| Literature DB >> 31450776 |
Anh Dao Thi Phan1, Gabriele Netzel2, Panhchapor Chhim2, Michael E Netzel2, Yasmina Sultanbawa3.
Abstract
This study systematically evaluated the main bioactive compounds and associated biological properties of two Australian grown garlic cultivars and commercial non-Australian grown garlic (for comparison purposes only). Additionally, the distribution of bioactive compounds in garlic skin and clove samples was determined to obtain a better understanding of the potential biological functionality of the different garlic parts. The identification and quantification of bioactive compounds was performed by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry and photodiode array detection (UHPLC-PDA-MS). A principal component analysis was applied to assess the correlation between the determined bioactive compounds and antioxidant capacity as well as antimicrobial activity. The content of phenolic compounds (free and bound forms) in the garlic skin samples was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that of the garlic cloves, and was also higher (p < 0.05) in the Australian grown cultivars compared to the commercial non-Australian grown garlic. Anthocyanins were found in the skin samples of the Australian grown garlic cultivars. The organosulfur compounds were higher (p < 0.05) in the cloves compared to the skin samples and higher (p < 0.05) in the Australian grown cultivars compared to the studied commercial sample. As the richer source of bioactive compounds, the Australian grown garlic cultivars exhibited a significantly (p < 0.05) higher antioxidant capacity and stronger (p < 0.05) antimicrobial activity than the commercial non-Australian grown garlic. The potential of garlic cultivars rich in bioactive compounds for domestic and industrial applications, e.g., condiment and natural food preservative, should be explored further.Entities:
Keywords: Allium sativum L.; Australian grown garlic; antimicrobial activity; antioxidant capacity; organosulfur compounds; polyphenols
Year: 2019 PMID: 31450776 PMCID: PMC6770571 DOI: 10.3390/foods8090358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Proximate analysis, minerals, and heavy metals of edible garlic cloves.
| Proximate Composition | Unit | Non-AustralianGarlic Clove | AustralianX GarlicClove | AustralianY GarlicClove | DRI * | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy | kJ/100 g | 1454 | 1477 | 1457 | ||
| Protein | g/100 g | 16.8 | 22.8 | 23.2 | ||
| Fat | Total fat | g/100 g | 9.1 | 8.8 | 8.2 | |
| Saturated fat | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.8 | |||
| Monounsaturated fat | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | |||
| Polyunsaturated fat | 6.7 | 6.3 | 5.8 | |||
| Trans fat | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | |||
| Carbohydrate | Total carbohydrate | g/100 g | 31.6 | 28.4 | 28.3 | |
| Total sugar | 3.2 | 3.0 | 2.7 | |||
| Dietary fiber | Total dietary fiber | g/100 g | 36.9 | 34.9 | 34.7 | |
| Crude fiber | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.2 | |||
| Minerals | Sodium (Na) | mg/100 g | 29 | 9.4 | 13 | 1.3 g AI [ |
| Potassium (K) | 1,580 | 1,310 | 1,330 | 4.7 g AI [ | ||
| Iron (Fe) | 2.9 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 8 mg RDA [ | ||
| Calcium (Ca) | 47 | 34 | 36 | 1200 mg AI [ | ||
| Magnesium (Mg) | 85 | 62 | 57 | 350 mg EAR [ | ||
| Zinc (Zn) | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 11 mg RDA [ | ||
| Heavy metals | Mercury (Hg) | mg/kg | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 5 µg/kg BW/week UL [ |
| Moisture content | % | 1.6 | 1.5 | 2.0 | ||
| Ash | % | 3.9 | 3.5 | 3.5 | ||
Data are based on dry weight [DW], * DRI—dietary reference intakes, RDA—recommended dietary allowance, AI—adequate Intake, UL—tolerable upper intake level, EAR—estimated average requirement; BW—body weight.
Figure 1(A) Free, (B) bound, and (C) total (free + bound) TPC of different garlic cultivars and tissues. Data present mean ± SD (n = 3). Different letters in the same figure indicate significant difference at α = 0.05.
