| Literature DB >> 35631763 |
Pavlina Drogoudi1, Georgios Pantelidis1.
Abstract
Herein, we studied the variation in leaf and fruit morphological traits and antioxidant contents in 43 local and foreign cultivars (cvs) grown under the same experimental conditions in the widely cultivated plum species Prunus domestica and Prunus salicina. The peel contribution of fruit bioactive compounds in a serving portion, correlations among the examined parameters, and group patterns in each plum species were also studied. The species and cvs were sufficiently separated. Compared to Japanese cvs, European cvs had less elongated leaves and smaller and sweeter fruit with less total phenol and antioxidant capacities. The Japanese cvs 'Red ace' and the widely grown 'Black Amber', together with the European 'Tuleu Dulce', 'BlueFre', and the landrace 'Asvestochoriou' make up groups with rich dietary sources of phytochemicals. The peel tissue contained higher total phenols and antioxidant capacities compared to the flesh, while the peel/flesh ratios varied widely among the cvs (6.6-fold). The variation in the antioxidant contents was lower among the cvs calculated per serving portion (3.7-fold); yet the peel tissue contribution was equal to that of the flesh (48.6%), signifying its high nutritive value. We observed increased sweetness in the fruit in the later-harvested cultivars, while cvs with more blue- and red-colored peel generally contained higher antioxidant contents mainly in the European plums. Moreover, larger fruit sizes were positively correlated with larger and more elliptic leaf shapes. In conclusion, the significant role of the genotype and the peel tissue as a source of bioactive compounds in plums were outlined with prospects of utilization in future breeding programs.Entities:
Keywords: Prunus domestica; Prunus salicina; antioxidants; fruit color; fruit fresh weight; fruit shape; leaf characters; total soluble content
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631763 PMCID: PMC9143520 DOI: 10.3390/plants11101338
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Cultivar names, origin, fruit fresh weight, and fruit shape in lateral view (UPOV characterization) of the European and Japanese plum cultivars studied.
