| Literature DB >> 35631187 |
Álvaro Cruz-Carrión1,2,3, Luca Calani4, Ma Josefina Ruiz de Azua1, Pedro Mena4, Daniele Del Rio4, Anna Arola-Arnal1, Manuel Suárez1.
Abstract
Consuming (poly)phenol-rich fruits and vegetables, including tomato, is associated with health benefits. The health effects of tomato (poly)phenolic compounds have been attributed to their metabolites rather than parent compounds and their bioavailability can be modulated by several factors. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of seasonal consumption of local tomatoes on their (poly)phenol bioavailability. For this, (poly)phenol absorption and metabolism were evaluated by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry and linear ion trap mass spectrometric (uHPLC-MSn) after chronic tomato consumption in Fischer rats exposed to three photoperiods mimicking the seasonal daylight schedule. Tomatoes from two locations in Spain (LT, local tomatoes and NLT, non-local tomatoes) were used in this in vivo feeding study. The bioavailability of tomato (poly)phenols depended on the photoperiod to which the rats were exposed, the metabolite concentrations significantly varying between seasons. In-season tomato consumption allowed obtaining the highest concentration of total circulating metabolites. In addition, the origin of the tomato administered generated marked differences in the metabolic profiles, with higher serum concentrations reached upon NLT ingestion. We concluded that in-season tomato consumption led to an increase in (poly)phenol circulation, whereas LT consumption showed lower circulating metabolites than NLT ones. Thus, the origin of the tomato and the seasonal daylight schedule affect the bioavailability of tomato (poly)phenols, which could also affect their bioactivity.Entities:
Keywords: (poly)phenolic compounds; Solanum lycopersicum; phenolic metabolites; photoperiod; seasonal consumption
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631187 PMCID: PMC9144325 DOI: 10.3390/nu14102047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
(Poly)phenolic composition of local (LT) and non-local (NLT) tomatoes. Data expressed as mean values in µg/g dry weight ± SD (n = 3).
| Compound | LT | NLT |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Kaempferol- | 3.51 ± 0.48 | 9.27 ± 1.25 * |
| Kaempferol- | 4.81 ± 0.58 | 11.22 ± 2.02 * |
| Luteolin- | 34.76 ± 3.6 | 21.2 ± 1.02 * |
| Naringenin | 1.64 ± 0.27 | 2.18 ± 0.47 |
| Naringenin chalcone b | 1.12 ± 0.20 | 1.43 ± 0.11 |
| Phloretin 3′,5′- di- | 107.97 ± 11.5 | 51.19 ± 4.19 * |
| Quercetin- | 5.87 ± 0.76 | 5.20 ± 0.34 |
| QHRP- | 1.79 ± 0.43 | 1.24 ± 0.56 |
| QHRP-coumaric acid a | 21.16 ± 1.13 | 10.13 ± 1.57 * |
| QHRP-ferulic acid a | 10.98 ± 0.4 | 6.86 ± 0.12 * |
| QHRP-sinapic acid a | 4.24 ± 0.16 | 3.66 ± 0.37 |
| QHRP-syringic acid a | 6.55 ± 0.81 | 8.28 ± 1.54 |
| Quercetin- | 2.52 ± 0.27 | 0.87 ± 0.13 * |
| Quercetin- | 81.03 ± 2.80 | 64.25 ± 5.82 * |
| Rutin | 111.33 ± 1.11 | 86.38 ± 11.77 * |
| Total, flavonoids | 399.32 ± 16.15 | 283.37 ± 30.38 * |
|
| ||
| Caffeic acid derivative I d | 33.24 ± 1.12 | 65.55 ± 17.50 * |
| Caffeic acid derivative II d | 28.10 ± 2.15 | 14.81 ± 3.34 * |
| Caffeic acid derivative III d | 13.95 ± 0.68 | 24.97 ± 6.96 |
| Caffeic acid derivative IV d | 4.19 ± 0.10 | 5.37 ± 0.47 * |
| Caffeic acid derivative V d | 4.79 ± 0.41 | 4.91 ± 0.98 |
| Caffeoylmalic acid d | 62.93 ± 3.55 | 66.80 ± 9.10 |
