| Literature DB >> 32218237 |
Felipe da Silva Veloso1,2, Cristina Caleja1, Ricardo C Calhelha1, Tânia C S Pires1, Maria José Alves1, Lillian Barros1, Aziza K Genena2, João C M Barreira1, Isabel C F R Ferreira1.
Abstract
Currently, there is a clear tendency to incorporate natural ingredients into food and pharmaceutical formulations. Besides being well-accepted by consumers, these ingredients have less adverse side effects than their artificial counterparts. The pomegranate processing industry produces large quantities of by-products that are discarded as bio-residues, despite containing bioactive compounds. Accordingly, the epicarp of two pomegranate varieties (Mollar de Elche and Purple Queen) was tested as a potential source of bioactive compounds with food application. The phenolic profile was identified by HPLC-DAD-ESI/MS, revealing fourteen phenolic compounds in both varieties (Purple Queen showed also three anthocyanins), with punicalagin isomers as the major compounds. Nonetheless, Mollar de Elche presented greater antioxidant and antibacterial activities. Despite this result, Purple Queen was selected to be tested as a new natural colouring and functionalizing ingredient in a Brazilian pastry product. The incorporation of the selected extract maintained the nutritional profile and provided a higher antioxidant activity compared to the traditional product. In this way, this work confirmed the possible use of pomegranate epicarp as a natural ingredient in the food industry, conferring dyeing and functionalizing effects, and anticipating a possible valorisation of this bio-residue.Entities:
Keywords: Punica granatum L.; bioactivity; food application; pectin; phenolic compounds
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32218237 PMCID: PMC7180825 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25071481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Retention time (Rt), wavelengths of maximum absorption (λmax), mass spectral data and attempt to identify the phenolic compounds.
| Peak | Rt (min) | λmáx (nm) | Molecular Ion [M − H]− ( | MS2 ( | Identification Attempt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.4 | 267 | 331 | 169(100), 125(33) | Galloylglucose |
| 2 | 4.6 | 258, 368 | 783 | 481(44), 301(100) | Pedunculagin (bis-HHDP glucose) |
| 3 | 6.1 | 256, 378 | 1083 | 781(26), 601(13), 301(100) | Punicalagin isomer I |
| 4 | 7.4 | 254, 378 | 1083 | 781(33), 601(21), 301(100) | Punicalagin isomer II |
| 5 | 8.9 | 278 | 633 | 463(31), 301(100) | Galloyl-HHDP-glucose |
| 6 | 13.5 | 278 | 785 | 633(17), 615(5), 483(100), 419(8), 301(50) | Digalloyl-HHDP-glucose |
| 7 | 15.3 | 253, 358 | 463 | 301(100) | Ellagic acid-hexoside |
| 8 | 16.6 | 276 | 951 | 933(100), 631(12), 613(9), 463(17), 301(48) | Granatin B (Digalloyl-HHDP-DHHDP-hexose) isomer I |
| 9 | 17.3 | 276 | 951 | 933(100), 631(15), 613(5), 463(12), 301(49) | Granatin B (Digalloyl-HHDP-DHHDP-hexose) isomer II |
| 10 | 20.6 | 256, 364 | 433 | 301(100) | Ellagic acid-pentoside |
| 11 | 21.0 | 256, 364 | 447 | 301(100) | Ellagic acid-rhamnoside |
| 12 | 22.0 | 256, 364 | 301 | 284(10), 245(5), 185(11), 173(4), 157(6), 145(5) | Ellagic acid |
| 13 | 23.4 | 346 | 593 | 285(100) | Kaempferol-3- |
| 14 | 25.0 | 348 | 447 | 285(100) | Kaempferol-3- |
| Anthocyanins | |||||
| 15 | 8.9 | 515 | 611 | 449(23), 287(100) | Cyanidin-3,5- |
| 16 | 16.9 | 514 | 449 | 287(100) | Cyanidin-3- |
| 17 | 20.0 | 505 | 433 | 271(100) | Pelargonidin-3- |
Quantification of phenolic compounds (mg/100 g dry weight) in different extracts of pomegranate peel of the Mollar de Elche and Purple Queen varieties.