Characteristics of phenolic acids and anthocyanins detected in the garlic samples. UHPLC: ultra-high performance liquid chromatography with photodiode array detection.
| Tentative Identified Compound | Retention Time (min) | UHPLC-PDA | [M–H]–m/z | Previous Reports |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Vanillic acid | 3.6 | 280 | 167.0338 | [ |
| Caffeic acid | 3.8 | 280 | 179.0438 | [ |
| p-Coumaric acid | 4.6 | 280 | 163.0401 | [ |
| Ferulic acid | 5.1 | 280 | 193.0495 | [ |
| Sinapic acid | 5.3 | 280 | 223.0603 | [ |
|
|
| |||
| Cyanidin-3-(6’-malonyl)-glucoside) | 3.5 | 520 | 535.1024, 287.0550 | [ |
| Cyanidin-based compound | 5.2 | 520 | 862.2545, 538.1505, 287.0550 | [ |
| Pelargonidin-based compound | 5.4 | 520 | 447.3906, 271.2058 |
Content of phenolic acids and anthocyanins in the garlic samples studied.
| Phenolic | Non-Australian Garlic | Australian X Garlic | Australian Y Garlic | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clove | Skin | Clove | Skin | Clove | Skin | |
| Free phenolic acids (mg/100 g DW) | ||||||
| Vanillic acid | - | 0.6 ± 0.06 a | - | 0.4 ± 0.02 b | - | 0.5 ± 0.02 b |
| Caffeic acid | 0.1 ± 0.01 c (*) | 0.6 ± 0.17 b | 0.11 ± 0.04 c | 0.9 ± 0.02 ab | 0.13 ± 0.02 c | 0.9 ± 0.02 a |
| p-Coumaric acid | - | - | - | 8.0 ± 0.3 a | - | 5.7 ± 0.4 b |
| Ferulic acid | - | 1.7 ± 0.04 c | - | 15.2 ± 0.8 b | - | 30.5 ± 1.2 a |
|
| 0.1 ± 0.01 d | 2.9 ± 0.2 c | 0.11 ± 0.04 d | 24.4 ± 0.9 b | 0.13 ± 0.02 d | 37.5 ± 1.5 a |
| Bound phenolic acids (mg/100 g DW) | ||||||
| Vanillic acid | 0.02 ± 0.01 c | 1.0 ± 0.06 a | - | 0.2 ± 0.01 b | - | 0.3 ± 0.03 b |
| Caffeic acid | 0.04 ± 0.02 d | 0.5 ± 0.04 c | 0.02 ± 0.001 d | 0.9 ± 0.04 b | 0.02 ± 0.001 d | 1.3 ± 0.05 a |
| p-Coumaric acid | 0.05 ± 0.001 d | 4.0 ± 0.28 c | 0.2 ± 0.01 d | 16.1 ± 0.3 b | 0.14 ± 0.02 d | 33.2 ± 0.5 a |
| Ferulic acid | 0.07 ± 0.001 d | 2.5 ± 0.05 c | 0.1 ± 0.02 d | 21.7 ± 0.6 b | 0.11 ± 0.02 d | 37.4 ± 0.5 a |
| Sinapic acid | 0.4 ± 0.01 d | 3.0 ± 0.34 c | - | 6.9 ± 0.3 a | - | 3.9 ± 0.2 b |
|
| 0.6 ± 0.04 d | 11.0 ± 0.7 c | 0.3 ± 0.03 d | 45.9 ± 0.6 b | 0.4 ± 0.01 d | 76.1 ± 1.1 a |
| Anthocyanins (mg Cya-3-glc equivalents/100 g DW) | ||||||
| Cyanidin-3-(6’-malonyl)-glucoside | - | - | - | 0.2 ± 0.02 a | - | 0.2 ± 0.01 a |
| Cyanidin-based compound | - | - | - | 0.03 ± 0.001 a | - | 0.02 ± 0.001 a |
| Pelargonidin-based compound | - | - | - | 0.1 ± 0.01 a | - | 0.09 ± 0.01 a |
|
| 0.3 ± 0.02 a | 0.3 ± 0.02 a | ||||
(*) Data are mean ± SD (n = 3); different letters at the same row indicate significant differences at α = 0.05. (-): Not detected or presented in traces.
