| Literature DB >> 33810442 |
Boris Duralija1, Predrag Putnik2, Dora Brdar3, Anica Bebek Markovinović3, Sandra Zavadlav4, Mirian Pateiro5, Rubén Domínguez5, José M Lorenzo5,6, Danijela Bursać Kovačević3.
Abstract
The Republic of Croatia has a long tradition of fruit growing due to its geographical location, climatic conditions, and high quality of fruit crops, especially apple fruits. Apples can be used for the formulation of functional foods either in processed form (e.g., juice), or as a by-product (e.g., apple pomace). However, there is a growing demand for functional foods derived from ancient and traditional plant sources as they are recognized as a very valuable source of health-promoting bioactive ingredients. Similarly, old apple cultivars (Malus domestica Borkh.) are characterized by good morphological and pomological properties, less need for chemicals during cultivation and the higher share of biologically active compounds (BACs) with better sensory acceptability compared to commercial cultivars. However, their nutritional and biological potential is underestimated, as is their ability to be processed into functional food. The importance in preserving old apple cultivars can also be seen in their significance for improving the nutritional composition of other apple cultivars through innovative cultivation strategies, and therefore old local apple cultivars could be of great importance in future breeding programs.Entities:
Keywords: agriculture; biologically active compounds; extensive farming; functional food; old apple cultivar
Year: 2021 PMID: 33810442 PMCID: PMC8065821 DOI: 10.3390/foods10040708
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Old apple cultivars ‘Roter Pogatscher’ (‘Božićnica’) (A), ‘Blumen Calvill’ (‘Grafenštajnka’) (B), ‘Großer Rheinischer Bohnapfel’ (‘Bobovec’) (C), and ‘Grüner Stettiner’ (‘Zeleni štetinec’) (D) (This is a painting by a Croatian artist Greta Turković).
Factors affecting apple fruit quality in sustainable cultivation.
| Factor | Effect on Fruit Quality Characteristics | Ref. |
|---|---|---|
| Cultivar | Mean fruit mass, shape, firmness, SSC, TA, color | [ |
| Polyphenols (flavonols, dihydrochalcones, flavanols, phenolic acids, anthocyanins) | [ | |
| Antioxidant capacity, mineral content | [ | |
| Rootstock | Mean fruit mass, firmness, SSC | [ |
| Interstock | Firmness, SSC, starch content | [ |
| Tree age | Firmness, flavor, color | [ |
| Environment | Mean fruit mass, firmness, SSC, TA, ascorbic acid | [ |
| Color, anthocyanins | [ | |
| Plant densities | Soluble solids content, organic acids, sugars | [ |
| Training and pruning | SSC, TA, mineral contents | [ |
| Production system | Mean fruit mass, mineral content | [ |
| Yield | Mean fruit mass, SSC, color | [ |
| Agro-techniques | Mean fruit mass, firmness, sugars | [ |
| Mean fruit mass, firmness, SSC, TA, antioxidant capacity | [ | |
| Harvest time | Mean fruit mass, firmness, ethylene concentration | [ |
The phenolic profile and antioxidant capacity for different parts of the apple in different cultivars.