| Phenolic Compound | Variety of Pomegranate | Type of Extract | Homoscedasticity 1 | ANOVA2
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueous | Ethanolic | Hydroalcoholic | ||||
| Galloylglucose A |
| 5.9 ± 0.1 b | 8.4 ± 0.4 a | 5.7 ± 0.3 b | 0.003 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.0 ± 0.1 c | 2.1 ± 0.2 a | 1.3 ± 0.1 b | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Pedunculagin (bis-HHDP glucose) B |
| 3.5 ± 0.4 c | 11.8 ± 0.4 a | 7.0 ± 0.4 b | 0.896 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.2 ± 0.1 c | 2.4 ± 0.2 a | 1.7 ± 0.1 b | 0.217 | <0.001 | |
| Punicalagin isomer I B |
| 23 ± 2 c | 61 ± 2 a | 40 ± 2 b | 0.975 | <0.001 |
|
| 12 ± 1 c | 30 ± 1 a | 16 ± 1 b | 0.348 | <0.001 | |
| Punicalagin isomer II B |
| 18 ± 2 c | 73 ± 3 a | 28 ± 2 b | 0.403 | <0.001 |
|
| 15 ± 1 c | 41 ± 3 a | 20 ± 1 b | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Galloyl-HHDP-glucose B |
| 12 ± 1 c | 21 ± 1 a | 15 ± 1 b | 0.477 | <0.001 |
|
| 2.4 ± 0.2 c | 6.6 ± 0.5 a | 3.2 ± 0.2 b | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Digalloyl-HHDP-glucose B |
| 8 ± 1 c | 11 ± 1 a | 10 ± 1 b | 0.029 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.1 ± 0.1 b | 1.7 ± 0.2 a | 0.9 ± 0.1 c | 0.004 | <0.001 | |
| Ellagic acid-hexoside B |
| 5.2 ± 0.3 c | 7.7 ± 0.3 a | 4.7 ± 0.3 b | 0.936 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.2 ± 0.1 c | 3.2 ± 0.2 a | 1.7 ± 0.1 b | 0.188 | <0.001 | |
| Granatin B (digalloyl-HHDP- DHHDP-hexose) isomer IB |
| 8.0 ± 0.5 c | 10.6 ± 0.4 a | 8.7 ± 0.4 b | 0.190 | <0.001 |
|
| 2.8 ± 0.1 c | 5.4 ± 0.2 a | 3.3 ± 0.2 b | 0.403 | <0.001 | |
| Granatin B (digalloyl-HHDP- DHHDP-hexose) isomer II B |
| 2.4 ± 0.3 c | 4.3 ± 0.3 a | 2.1 ± 0.2 b | 0.225 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.1 ± 0.1 b | 1.6 ± 0.1 a | 0.6 ± 0.1 c | 0.337 | <0.001 | |
| Ellagic acid-pentoside B |
| 1.9 ± 0.2 a | 2.0 ± 0.2 a | 1.5 ± 0.2 b | 0.290 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.6 ± 0.1 a | 0.7 ± 0.1 a | 0.8 ± 0.1 a | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Ellagic acid-rhamnoside B |
| 1.3 ± 0.1 c | 2.1 ± 0.3 a | 0.9 ± 0.2 b | 0.043 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.190 | 0.207 | |
| Ellagic acid B |
| 4.3 ± 0.2 c | 6.2 ± 0.5 a | 3.1 ± 0.5 b | 0.143 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.009 | 0.944 | |
| Kaempferol-3- |
| 1.3 ± 0.1 a | 1.0 ± 0.1 b | 0.8 ± 0.1 c | 0.652 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.4 ± 0.1 ab | 0.3 ± 0.1 c | 0.5 ± 0.1 a | 0.835 | 0.013 | |
| Kaempferol-3- |
| 0.5 ± 0.1 a | 0.5 ± 0.1 ab | 0.4 ± 0.1 b | 0.029 | 0.013 |
| 0.18 ± 0.02 b | 0.19 ± 0.04 b | 0.27 ± 0.04 a | 0.058 | 0.013 | ||
| Anthocyanins | ||||||
| Cyanidin-3,5- |
| 7.9 ± 0.4 a | 4.5 ± 0.2 c | 5.7 ± 0.3 b | 0.039 | <0.001 |
