| Literature DB >> 35267322 |
Alice Cattivelli1, Angela Conte1, Serena Martini1, Davide Tagliazucchi1.
Abstract
The intake of phenolic-rich foods is an emerging preventive approach for the management of type 2 diabetes, thanks to the ability of these compounds to inhibit some key metabolic enzymes. In this study, the influence of cooking and in vitro digestion on the α-glucosidase, α-amylase, and dipeptidyl-peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitory activity of red-skinned onion (RSO) and dark purple eggplant (DPE) phenolic fractions was assessed. The applied cooking procedures had different influences on the total and individual phenolic compounds gastrointestinal bioaccessibility. DPE in vitro digested phenolic fractions displayed no inhibitory activity versus α-amylase and DPP-IV, whereas the fried DPE sample exhibited moderate inhibitory activity against α-glucosidase. This sample mainly contained hydroxycinnamic acid amides that can be responsible for the observed effect. Contrariwise, raw and cooked in vitro digested RSO phenolic fractions inhibited all three enzymes but with different effectiveness. Fried and raw RSO samples were the most active against them. Statistical analysis pointed out that quercetin mono-hexosides (mainly quercetin-4'-O-hexoside) were responsible for the inhibition of α-glucosidase, whereas quercetin di-hexosides (mainly quercetin-3-O-hexoside-4'-O-hexoside) were responsible for the DPP-IV-inhibitory activity of RSO samples. An accurate design of the cooking methods could be essential to maximize the release of individual phenolic compounds and the related bioactivities.Entities:
Keywords: food processing; in vitro digestion; mass spectrometry; polyphenols; thermal treatments; type 2 diabetes
Year: 2022 PMID: 35267322 PMCID: PMC8909727 DOI: 10.3390/foods11050689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Concentration of phenolic compounds in in vitro digested raw and cooked dark purple eggplant phenolic-rich fractions. Results are reported as μmol of phenolic compounds/100 g of raw or cooked eggplant.
| In Vitro Digested Dark Purple Eggplant Phenolic-Rich Fractions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compound | Raw | Baked | Boiled | Fried | Grilled |
|
| |||||
| Caffeoylshikimic acid | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 1.01 ± 0.08 |
| 3- | 0.31 ± 0.01 c | 8.44 ± 0.03 a | 6.03 ± 0.03 b | 5.26 ± 0.03 b | 8.12 ± 0.97 a |
| 4- | n.d. | 3.10 ± 0.11 b | 2.47 ± 0.03 c | 3.01 ± 0.03 b | 3.45 ± 0.04 a |
| 5- | 2.86 ± 0.08 d | 30.29 ± 0.50 b | 19.25 ± 0.89 c | 32.26 ± 0.56 a | 33.17 ± 0.99 a |
| 5- | 0.34 ± 0.00 e | 10.13 ± 0.13 c | 3.25 ± 0.12 d | 12.01 ± 0.04 b | 14.03 ± 0.58 a |
| 3- | n.d. | 0.53 ± 0.00 a | n.d. | n.d. | 0.12 ± 0.00 b |
| 3- | n.d. | 1.49 ± 0.03 b | n.d. | n.d. | 4.09 ± 0.10 a |
| 5- | n.d. | 2.08 ± 0.05 b | n.d. | 1.22 ± 0.01 b | 19.96 ± 1.13 a |
| 4- | 0.26 ± 0.00 b | 0.68 ± 0.02 a | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 5- | 0.63 ± 0.00 d | 5.66 ± 0.09 b | n.d. | 18.36 ± 0.70 a | 2.12 ± 0.03 c |
| 1,5-Di- | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 2.23 ± 0.08 |
| 3,4-Di- | 0.56 ± 0.01 c | n.d. | n.d. | 17.68 ± 0.08 a | 13.16 ± 0.20 b |
| 4,5-Di- | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 29.27 ± 0.86 a | 8.58 ± 0.04 b |
| 3,5-Di- | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 24.52 ± 0.36 b | 36.13 ± 0.83 a |
| Caffeoylquinic acid dehydrodimer isomer | 1.61 ± 0.04 b | 2.79 ± 0.05 a | 0.79 ± 0.02 d | 0.92 ± 0.02 c | 1.65 ± 0.01 b |