| Cultivar | Phenolic | Concentration | Antioxidant Capacity * | Conclusion Remarks | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| chlorogenic acid | 8.96 ± 1.22 | EC50 = 17.34 |
The content of phenolic compounds was influenced by the clone and the part of fruit (peel vs. mesocarp). With no impact of cultivar, higher antioxidant capacity and total phenols were found in peel samples as compared to mesocarp samples. Therefore, peels accounted for the increased index of antiradical capacity in comparison with mesocarp. The highest antioxidant capacity was determined in peels of Fuji and mesocarp of Golden cl. B. Quercetin-glucoside was determined only in apple mesocarp, while in peels was not present. Golden cl. B was found as the sample with highest content of phenolic compounds in peels and mesocarp. The highest content of (+)-catechin was determined in peels of Fuji cl. Kiku8 and Golden cl. B. The highest content of (−)-epicatechin was detected in peels of Fuji cl. Kiku8. | [ | |
| (+)-catechin | 12.91 ± 0.5 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 9.94 ± 0.76 | ||||
| phloretin glucoside | 1.04 ± 0.25 | ||||
| quercetin glucoside | 14.92 ± 2.32 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 2.82 ± 0.38 | EC50 = 22.67 | |||
| (+)-catechin | 9.81 ± 0.73 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 5.12 ± 0.65 | ||||
| phloretin glucoside | 0.77 ± 0.4 | ||||
| quercetin glucoside | 11.54 ± 5.27 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 8.64 ± 2.12 | EC50 = 18.667 | |||
| (+)-catechin | 12.18 ± 1.11 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 6.03 ± 1.11 | ||||
| phloretin glucoside | 1.05 ± 0.72 | ||||
| quercetin glucoside | 23.51 ± 2 78 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 5.76 ± 1.22 | EC50 = 39.236 | |||
| (+)-catechin | 0.98 ± 0.31 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 1.75 ± 0.64 | ||||
| phloretin glucoside | 1.09 ± 0.06 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 5.32 ± 1.33 | EC50 = 58.48 | |||
| (+)-catechin | 0.91 ± 0.18 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 1.91 ± 0.33 | ||||
| phloretin glucoside | 0.75 ± 0.09 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 7.52 ± 0.9 | EC50 = 26.596 | |||
| (+)-catechin | 2.20 ± 1.34 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 1.46 ± 0.17 | ||||
| phloretin glucoside | 1.00 ± 0.11 | ||||
| Total phenols | 93.0 ± 4.1 | ND |
The total phenols of the peels were significantly higher than the mesocarp and mesocarp + peel values within all cultivars, while the total phenols of the mesocarp were not significantly lower than the mesocarp + peels contents. Within all apple cultivars, the peels contained the highest content of flavonoids, followed by the mesocarp + peel and the mesocarp. The total antioxidant capacity of the peels was higher than that of the flesh or flesh + peel for all cultivars. | [ | |
| 75.7 ± 4.0 | ND | ||||
| 103.2 ± 12.3 | EC50 = 103.9 ± 16.5 | ||||
| 97.7 ± 8.9 | EC50 = 155.3 ± 11.7 | ||||
| 159.0 ± 15.1 | EC50= 26.5 ± 0.3 | ||||
| 120.1 ± 15.0 | EC50= 125.1 ± 58.8 | ||||
| 119.0 ± 14.9 | EC50= 74.1 ± 4.0 | ||||
| 129.7 ± 9.7 | EC50= 107.7 ± 22.7 | ||||
| 500.2 ± 13.7 | EC50= 12.4 ± 0.4 | ||||
| 588.9 ± 83.02 | EC50= 13.6 ± 0.2 | ||||
| 388.5 ± 82.4 | EC50= 15.7 ± 0.3 | ||||
| 309.1 ± 32.1 | EC50= 20.2 ± 0.7 | ||||
| procyanidin B2 | 23.47 ± 0.01 | 6.02 ± 0.104 |