| Cyanidin-3- |
| 7.3 ± 0.2 a | 4.0 ± 0.1 c | 5.1 ± 0.3 b | 0.097 | <0.001 |
| Pelargonidin-3- |
| 4.3 ± 0.2 a | 1.8 ± 0.1 c | 2.5 ± 0.2 b | 0.062 | <0.001 |
Calibration curves: A: ellagic acid (y = 365.2x − 38.923; R2 = 0.999); B: gallic acid (γ = 38.466x + 35.44; R2 = 0.999); C: kaempferol -3-O-rutinoside (y = 182.94x + 96.644; R2 = 0.997); D: kaempferol-3-O-glucoside (y = 236.33x + 70.006; R2 = 0.999); E: cyanidin-3-O-glucoside (y = 134578x − 3E6; R2 = 0.999); F: pelargonidin-3-O-glucoside (y = 61493x − 628875; R2 = 0.996). 1 p-Values less than 0.05 indicate heteroscedastic distributions, and the multiple comparison was made by the Tamhane’s T2 test; p-values greater than 0.05 indicate homoscedastic distributions, and the multiple comparison was made by Tukey HSD test. 2 If p-value is less than 0.05, the corresponding parameter shows significant differences in at least one of the extract types (identified with different letters within the same raw).
Results of inhibition of the formation of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) and cytotoxicity in different extracts of the epicarp of the Mollar de Elche and Purple Queen varieties.
| Antioxidant and Cytotoxicity | Extract Type | Homoscedasticit 1 | ANOVA 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueous | Ethanol | Hydroalcoholic | |||
|
| |||||
| Inhibition of TBARS formation (EC50, μg/mL) | 10 ± 1 c | 18 ± 1 a | 16 ± 1 b | 0.002 | <0.001 |
| PLP2 (GI50, μg/mL) | 333 ± 9 a | 276 ± 12 b | 295 ± 34 b | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| HeLa (GI50, μg/mL) | 141 ± 2 b | 92 ± 3 c | 178 ± 5 a | 0.042 | <0.001 |
| HepG2 (GI50, μg/mL) | 196 ± 6 b | 111 ± 4 c | 228 ± 4 a | 0.153 | <0.001 |
| MCF7 (GI50, μg/mL) | 178 ± 4 b | 122 ± 6 c | 216 ± 6 a | 0.191 | <0.001 |
| NCI-H460 (GI50, μg/mL) | 211 ± 16 b | 194 ± 3 c | 259 ± 5 a | <0.001 | <0.001 |
|
| |||||
| Inhibition of TBARS formation (EC50, μg/mL) | 29 ± 1 c | 37 ± 1 a | 19 ± 3 b | 0.001 | <0.001 |
| PLP2 (GI50, μg/mL) | 354 ± 24 a | 299 ± 12 b | 357 ± 7 b | 0.012 | <0.001 |
| HeLa (GI50, μg/mL) | 223 ± 6 b | 153 ± 6 c | 321 ± 13 a | 0.010 | <0.001 |
| HepG2 (GI50, μg/mL) | 205 ± 5 b | 216 ± 2 c | 318 ± 6 a | 0.026 | <0.001 |
| MCF7 (GI50, μg/mL) | 246 ± 13 b | 228 ± 8 c | 269 ± 6 a | 0.030 | <0.001 |
| NCI-H460 (GI50, μg/mL) | 260 ± 11 b | 268 ± 36 c | 250 ± 14 a | 0.001 | 0.293 |
1 Values of p less than 0.05 indicate heteroscedastic distributions, the multiple comparison being made by the Tamhane’s T2 test; p-values greater than 0.05 indicate homoscedastic distributions, and multiple comparisons were made by the Tukey HSD test. 2 If the p-value is lower than 0.05, the corresponding parameter presents significant differences in at least one of the types of extract (identified with different letters within the same raw).
