Journal of Food Science and Technology

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 698–706 | Cite as

Fructan:fructan 1-fructosyltransferase and inulin hydrolase activities relating to inulin and soluble sugars in Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus Linn.) tubers during storage

  • Sukanya Maicaurkaew
  • Sanun Jogloy
  • Bruce R. Hamaker
  • Suwayd Ningsanond
Original Article


Influences of harvest time and storage conditions on activities of fructan:fructan1-fructosyltransferase (1-FFT) and inulin hydrolase (InH) in relation to inulin and soluble sugars of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) tubers were investigated. Maturity affected 1-FFT-activity, inulin contents, and inulin profiles of the tubers harvested between 30 and 70 days after flowering (DAF). Decreases in 1-FFT activity, high molecular weight inulin, and inulin content were observed in late-harvested tubers. The tubers harvested at 50 DAF had the highest inulin content (734.9 ± 20.5 g kg−1 DW) with a high degree of polymerization (28% of DP >30). During storage of the tubers, increases in InH activity (reached its peak at 15 days of storage) and gradual decreases in 1-FFT activity took placed. These changes were associated with inulin depolymerization, causing decreases in inulin content and increases in soluble sugars. As well, decreasing storage temperatures would retain high inulin content and keep low soluble sugars; and freezing at −18 °C would best retard 1-FFT, InH, and inulin changes.


Fructan Inulin content 1-FFT activity InH activity Soluble sugars 



This research was supported by Suranaree University of Technology, Suratthani Rajabhat University, Khon Kaen University, Postharvest Technology Innovation Center, the Office of Higher Education, Thailand, and Whistler Center for Carbohydrate Research, Purdue University, USA.


  1. AACC International (2009) Approved methods of analysis, 11th Ed, Method 32-31,01 Fructans in foods and food products—ion exchange chromatographic method. AACC International, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell JM, Bauer LL, Fahey GC Jr, Hogarth AJ, Wolf BW, Hunter DE (1997) Selected fructooligosaccharide composition of foods and feeds. J Agric Food Chem 45:3076–3082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cao E, Chen Y, Cui Z, Foster PR (2002) Effect of freezing and thawing rates on denaturation of proteins in aqueous solutions. Biotechnol Bioeng 82:684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clausen MR, Bach V, Edelenbos M, Bertram HC (2012) Metabolomics reveals drastic compositional changes during overwintering of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) tubers. J Agric Food Chem 60:9495–9501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coussement P (1999) Inulin and oligofructose as dietary fiber: analytical, nutritional and legal aspects. In: Prosky L, Sungsoo Cho S, Dreher M (eds) Complex carbohydrates in foods. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 203–212Google Scholar
  6. De Leenheer L (1996) Production and use of inulin: industrial reality with a promising future. In: Van Bekkum H, Roper H, Voragen F (eds) Carbohydrates as organic raw materials III. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, pp 67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelman J, Jefford TG (1968) The mechanism of fructosan metabolism in higher plants exemplified in Helianthus tuberosus. New Phytol 67:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fukai K, Ohno S, Goto K, Nanjo F, Hara Y (1997) Seasonal fluctuations in fructan content and related enzyme activities in yacon (Polymnia sonchiolia). Soil Sci Plant Nutr 43:171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta AK, Kaur N (2000) Fructan metabolism in Jerusalem artichoke and chicory. Dev Crop Sci 26:223–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Henson CA, Livingston DP (1996) Purification and characterization of an oat fructan exohydrolase that preferentially hydrolases 2,6-fructans. Plant Physiol 110:639–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ishiguro Y, Onoderaa S, Benkebliab N, Shiomia N (2010) Variation of total FOS, total IOS, inulin and their related-metabolizing enzymes in burdock roots (Arctium lappa L.) stored under different temperatures. Postharvest Biol Technol 56:232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ishimaru M, Kagoroku K, Chachin K, Imahori Y, Ueda Y (2004) Effects of the storage conditions of burdock (Arctium lappa L.) root on the quality of heat processed burdock sticks. Sci Hortic 101:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Itaya NM, Carvalho MA, Figueiredo-Ribeiro RCL (2002) Fructosyltransferase and hydrolase activities in rhizophores and tuberous roots upon growth of Polymnia sonchifolia (Asteraceae). Physiol Plant 116:451–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaime L, Martinez F, Martin-Cabrejas MA, Molla E, Lopez-Andreu FJ, Waldron KW, Esteban RM (2000) Study of total fructan and fructooligosaccharide content in different onion tissues. J Sci Food Agric 81:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaime L, Martinez F, Martin-Cabrejas MA, Molla E, Lopez-Andreu FJ, Esteban RM (2001) Effect of storage on fructan and fructooligosaccharide of onion. J Agric Food Chem 49:982–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kays SJ, Nottingham SF (2007) Storage. In: Kays SJ, Nottingham SF (eds) Biology and chemistry of Jerusalem artichoke. CRC Press, Florida, pp 401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luscher M, Frehner M, Nosberger J (1993) Purification and characterization of fructan:fructan fructosyltransferase from Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). New Phytol 123:717–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Modler HW, Jones JD, Mazza G (1993) Observations on long-term storage and processing of Jerusalem artichoke tubers (Helianthus tuberosus). Food Chem 48:279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pimsaen W, Jogloy S, Suriharn B, Kesmala T, Pensuk V, Patanothai A (2010) Genotype by environment (GxE) interactions for yield components of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). Asian J Plant Sci 9:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pollock CJ (1986) Fructans and the metabolism of sucrose in vascular plants. New Phytol 104:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raessler M, Wissuwa B, Breul A, Unger W, Grimm T (2008) Determination of water-extractable nonstructural carbohydrates, including inulin, in grass samples with high-performance anion exchange. J Agric Food Chem 56:7649–7654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rutherford PP, Weston EW (2001) Carbohydrate changes during cold storage of some inulin-containing roots and tubers. Phytochemistry 7:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saengthongpinit W, Sajjaanantakul T (2005) Influence of harvest time and storage temperature on characteristics of inulin from Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) tubers. Postharvest Biol Technol 37:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schorr-Galindo S, Guiraud JP (1997) Sugar potential of different Jerusalem artichoke cultivars according to harvest. Bioresour Technol 60:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Trevisan F, Oliveira VF, Carvalho MAM, Gaspar M (2015) Effects of different carbohydratesources on fructan metabolism in plants of Chrysolaena obovata grown in vitro. Front Plant Sci 6:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Laere A, Van Den Ende W (2002) Inulin metabolism in dicots: chicory as a model system. Plant Cell Environ 25:803–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Waes C, Baert J, Carlier L, Van Bockstaele EA (1998) Rapid determination of the total sugar content and the average inulin chain length in root of chicory (Cichorium intybus L). J Sci Food Agric 76:107–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vijn I, Smeekens S (1999) Fructan: more than a reserve carbohydrate. Plant Physiol 120:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Food Technology, Institute of Agricultural TechnologySuranaree University of TechnologyNakhon RatchasimaThailand
  2. 2.Department of Plant Science and Agricultural Resources, Peanut and Jerusalem Artichoke for Functional Food Research GroupKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand
  3. 3.Whistler Center for Carbohydrate ResearchPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations