| Literature DB >> 31281586 |
Elena Azzini1, Giuseppe Maiani1, Alessandra Durazzo1, Maria Stella Foddai1, Federica Intorre1, Eugenia Venneria1, Valentina Forte1, Sabrina Lucchetti1, Roberto Ambra1, Gianni Pastore1, Donato Domenico Silveri2, Gianluca Maiani1, Angela Polito1.
Abstract
In order to evaluate and identify the antioxidant properties and the phytochemical characteristics, as well as the role of the genetic background and the different fruit parts in the definition of fruit quality, we characterized the existing germplasm through nuclear simple sequence repeats (SSRs) and evaluated the genetic divergence between ancient S. Giovanni varieties (Pyrus communis L.) and different types of grafting in relation to some variables of fruit quality. On the peel and pulp of pear varieties, the contents of flavanols, flavonols, and hydroxycinnamic acids as well as total antioxidant capacity were assessed. Their role in plant defences was confirmed by a significantly higher amount in the peel (206.66 ± 44.27, 48.45 ± 13.65, and 31.11 ± 11.94 mg/100 g, respectively) of S. Giovanni pears than in the pulp (71.45 ± 34.94, 1.62 ± 0.83, and 17.05 ± 5.04 mg/100 g, respectively). Data obtained using capillary analysis of SSR indicate unequivocally that the four samples of San Giovanni varieties can be divided into 3 different genetic groups. Cultivar and the different parts of the fruit can exert an action in the definition of the quality product. The use of local varieties and ecotypes can be considered a valid tool to improve food quality and at the same time to support local agrobiodiversity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31281586 PMCID: PMC6589222 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6714103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Primers amplifying pear SSR chosen for fingerprint analysis.
| Primer | Repeated motif | Forward (5′-3′) | Reverse (5′-3′) | bp |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMPc108 | (CA)26 | TGAGTGGGCTTTTGGTTTTC | TCCATTTAAACACATTTTCTGGA | 122 |
| NH002b | (GA)12 | GGAGTCAGCGGCAAAAAAAG | CCCACTCCCTCCTCTTATTGT | 180 |
| NH029a | (AG)8 | GAAGAAAACCAGAGCAGGGCA | CCTCCCGTCTCCCACCATATTAG | 91-196 |
| TXY11 | (TC)8 | CAGAATTCAACATTCACTCTCTCTC | GAGTAGGGATGTGTCGGCTC | 120-166 |
| TXY86 | (AG)8 | TTGGGTCTTTAAATGCCAGC | CCAGACGTGAGTTGTTGCC | 114–156 |
| EMPc01 | (GT)17 | AGTTTGGTATTGTGGAGGGTCTT | AGTCTTTTGGGTGGCTGAACA | 135–197 |
| EMPc11 | (AC)13 | GCGATTAAAGATCAATAAACCCATA | AAGCAGCTGGTTGGTGAAAT | 121–161 |
| EMPc110 | (CT)18 | ACTAACATTAAAAAATCTTTAC | ATCTTAAAACTTAAACTAAATAA | 157–199 |
| EMPc114 | (AG)20 | GTACCCACAATTCCCCATAT | GCCTTATGCGCCTTCTACC | 152–169 |
| NB131a | (GAA)4 | GAGACCAAACAAAGCTGCCG | AACCCAACCCATCGAATCCC | 261 |
Sum and individual flavanol and flavonol contents in the peel and pulp (mg/100 g f.w.) of S. Giovanni pears from Abruzzo by varieties and type.