| Dihydrocaffeic acid derivative f | 38.14 ± 2.12 | 32.09 ± 5.61 |
| Total, caffeic and dihydrocaffeic acid derivatives | 185.34 ± 10.14 | 214.49 ± 43.97 |
|
| ||
| Caffeic acid | 27.30 ± 3.03 | 40.92 ± 1.25 * |
| Dihydrocaffeic acid | n.d. | 8.72 ± 2.73 * |
| 15.57 ± 1.14 | 16.19 ± 2.02 | |
| Salicylic acid | 29.04 ± 3.22 | 54.39 ± 12.34 * |
| Total, free phenolic acids | 71.90 ± 7.39 | 120.22 ± 18.34 * |
|
| ||
| Dihydroxybenzoic acid- | 24.44 ± 1.46 | 18.30 ± 1.64 * |
| Hydroxybenzoic acid- | 40.36 ± 1.28 | 33.59 ± 3.08 * |
| Syringic acid- | 37.53 ± 0.93 | 37.53 ± 5.59 |
| Total, hydroxybenzoic acid derivatives | 102.34 ± 3.66 | 89.42 ± 10.30 |
|
| ||
| Caffeic acid- | 169.42 ± 5.07 | 235.81 ± 8.06 * |
| Caffeic acid- | 67.52 ± 4.03 | 60.86 ± 5.82 |
| Caffeic acid- | 194.60 ± 4.23 | 159.57 ± 19.72 * |
| Coumaric acid derivative | 14.08 ± 1.85 | 15.00 ± 1.15 |
| Coumaric acid- | 87.86 ± 2.09 | 132.38 ± 1.72 * |
| Coumaric acid- | 161.79 ± 7.83 | 113.07 ± 0.57 * |
| Dicaffeoyl- | 72.09 ± 1.97 | 109.38 ± 14.05 * |
| Ferulic acid- | 72.85 ± 2.58 | 24.30 ± 2.35 * |
| Sinapic acid- | 27.05 ± 2.16 | 31.30 ± 3.01 |
| Total, hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives | 867.26 ± 31.81 | 881.67 ± 56.44 |
|
| ||
| 3- | 30.09 ± 4.38 | 44.24 ± 4.39 * |
| 4- | 223.02 ± 7.43 | 247.29 ± 7.59 * |
| 5- | 200.14 ± 33.63 | 280.73 ± 9.04 |
| Caffeoylquinic acid- | 39.64 ± 2.68 | 37.24 ± 5.62 |
| Caffeoylquinic acid- | 52.89 ± 5.94 | 49.50 ± 5.53 |
| Coumaroylquinic acid j | 93.38 ± 9.33 | 96.80 ± 4.70 |
| Dicaffeoylquinic acid I i | 88.27 ± 3.34 | 103.29 ± 8.83 |
| Dicaffeoylquinic acid II h | 39.97 ± 1.91 | 68.08 ± 1.60 * |
| Dicaffeoylquinic acid III i | 75.77 ± 2.30 | 155.79 ± 0.01 * |
| Dicaffeoylquinic acid- | 44.75 ± 2.45 | 37.09 ± 1.56 * |
| Feruloylquinic acid j | 31.76 ± 1.34 | 31.81 ± 2.03 |
| Tricaffeoylquinic acid h | 177.11 ± 3.55 | 390.57 ± 61.65 * |
| Tricaffeoylquinic acid- | 53.05 ± 4.62 | 17.93 ± 0.69 * |
| Total, hydroxycinnamoylquinic acids | 1149.83 ± 82.90 | 1560.35 ± 113.23 * |
|
| ||
| Dihydrocaffeic acid- | 63.44 ± 3.84 | 74.47 ± 4.54 |
| Dihydrocaffeic acid- | 144.74 ± 4.37 | 160.71 ± 14.94 |
| Dihydrocaffeoyl-caffeoyl- | 79.63 ± 4.81 | 95.00 ± 18.17 |
| Dihydroferulic acid- | 152.76 ± 9.93 | 94.48 ± 3.04 * |
| Hydroxyphenylpropionic acid- | 145.74 ± 6.55 | 171.36 ± 0.72 * |
| Total, phenylpropanoic acid-glycosides | 586.30 ± 29.49 | 596.02 ± 41.42 |
| Total, (Poly)phenolic compounds | 3362.30 ±189.92 | 3745.54 ± 315.02 |
* indicates significant differences (p < 0.05) between LT and NLT by Student’s t-test. Abbreviations: n.d., not detected; QHRP, Quercetin-O-hexoside-O-rhamnoside-O-pentoside; SD, standard deviation. a Tentatively quantified using the calibration curve of rutin. b Tentatively quantified using the calibration curve of naringenin. c Tentatively quantified using the calibration curve of vitexin. d Tentatively quantified using the calibration curve of caffeic acid. f Tentatively quantified using the calibration curve of dihydrocaffeic acid. g Tentatively quantified using the calibration curve of vanillic acid-glucoside. h Tentatively quantified using the calibration curve of 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid. i Tentatively quantified using the calibration curve of 4-O-caffeoylquinic acid. j Tentatively quantified using the calibration curve of 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid.
