| Literature DB >> 32408574 |
Stanislava Gorjanović1, Darko Micić1, Ferenc Pastor2, Tomislav Tosti2, Ana Kalušević3, Slavica Ristić4, Snežana Zlatanović1.
Abstract
Apple pomace flour (APF) obtained at industrial scale level by the application of innovative technological process (dehydration (5 h, T ≤ 55 °C), grinding (300 µm)) was evaluated as a source of bioactive compounds with antioxidative, antiobesity and antidiabetic effects. Proximate composition, individual (HPLC-DAD-MS/MS) and total phenols (TPC) as well as flavonoids content (TFC), antioxidant (AO) activity (DPPH, ABTS, HPMC), water and oil holding capacity (WHC and OHC) of APFs obtained from apple pomace from mixed and individual apple cultivars grown conventionally and organically were compared. The effect of APF supplementation on the glycaemic status and glucose tolerance (oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)) of C57BL/6J mice exposed to high-fat and sucrose diet was examined. High K content (4.2-6.4 g/kg), dietary fibres (35-45 g/100 g), TPC (4.6-8.1 mg GAE/g), TFC (18.6-34.6 mg QE/g), high water and oil holding capacity (4.7-6.4 and 1.3-1.6 g/g) were observed in the APFs. Content of major phenols (phlorizin, chlorogenic acid, quercetin), TPC and TFC correlated highly with prominent AO activity. APF supplementation lowered the increase of body weight gain and blood glucose, and improved glucose tolerance significantly. Health-promoting biomolecules, AO activity, functional properties and prevention of diet-driven glucose metabolism disorders pave the way to APF exploitation in human nutrition.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; apple pomace; dehydration; diabetes; dietary fibres; flavonoids; gluten-free flour; obesity; phlorizin; potassium
Year: 2020 PMID: 32408574 PMCID: PMC7278621 DOI: 10.3390/antiox9050413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Total phenol (TPC) and flavonoid (TFC) content in apple pomace flour (APF) and apple egg (AE) expressed in mg of gallic acid and quercetin equivalents per gram (mg GAE g−1 and mg QE g−1).
| TPC FC | TFC | |
|---|---|---|
| APF1 | 7.7 ± 0.3 a | 24.8 ± 1.0 bc |
| APF2 | 6.1 ± 0.2 b | 27.4 ± 1.4 b |
| APF3 | 8.1 ± 0.3 a | 34.6 ± 2.2 a |
| APF4 | 4.6 ± 0.2 c | 18.6 ± 1.0 d |
| APF5 | 4.6 ± 0.1 c | 21.2 ± 1.3 cd |
| AE | 4.3 ± 0.2 c | 12.2 ± 0.7 e |
| F | 163.3 | 97.1 |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 |
Values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA (between-subjects factor: type of apple pomace flour; six levels: APF1, APF2, APF3, APF4, APF5 and AE; degree of freedom for both parameters was 5); means with different lowercase superscript in the same column indicate a significant difference of means, according to Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) test (p < 0.05) among apple pomace flour samples.
Phenolic compounds identified and quantified (mg kg−1) in APF1–5 and AE using HPLC-DAD–MS/MS.
| mg kg−1 | APF1 | APF2 | APF3 | APF4 | APF5 | AE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Phloretin | 0.77 ± 0.06 b | 0.70 ± 0.04 bc | 0.98 ± 0.03 a | 0.29 ± 0.02 d | 0.78 ± 0.00 b | 0.63 ± 0.05 c | 102.3 | <0.001 |