| Caffeoylquinic acid dehydrodimer isomer | 1.36 ± 0.04 b | 1.34 ± 0.04 b | 1.36 ± 0.10 b | n.d. | 4.12 ± 0.09 a |
| Caffeoylquinic acid dehydrodimer isomer | 0.99 ± 0.02 d | 3.20 ± 0.09 b | 1.60 ± 0.08 c | n.d. | 5.32 ± 0.06 a |
| Caffeoylquinic acid dehydrodimer isomer | 1.47 ± 0.04 c | 5.48 ± 0.14 a | 0.70 ± 0.05 d | n.d. | 1.89 ± 0.06 b |
| Caffeoylquinic acid dehydrodimer isomer | n.d. | 11.49 ± 0.15 a | 1.86 ± 0.11 b | n.d. | 2.03 ± 0.07 b |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Caffeoylquinic acid dehydrodimer isomer | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.87 ± 0.01 |
| N1,N5-Di-caffeoyl-spermidine | n.d. | 6.15 ± 0.17 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| N1,N10-Di-caffeoyl-spermidine | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 7.66 ± 0.03 | n.d. |
| N1,N5-Di-dihydrocaffeoyl-spermidine | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 107.50 ± 4.02 a | 11.58 ± 0.20 b |
| N1,N10-Dihydrocaffeoyl-caffeoyl-spermidine | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 37.40 ± 0.54 | n.d. |
| Total hydroxycinnamic acids | 10.39 ± 0.24 e | 92.87 ± 1.60 c | 37.32 ± 1.44 d | 297.07 ± 7.28 a | 173.63 ± 5.57 b |
|
| |||||
| Quercetin-di- | 0.23 ± 0.00 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| Kaempferol-3- | 0.11 ± 0.00 b | n.d. | n.d. | 0.87 ± 0.02 a | n.d. |
| Total flavonols | 0.35 ± 0.01 b | n.d. | n.d. | 0.87 ± 0.02 a | n.d. |
| Total | 10.74 ± 0.25 e | 92.87 ± 1.60 c | 37.32 ± 1.44 d | 297.95 ± 7.29 a | 173.63 ± 5.57 b |
Different letters within the same row mean significant different (p < 0.05) values. n.d. means that the compound was not detected in the sample.
Figure 1Percentage distribution of the main classes of phenolic compounds in raw and cooked in vitro digested dark purple eggplant phenolic-rich fractions. The percentage values are referred to the total concentration of phenolic compounds identified in the raw and cooked in vitro digested dark purple eggplant samples as reported in Table 1 and expressed as μmol of compound/100 g of raw or cooked eggplant.
Concentration of phenolic compounds in in vitro digested raw and cooked red-skinned onion phenolic-rich fractions. Results are reported as μmol of phenolic compounds/100 g of raw or cooked onion.
| In Vitro Digested Red-Skinned Onion Phenolic-Rich Fractions | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compound | Raw | Baked | Boiled | Fried | Grilled | |
|
| ||||||
| 1 | Protocatechuic acid- | n.d. | n.d. | 42.80 ± 0.24 b | n.d. | 51.35 ± 0.22 a |
| Total hydroxybenzoic acids | n.d. | n.d. | 42.80 ± 0.24 b | n.d. | 51.35 ± 0.22 a | |
|
| ||||||
| 2 | (Epi)catechin-3- | n.d. | 1.55 ± 0.01 a | n.d. | 0.75 ± 0.01 c | 1.02 ± 0.00 b |
| Total flavan-3-ols | n.d. | 1.55 ± 0.01 a | n.d. | 0.75 ± 0.01 c | 1.02 ± 0.00 b | |
|
| ||||||
| 3 | Taxifolin- | 0.09 ± 0.00 b | n.d. | n.d. | 0.15 ± 0.00 a | n.d. |
| Total dihydro-flavonols | 0.09 ± 0.00 b | n.d. | n.d. | 0.15 ± 0.00 a | n.d. | |
|
| ||||||
| 4 | Quercetin-3- | 11.51 ± 0.08 d | 18.70 ± 0.07 b | n.d. | 15.17 ± 0.07 c | 20.69 ± 0.06 a |
| 5 | Quercetin-4′- | 22.76 ± 0.11 a | 12.90 ± 0.10 d | 10.27 ± 0.01 e | 18.02 ± 0.07 b | 15.94 ± 0.01 c |
| 6 | Quercetin-3- | 0.91 ± 0.01 d | 1.72 ± 0.02 b | 3.81 ± 0.08 a | 1.42 ± 0.01 c | 3.71 ± 0.05 a |
| 7 | Quercetin-3- | n.d. | 1.83 ± 0.00 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 8 | Quercetin-7- | 1.78 ± 0.00 c | 2.12 ± 0.01 a | n.d. | n.d. | 1.83 ± 0.00 b |