| Origin | Fruit Weight (g) | Fruit Shape | |
|---|---|---|---|
| European cvs | |||
| Anna Spath Oradea | Hungary | 61.1 | Elliptic |
| Anna Spath Pitetsi | Hungary | 70.5 | Circular |
| Asvestochoriou | Greece | 65.3 | Circular |
| Avgata Skopelou | Greece | 40.0 | Drop shape |
| Bluefre | USA | 62.9 | Oblate |
| Giley | Bulgaria | 51.5 | Ovate |
| Ksina Skopelou 1 | Greece | 26.5 | Obovate |
| Mpardaki Circular | Greece | 41.3 | Circular |
| Mpardaki Elliptic | Greece | 18.4 | Elliptic |
| Praousti | Greece | 41.7 | Ovate |
| President | UK | 63.1 | Oblong |
| Prune d’ente 632 | France | 25.6 | Ovate |
| Prune d’ente 633 | France | 101.7 | Circular |
| Reine-Cl.di Violette | France | 57.5 | Circular |
| Russian | Russia | 20.7 | Circular |
| Scoldus SS | Romania | 45.5 | Elliptic |
| Skopelou 2 | Greece | 38.5 | Elliptic |
| Stanley | USA | 49.1 | Oblong |
| Tuleu Dulce | Romania | 37.3 | Ovate |
| Japanese cvs | |||
| Angeleno | USA | 120.9 | Oblate |
| Autumn Giant | USA | 151.0 | Circular |
| Beauty | USA | 53.8 | Cordate |
| Black Amber | USA | 68.2 | Oblate |
| Black Beauty | USA | 97.8 | Oblate |
| Black Gold | USA | 112.3 | Oblate |
| Black Star | USA | 116.2 | Circular |
| Calita | USA | 84.6 | Circular |
| Casselman | USA | 62.1 | Obovate |
| Florentia | Italy | 77.0 | Cordate |
| Fortune | USA | 78.1 | Obovate |
| Friar | USA | 92.4 | Circular |
| Frontier | USA | 87.7 | Oblate |
| John W | USA | 127.8 | Circular |
| Laroda | USA | 53.8 | Circular |
| October Sun | USA | 65.8 | Oblong |
| Ozark Premier | USA | 90.2 | Oblate |
| Pluot | USA | 69.8 | Cordate |
| Red Ace | USA | 75.5 | Oblate |
| Santa Rosa | USA | 57.5 | Oblong |
| Shiro | USA | 28.0 | Circular |
| Simka | USA | 64.7 | Cordate |
| Sun Gold | South Africa | 100.2 | Obovate |
| T.C. Sun | USA | 90.7 | Circular |
1 Also named ‘Agiorgitiko’; 2 also named ‘Agen Skopelou’ and Glyka Skopelou’.
Mean (minimum–maximum), percentage coefficient variation (CV%), and p values of fruit quality and leaf traits when compared among 19 European and 24 Japanese plum cultivars grown in a cultivar evaluation orchard in Naoussa, Greece. Parameters measured were fruit fresh weight (g), peel and flesh color CIELAB parameters, soluble solid content (SSC, °Brix), titratable acidity (TA, grams citric acid equivalent/100 mL), maturity index (SSC/TA), total phenols (TPs) (mg GAE/100 g FW), total antioxidant capacity using the DPPH and FRAP methods (TACDPPH and TACFRAP, mg AAE/100 g FW) in peel and flesh tissue and serving portion (100 g FW), percentage TPs–peel/TPs–serving (% TPs–p/s), leaf shape (1, ovate; 2, elliptic; 3, obovate), leaf tip shape (1, acute; 2, right-angled; 3, obtuse), shape of base (1, acute; 2, obtuse; 3, truncate), leaf blade length (LBL, cm), leaf blade width (LBW, cm), stalk length (SL, cm) and ratios of LBL/LBW and LBL/SL. Different letters in the line indicate significant differences.
| European | Japanese | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Min–Max | CV% | Mean | Min–Max | CV% |
| |
| Fruit weight | 48.3 b | 18.4–101.7 | 42 | 84.4 a | 28.0–151.0 | 33 | <0.001 |
| 38.2 | 22.5–57.4 | 25 | 36.1 | 21.3–59.7 | 32 | 0.686 | |
| 9.8 b | −23.7 | 73 | 13.5 a | −31.2 | 63 | 0.009 | |
| 9.3 | −56.6 | 204 | 5.3 | −46.2 | 262 | 0.840 | |
| 162.0 | 38.8–319 | 162 | 186.6 | 20.3–337.0 | 67 | 0.324 | |
| Chroma–peel | 21.3 | 6.7–45.0 | 57 | 21.0 | 9.4–36.2 | 262 | 0.221 |
| 50.5 b | 37.4–59.0 | 13 | 55.3 a | 38.6–66.1 | 12 | <0.001 | |
| 4.8 | −37.3 | 175 | 5.0 | −25.2 | 132 | 0.188 | |
