the granules, the plants

growing conditions, such as drought, temperature/light, can affect all wheat starch properties [7,9–11].

[9]
Katyal et al. , studying starches from hard, medium-hard and extraordinarily soft wheat

varieties using principal component analysis (PCA), revealed that starches with higher pasting

temperature have lower swelling power and paste viscosities. It indicates that increasing pasting

temperature retards granular swelling and influences the pasting formation. The pasting properties

can influence the wheat flour and starches uses, such as noodles [46], gluten-free bread [47] and other

food models [48]. Common buckwheat annealed can be used for baby food [49], among other starches,

as fat mimetic, freeze-thaw stability, whiteness, confectionery, pastries, puddings, custards, dusting,

crispness agent, smooth gravies, sauces, thickener, soups, snacks, ice cream, and freezes [50,51].

The reduction of the peak viscosity, final viscosity, breakdown and gels hardness were observed

after the annealing, demonstrating greater stability during heating with shearing. A more stable

conformation and the higher interaction between the starches modified chains resulted in a decrease

in the swelling of the starch granules (Figure 2) and, consequently, decreasing their viscosity,

decreasing gels hardness. Its effect on starch pasting properties mainly depends on the structural

characteristics of the starch and the analysis condition [19]. Annealing at 30 °C and 40 °C increased the

overall paste viscosity of wheat starch, while the treatment at 50 °C substantially reduced the paste

viscosity [52]. The reduced viscosity on annealing has been attributed to reduced granular swelling and

amylose leaching and increased interaction between starch chains during annealing [20]. In agreement,

our results relate that the wheat starch swelling power and solubility with the reducing paste

viscosities were decreased by annealing treatment (Figure 2, Table 3). Pasting properties are an

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

essential parameter for defining the starches industrial application [49]. Thus, the changes observed in

the paste properties of modified wheat starches by annealing expand its end-use [53]. According to Liu

et al. [49], hydrothermally treated starches can be used in infant and processed (cooked) foods as it is

a physical modification in which chemical reagents are absent.

The wheat cultivars did not affect the gel hardness and gumminess; however, annealing

decreased the gel hardness and gumminess. After the modification, soft wheat starch showed the

highest gel hardness and gumminess. The wheat cultivars and annealing did not change the starch

cohesiveness (Table 4). The stable conformation reduced granular swelling and amylose leaching, and

increased interaction between starch chains during annealing [20] resulted in a decrease in the swelling

of the starch granules (Figure 2) and, consequently, decreasing their viscosity (Table 3), causing them

to present gels with less hardness and gumminess.

4. Conclusion

Soft and hard wheat starches had the highest amylose content and lowest gelatinization

temperature than medium-hard starch. As a result, medium-hard starch presented the highest

relative crystallinity than other starches. Annealing increases the gelatinization temperature of all

wheat starches and reduces pasta properties profile by decreasing peak and final viscosities and

breakdown and setback. Therefore, gel hardness and gumminess were also reduced after annealing.

Starches with these characteristics are suitable for application in meat-embedded food or foods that

require high solids concentrations.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgment

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível

Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001. V.Z. Pinto thanks to CNPq (grant #432181/2018-0).

References

[1] C. Su, A.S.M. Saleh, B. Zhang, K. Zhao, X. Ge, Q. Zhang, W. Li, Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 247,

116675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116675.

[2] J.C. Shannon, D.L. Garwood, C.D. Boyer, Genetics and Physiology of Starch Development, in: J.

BeMiller, R. Whistler (Eds.), Starch Chem. Technol., Third Edit, Academic Press, Cambridge,

2009: pp. 23–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-746275-2.00003-3.

[3] V. Vamadevan, E. Bertoft, Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 103, 105663.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.105663.

[4] S. Pérez, E. Bertoft, Starch - Stärke. 2010, 62, 389–420.

https://doi.org/10.1002/star.201000013.

[5] B.C. Maniglia, N. Castanha, P. Le-Bail, A. Le-Bail, P.E.D. Augusto, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.

2020, 0, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1778633.

[6] S.L.M. El Halal, D.H. Kringel, E. da R. Zavareze, A.R.G. Dias, Starch/Staerke. 2019, 71, 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1002/star.201900128.