Results of the antibacterial activity of different extracts of the pomegranate epicarp of the varieties Mollar de Elche and Purple Queen.
| Bacteria Strain | Variety of Pomegranate | Extract type | Ampicillin | Imipenem | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aqueous (MIC)A | Ethanol (MIC) A | Hydroalcoholic (MIC) A | ||||
| Gram-negative bacteria | ||||||
|
|
| 2.5 | 1.25 | 2.5 | MIC < 0.15 | MIC < 0.0078 |
|
| 2.5 | 1.25 | 1.25 | MBC < 0.15 | MBC < 0.0078 | |
|
|
| 2.5 | 2.5 | 1.25 | MIC = 10 | MIC < 0.0078 |
|
| 5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | MBC = 20 | MBC < 0.0078 | |
|
|
| 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.5 | MIC = 20 | MIC < 0.0078 |
|
| 2.5 | 1.25 | 1.25 | MBC > 20 | MBC < 0.0078 | |
|
|
| 1.25 | 1.25 | 2.5 | MIC < 0.15 | MIC < 0.0078 |
|
| 2.5 | 1.25 | 1.25 | MBC < 0.15 | MBC < 0.0078 | |
|
|
| 10 | 10 | 10 | MIC > 20 | MIC = 0.5 |
|
| 20 | 10 | 10 | MBC > 20 | MBC = 1 | |
| Gram-positive bacteria | ||||||
|
|
| 1.25 | 0.625 | 0.625 | MIC < 0.15 | nt |
|
| 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | MBC < 0.15 | ||
|
|
| 5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | MIC < 0.15 | MIC < 0.0078 |
|
| 5 | 5 | 5 | MBC < 0.15 | MBC < 0.0078 | |
|
|
| 0.625 | 0.625 | 0.625 | MIC < 0.15 | nt |
|
| 1.25 | 0.625 | 0.625 | MBC < 0.15 | ||
A: The minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values for the extracts were not presented because this activity was not verified until the maximum concentration tested (20 mg/mL). MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration. MBC: minimum bactericidal concentration. MRSA: Multi-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Nutritional composition, free sugars (g/100 g), energy value (kcal/100 g), profile in fatty acids, colorimetric parameters and textural characteristics of the different formulations of casadinhos.
| Factors Analyzed | Water | Fat | Proteins | Carbohydrates | Fructose | Glucose | Sucrose | Energy | Ashes | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formulation(F) | CT | 3 ± 1 | 21 ± 1 | 0.7 ± 0.1 c | 75 ± 1 | 4.1 ± 0.2 | 4 ± 1 | 39 ± 1 | 494 ± 5 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | |||||||
| CEC | 7 ± 1 | 19 ± 1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 b | 73 ± 1 | 5.8 ± 0.5 | 7 ± 1 | 38 ± 1 | 469 ± 8 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | ||||||||
| CECP | 4 ± 1 | 21 ± 1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 a | 73 ± 1 | 5.8 ± 0.5 | 6 ± 1 | 32 ± 3 | 491 ± 4 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | ||||||||
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||||||
| Storage time (ST) | 0 days | 6 ± 2 | 21 ± 1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 72 ± 1 | 5 ± 1 | 6 ± 1 | 35 ± 5 | 478 ± 14 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | |||||||
| 7 days | 4 ± 2 | 21 ± 1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 74 ± 1 | 5 ± 1 | 6 ± 1 | 36 ± 4 | 485 ± 12 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | ||||||||
| 14 days | 3 ± 1 | 21 ± 1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 74 ± 1 | 5 ± 1 | 5 ± 1 | 38 ± 2 | 490 ± 9 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | ||||||||
| <0.001 | 0.134 | 0.166 | <0.001 | 0.262 | 0.212 | 0.006 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||||||
| F × ST | <0.001 | 0.016 | 0.103 | 0.013 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Formulation (F) | CT | 3 ± 1 | 2.0 ± 0.4 | 3.7 ± 0.4 | 4.4 ± 0.3 | 12 ± 1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 30 ± 1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 10.9 ± 0.3 | 21 ± 1 | 6.1 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 69 ± 2 | 24 ± 2 | 7.2 ± 0.5 |
