| Literature DB >> 35205973 |
Da-Yeong Ko1, Kang-Mo Ku1,2.
Abstract
There is limited information on the health effects of apple peel taken from 'Fuji' (Malus pumila Mill) apples washed with ozonated water. To clarify the health-promoting effects of peel, the triterpenoids (ursolic acid and oleanolic acid) were quantified with gas chromatograph-mass spectrometry. Anti-obesity effects of apple peel extract on the 3T3-L1 pre-adipocyte cell were compared with apple flesh, whole apple, and ursolic acid. The peel extract treatment with 3.30 ± 1.05 μM of ursolic acid significantly suppressed (p < 0.05) the lipid accumulation compared with the content in flesh, and a similar level was reached in the 5 μM ursolic acid positive control group. In the peel extract and ursolic acid treatment groups, the C16:0 concentration was significantly inhibited (p < 0.05), implying the anti-obesity effect of ursolic acid on the 3T3-L1 cell. Moreover, apple peel contributed 41% of the total flavonoids content and 31% of the phenolic contents of the whole apple, but only accounted for less than 10% of the whole apple (weight basis). This study's results offer basic data on pre-washed apple as a health functional food, offering information about the health benefits of apple peel, calculated based on the partial ratio in the whole apple.Entities:
Keywords: 3T3-L1; anti-obesity; apple peel; fresh-cut foods; pre-washed apple
Year: 2022 PMID: 35205973 PMCID: PMC8871014 DOI: 10.3390/foods11040497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Antioxidant activities and compounds in different antioxidant assays comparing whole apple (peel + flesh) and flesh. NS, asterisk **, and asterisk *** indicate non-significant and significant differences between the peel and the flesh within the same assay, assessed by Student t-test at p > 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001, respectively. (A): Ferric-reducing antioxidant power; (B): DPPH radical scavenging activity; (C): total flavonoid contents; (D): total phenolic contents.
Morphological characteristics of ‘Fuji’ pre-washed apple (Malus pumila Mill).
| Pre-Washed Apple (100%) z | ||
|---|---|---|
| Flesh (90.7%) | Peel (9.3%) | |
| Fresh weight (g) | 212.4 ± 8.2 | 21.7 ± 10.2 |
| Dry weight (g) | 31.0 ± 1.2 | 4.3 ± 2.0 |
| Moist content (%) | 85.4 ± 0.7 | 80.0 ± 0.7 |
The pre-washed ‘Fuji’ (Malus pumila Mill) apple was bought from the local market. Each apple was peeled uniformly using Jonny Apple Peeler. All values were represented as the means ± standard deviation of pre-washed apples.
Figure 2Triterpenoid contents of pre-washed apple peel, whole apple, and flesh. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) among the tissues by Tukey’s HSD test (n = 3). Whole apple bioactive contents were calculated per peel and flesh portion.
Figure 33T3-L1 cell adipocyte images, observed and photographed using a microscope (×400) after cellular lipid accumulation was stained with Oil-Red O solution. The cells were from 70% methanol-treated extracts (1 μg dry powder in 1 mL of DMSO) of peel, flesh, and whole apple (peel + flesh) concentrated samples, or those treated with ursolic acid 5 μM. During the three repetitions of the treatments, a representative photograph was taken.
Figure 4Lipid accumulation rate determined by Oil-Red O assay in 3T3-L1 cells treated with 70% methanol extract (1 μg dry powder in 1 mL of DMSO) from peel, flesh, and whole apple (peel + flesh) samples, or ursolic acid 5 μM-treated samples. The data are represented as % of lipid accumulation compared to control. The bar and error bar indicate mean and standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters indicate significant differences among the groups according to Tukey’s HSD test at p < 0.05.
Figure 5Total triglyceride content determination from 3T3-L1 cells treated with 70% methanol extracts (1 μg dry powder in 1 mL of DMSO) from peel, flesh, and whole apple (peel + flesh) samples or ursolic acid 5 μM treated samples. The data represent the mean and standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters indicate significant differences among the groups according to Tukey’s HSD test at p < 0.05.
Quantified fatty acid concentrations of 3T3-L1 cells after treatment with 70% methanol (1 mg dry powder in 1 mL of DMSO) for extracts of “Fuji” pre-washed apple (Malus pumila Mill) or ursolic acid 5 μM.
| Fatty Acids | 1 mg DW·mL−1 | 5 μM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Whole Apple (Peel + Flesh) | Flesh | Peel | Ursolic Acid | |
| C16:0 | 11.97 ± 0.60a | 10.61 ± 1.52ab | 12.15 ± 1.05a | 8.09 ± 1.40b | 7.53 ± 2.08b |
| C18:0 | 5.49 ± 0.67a | 4.84 ± 1.33a | 5.17 ± 1.25a | 3.25 ± 0.72a | 3.48 ± 0.68a |
| C18:1n-9 (c) | 3.88 ± 0.24a | 3.13 ± 0.83b | 3.37 ± 0.74a | 2.07 ± 0.48b | 2.41 ± 0.49a |
| C16:1 | 2.64 ± 0.20a | 1.86 ± 0.29bc | 2.17 ± 0.18ab | 1.34 ± 0.16d | 1.47 ± 0.28cd |
| C14:0 | 1.35 ± 0.12a | 0.97 ± 0.16ab | 1.13 ± 0.17a | 0.70 ± 0.12b | 0.71 ± 0.18b |
| C16:1/C16:0 | 0.22 ± 0.01a | 0.18 ± 0.01a | 0.18 ± 0.00a | 0.17 ± 0.02b | 0.20 ± 0.03a |
| C18:1/C18:0 | 0.71 ± 0.05a | 0.65 ± 0.01a | 0.65 ± 0.02a | 0.64 ± 0.04b | 0.69 ± 0.00a |
| MUFA/SFA | 0.40 ± 0.00a | 0.35 ± 0.03a | 0.35 ± 0.03a | 0.33 ± 0.05a | 0.39 ± 0.04a |
| Total SFAz | 19.08 ± 1.19a | 16.66 ± 2.97ab | 18.70 ± 2.27a | 12.20 ± 2.00c | 11.90 ± 2.97bc |
| Total MUFAy | 7.59 ± 0.50a | 5.91 ± 1.43a | 6.53 ± 1.12a | 4.05 ± 0.76b | 4.58 ± 0.87b |
| Total PFAx | 1.01 ± 0.16a | 0.89 ± 0.33a | 0.92 ± 0.33a | 0.57 ± 0.19a | 0.70 ± 0.18a |
| Total FA | 27.77 ± 1.83a | 23.54 ± 4.74a | 26.23 ± 3.69a | 16.86 ± 2.73b | 17.25 ± 4.02b |
The five highest concentration of FAs were represented by order. z include C16:0 C18:0, C14:0, C24:0, C22:0, C10:0, C12:0. y include C18:1n-9(t), C14:1, C18:1n-9(c), C16:1. x include C18:2n-6(t), C18:3n-6, C20:2, C20:3n-6, C22:6n-3. C20:4n-6, C20:3n-3, C20:4n-6. Total FA include z, y, x. All value were represented ± standard deviation, (n = 3) and the different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s HSD tests.