[7] K. Shevkani, N. Singh, R. Bajaj, A. Kaur, Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 38–58.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13266.

[8] M. Niu, G.G. Hou, S. Zhao, J. Cereal Sci. 2017, 75, 261–268.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2017.05.002.

[9] M. Katyal, N. Singh, N. Chopra, A. Kaur, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 123, 1143–1149.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.192.

[10] M. Thitisaksakul, R.C. Jiménez, M.C. Arias, D.M. Beckles, J. Cereal Sci. 2012, 56, 67–80.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2012.04.002.

[11] J. Rosicka-Kaczmarek, B. Makowski, E. Nebesny, M. Tkaczyk, A. Komisarczyk, Z. Nita, Food

Hydrocoll. 2016, 54, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.09.014.

[12] J. Shang, L. Li, B. Zhao, M. Liu, X. Zheng, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 154, 714–723.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.03.150.

[13] R. Colussi, M. Dias, A. Luiz, C. Gutkoski, L. Vanier, R. Zavareze, A. Renato, G. Dias, Cereal

Chem. 2020, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/cche.10395.

[14] N. Singh, N. Kaur, M. Katyal, A. Kaur, K. Shevkani, Starch/Staerke. 2017, 69, 1–9.

https://doi.org/10.1002/star.201600012.

[15] B. Guo, J. Wu, X. Hu, S. Luo, H. Wang, S. Xu, Z. Huang, C. Liu, Starch/Stärke. 2020, 72,

1900251.

[16] F. Mattioda, L.M. de M. Jorge, R.M.M. Jorge, J. Food Process Eng. 2019, 42, 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.12936.

[17] M.M. da Silveira, C.L. Dittgen, C. de S. Batista, B. Biduski, L.C. Gutkoski, N.L. Vanier, Food

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Chem. 2020, 312, 126074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.126074.

[18] V.M. Mathobo, H. Silungwe, S.E. Ramashia, T.A. Anyasi, J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020,.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04520-4.

[19] E.D.R. Zavareze, A.R.G. Dias, Carbohydr. Polym. 2011, 83, 317–328.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.08.064.

[20] L. Jayakody, R. Hoover, Carbohydr. Polym. 2008, 74, 691–703.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.04.032.

[21] H. Li, S. Dhital, B.M. Flanagan, J. Mata, E.P. Gilbert, M.J. Gidley, Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 105,

105820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.105820.

[22] V. Vamadevan, E. Bertoft, D. V. Soldatov, K. Seetharaman, Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 98, 1045–

1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.07.006.

[23] R.F. Tester, S.J. Debon, J. Karkalas, J. Cereal Sci. 1998, 28, 259–272.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-5210(98)90006-6.

[24] M.A. Labelle, P. Ispas-Szabo, M.A. Mateescu, Starch/Staerke. 2020, 72, 1–13.

https://doi.org/10.1002/star.202000002.

[25] S. V. Gomand, L. Lamberts, C.J. Gommes, R.G.F. Visser, J.A. Delcour, B. Goderis,

Biomacromolecules. 2012, 13, 1361–1370. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm3000748.

[26] T.S. Rocha, V.A.G. Cunha, J. Jane, C.M.L. Franco, 2011, 4208–4216.

[27] AACCI, Cereal. Grains Assoc. St. Paul, MN, U.S.A. 2010,.

[28] L. a. Bello-Pérez, E. Agama-Acevedo, P.B. Zamudio-Flores, G. Mendez-Montealvo, S.L.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Rodriguez-Ambriz, LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 43, 1434–1440.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2010.04.003.

[29] S.J. McGrance, H.J. Cornell, C.J. Rix, Starch/Staerke. 1998, 50, 158–163.

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-379X(199804)50:4<158::AID-STAR158>3.0.CO;2-7.

[30] A. Lopez-Rubio, B.M. Flanagan, E.P. Gilbert, M.J. Gidley, Biopolymers. 2008, 89, 761–768.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bip.21005.

[31] M. Wojdyr, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2010, 43, 1126–1128.

https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889810030499.