Figure 1Experimental design of this study. Abbreviations: L18: 18 h light/day; L12: 12 h light/day; L6: 6 h light/day; LT: local tomatoes; NLT: non-local tomatoes; VH: vehicle; dw: dry weight; bw: body weight. The yellow indicates light hours per day of each photoperiod and the black corresponds to darkness hours per day.
Tomato-derived (poly)phenolic metabolites in serum of rats exposed to three seasonal daylight schedules after ingestion of 100 mg/kg bw/day local (LT) and non-local (NLT) Ekstasis tomatoes. Results are expressed as the mean values in nM ± SEM (n = 8).
| Metabolite | Serum Concentration (nM) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winter-DH | Spring/Autumn-DH | Summer-DH | 2wA | |||||
| LT | NLT | LT | NLT | LT | NLT | |||
| CADs | 3′-methoxycinnamic acid-4′-sulfate | n.d. a,* | 3.8 ± 3.8 x | 11.3 ± 5.6 b | 18.5 ± 9.1 x | 8.8 ± 4.9 b | 13.1 ± 6.1 x |
|
| 4′-hydroxycinnamic acid-3′-glucuronide | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.s. | |
| 4′-methoxycinnamic acid-3′-sulfate | n.d. | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.s. | |
| Hydroxycinnamic acid sulfate I | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.q. | n.s. | |
| Hydroxycinnamic acid sulfate II | 7.2 ± 3.7 a | 9.2 ± 2.0 x | 5.2 ± 1.3 a | 7.2 ± 1.3 x | 4.0 ± 1.3 a | 5.6 ± 2.1 x | n.s. | |
| PPADs | 3-(3′-methoxyphenyl)propanoic acid-4′-sulfate | n.d. a,* | 1.4 ± 0.9 x | 0.8 ± 0.3 b* | 2.6 ± 1.2 x,y | 0.5 ± 0.5 b,* | 9.4 ± 3.7 y | P, T |
| 3-(4′-hydroxyphenyl)propanoic acid-3′-sulfate | n.q. a | n.q. x | 2.0 ± 0.8 b | 3.9 ± 1.3 y | 1.5 ± 0.8 b | 4.7 ± 2.0 y | P | |
| Total metabolites | 7.4 ± 3.7 | 14.7 ± 6.1 | 19.3 ± 6.8 | 32.3 ± 10.8 | 14.8 ± 6.6 | 32.7 ± 11.9 | n.s. | |
* denotes significant differences (p < 0.05) between treatments (LT and NLT) within each photoperiod exposure (winter-DH, spring/autumn-DH, and summer-DH), estimated by Student’s t-test. Values with different letters (a, b; for LT consumption) and (x, y; for NLT consumption) indicate statistical differences (p < 0.05) of the same treatment among the photoperiods, estimated by one-way ANOVA. Two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the differences between the groups, P, photoperiod effect; T, treatment effect; P × T, photoperiod × treatment interaction effect. Abbreviations: SEM: standard error of the mean; CADs: cinnamic acid derivatives; winter-DH: winter daylight hours, 6 h light/day; spring/autumn-DH: spring/autumn daylight hours, 12 h light/day; summer-DH: summer daylight hours, 18 h light/day; n.d.: not detected; n.s.: no significant; n.q.: not quantified; PPADs: phenylpropanoic acid derivatives, 2wA: Two-way ANOVA.
Figure 2Distribution of (poly)phenolic metabolites in rat serum after 100 mg/kg bw/day administration of local (LT) or non-local (NLT) Ekstasis tomatoes and exposed to seasonal daylight schedules. * indicates statistical difference of PPADs concentrations (p < 0.05) between LT and NLT ingestion within each photoperiod estimated by Student’s t-test. Values with different letters (a, b; for LT consumption) and (x, y; for NLT consumption) indicate different PPADs concentrations (p < 0.05) between the photoperiods, estimated by one-way ANOVA. CADs concentration had no statistical difference by one-way ANOVA or Student’s t-test. Abbreviations: CADs, cinnamic acid derivatives; DH, daylight hours; PPADs, phenylpropanoic acid derivatives.