| Type | Flavanols | ∑ | Flavonols | ∑ | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catechin | Epicatechin | B1 | B2 | QUE3GAL | QUE3GLU | QUE3RAMNO | QUE | ||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Guastameroli (CH) | F | 4.49 ± 0.10cd | 12.90 ± 0.28a | 0.66 ± 0.14b | 188.53 ± 26.35bc | 206.59 ± 26.71d | 14.75 ± 0.48bc | 11.34 ± 0.48cd | 11.01 ± 0.52ac | 1.54 ± 0.22b | 38.64 ± 0.58b |
| Casoli (CH) | F | 4.08 ± 0.13bd | 5.51 ± 0.19b | 2.39 ± 0.13b | 119.50 ± 8.13b | 131.48 ± 8.50b | 11.58 ± 0.50bc | 9.63 ± 0.56d | 4.63 ± 0.54b | 4.63 ± 0.54a | 30.55 ± 1.17c |
| Palmoli (CH) | F | 5.19 ± 0.38ac | 11.16 ± 1.58ac | 1.51 ± 0.04c | 217.71 ± 11.86a | 235.57 ± 13.8ac | 19.77 ± 0.54bd | 12.48 ± 0.57c | 15.21 ± 3.09a | nd | 47.46 ± 3.86d |
| Civitella (TE) | Q | 5.70 ± 0.31a | 10.30 ± 0.35bc | 2.19 ± 0.23c | 232.98 ± 3.72a | 251.17 ± 3.50a | 28.30 ± 2.26a | 18.62 ± 1.52b | 13.59 ± 1.84ac | 0.80 ± 0.70b | 61.31 ± 4.89a |
| Palmoli (CH) | Q | 5.21 ± 0.95ac | 11.51 ± 1.57ac | 4.67 ± 0.35a | 187.13 ± 3.35bc | 208.51 ± 5.061c | 30.22 ± 3.22a | 22.51 ± 1.86a | 9.40 ± 1.64bc | 2.21 ± 0.15b | 64.33 ± 3.37a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Total | 4.94 ± 0.72 | 10.28 ± 2.75 | 2.28 ± 1.39 | 189.17 ± 41.94 | 206.66 ± 44.27 | 20.93 ± 7.71 | 14.92 ± 5.12 | 10.78 ± 4.07 | 2.30 ± 1.57§ | 48.45 ± 13.65 | |
|
| |||||||||||
| Guastameroli (CH) | F | 3.81 ± 0.07 | 3.70 ± 0.31 | ndbd | 75.32 ± 14.23bc | 82.83 ± 14.49c | 3.93 ± 0.01c | nd | nd | nd | 3.93 ± 0.01 |
| Casoli (CH) | F | 3.71 ± 0.04 | 3.41 ± 0.55 | ndbd | 26.79 ± 4.05b | 33.91 ± 4.43d | 3.86 ± 0.02d | 1.91 ± 0.00 | nd | nd | 5.77 ± 0.01 |
| Palmoli (CH) | F | 4.03 ± 0.05 | 2.93 ± 0.11 | 0.65 ± 0.17c | 48.90 ± 8.85bc | 56.51 ± 9.17cd | 4.11 ± 0.02cd | nd | 3.57 ± 0.42a | nd | 7.68 ± 0.43 |
| Civitella (TE) | Q | 4.16 ± 0.10 | 3.28 ± 0.35 | 0.64 ± 0.28c | 46.30 ± 5.97bc | 54.31 ± 6.81cd | 4.08 ± 0.06cd | 1.71 ± 0.59 | 6.82 ± 4.24b | nd | 10.32 ± 5.47 |
| Palmoli (CH) | Q | 4.10 ± 0.21 | 4.21 ± 0.25 | 1.25 ± 0.00a | 120.12 ± 6.54a | 129.67 ± 4.55a | 4.02 ± 0.24 | 2.01 ± 0.11 | nd | nd | 6.03 ± 0.35 |
|
| ns | ns |
|
|
| ns | ns |
| ns | ||
| Total | 3.96 ± 0.20 | 3.51 ± 0.53 | 0.85 ± 0.35§ | 63.47 ± 34.15 | 71.45 ± 34.94 | 4.00 ± 0.13 | 1.13 ± 0.3§ | 4.88 ± 2.78§ | nd | 6.75 ± 3.04 | |
| Fruit part♦ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate analysis. nd: not detectable. ANOVA by column: different letters indicate significant difference (P < 0.05); not significant (ns); §mean of measurable compounds. ♦ANOVA: peel vs. pulp. F: pears from “franco” rootstock; Q: pears from quince rootstock.
Sum and individual hydroxycinnamic acid contents (mg/100 g f.w.), extractable polyphenols (EPP) (mg/100 g f.w.), and vitamin C (mg/100 g f.w.) in the peel and pulp of S. Giovanni pears from Abruzzo by varieties and type.