In both apple varieties, total phenolic content was greater in the peel, followed by the mesocarp + peel and the mesocarp. ‘Idared’ apple peel had a higher TPC than ‘Fuji’. Quercetin was only determined in the peel samples, mostly in the form of glycosides, galactosides, xylosides, arabinosides, rhamnosides, being the rutinosides as the most common. The highest antioxidant capacity was determined in the peels, followed by the samples of peels and mesocarp, while the lowest values were detected in the mesocarp samples. Antioxidant capacity in both ABTS and DPPH assays was positively correlated with total phenolic compounds found in the peel, mesocarp + peel, and mesocarp. | [ | |
| phloridzin | 4.32 ± 0.13 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 3.33 ± 0.04 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 2.54 ± 0.06 | ||||
| quercetin glucoside | 0.56 ± 0.05 | ||||
| rutin | 3.26 ± 0.06 | ||||
| qercetin | 0.08 ± 0.001 | ||||
| procyanidin B2 | 31.41 ± 0.13 | 5.13 ± 0.23 | |||
| phloridzin | ND | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 6.39 ± 0.09 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | ND | ||||
| quercetin glucoside | 3.88 ± 0.004 | ||||
| rutin | 8.33 ± 0.14 | ||||
| qercetin | ND | ||||
| procyanidin B2 | 12.41 ± 0.43 | 2.46 ± 0.06 | |||
| phloridzin | 1.54 ± 0.09 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 1.12 ± 0.02 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 9.16 ± 0.13 | ||||
| quercetin glucoside | 0.3 ± 0.02 | ||||
| rutin | 2.93 ± 0.05 | ||||
| procyanidin B2 | 9.48 ± 0.35 | 2.69 ± 0.08 | |||
| phloridzin | 0.87 ± 0.03 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 1.70 ± 0.05 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 4.69 ± 0.03 | ||||
| quercetin glucoside | 0.13 ± 0.01 | ||||
| rutin | 0.95 ± 0.02 | ||||
| procyanidin B2 | 3.13 ± 0.027 | 1.67 ± 0.04 | |||
| phloridzin | 0.72 ± 0.02 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 0.45 ± 0.01 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 8.05 ± 0.08 | ||||
| quercetin glucoside | ND | ||||
| procyanidin B2 | 0.57 ± 0.01 | 2.09 ± 0.04 | |||
| phloridzin | 1.16 ± 0.08 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 3.82 ± 0.03 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 3.13 ± 0.027 | ||||
| quercetin glucoside | 0.72 ± 0.02 | ||||
| catechin | 1.66 | - |
There are large differences between apple cultivars with respect to polyphenol content and profile. Two major subclasses of polyphenols, flavan-3-ols and phenolic acids, were found as predominant in the apple polyphenol profile. By calculating the flavan-3-ol to phenolic acid ratio, apple cultivars can be classified into flavan-3-ol rich or phenolic acid rich. | [ | |
| epicatechin | 7.72 | ||||
| procyanidin B1 | 2.71 | ||||
| procyanidin B2 | 8.58 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 17.44 | ||||
| coumaroylquinic acid | 2.18 | ||||
| phloridzin | 2.38 | ||||
| phloretin-xyloglucoside | 3.63 | ||||
| quercetin-galactoside and quercetin-glucoside | 1.45 | ||||
| rutin | 0.48 | ||||
| quercetin-rhamnoside | 1.45 | ||||
|
| Total phenols | 211.9 | - |
Flavanols (catechin and proanthocyanidins) were reported as the major class of polyphenols (71–90%) in red apples, followed by hydroxycinnamates (4–18%), flavonols (1–11%), dihydrochalcones (2–6%), and anthocyanins (1–3%). | [ |
|
| 131.1 | ||||
|
| 121.0 | ||||
|
| 105.8 | ||||
|
| 86.3 | ||||
|
| 83.9 | ||||
|
| 75.4 | ||||
|
| 66.2 |
* TPC—Total phenolic content; ABTS—The 2,2-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS•+) radical cation-based assay; DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl-hydrate) scavenging activity; EC50 = mg of tissue on fresh weight basis required to obtain 50% DPPH scavenging; ND = not detected.
The phenolic profile and antioxidant capacity in apple products and apple by-products.
| Sample | Phenolic | Concentration | Antioxidant Capacity * | Conclusion Remarks | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial apple pomace consisted of 3 cultivars: | chlorogenic acid | 1.30 | 43.45 ± 3.45 |
Fraction 3 had the highest phenolic content, while the lowest contents was determined in fractions 5 and 6. The capacity of scavenging free radicals varied in the order: fraction 3 > fraction 4 > fraction 2 > fraction 1 > fraction 5 > fraction 6. Fraction 3 had the highest contents of chlorogenic acid, syrigin, procyanidins B2, and quercetin. None of the nine phenolic compounds detected was found in fractions 5 and 6. | [ |
| syrigin | 0.44 | ||||
| procyanidins B2 | 32.31 | ||||
| caffeic acid | 0.15 | ||||
| cinnamic acid | 0.40 | ||||
| phloridzin | 0.18 | ||||
| quercetin | 23.93 | ||||
| hyperin | 5.20 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | ND | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 681.5 | 12.4 | |||
| (−)-epicatechin | 161.1 | ||||
| phloridzin | 587.2 | ||||
| quercetin | 252.0 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 1415.5 | 13.5 | |||
| (−)-epicatechin | 314.6 | ||||
| phloridzin | 730.2 | ||||
| quercetin | 96.0 | ||||
| M1, M3—48 h | chlorogenic acid | 586.7 | 7.6 |
Eleven different cider apple pomaces (six single-cultivar and five from the cider-making industry) were investigated for phenolic profiles and antioxidant capacity. The group of single-cultivar pomaces showed higher contents of chlorogenic acid, (−)-epicatechin, procyanidin B2 and dihydrochalcones, whereas the industrial samples revealed higher amounts of up to four unknown compounds, with absorption maxima between 256 and 284 nm. ‘Meana’ was the cultivar with the lowest amount of trimers and tetramers, and the highest in other flavanols, followed by ‘De la Riega and Carrió’. Phloridzin was determined as the main dihydrochalcone present in the apple pomaces, followed by phloretin-2’-xyloglucoside. Chlorogenic acid was the major phenolic acid in all the samples. Asturian cultivars present higher concentrations of (−)-epicatechin, chlorogenic acid and phloridzin than those observed in the Basque region. | [ |
| (−)-epicatechin | ND | ||||
| phloridzin | 302.5 | ||||
| quercetin | 144.2 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 602.4 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 287.1 | ||||
| phloridzin | 594.7 | ||||
| quercetin | 109.9 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 375.3 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | ND | ||||
| phloridzin | 292.5 | ||||
| qercetin | 87.1 | ||||
| G—1.5 h | chlorogenic acid | 259.8 | 8.2 | ||
| (−)-epicatechin | 167.5 | ||||
| phloridzin | 451.6 | ||||
| quercetin | 186.3 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 1.13 | 12.68 ± 0.26 |
The application of anti-browning agents did not affect the amount of phenolic compounds, but showed improved antioxidant capacity compared to control samples. Phenolic compounds were stable while the values of antioxidant capacity decreased during storage. | [ | |
| (−)-epicatechin | 0.05 | ||||
| phloridzin | 0.03 | ||||
| quercetin-3-galactoside | 0.03 | ||||
| chlorogenic acid | 0.60 | ||||
| (−)-epicatechin | 0.07 | ||||
| phloridzin | ND | ||||
| quercetin-3-galactoside | 0.03 | ||||
| Cloudy juice from ‘ | Total phenols | 1.86 ± 0.09 | 5.93 ± 0.2 |
HPU significantly decreased phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity in the samples. Storage had a significant effect on total phenols, flavan-3-ols and DPPH values, decreasing the values by 89.21%, 82.80%, and 79.51%, respectively. | [ |
| Total phenols | 0.40 ± 0.09 | 1.60 ± 0.2 |
* DPPH scavenging rate (%); ND = not detected.
The main polyphenolic subgroups of old apple cultivars grown in Croatia (mg kg−1 fresh sample weight).
| Cultivar | Sample | Total | Total | Total Phenolic | Total Flavonols | Total Anthocyanins | Total Phenols | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| peel | 1179 | 212 | 319 | 964 | 200 | 2874 | [ |
|
| 316 | 168 | 178 | 644 | 41 | 1347 | ||
|
| 653 | 195 | 396 | 2513 | 44 | 3801 | ||
|
| 542 | 169 | 42 | 1994 | 64 | 2811 | ||
|
| 400 | 222 | 176 | 639 | 42 | 1479 | ||
|
| 493 | 267 | 224 | 1342 | 93 | 2319 | ||
|
| 332 | 32 | 83 | 583 | 46 | 1076 | ||
|
| 287 | 47 | 517 | 1532 | 17 | 2400 | ||
|
| 268 | 287 | 138 | 240 | 12 | 945 | ||
|
| 484 | 80 | 260 | 1104 | 12 | 1940 | ||
|
| 102 | 53 | 18 | 359 | 4 | 536 | ||
|
| 1077 | 133 | 519 | 1038 | 8 | 2775 | ||
|
| 305 | 28 | 42 | 552 | 3 | 930 | ||
|
| 287 | 20 | 23 | 266 | 9 | 605 | ||
|
| 280 | 45 | 105 | 1006 | 5 | 1441 | ||
|
| 364 | 231 | 161 | 2316 | 3 | 3075 | ||
|
| 438 | 79 | 27 | 119 | / | 663 | ||
|
| 99 | 51 | 221 | 458 | / | 829 | ||
|
| 256 | 232 | 308 | 312 | / | 1108 | ||
|
| 242 | 19 | 51 | 388 | / | 700 | ||
|
| 231 | 26 | 51 | 1376 | / | 1584 | ||
|
| 550 | 54 | 68 | 2451 | / | 3123 | ||
|
| 225 | 103 | 35 | 209 | / | 573 | ||
|
| 1358 | 151 | 547 | 1486 | 5 | 3547 | ||
|
| mesocarp | 33 | 9 | 145 | 8 | / | 195 | |
|
| 56 | 30 | 598 | 20 | / | 704 | ||
|
| 56 | 13 | 134 | 18 | / | 221 | ||
|
| 23 | 10 | 141 | 17 | / | 191 | ||
|
| 42 | 42 | 423 | 20 | / | 527 | ||
|
| 112 | 48 | 1058 | 26 | / | 1294 | ||
|
| 47 | 18 | 457 | 20 | / | 542 | ||
|
| 42 | 18 | 400 | 22 | / | 482 | ||
|
| 152 | 68 | 840 | 27 | / | 1087 | ||
|
| 48 | 7 | 134 | 16 | / | 205 | ||
|
| 24 | 2 | 56 | 13 | / | 95 | ||
|
| 93 | 17 | 325 | 19 | / | 454 | ||
|
| 10 | 2 | 55 | 12 | / | 79 | ||
|
| 48 | 11 | 258 | 14 | / | 331 | ||
|
| 140 | 14 | 118 | 13 | / | 285 | ||
|
| 31 | 18 | 226 | 11 | / | 286 | ||
|
| 75 | 47 | 603 | 16 | / | 741 | ||
|
| 9 | 5 | 64 | 13 | / | 91 | ||
|
| 9 | 7 | 155 | 17 | / | 188 | ||
|
| 17 | 12 | 128 | 18 | / | 175 | ||
|
| 23 | 4 | 107 | 20 | / | 154 | ||
|
| 15 | 6 | 72 | 16 | / | 109 | ||
|
| 66 | 12 | 137 | 18 | / | 233 | ||
|
| 48 | 7 | 205 | 16 | / | 276 | ||
|
| mesocarp of red and light red apples | 3892.0 | 53.1 | 534.4 | / | 318.8 | 4798.3 | [ |
|
| 3342.0 | 67.0 | 663.6 | 3.8 | / | 4076.4 | ||
|
| 3804.0 | 138.1 | 259.0 | / | / | 4201.1 | ||
|
| 5482.0 | 113.3 | 1011.1 | / | / | 6606.4 | ||
|
| 2978.0 | 82.0 | 750.9 | 2.4 | / | 3813.3 | ||
|
| 4412.0 | 60.8 | 381.1 | / | / | 4853.9 | ||
|
| 3228.0 | 95.8 | 606.1 | 2.8 | / | 3932.7 | ||
|
| 5326.0 | 149.5 | 1381.3 | 3.4 | / | 6860.2 | ||
|
| peel of red and light red apples | 9984.0 | 124.0 | 212.3 | 199.4 | 761.0 | 11,280.7 | |
|
| 8386.0 | 269.4 | 64.2 | 1455.8 | 556.8 | 11,318.2 | ||
|
| 7538.0 | 486.8 | 34.9 | 399.4 | 437.2 | 8896.3 | ||
|
| 9694.0 | 290.2 | 739.2 | 427.0 | 251.8 | 11402.2 | ||
|
| 11,788.0 | 207.7 | 393.1 | 294.4 | 410.4 | 13,093.6 | ||
|
| 8948.0 | 472.0 | 98.2 | 279.6 | 402.2 | 10,200.0 | ||
|
| 7122.0 | 424.2 | 479.6 | 397.4 | 403.0 | 8826.2 | ||
|
| 11,062.0 | 707.2 | 1190.0 | 963.6 | 79.4 | 14,002.2 | ||
|
| mesocarp of green or yellow apples | 1844.0 | 168.2 | 639.4 | / | / | 2651.6 | |
|
| 2450.0 | 102.1 | 842.8 | / | / | 3394.9 | ||
|
| 3884.0 | 105.4 | 376.9 | 4.4 | / | 4370.7 | ||
|
| 3300.0 | 45.1 | 508.0 | / | / | 3853.1 | ||
|
| 3448.0 | 1.6 | 579.9 | 3.0 | / | 4142.5 | ||
|
| peel of green or yellow apples | 6124.0 | 769.3 | 248.2 | 251.4 | / | 7392.9 | |
|
| 4532.0 | 418.9 | 611.7 | 322.8 | / | 5885.4 | ||
|
| 8862.0 | 388.2 | 116.0 | 419.4 | / | 9785.6 | ||
|
| 5922.0 | 74.5 | 386.2 | 85.2 | / | 6467.9 | ||
|
| 5474.0 | 338.6 | 199.0 | 471.4 | / | 6483.0 |