| Literature DB >> 30857360 |
Prodromos Skenderidis1,2, Dimitrios Lampakis3, Ioannis Giavasis4, Stefanos Leontopoulos5, Konstantinos Petrotos6, Christos Hadjichristodoulou7, Andreas Tsakalof8.
Abstract
In this study, the content composition and antioxidant activity of goji berry fruits from two species (Lycium barbarum and Lycium chinense) were assessed. The total carbohydrate and phenolic contents were evaluated using attenuated total reflection Fourier-transform infrared (ATR-FT-IR) spectroscopy, while the antioxidant activity of fruits was examined with two in vitro methods, which are based on the scavenging activity of the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH•) and 2,2'-azino-bis(3-ethyl-benzthiazoline-sulfonic acid) (ABTS•⁺) free radicals. The fatty-acid profile was determined using gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The results of this study indicate that the fruits of L. barbarum present higher concentrations in carbohydrates and phenolics than L. chinense Mill. fruits. Furthermore, the antioxidant activity based on the half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) measurements of DPPH• and ABTS•⁺ free-radical scavenging was higher in L. barbarum than L. chinense Mill. Also, the GCMS analysis confirms the high levels of linoleic, palmitic, and oleic acids contained in the fruits of both species. Finally, the results of this study clearly show that the concentration of bioactive and antioxidant molecules is higher in L. barbarum than in L. chinense fruits, which was also confirmed by ATR-FT-IR measurements.Entities:
Keywords: carbohydrate content; fatty acids; goji berry; phenolic content; total carbohydrate content
Year: 2019 PMID: 30857360 PMCID: PMC6466590 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8030060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Bioactive properties of Lycium barbarum L. and L. chinense Mill. fruits cultivated in central Greece and imported.
| Parameters |
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 2016 Collection | August 2016 Collection | October 2016 Collection | June 2016 Collection | August 2016 Collection | October 2016 Collection | Origin China | Origin Mongolia | |
| TCC * | 395 | 440 a,b,c,d
| 329 | 452 | 490 a
| 370 | 459 a,b,c,d
| 434 b,c,d
|
| TPC * | 8.5 | 8.9 b
| 7.4 | 9.7 | 10.1 a,b
| 6.9 | 9.9 a,b
| 10.9 a,b
|
| IC50 of DPPH• * | 1085 | 950 a
| 1254 | 894 | 830 b,c,d
| 1150 | 795 b,c,d,e
| 784 c,d,e
|
| IC50 of ABTS•+ * | 385 | 220 a,b
| 407 | 241 | 195 a,b
| 397 | 198 a,b
| 192 a,b
|
TCC: total carbohydrate content in mg/g dry weight (DW); TPC: total phenolic content in mg/g DW; * values are presented as means of ± standard deviation of at least three independent experiments; DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; ABTS: 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethyl-benzthiazoline-sulfonic acid); Half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) value showing the concentration that caused 50% scavenging of DPPH radical. Different letters indicate differences in the means within each raw estimate by Tukey pairwise comparisons. Means that do not share a letter are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Fatty-acid composition and nutritional ratios from goji berry samples.