| Type | Hydroxycinnamic acids | EPP (mg/100 g f.w.) | Vitamin C (mg/100 g f.w.) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chlorogenic (mg/100 g f.w.) | Coumaric (mg/100 g f.w.) | ∑ phenolic acids (mg/100 g f.w.) | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Guastameroli (CH) | F | 25.83 ± 0.75bc | 1.29 ± 0.01 | 27.12 ± 0.74c | 194.42 ± 6.07b | 17.74 ± 0.20bc |
| Casoli (CH) | F | 11.61 ± 1.27bc | 1.37 ± 0.04 | 12.98 ± 1.25b | 147.24 ± 0.49b | 37.03 ± 0.54bd |
| Palmoli (CH) | F | 37.65 ± 5.64ac | 1.43 ± 0.06 | 39.07 ± 5.70a | 351.45 ± 42.55a | 46.84 ± 4.21a |
| Civitella (TE) | Q | 43.95 ± 6.02a | 1.42 ± 0.07 | 45.37 ± 6.00a | 245.74 ± 4.33ab | 40.22 ± 0.72bd |
| Palmoli (CH) | Q | 29.48 ± 3.06a | 1.52 ± 0.06 | 31.00 ± 1.74c | 314.56 ± 19.26ab | 22.75 ± 0.47bc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Total | 29.11 ± 11.91 | 1.41 ± 0.09 | 31.11 ± 11.94 | 250.68 ± 79.66 | 32.91 ± 0.99 | |
|
| ||||||
| Guastameroli (CH) | F | 12.46 ± 0.541bd | 1.24 ± 0.01ab | 13.70 ± 0.54bc | 46.64 ± 3.89a | 8.19 ± 0.07bd |
| Casoli (CH) | F | 8.66 ± 0.38bc | 1.22 ± 0.00ab | 9.88 ± 0.38b | 49.22 ± 2.18a | 19.60 ± 3.94ac |
| Palmoli (CH) | F | 16.23 ± 1.91a | 1.46 ± 0.11a | 17.69 ± 2.01ac | 98.13 ± 18.33b | 23.29 ± 0.66ac |
| Civitella (TE) | Q | 21.04 ± 2.07a | 1.06 ± 0.35b | 22.09 ± 2.38a | 72.55 ± 6.24ab | 16.58 ± 0.05bc |
| Palmoli (CH) | Q | 20.54 ± 0.20bd | 1.33 ± 0.05ab | 21.88 ± 0.15a | 77.37 ± 4.87ab | 17.53 ± 4.92ac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Total | 15.78 ± 5.02 | 1.26 ± 0.20 | 17.05 ± 5.04 | 68.78 ± 21.22 | 17.04 ± 5.69 | |
| Fruit part♦ |
|
|
|
|
| |
Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate analysis. nd: not detectable. ANOVA by column: different letters indicate significant difference (P < 0.05); not significant (ns). ♦ANOVA: peel vs. pulp. F: pears from “franco” rootstock; Q: pears from quince rootstock.
FRAP and TEAC in the peel and pulp of S. Giovanni pears from Abruzzo by varieties and rootstock type.
| Type | FRAP | TEAC | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Guastameroli (CH) | F | 9.42 ± 0.34 | 4.23 ± 1.63 |
| Casoli (CH) | F | 6.46 ± 0.3 | 3.38 ± 1.63 |
| Palmoli (CH) | F | 11.34 ± 0.81 | 4.02 ± 1.63 |
| Civitella (TE) | Q | 14.07 ± 0.82 | 4.65 ± 1.63 |
| Palmoli (CH) | Q | 12.56 ± 1.64 | 10.21 ± 1.63 |
|
| ns | ns | |
| Total | 10.10 ± 1.16 | 5.30 ± 1.16 | |
|
| |||
| Guastameroli (CH) | F | 1.04 ± 0.42 | 0.80 ± 0.41 |
| Casoli (CH) | F | 1.31 ± 0.16 | 0.57 ± 0.09 |
| Palmoli (CH) | F | 2.91 ± 0.07 | 1.35 ± 0.10 |
| Civitella (TE) | Q | 1.63 ± 0.14 | 0.63 ± 0.04 |
| Palmoli (CH) | Q | 2.34 ± 0.98 | 1.83 ± 0.95 |
|
| ns | ns | |
| Total | 1.85 ± 0.82 | 1.04 ± 0.64 |
Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate analysis. ANOVA by column not significant (ns). F: pears from “franco” rootstock; Q: pears from quince rootstock.
Pearson correlation coefficients and P value between studied variables.
| Variable | ∑ flavanols | ∑ flavonols | ∑ hydroxycinnamic acids | Vitamin C | EPP | FRAP | TEAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∑ flavanols | 0.886 | 0.836 | 0.578 | 0.879 | 0.864 | 0.567 | |
| ∑ flavonols | 0.886 | 0.785 | 0.596 | 0.918 | 0.919 | 0.661 | |
| ∑ hydroxycinnamic acids | 0.836 | 0.785 | 0.552 | 0.801 | 0.781 | 0.411 | |
| Vitamin C | 0.578 | 0.596 | 0.552 | 0.694 | 0.628 | 0.254 | |
| EPP | 0.879 | 0.918 | 0.801 | 0.694 | 0.874 | 0.625 | |
| FRAP | 0.864 | 0.919 | 0.781 | 0.628 | 0.874 | 0.436 | |
| TEAC | 0.567 | 0.661 | 0.411 | 0.254 | 0.625 | 0.436 |
Figure 1(a) Principal component analysis of the peel of the studied pear varieties. ☐: franco rootstock; •: quince rootstock. (b) Principal component analysis of the pulp of the studied pear varieties. ☐: franco rootstock; •: quince rootstock.