| Phlorizin | 215.1 ± 2.5 a | 194.5 ± 5.3 b | 227.3 ± 1.3 a | 112 ± 3.0 d | 165.8 ± 1.1 c | 158.9 ± 9.4 c | 240.4 | <0.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 239.9 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||||
| Luteolin | 0.26 ± 0.01 a | 0.11 ± 0.01 c | 0.15 ± 0.01 b | 0.10 ± 0.01 c | 0.13 ± 0.01 bc | 0.11 ± 0.01 c | 89.1 | <0.001 |
| Apigenin-7- | 0.84 ± 0.05 b | 0.73 ± 0.02 bc | 1.01 ± 0.05 a | 0.68 ± 0.03 c | 0.47 ± 0.04 d | 0.69 ± 0.06 c | 49.6 | <0.001 |
| Apigenin | 0.48 ± 0.00 | 0.38 ± 0.04 | 0.46 ± 0.07 | 0.31 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.23 | 0.43 ± 0.21 | 0.6 | 0.675 |
| Chrysin | 0.19 ± 0.00 b | 0.18 ± 0.00 c | 0.22 ± 0.00 a | 0.13 ± 0.00 d | 0.11 ± 0.00 e | 0.12 ± 0.00 d | 702.9 | <0.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6.9 | 0.003 |
|
| ||||||||
| Eriodictyol | 0.18 ± 0.02 b | 0.13 ± 0.02 c | 0.26 ± 0.01 a | 0.11 ± 0.01 c | 0.21 ± 0.02 b | 0.21 ± 0.01 b | 34.0 | <0.001 |
| Naringenin | 0.24 ± 0.02 a | 0.18 ± 0.03 b | 0.21 ± 0.01 ab | 0.11 ± 0.00 c | 0.17 ± 0.00 b | 0.19 ± 0.01 ab | 20.2 | <0.001 |
| Naringin | 0.22 ± 0.01 d | 0.57 ± 0.02 a | 0.60 ± 0.01 a | 0.48 ± 0.02 b | 0.35 ± 0.02 c | 0.46 ± 0.02 b | 195.0 | <0.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 177.5 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||||
| Quercetin | 14.2 ± 3.0 a | 10.9 ± 2.4 ab | 13.1 ± 3.3 ab | 7.2 ± 1.8 bc | 4.10 ± 0.74 c | 12.7 ± 1.8 ab | 8.6 | 0.001 |
| Quercetin-3- | 121.9 ± 1.3 a | 85.3 ± 4.1 c | 124.8 ± 1.7 a | 114.1 ± 3.9 b | 34.1 ± 1.3 d | 85.9 ± 1.7 c | 512.7 | <0.001 |
| Quercetin-3- | 165.2 ± 3.5 a | 158.5 ± 2.7 a | 149.9 ± 4.1 b | 126.7 ± 3.4 c | 121.4 ± 0.6 c | 80.8 ± 1.8 d | 339.6 | <0.001 |
| Rutin | 46.93 ± 1.91 b | 20.37 ± 0.28 e | 23.9 ± 0.2 d | 64.86 ± 1.40 a | 7.99 ± 0.09 f | 34.46 ± 0.84 c | 1163.2 | <0.001 |
| Isorhamnetin-3- | 1.11 ± 0.01 a | 0.82 ± 0.02 b | 0.41 ± 0.00 c | 0.40 ± 0.04 c | 0.36 ± 0.04 c | 0.10 ± 0.01 d | 703.8 | <0.001 |
| Isorhamnetin | 12.31 ± 0.43 b | 17.62 ± 0.31 a | 4.05 ± 0.04 c | 2.08 ± 0.02 d | 1.10 ± 0.01 e | 1.16 ± 0.02 e | 3037.8 | <0.001 |
| Kaempferol | 2.46 ± 0.37 a | 0.71 ± 0.14 bc | 2.82 ± 0.37 a | 1.37 ± 0.16 b | 0.48 ± 0.02 c | 0.62 ± 0.42 bc | 37.1 | <0.001 |
| Kaempferol-7- | 0.05 ± 0.01 c | 0.03 ± 0.01 c | 0.70 ± 0.03 b | 1.19 ± 0.12 a | 0.11 ± 0.01 c | 0.13 ± 0.02 c | 251.7 | <0.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 491.4 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||||
| Taxifolin | 0.16 ± 0.02 d | 0.46 ± 0.01 a | 0.33 ± 0.01 b | 0.33 ± 0.04 b | 0.24 ± 0.01 c | 0.21 ± 0.02 cd | 86.5 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||||
| Caffeic acid | 0.33 ± 0.02 a | 0.22 ± 0.03 b | 0.35 ± 0.05 a | 0.23 ± 0.01 b | 0.12 ± 0.00 c | 0.18 ± 0.00 bc | 39.7 | <0.001 |
| 0.32 ± 0.06 c | 0.44 ± 0.09 bc | 0.44 ± 0.03 bc | 0.76 ± 0.09 a | 0.57 ± 0.03 b | 0.51 ± 0.05 b | 17.5 | <0.001 | |
| Ferulic acid | 23.80 ± 0.28 a | 23.43 ± 0.87 a | 13.24 ± 0.07 d | 23.48 ± 0.21 a | 19.48 ± 0.54 b | 15.86 ± 0.33 c | 281.1 | <0.001 |
| Sinapic acid | 7.20 ± 0.03 a | 4.29 ± 0.19 b | 2.97 ± 0.05 c | 2.78 ± 0.03 cd | 2.60 ± 0.01 d | 2.03 ± 0.05 e | 1464.3 | <0.001 |