Characteristics of organosulfur compounds detected in the garlic samples.
| Tentative Identified Compound | Retention Time (min) | UPLC-PDA | [M–H]–m/z | Previous Reports |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L-alliin | 5.8 | 210 | 178.0532, 88.0398 | [ |
Figure 2Total amount of organosulfur compounds (A) and individual organosulfur compounds, including L-alliin (B), alliin isomer (C), and methiin (D) in different garlic samples. Data present mean ± SD (n = 3). Different letters in the same figure indicate significant differences at α = 0.05.
Figure 3(A) Antioxidant capacity (Oxygen radical absorbance capacity—ORAC) and correlation between ORAC values and the determined (free) phytochemicals in the analyzed garlic samples: [B] ORAC vs. free total phenolic content (TPC), [C] ORAC vs. free total phenolic acids, [D] ORAC vs. total anthocyanins, and [E] ORAC vs. total organosulfur compounds. Different letters in Figure A indicate significant differences in antioxidant capacity among the samples tested at α = 0.05 (n = 3).
Antimicrobial activity of different garlic samples against food-related microorganisms (inhibition zone in mm).
| Microorganism | Negative Control | Non-Australian Garlic | Australian X Garlic | Australian Y Garlic | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clove | Skin | Clove | Skin | Clove | Skin | ||
| Water extraction | |||||||
|
| - | - | - | 21.7 ± 1.2 a * | - | 21.9 ± 1.3 a | - |
|
| - | 32.9 ± 0.5 a | - | 33.9 ± 1.2 a | - | 33.5 ± 1.5 a | - |
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
|
| - | 23.9 ± 0.7 a | - | 23.5 ± 3.7 a | 16 ± 0.5 b | 24.5 ± 0.8 a | 22.7 ± 1.3 a |
|
| - | 27.2 ± 1.2 ab | - | 27.1 ± 0.4 b | 17.6 ± 2.4 d | 30.7 ± 0.8 a | 23.4 ± 0.8 c |
|
| - | 18.9 ± 0.5 c | - | 19.1 ± 1.1 c | 22 ± 0.6 b | 24.8 ± 0.6 a | - |
|
| - | 16.9 ± 0.1 a | - | 15.8 ± 0.7 a | 16.8 ± 0.6 a | Possibly partial inhibition | - |
|
| |||||||
|
| - | 22.7 ± 0.6 c | - | 30 ± 1.8 a | - | 25.6 ± 1 b | 13.3 ± 0.5 d |
|
| - | 24.9 ± 0.7 a | - | 25 ± 1.5 a | 19.2 ± 0.4 b | 20.6 ± 0.8 b | 19.2 ± 0.7 b |
|
| - | - | - | 13.5 ± 0.4 a | - | 14.0 ± 0.5 a | - |
|
| - | 38.3 ± 1.6 ab | - | 40.9 ± 1.5 a | 21.3 ± 1.1 c | 37.1 ± 0.7 b | 23.9 ± 1.2 c |
|
| - | 37.3 ± 0.9 a | - | 37 ± 0.4 a | 24.0 ± 2.2 c | 32.0 ± 1.1 b | 27.3 ± 0.9 c |
|
| - | 27.3 ± 4.7 ab | - | 34.3 ± 2.1 a | 20.5 ± 0.3 bc | 30.0 ± 3.6 a | 19.4 ± 0.5 c |
|
| - | 19.8 ± 0.1 b | - | 23.9 ± 0.6 a | - | 19.6 ± 0.5 b | - |
* Data expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). Mean values of each row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). (–) Denotes that no zone of inhibition was observed. Criteria for antimicrobial activity: <10 mm, weak; 10–15 mm, moderate and >15 mm, strong.
Figure 4Principal component analysis (PCA) score plot classifies the samples into three distinguished groups (Aus: Australian).
Figure 5PCA loading plot describes all variables analyzed including polyphenols, organosulfur compounds, and associated bioactive properties.