| 9 | Quercetin-3- | 34.36 ± 0.10 d | 50.49 ± 0.10 b | 29.45 ± 0.05 e | 43.54 ± 0.16 c | 62.08 ± 0.81 a |
| 10 | Quercetin-tri- | 0.92 ± 0.01 c | 1.29 ± 0.00 a | 0.21 ± 0.00 d | 0.94 ± 0.01 b | 1.28 ± 0.00 a |
| 11 | Kaempferol-7- | 0.13 ± 0.00 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 12 | Kaempferol-3- | 0.23 ± 0.0 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 13 | Isorhamnetin-3- | n.d. | 2.33 ± 0.01 a | n.d. | 1.73 ± 0.00 b | 1.60 ± 0.00 c |
| 14 | Isorhamnetin-4′- | 4.45 ± 0.04 b | n.d. | n.d. | 5.37 ± 0.06 a | n.d. |
| 15 | Isorhamnetin-3- | 2.37 ± 0.00 c | 3.28 ± 0.01 b | 1.04 ± 0.01 d | n.d | 3.35 ± 0.00 a |
| Total flavonols | 79.42 ± 0.36 d | 94.66 ± 0.33 b | 44.78 ± 0.15 e | 86.19 ± 0.37 c | 110.49 ± 1.08 a | |
|
| ||||||
| 16 | Cyanidin-3- | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.73 ± 0.00 |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 17 | Cyanidin- | 2.02 ± 0.02 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 18 | Cyanidin- | 1.24 ± 0.00 b | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 1.90 ± 0.01 a |
| 19 | Cyanidin- | 0.79 ± 0.00 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| 20 | Cyanidin- | 1.92 ± 0.00 a | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 1.62 ± 0.01 b |
| Total anthocyanins | 5.98 ± 0.03 a | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 4.25 ± 0.02 b | |
| Total | 85.49 ± 0.39 d | 96.21 ± 0.34 b | 87.58 ± 0.39 c | 87.09 ± 0.38 c,d | 167.11 ± 1.18 a | |
Different letters within the same row mean significant different (p < 0.05) values. n.d. means that the compound was not detected in the sample.
Figure 2Percentage distribution of the main classes of phenolic compounds in raw and cooked in vitro digested red-skinned onion phenolic-rich fractions. The percentage values are referred to the total concentration of phenolic compounds identified in the raw and cooked in vitro digested red-skinned onion samples as reported in Table 2 and expressed as μmol of compound/100 g of raw or cooked onion.
Figure 3Effect of in vitro digested red-skinned onion phenolic-rich fractions on the activity of key metabolic enzymes. (A) Inhibitory activity against α-amylase. (B) Inhibitory activity against α-glucosidase. (C) Inhibitory activity against dipeptidyl-peptidase IV. The concentration of phenolic compounds (expressed as μmol of phenolic compounds per mL) required to inhibit the enzymatic activity by 50% (IC50) was calculated by plotting the percentage of the enzyme inhibition with the phenolic compounds concentration (base-10 logarithm). The concentration of phenolic compounds was determined by LC-ESI-IT MS/MS analysis and detailed in Table 2. Different letters mean significant different (p < 0.05) values
Figure 4Principal component analysis (PCA). Loading plot of PC1 vs. PC2. The code number of compounds is reported in Table 2. The symbol ▲ identifies compounds, while the symbol ♦ identifies different cooking treatments. The individual compounds are reported with the same number as listed in Table 2.
Figure 5Linear regression analysis. (A) Relationship between the content of quercetin mono-hexosides in red-skinned onion samples and the IC50 values against the enzyme α-glucosidase. (B) Relationship between the content of quercetin di-hexosides in red-skinned onion samples and the IC50 against the enzyme di-peptidyl-peptidase-IV (DPP-IV). The symbol ▲ identifies boiled samples, ♦ grilled samples, ● fried samples, ■ raw samples, and ▼ baked samples.