| Chlorogenic acid | 224.4 ± 9.8 b | 214.3 ± 3.4 b | 308.3 ± 14.0 a | 89.0 ± 9.5 e | 185.7 ± 6.2 c | 126.6 ± 4.7 d | 237.4 | <0.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 220.9 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||||
| Gallic acid | 4.53 ± 0.10 b | 2.22 ± 0.04 e | 4.80 ± 0.12 a | 3.20 ± 0.12 c | 3.20 ± 0.03 c | 2.54 ± 0.03 d | 450.4 | <0.001 |
| Protocatechuic acid | 28.61 ± 1.01 a | 7.29 ± 0.55 de | 21.15 ± 0.73 b | 6.58 ± 0.42 e | 17.22 ± 0.24 c | 8.69 ± 0.01 d | 686.9 | <0.001 |
| Ellagic acid | 19.70 ± 2.90 b | 14.17 ± 0.27 b | 24.04 ± 5.64 b | 22.88 ± 8.49 b | 22.49 ± 2.30 b | 75.2 ± 11.8 a | 35.5 | <0.001 |
| 2.51 ± 0.10 b | 2.15 ± 0.38 b | 2.24 ± 0.15 b | 2.92 ± 0.53 b | 1.16 ± 0.17 c | 5.80 ± 0.09 a | 89.9 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 35.6 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||||
| Aesculin | 9.38 ± 0.37 b | 8.80 ± 0.36 bc | 10.67 ± 0.56 a | 7.96 ± 0.11 c | 9.68 ± 0.28 b | 5.53 ± 0.16 d | 81.8 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||||
| Resveratrol | 0.16 ± 0.01 d | 0.89 ± 0.02 a | 0.82 ± 0.01 b | 0.24 ± 0.02 c | 0.22 ± 0.02 c | 0.19 ± 0.03 cd | 869.1 | <0.001 |
| Pterostilbene | 0.19 ± 0.01 d | 0.90 ± 0.00 a | 0.70 ± 0.01 b | 0.35 ± 0.02 c | 0.29 ± 0.02 c | 0.20 ± 0.05 d | 478.3 | <0.001 |
| Pinocembrin | 0.39 ± 0.01 a | 0.32 ± 0.00 b | 0.22 ± 0.00 e | 0.25 ± 0.00 d | 0.29 ± 0.00 c | 0.22 ± 0.00 e | 938.6 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 736.5 | <0.001 | |
* Values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA (between-subjects factor. Type of apple pomace flour; six levels: APF1, APF2, APF3, APF4, APF5 and AE; degree of freedom for all parameters was 5), different superscripts within the same row indicate a significant difference of means, according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).
Antioxidant activity of APF1–5 and AE determined by ABTS, DPPH and HPMC as well as Relative Antioxidant Capacity Index (RACI).
| ABTS | DPPH | HPMC | RACI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| APF1 | 10.0 ± 0.7 a | 3.8 ± 0.2 ab | 1.20 ± 0.04 b | 0.63 |
| APF2 | 9.2 ± 0.9 a | 3.3 ± 0.3 bc | 1.20 ± 0.04 b | 0.35 |
| APF3 | 9.5 ± 1.0 a | 4.5 ± 0.4 a | 1.74 ± 0.08 a | 1.42 |
| APF4 | 3.6 ± 0.5 b | 2.6 ± 0.2 cd | 1.00 ± 0.04 c | −0.68 |
| APF5 | 3.4 ± 0.3 b | 2.9 ± 0.4 bcd | 0.90 ± 0.04 cd | −0.68 |
| AE | 3.1 ± 0.4 b | 2.2 ± 0.5 d | 0.86 ± 0.04 d | −1.03 |
|
| 74.7 | 17.1 | 130.5 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
* Values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA (between-subjects factor. Type of apple pomace flour; six levels: APF1, APF2, APF3, APF4, APF5 and AE; degree of freedom for all parameters was 5), different superscripts within the same column indicate a significant difference of means, according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).
Correlation matrix between TPC, TFC, total phenolics identified by HPLC (TPC–HPLC) and AO activity determined by ABTS, DPPH and HPMC assay.
| Variables | DPPH | HPLC | TPC | TFC | HPMC | RACI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS |
|
|
|
| 0.77 |
|
| DPPH |
|
|
|
|
| |
| HPLC |
| 0.75 |
|
| ||
| TPC |
|
|
| |||
| TFC |
|
| ||||
| HPMC |
|
Values in bold are different from 0 with a significance level α = 0.05.