| Fatty Acids | Fatty Acids (%) |
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LbC1 | LbC2 | LbC3 | LcC1 | LcC2 | LcC3 | ||||
| Palmitic acid | C16:0 | 21.79 | 21.55 | 19.38 | 21.59 | 21.02 | 24.67 | 18.96 | 15.08 |
| Palmitoleic acid | C16:1 n−9 | 1.90 | 3.07 | 1.66 | 1.78 | 1.51 | 1.80 | 1.01 | 1.00 |
| Palmitoleic acid | C16:1 n−7 | ND | 1.80 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.66 | 0.58 | 1.16 | 1.17 |
| Stearic acid | C18:0 | 4.78 | 4.05 | 3.69 | 3.43 | 3.75 | 4.20 | 2.61 | 2.69 |
| Oleic acid | C18:1 n−9 | 16.71 | 17.32 | 19.29 | 20.08 | 20.66 | 22.39 | 20.07 | 19.61 |
| Linoleic acid | C18:2 n−6 | 42.64 | 39.69 | 43.96 | 40.71 | 38.65 | 36.96 | 37.89 | 42.2 |
| Arachidic acid | C20:0 | 1.59 | 1.03 | 3.03 | 1.14 | 0.99 | 1.15 | 1.86 | 2.03 |
| α-Linolenic acid | C18:3 n−3 | 7.99 | 8.85 | 7.15 | 8.52 | 7.47 | 6.27 | 6.46 | 5.39 |
| Gondoic acid | C20:1 n−11 | ND | 1.41 | 1.30 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.74 | 3.95 | 4.05 |
| Behenic acid | C22 | 2.60 | ND | ND | 0.56 | 2.88 | 0.48 | 6.03 | 6.78 |
| Lignoceric acid | C24 | ND | 1.23 | ND | 0.75 | 1.50 | 0.76 | ND | ND |
| ΣSFA | 30.76 | 27.86 | 26.10 | 27.47 | 30.14 | 31.26 | 29.46 | 26.58 | |
| ΣMUFA | 18.61 | 23.60 | 22.79 | 23.30 | 23.74 | 25.51 | 26.19 | 25.83 | |
| ΣPUFA | 50.63 | 48.54 | 51.11 | 49.23 | 46.12 | 43.23 | 44.35 | 47.59 | |
| PUFA/MUFA | 2.72 | 2.05 | 2.24 | 2.11 | 1.94 | 1.69 | 1.69 | 1.84 | |
| PUFA/SFA | 1.64 | 1.74 | 1.95 | 1.79 | 1.53 | 1.38 | 1.50 | 1.79 | |
| n6/n3 | 5.34 | 4.48 | 6.15 | 4.78 | 5.17 | 5.89 | 5.87 | 7.83 | |
The reported values are mol.% mean values ± SD (n = 3), calculated using peak area values corrected with theoretical response factors. LbC1: L. barbarum collected in Thessaly in June 2016; LbC2: L. barbarum collected in Thessaly in August 2016; LbC3: L. barbarum collected in Thessaly in October 2016; LcC1: L. chinense collected in Thessaly in June 2016; LcC2: L. chinense collected in Thessaly in August 2016; LcC3: L. chinense collected in Thessaly in October 2016. SFA: saturated fatty acid; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acid; ND: not detected.
Figure 1Typical attenuated total reflection Fourier-transform infrared (ATR-FT-IR) spectra of Lycium barbarum L. (a) and L. chinense Mill. (b) fruits cultivated in central Greece.
Peak analysis of the attenuated total reflection Fourier-transform infrared (ATR-FT-IR) spectra of the functional groups of L. barbarum L. and L. chinense Mill. fruits cultivated in central Greece.
| Peak Intensity | Peak Intensity | Functional Group | Structural Characteristic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3288.9 | 1 | 3296.7 | 1 | hydroxyl group (–OH) | stretching vibration of O–H |
| 2916.71 | 0.631 | 2916.61 | 0.461 | alkyl group (–CH2–) | stretching vibration of C–H |
| 2849.37 | 0.480 | 2849.13 | 0.350 | alkyl group (–CH2 or –CH3) | stretching vibration of CH2 and CH3 |
| 1732.34 | 0.115 | 1732.26 | 0.077 | carboxyl group (–COOH), | stretching vibration of C=O |
| 1621.81 | 0.229 | 1624.74 | 0.207 | carbonyl group (–C=O or –CHO) | stretching vibration of C=O bending vibration of N-H or stretching vibration of C=O bending vibration of N–H bound water |
| alkyl group (–CH2- or –CH3) | bending vibration of C–H | ||||
| 1409.28 | 0.186 | 1416.25 | 0.151 | carboxyl group (–COOH) | stretching vibration of C–O |
| 1250.72 | 0.09 | 1245.96 | 0.08 | carboxyl group (–COOH) | bending vibration of O–H |
| 1147.64 | 0.107 | 1148.14 | 0.095 | b-anomeric configuration | |
| 1050.69 | 0.51 | 1053.72 | 0.426 | hydroxyl group (–OH) | bending vibration of O–H |
| 918.20 | 0.04 | 918.98 | 0.024 | α-type glycosidic linkage | symmetrical ring vibration |
| 898.17 | 0.03 | 898.12 | 0.022 | b-anomeric configuration | |
| 866.80 | 0.03 | 865.69 | 0.031 | α-type glycosidic linkage | symmetrical ring vibration |
| 817.81 | 0.05 | 817.64 | 0.063 | α-D-galactopyranose | symmetrical ring vibration |
| 776.59 | 0.07 | 776.99 | 0.08 | D-glucopyranose ring | symmetrical ring vibration |