Randomized trial characterized cooking and nutritional traits of common bean accessions, suggesting potential for improved breeding.
Common bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) grains represent a major source of plant‐based protein and essential micronutrients; however, their consumption is constrained by prolonged cooking times and variable nutritional profiles. This study characterized the morphological, culinary, and nutritional diversity of 36 common bean accessions collected from the northern Andean region of Peru to identify accessions combining rapid cooking ability with high nutritional quality. After 3 months of postharvest storage, six qualitative and three quantitative seed traits were evaluated. Phenotypic diversity was quantified using Nei's (He) and Shannon–Weaver's (H′) indices. Hydration capacity (HC), cooking time (CT), and seed concentrations of iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and protein (Prot) were analyzed in a completely randomized design with three replications. Quantitative data were subjected to descriptive statistics, principal component analysis (PCA), cluster analysis, and Pearson correlation. Substantial intra‐ and inter‐accession morphological variability was detected (He = 0.64; H′ = 1.48). A strong negative correlation was observed between HC and CT ( r = −0.92), whereas Fe and Zn concentrations showed a moderate positive correlation ( r = 0.78). The fastest‐cooking accessions were UNTRM3351017 (5.33 min), UNTRM3351009 (5.67 min), and UNTRM3351001 (6.33 min). The highest Prot levels were recorded in UNTRM3351017 (26.60%), UNTRM3351013 (25.10%), and UNTRM3351001 (24.77%). For mineral concentration, UNTRM3351029 (Fe: 176.58 ppm; Zn: 52.07 ppm) and UNTRM111034 (Fe: 152.39 ppm; Zn: 44.42 ppm) exhibited the highest concentrations. These results demonstrate useful phenotypic variability within Andean germplasm and identify promising accessions under the evaluated conditions; however, further studies are required to confirm their stability and potential in breeding programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meza-Maicelo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: