| Literature DB >> 35010252 |
Ricardo Gómez-García1, Ana A Vilas-Boas1, Ana Oliveira1, Manuela Amorim1, José A Teixeira2, Lorenzo Pastrana3, Maria Manuela Pintado1, Débora A Campos1.
Abstract
Pineapple by-products (peels and stems) from fruit processing industries were evaluated to understand its potential application as a functional food. Therefore, the bioactive compounds of pineapple by-products were characterized for prebiotic and antioxidant activities. A total characterization of soluble carbohydrates profile (simples and complex carbohydrates), as well as polyphenols was performed, after removal of enzymatic fraction from pineapple crude juice, allowing the decrease of proteolytic activity and improving the other biological activities. Results showed that pineapple liquid fraction, from stem and peels, can be applied as a prebiotic enhancer, promoting the growth of five probiotic microorganisms (two strains of Lactobacillus sp. and three strains of Bifidobacterium sp.), as a single carbohydrate source. Moreover, through HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography) analysis, 10 polyphenols were identified in pineapple liquid fractions, with some expected differences between both evaluated by-products. Gastrointestinal tract was simulated, in a continuous mode to understand the impact of pH changes and gastrointestinal enzymes into pineapple liquid fractions. Results showed a digestion of high molecular weight polysaccharides into small molecular weight tri-, di-, and monosaccharides. There was an increase of samples antioxidant activity through the gastrointestinal stage, followed by the release of specific polyphenols, such as chlorogenic, coumaric, and ferulic acids. The prebiotic activity did not improve throughout the simulation, in fact, the prebiotic potential decreased throughout the different stages.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; bioactive compounds; gastrointestinal tract simulation; pineapple by-products; prebiotic activity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35010252 PMCID: PMC8750162 DOI: 10.3390/foods11010126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Growth curves of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria strains in media containing glucose (Glu) or maltodextrin (Mal) at 2% (w/v) as positive controls and pineapple stem liquid fraction (PSLF) at 2 or 1% (w/v).
Maximum growth rates (µmax, h−1) of six different probiotic strains grown in the presence of freeze-dried pineapple by-products juice extract (1 and 2%) compared with control.
| Probiotic Strains | Maximum Growth Rate (µmax/h) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Control ( | Pineapple Extract ( | |||
| GLU 2% | MAL 2% | 2% | 1% | |
| 0.4347 | 0.0682 | 0.2587 | 0.2022 | |
| 0.4725 | 0.0960 | 0.2425 a | 0.2011 a | |
| 0.2511 a | 0.0679 | 0.2646 a | 0.1955 | |
| 0.2840 | 0.0340 | 0.0877 a | 0.0664 a | |
| 0.4748 | 0.0952 | 0.3366 a | 0.3120 a | |
| 0.4069 | 0.0383 | 0.3198 | 0.2652 | |
Abbreviations: GLU—glucose; MAL—Maltodextrin. a The means with superscript at the same row are not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Analysis of variance was used to estimate the effects of each carbohydrate percentage in the microbial growth of different probiotic strains. Tukey test was used as post-test. The expressed values are the equation slope (m), means maximum growth rate.
Figure 2Maximum optical densities (OD660) (at left in blue) versus at corresponding fermentation times (at right in orange) using bifidobacteria and lactobacilli strains in media containing glucose (Glu) or Maltodextrin (Mal) at 2% (w/v) as positive controls and pineapple stem liquid fraction (Stem) at 2 or 1% (w/v).
Differences of the pH value, fructose, glucose, lactic, acetic, citric, and formic acids concentrations, for the two probiotic strains tested in the different MRS culture media.
| Probiotic Strains | Parameter | Incubation Time (h) | Positive Controls ( | Stem 2% ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLU 2% | FOS 2% | ||||
| pH value | 0 | 5.97 ± 0.00 | 6.80 ± 0.03 | 6.78 ± 0.01 | |
| 24 | 6.00 ± 0.00 | 6.20 ± 0.01 | 6.08 ± 0.02 | ||
| 48 | 4.23 ± 0.01 | 5.92 ± 0.01 | 5.83 ± 0.00 | ||
| Glucose | 0 | 2.67 ± 0.04 | 0.55 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | |
| 24 | 3.32 ± 0.01 | 0.85 ± 0.01 | 3.36 ± 0.01 | ||
| 48 | 1.54 ± 0.01 | 0.80 ± 0.00 | 2.12 ± 0.04 | ||
| Fructose | 0 | 0.77 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.13 ± 0.05 | |
| 24 | 2.60 ± 0.04 | 0.69 ± 0.00 | 2.67 ± 0.04 | ||
| 48 | 2.29 ± 0.01 | 1.00 ± 0.02 | 2.73 ± 0.09 | ||
| Lactic acid | 0 | 0.45 ± 0.03 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.07 ± 0.00 | |
| 24 | 0.46 ± 0.01 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.47 ± 0.01 | ||
| 48 | 5.82 ± 0.08 | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 5.41 ± 0.02 | ||
| Acetic acid | 0 | 1.64 ± 0.07 | 1.74 ± 0.12 | 1.40 ± 0.25 | |
| 24 | 1.64 ± 0.00 | 1.85 ± 0.00 | 1.66 ± 0.01 | ||
| 48 | 2.02 ± 0.01 | 1.80 ± 0.03 | 1.73 ± 0.01 | ||
| Citric acid | 0 | 0.77 ± 0.06 | 1.04 ± 0.04 | 0.87 ± 0.00 | |
| 24 | 0.73 ± 0.01 | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 0.75 ± 0.00 | ||
| 48 | 0.74 ± 0.00 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.68 ± 0.00 | ||
| Formic acid | 0 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.10 ± 0.00 | |
| 24 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | ||
| 48 | 0.20 ± 0.03 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | ||
| pH value | 0 | 5.98 ± 0.01 | 6.82 ± 0.02 | 6.59 ± 0.00 | |
| 24 | 6.04 ± 0.00 | 6.11 ± 0.01 | 5.53 ± 0.01 | ||
| 48 | 4.41 ± 0.01 | 5.68 ± 0.01 | 5.44 ± 0.01 | ||
| Glucose | 0 | 1.15 ± 0.07 | 0.07 ± 0.00 | 1.15 ± 0.08 | |
| 24 | 3.36 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | 1.01 ± 0.00 | ||
| 48 | 2.12 ± 0.04 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.48 ± 0.02 | ||
| Fructose | 0 | 1.51 ± 0.16 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 1.51 ± 0.16 | |
| 24 | 2.67 ± 0.04 | 0.25 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | ||
| 48 | 2.73 ±0.09 | 0.24 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | ||
| Lactic acid | 0 | 1.02 ± 0.01 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 1.02 ± 0.01 | |
| 24 | 0.47 ± 0.01 | 0.75 ± 0.01 | 1.24 ± 0.01 | ||
| 48 | 5.41 ± 0.02 | 0.72 ± 0.04 | 1.19 ± 0.01 | ||
| Acetic acid | 0 | 1.96 ± 0.02 | 1.40 ± 0.02 | 1.96 ± 0.02 | |
| 24 | 1.66 ± 0.01 | 2.13 ± 0.01 | 2.04 ± 0.00 | ||
| 48 | 1.73 ± 0.01 | 2.14 ± 0.01 | 1.91 ± 0.03 | ||
| Citric acid | 0 | 0.79 ± 0.02 | 0.90 ± 0.01 | 2.95 ± 0.96 | |
| 24 | 0.75 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.02 | ||
| 48 | 0.68 ± 0.00 | 0.16 ± 0.00 | 0.12 ± 0.00 | ||
| Formic acid | 0 | 0.47 ± 0.09 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.47 ± 0.09 | |
| 24 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.03 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | ||
| 48 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.28 ± 0.04 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | ||
Abbreviations: FOS—frutooligossacharides. Sugars and organic acids are presented in mg/mL.
Evaluation of antioxidant capacity (ABTS and ORAC methods) and total phenolic compounds (Folin–Ciocalteu method) of pineapple by-products liquid fraction (stems and peels) in the simulated GIT. All results are expressed in mg/100 g on dry basis.
| Pineapple By-Product | GIT Stage | ABTS Assay (mg AAE/100 g) | ORAC Assay (mg TE/100 g) | Folin–Ciocalteu (mg GAE/100 g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peel liquid fraction | T0 | 430.9 ± 9.2 | 21.7 ± 0.6 | 476.1 ± 10.3 |
| After stomach | 352.8 ± 12.9 a | 14.7 ± 0.5 a | 783.9 ± 21.3 a | |
| After intestine | 883.5 ± 24.0 a | 16.2 ± 0.3 a | 680.3 ± 27.7 a | |
| Stem liquid fraction | T0 | 369.6 ± 8.9 | 19.5 ± 1.4 | 529.7 ± 16.6 |
| After stomach | 452.1 ± 27.7 a | 25.9 ± 1.8 a | 708.8 ± 7.3 a | |
| After intestine | 826.3 ± 15.0 a | 29.3 ± 0.7 a | 590.7 ± 39.7 a |
Abbreviations: Ascorbic acid equivalent, AAE; Trolox equivalent, TE; Gallic acid equivalent. GAE; Gastrointestinal tract, GIT. T0—before gastrointestinal tract. a The differences between the means of T0 with the means in the same column labelled with same superscript are statistically significant (p < 0.05). Analysis of variance was used to estimate the effects of GIT upon pineapple liquid fractions.
Polyphenol’s quantification in pineapple liquid fraction from by-products (stems and peels) during GIT simulation. All results expressed in mg/100 g on dry basis.
| Pineapple By-Product | GIT Stage | Chlorogenic Acid | Caffeic Acid | Coumaric Acid | Ferulic Acid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peel liquid fraction | T0 | 16.96 ± 1.42 | 34.54 ± 4.46 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 26.68 ± 3.80 |
| After stomach | 21.28 ± 0.68 | 12.60 ± 1.4 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 2.68 ± 0.12 | |
| After intestine | 133.58 ± 12.44 | 11.46 ± 0.76 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.50 ± 0.44 | |
| Stem liquid fraction | T0 | 106.96 ± 1.9 | 14.62 ± 0.58 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 |
| After stomach | 26.16 ± 0.72 | 47.24 ± 1.84 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 13.58 ± 0.34 | |
| After intestine | 141.58 ± 0.84 | 82.16 ± 1.64 | 43.74 ± 0.72 | 19.14 ± 0.22 |
Abbreviations: GIT—Gastrointestinal tract; T0—before gastrointestinal tract; DB—dry basis. Data was obtained through HPLC analysis.
Figure 3Soluble carbohydrates molecular weight assessment (mean ± standard deviation) along GIT simulation. Samples were taken after mouth, stomach and intestine for both studied pineapple by-product liquid fractions (peels and stems).
Figure 4Evaluation content of glucose and fructose (mean ± standard deviation) through GIT simulation. Samples were taken after mouth, stomach, and small intestine (duodenal) stages for both studied pineapple by-product liquid fractions (peels and stems).
Figure 5Evaluation of growth curves of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria strains in media containing glucose or frutooligosaccharides (FOS) at 2% (w/v) as positive controls, and pineapple stem liquid fraction (PSLF) along the simulation of GIT.
Figure 6Evaluation of growth curves of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria strains in media containing glucose or frutooligosaccharides (FOS) at 2% (w/v) as positive controls, and pineapple peel liquid fraction (PPLF) along the simulation of GIT.