[32] H.W. Leach, D.L. Mccowen, T.J. Schoch, Cereal Chem. 1959, 36, 534–544.

[33] A.S. Babu, R.J. Mohan, R. Parimalavalli, Food Chem. 2019, 271, 457–465.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.07.197.

[34] L. Jayakody, R. Hoover, Q. Liu, E. Donner, Carbohydr. Polym. 2009, 76, 145–153.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.10.003.

[35] B. Guo, Y. Wang, M. Pang, J. Wu, X. Hu, Z. Huang, H. Wang, S. Xu, S. Luo, C. Liu, Int. J. Biol.

Macromol. 2020, 164, 3496–3500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.245.

[36] T.T.M. Duyen, N.T.M. Huong, N.T.L. Phi, P. Van Hung, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 164, 651–

658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.187.

[37] D. Qiao, B. Zhang, J. Huang, F. Xie, D.K. Wang, F. Jiang, S. Zhao, J. Zhu, Int. J. Biol. Macromol.

2017, 103, 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.05.008.

[38] J. Waterschoot, S. V. Gomand, E. Fierens, J.A. Delcour, Starch/Staerke. 2015, 67, 14–29.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 https://doi.org/10.1002/star.201300238.

[39] A. Hu, X. Wang, L. Li, T. Xu, J. Zheng, Cereal Chem. 2020, 97, 573–580.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cche.10272.

[40] H.Y. Song, S.Y. Lee, S.J. Choi, K.M. Kim, J.S. Kim, G.J. Han, T.W. Moon, Food Sci. Biotechnol.

2014, 23, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-014-0004-9.

[41] D. Cooke, M.J. Gidley, Carbohydr. Res. 1992, 227, 102–112.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0008-6215(92)85063-6.

[42] Y.I. Cornejo-Ramírez, O. Martínez-Cruz, C.L. Del Toro-Sánchez, F.J. Wong-Corral, J. Borboa-

Flores, F.J. Cinco-Moroyoqui, CYTA - J. Food. 2018, 16, 1003–1017.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2018.1518343.

[43] R.N. Waduge, R. Hoover, T. Vasanthan, J. Gao, J. Li, Food Res. Int. 2006, 39, 59–77.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2005.05.008.

[44] H.A.M. Wickramasinghe, H. Miura, H. Yamauchi, T. Noda, Food Chem. 2005, 93, 9–15.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.08.049.

[45] A.M.M. Gomes, C.E. Mendes Da Silva, N.M.P.S. Ricardo, Carbohydr. Polym. 2005, 60, 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2004.11.016.

[46] M. Obadi, B. Xu, Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 112, 106286.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106286.

[47] S. Horstmann, M. Belz, M. Heitmann, E. Zannini, E. Arendt, Foods. 2016, 5, 30.

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods5020030.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

[48] C.C. Maningat, P.A. Seib, Cereal Chem. 2010, 87, 305–314.

[49] H. Liu, X. Guo, W. Li, X. Wang, M. Lv, Q. Peng, M. Wang, Carbohydr. Polym. 2015, 132, 237–

244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.06.071.

[50] E. Agama-Acevedo, C.P. Flores-Silva, L.A. Bello-Perez, Cereal Starch Production for Food

Applications, in: M.T.P.S. Clerici, M. Schmiele (Eds.), Starches Food Appl., Academic Press,

London, 2019: p. 444.

[51] H. Lan, R. Hoover, L. Jayakody, Q. Liu, E. Donner, M. Baga, E.K. Asare, P. Hucl, R.N. Chibbar,

Food Chem. 2008, 111, 663–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.04.055.

[52] S.S. Wang, C. Li, L. Copeland, Q. Niu, S.S. Wang, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2015, 14,

568–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12143.

[53] Y. Watcharatewinkul, C. Puttanlek, V. Rungsardthong, D. Uttapap, Carbohydr. Polym. 2009,

75, 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.08.018.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Table captions

Table 1. Amylose content of the native and annealed starches from hard, medium-hard and soft

wheat cultivars.