| CEC | 4 ± 1 | 1.9 ± 0.2 | 3.5 ± 0.2 | 4.3 ± 0.3 | 12 ± 1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 31 ± 1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 10.9 ± 0.3 | 21 ± 1 | 6.0 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 69 ± 1 | 23 ± 1 | 7.1 ± 0.5 | |
| CECP | 3 ± 1 | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 3.4 ± 0.4 | 4.2 ± 0.3 | 12 ± 1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 31 ± 1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 11.2 ± 0.5 | 21 ± 1 | 6.6 ± 0.5 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 69 ± 2 | 24 ± 1 | 7.8 ± 0.5 | |
| 0.166 | 0.084 | 0.015 | 0.057 | 0.128 | <0.001 | 0.676 | 0.135 | 0.120 | 0.007 | 0.219 | <0.001 | 0.202 | 0.155 | 0.817 | <0.001 | ||
| Storage time (ST) | 0 days | 3 ± 1 | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 3.4 ± 0.3 | 4.4 ± 0.2 | 12.2 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 31 ± 1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 10.9±0.3 | 21 ± 1 | 6.3 ± 0.3 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 69 ± 2 | 24 ± 2 | 7.3 ± 0.3 |
| 7 days | 3 ± 1 | 1.9 ± 0.4 | 3.5 ± 0.5 | 4.4 ± 0.3 | 12.2 ± 0.4 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 31 ± 1 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 11.1±0.4 | 21 ± 1 | 5.7 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 69 ± 2 | 24 ± 1 | 6.8 ± 0.5 | |
| 14 days | 4 ± 1 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 3.6 ± 0.2 | 4.1 ± 0.2 | 11.4 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 30 ± 1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 11.0±0.4 | 20 ± 1 | 6.7 ± 0.5 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 69 ± 1 | 23 ± 1 | 7.9 ± 0.5 | |
| <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.048 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.006 | 0.061 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.361 | 0.012 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.155 | 0.511 | <0.001 | ||
| F × ST | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.355 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
| Formulation (F) | CT | 78 ± 1 | −1 ± 1 | 30 ± 1 | 4614 ± 685 | 4571 ± 828 | 172 ± 110 | 0.004 ± 0.002 | |||||||||
| CEC | 65 ± 2 | 8 ± 1 | 28 ± 1 | 1456 ± 252 | 1394 ± 311 | 29 ± 5 | 0.019 ± 0.003 | ||||||||||
| CECP | 64 ± 1 | 8 ± 1 | 30 ± 1 | 2883 ± 187 | 2932 ± 152 | 46 ± 13 | 0.023 ± 0.002 | ||||||||||
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||||||||
| Storage time (ST) | 0 days | 68 ± 7 | 6 ± 5 | 30 ± 2 | 2553 ± 1121 | 2439 ± 1043 | 46 ± 16 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | |||||||||
| 7 days | 70 ± 6 | 5 ± 4 | 29 ± 2 | 2972 ± 1288 | 3046 ± 1474 | 77 ± 51 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | ||||||||||
| 14 days | 70 ± 7 | 5 ± 4 | 29 ± 2 | 3428 ± 1564 | 3413 ± 1511 | 124 ± 138 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | ||||||||||
| 0.421 | 0.580 | 0.670 | 0.061 | 0.034 | 0.004 | 0.241 | |||||||||||
| F × ST | 0.010 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||||||
Ap-Values lower than 0.05 indicate that at least one of the formulations is significantly different from the others. Bp-Values less than 0.05 indicate that at least one of the storage times is significantly different from the remaining ones. Cp-Values less than 0.05 indicate a significant interaction between the factors, so it is not possible to classify the differences induced by each of the individual factors.