Michael P Dzakovich1, Elisabet Gas-Pascual2, Caleb J Orchard2, Eka N Sari2, Ken M Riedl3, Steven J Schwartz3, David M Francis2, Jessica L Cooperstone1. 1. The Ohio State University, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 2001 Fyffe Court, Columbus, OH 43210. 2. The Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 1680 Madison Ave, Wooster, OH 44691. 3. The Ohio State University, Department of Food Science and Technology, 2015 Fyffe Court, Columbus, OH 43210.
Abstract
Background: Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) are an economically and nutritionally important crop colored by carotenoids such as lycopene and β-carotene. Market diversification and interest in the health benefits of carotenoids has created the desire in plant, food, and nutritional scientists for improved extraction and quantification protocols that avoid the analytical bottlenecks caused by current methods. Objective: Our objective was to compare standard and rapid extraction as well as chromatographic separation methods for tomato carotenoids. Method: Comparison was based on accuracy and the ability to discriminate between alleles and genetic backgrounds. Estimates of the contribution to variance in the presence of genetic and environmental effects were further used for comparison. Selections of cherry and processing tomatoes with varying carotenoid profiles were assessed using both established extraction and HPLC-diode array detector (HPLC-DAD) methods and rapid extraction and ultra-HPLC-DAD (UHPLC-DAD) protocols. Results: Discrimination of alleles in samples extracted rapidly (<5 min/sample) was similar to samples extracted using a standard method (10 min/sample), although carotenoid concentrations were lower due to reduced extraction efficiency. Quantification by HPLC-DAD (21.5 min/sample) and UHPLC-DAD (4.2 min/sample) were comparable, but the UHPLC-DAD method could not separate all carotenoids and isomers of tangerine tomatoes. Random effects modeling indicated that extraction and chromatographic methods explained a small proportion of variance compared with genetic and environmental sources. Conclusions: The rapid extraction and UHPLC-DAD methods could enhance throughput for some applications compared with standard protocols.
Background: Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) are an economically and nutritionally important crop colored by carotenoids such as lycopene and β-carotene. Market diversification and interest in the health benefits of carotenoids has created the desire in plant, food, and nutritional scientists for improved extraction and quantification protocols that avoid the analytical bottlenecks caused by current methods. Objective: Our objective was to compare standard and rapid extraction as well as chromatographic separation methods for tomato carotenoids. Method: Comparison was based on accuracy and the ability to discriminate between alleles and genetic backgrounds. Estimates of the contribution to variance in the presence of genetic and environmental effects were further used for comparison. Selections of cherry and processing tomatoes with varying carotenoid profiles were assessed using both established extraction and HPLC-diode array detector (HPLC-DAD) methods and rapid extraction and ultra-HPLC-DAD (UHPLC-DAD) protocols. Results: Discrimination of alleles in samples extracted rapidly (<5 min/sample) was similar to samples extracted using a standard method (10 min/sample), although carotenoid concentrations were lower due to reduced extraction efficiency. Quantification by HPLC-DAD (21.5 min/sample) and UHPLC-DAD (4.2 min/sample) were comparable, but the UHPLC-DAD method could not separate all carotenoids and isomers of tangerine tomatoes. Random effects modeling indicated that extraction and chromatographic methods explained a small proportion of variance compared with genetic and environmental sources. Conclusions: The rapid extraction and UHPLC-DAD methods could enhance throughput for some applications compared with standard protocols.
Authors: Jessica L Cooperstone; Robin A Ralston; Ken M Riedl; Thomas C Haufe; Ralf M Schweiggert; Samantha A King; Cynthia D Timmers; David M Francis; Gregory B Lesinski; Steven K Clinton; Steven J Schwartz Journal: Mol Nutr Food Res Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 5.914
Authors: Hussein G Daood; Gyula Bencze; Gábor Palotás; Zoltán Pék; Akmal Sidikov; Lajos Helyes Journal: J Chromatogr Sci Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 1.618
Authors: Kana Wu; John W Erdman; Steven J Schwartz; Elizabeth A Platz; Michael Leitzmann; Steven K Clinton; Valerie DeGroff; Walter C Willett; Edward Giovannucci Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Elizabeth M Grainger; Steven J Schwartz; Shihua Wang; Nuray Z Unlu; Thomas W-M Boileau; Amy K Ferketich; J Paul Monk; Michael C Gong; Robert R Bahnson; Valerie L DeGroff; Steven K Clinton Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Hacer Akpolat; Mark Barineau; Keith A Jackson; Mehmet Z Akpolat; David M Francis; Yu-Ju Chen; Luis E Rodriguez-Saona Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Mendel Friedman; Christina C Tam; Jong H Kim; Sydney Escobar; Steven Gong; Max Liu; Xuan Yu Mao; Cindy Do; Irene Kuang; Kelvin Boateng; Janica Ha; Megan Tran; Srimanth Alluri; Tam Le; Ryan Leong; Luisa W Cheng; Kirkwood M Land Journal: Foods Date: 2021-01-23
Authors: Darío R Gómez-Linton; Arturo Navarro-Ocaña; Silvestre Alavez; Ricardo Lobato-Ortiz; Angélica Román-Guerrero; José Alberto Mendoza-Espinoza; Juan Manuel Villa-Hernández; Laura J Pérez-Flores Journal: Food Technol Biotechnol Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 3.918