Amylose content (%)

Starch Wheat starch

Soft Medium-hard Hard

Native 25.53 ± 0.13a ns 23.3 ± 0.14b ns 25.62 ± 0.79a ns

Annealed 25.69 ± 0.95a 23.95 ± 1.68b 25.95 ± 0.37a

1
Different letters in the same row, differ statistically (p ≤ 0.05) the averages submitted by Tukey test.

* or ns means significant and not significant, respectively, by the t-test between the native and

annealed starches.

Table 2. Thermal properties of the native and annealed starches from soft, medium-hard and hard

wheat cultivars.

Wheat starch
1
Parameters Starch
Soft Medium-hard Hard

Native 56.99 57.04 54.34

To (°C)
Annealed 64.43 63.79 61.4

Native 61.92 63.76 59.2

Tp (°C)
Annealed 66.96 66.71 64.34

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Native 67.16 70.41 66.26
Tf (°C)
Annealed 69.78 70.04 68.25

Native 10.17 13.37 11.92

∆T (Tf-T0)
Annealed 5.35 6.25 6.85

Native 8.82 7.36 7.40

G ΔH (J g-1)
Annealed 3.97 4.17 7.57
1
T0: onset temperature; Tp: peak temperature; Tf: final gelatinization temperature; ΔH:
gelatinization enthalpy.

Table 3. Pasting properties of the native and annealed starches from hard, medium-hard and

soft wheat.

Wheat starch
Properties1 Starch
Soft Medium-hard Hard

Initial viscosity Native 275.20 ± 4.12ª * 223.04 ± 0.88b* 229.50 ± 0.59b*

(RVU) Annealed 201.80 ± 4.89ª 169.67 ± 3.89b 142.70 ± 4.24b

Breakdown Native 41.50 ± 0.01b ns 60.79 ± 4.01a ns 70.46 ±7.72a ns

(RVU) Annealed 45.29 ± 7.60b 44.33 ±4.24ab 49.29 ±2.53a

Final viscosity Native 326.30 ± 3.83ª* 257.70 ± 1.94b* 257.70 ± 3.06b*

(RVU) Annealed 246.40 ± 3.60ª 199.60 ± 5.04b 154.50 ± 4.19c

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Native 92.62 ± 7.95ª ns 95.45 ± 3.01ª* 98.62 ± 5.24ª*
Setback (RVU)
Annealed 89.87 ± 6.30ª 74.29 ± 1.00b 61.08 ± 2.60c
1
Different letters in the same row, differ statistically (p ≤ 0.05) by Tukey test. * or ns means
significant and not significant, respectively, by the t-test between the native and annealed
starches for each parameter.
Table 4. Gel properties of native and annealed wheat starches with different grain hardness

Wheat starch
1
Parameters Starch
Soft Medium-hard Hard

Native 955.31 ±21.53ª* 852.31 ± 78.34ª* 854.30 ± 53.11ª*

Hardness (g)
Annealed 843.88 ±10.90ª 600.85 ± 1.17b 493.67 ± 36.59b

Native 497.80 ± 30.12a * 405.09 ± 16.64a* 409.80 ± 29.36a *

Gumminess (g)
Annealed 336.33 ± 1.71a 277.90 ± 15.06b 236.43 ± 0.31b

Native 0.47 ± 0.03a ns 0.48 ± 0.01a ns 0.48 ± 0.01a ns

Cohesiveness
Annealed 0.40 ± 0.01a 0.46 ± 0.02a 0.48 ± 0.02a

1
Different letters in the same row, differ statistically (p ≤ 0.05) by Tukey test. * or ns
means
significant and not significant, respectively, by the t-test between the native and annealed
starches for each parameter.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. X-ray diffractograms of the native and annealed starches from hard, semi-hard and soft

wheat cultivars.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure 2. Swelling power (a, c, e) and water solubility (b, d, f) of the native and annealed starches

from soft (a, b), medium-hard (c, d) and hard (e, f) wheat cultivars.

Graphical Abstract Text

Wheat kernel hardness has influenced into properties of both native and annealed starches.

The soft wheat starches had the lowest amylose content. After annealing, soft and hard wheat

starches increased relative crystallinity and reduced the pasting properties profile.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.