Figure 1Water holding capacity (WHC) corrected for contribution of the soluble part of the APF (WHC-c), solubility and oil holding capacity (OHC) of APF samples in comparison to most similar commercially available products (AE). Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA (between-subjects factor: type of APF (n = 3); six levels: APF1, APF2, APF3, APF4, APF5 and AE; degree of freedom for both parameters was 5; for WHC F = 135.4 and p < 0.001, for OHC F = 20.9 and p < 0.001), different superscripts within the same parameter indicate a significant difference of means, according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).
Effect of 150 days of high-fat and sucrose diet with 10 mg of APF supplementation (HFSD+APF10) on glycaemic status food, body weight gain, water, food and energy intake, food efficiency ratio per food (FED1) and per energy intake (FED2), and glucose tolerance in OGTT (AUC) of C57BL/6J mice in comparison to HFSD without APF addition (HFSD) and to the standard pellet rodents diet with (SPRD+APF10) and without the addition of APF (SPRD).
| Parameter | HFSD + APF10 | HFSD | SPRD | SPRD + APF10 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glycemia (mmol/L) | 7.6 ± 1.5 b | 12.4 ± 2.1 a | 8.9 ± 2.3 b | 8.9 ± 0.6 b | 8.3 | 0.001 |
| Body weight gain (g) | 4.5 ± 1.3 b | 11.5 ± 2.3 a | 11.1 ± 1.3 a | 6.7 ± 1.9 b | 22.5 | <0.001 |
| Water intake (mL/d) | 8.56 ± 0.36 | 8.44 ± 0.42 | 8.56 ± 0.36 | 8.39 ± 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.838 |
| Food intake (g/d) | 1.99 ± 0.03 b | 1.97 ± 0.05 b | 2.12 ± 0.03 a | 2.10 ± 0.04 a | 20.5 | <0.001 |
| Energy intake (kcal/d) | 15.2 ± 0.2 a | 15.0 ± 0.3 a | 6.4 ± 0.1 b | 6.3 ± 0.1 b | 3559.7 | <0.001 |
| FER1 ** (g/g) | 0.015 ± 0.004 b | 0.039 ± 0.008 a | 0.035 ± 0.004 a | 0.021 ± 0.006 b | 19.2 | <0.001 |
| FER2 *** (×10−3 g/kcal) | 2.0 ± 0.6 c | 5.1 ± 1.0 b | 11.6 ± 1.4 a | 7.1 ± 2.0 b | 53.3 | <0.001 |
| AUC (mM*h) | 19.2 ± 2.0 b | 29.0 ± 3.6 a | 16.3 ± 3.7 b | 19.9 ± 4.5 b | 14.3 | <0.001 |
* The values are represented as mean ± SD (glycaemia, body weight gain, FER1, FER2 and AUC: n = 8; liquid intake, food intake and energy intake: n = 21). Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA (between-subjects factor: feed treatment; four levels: HFSD, HFSD + APF10, SPRD and SPRD + APF10, degree of freedom was 3), different superscripts within the same row indicate a significant difference of means, according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). ** FER1—feed efficiency ratio (weight gain/food intake). *** FER2—feed efficiency ratio (weight gain/energy intake).
Figure 2Relative body weight gain during 5 months exposure of mice to HFSD and SPRD with and without APF addition. Data were subjected to two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (between-subjects factor: feed treatment (n = 8); four levels: HFSD, HFSD + APF, SPRD and SPRD + APF, degree of freedom was 3, F = 9.8 and p < 0.001; within-subject factor: time; five levels: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 months; degree of freedom was 4, F = 202.3 and p < 0.001; interaction “feed treatment × time”; degree of freedom was 12, F = 16.0 and p < 0.001); different uppercase letters within the same time indicate a significant difference of means, according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Plasma glucose concentrations in oral glucose tolerance test in mice after 150 days exposure to HFSD and SPRD with and without APF addition. Data were subjected to two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (between-subjects factor: feed treatment (n = 8); four levels: HFSD, HFSD + APF10, SPRD and SPRD + APF10, degree of freedom was 3, F = 16.6 and p < 0.001; within-subject factor: time; five levels: 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 min; degree of freedom was 4, F = 14.9 and p < 0.001; interaction “feed treatment × time”; degree of freedom was 12, F = 1.4 and p = 0.182); different uppercase letters within the same time indicate a significant difference of means, according to Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).