| 25.1 a | 7.7–41.2 | 41 | 20.8 b | 8.3–44.3 | 38 | 0.012 | |
| h*–flesh | 77.9 | 19.2–97.5 | 27 | 77.1 | 20.5–95.3 | 22 | 0.197 |
| Chroma–flesh | 27.3 a | 12.7–41.3 | 33 | 21.9 b | 8.4–44.3 | 35 | <0.001 |
| SSC | 15.4 a | 11.5–19.6 | 17 | 14.4 b | 8.5–20.5 | 20 | 0.046 |
| TA | 1.2 | 0.5–1.9 | 33 | 1.3 | 0.8–1.9 | 25 | 0.077 |
| Maturity index | 15.4 a | 6.7–35.1 | 50 | 12.1 b | 6.1–21.7 | 34 | 0.001 |
| TPs–peel | 582.5 b | 152.1–984.6 | 43 | 916.7 a | 202.7–1797.3 | 42 | <0.001 |
| TACDPPH–peel | 594.1 b | 277.9–1135.7 | 42 | 852.7 a | 443.9–1535.8 | 41 | <0.001 |
| TACFRAP–peel | 361.4 b | 166.9–685.1 | 37 | 456.8 a | 206.1–1090.8 | 44 | 0.008 |
| TPs–flesh | 130.1 b | 55.9–220.9 | 33 | 164.5 a | 63.3–352.3 | 45 | 0.006 |
| TACDPPH–flesh | 121.9 b | 30.8–178.5 | 34 | 168.7 a | 66.9–343.9 | 42 | <0.001 |
| TACFRAP–flesh | 64.7 b | 47.2–86.3 | 17 | 76.8 a | 44.8–133.6 | 31 | 0.003 |
| TPs–serving | 150.2 b | 64.5–238.8 | 31 | 200.4 a | 88.1–409.2 | 41 | <0.001 |
| TACDPPH–ser. | 143.6 b | 58.4–215.0 | 29 | 199.3 a | 85.7–394.9 | 37 | <0.001 |
| TACFRAP–ser. | 78.4 b | 56.0–109.9 | 17 | 94.3 a | 56.9–154.6 | 29 | 0.001 |
| % TPs–p/s | 22.4 | 12.3–48.3 | 27.3 | 13.3–48.6 | |||
| Leaf shape | 2.1 | 1–3 | 40 | 2.1 | 1–3 | 20 | 0.932 |
| Leaf tip shape | 1.9 | 1–3 | 43 | 1.3 | 1–3 | 48 | 0.005 |
| Shape of base | 1.6 | 1–3 | 37 | 1.0 | 1–3 | 20 | <0.001 |
| LBL | 8.8 b | 5.6–12.0 | 17 | 9.7 a | 8.0–12.8 | 12 | <0.001 |
| LBW | 5.3 a | 3.5–6.9 | 18 | 4.2 b | 3.0–5.6 | 17 | <0.001 |
| SL | 1.7 a | 1.1–2.6 | 23 | 1.4 b | 1.0–2.2 | 23 | <0.001 |
| LBL/LBW | 1.7 | 1.4–2.2 | 14 | 2.4 | 1.8–3.2 | 14 | 0.107 |
| LBL/LPL | 5.6 b | 3.8–10.0 | 30 | 7.3 a | 4.8–10.7 | 18 | <0.001 |
Figure 1Mean (±SE) (a) soluble solid content (SSC, °Brix), titratable acidity (TA, mg citric acid/100 g FW), (b) maturity index (MI = SSC/TA), and ripening date (RD, Julian date) of 43 European and Japanese plums. Colored columns represent local cultivars. Least significant difference; SSC = 1.23, TA = 2.18, SSC/TA = 0.5.
Pearson correlation analyses between phenotypic and chemical traits in 19 European plum cvs. RD, ripening date; FW, fruit fresh weight; SSC, soluble solid content; TA, titratable acidity; MI, maturity index; TPs, total phenols; DPPH and FRAP, total antioxidant capacity using the DPPH and FRAP radicals, respectively. ns. non significant; Absolute linear correlations ≥|0.60| are marked in bold.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. RD | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. FW | ns | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. | −0.473 | ns | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5. | ns | ns |
| −0.492 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 6. | ns | ns | ns | ns | − | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 7. Chroma−peel | − | ns | 0.844 | ns |
| ns | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| 8. | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 9. | ns | ns | ns | 0.464 | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 10. | ns | ns | ns | −0.471 |
| − | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 11. | ns | ns | ns | −0.467 | ns | −0.490 | ns | ns | − |
| 1 | |||||||||||||
| 12. Chroma−flesh | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| − | 0.475 | ns | ns |
| ns | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 13. SSC | ns | ns | ns | ns | −0.546 | ns | −0.571 | ns | ns | ns | ns | −0.481 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 14. TA | −0.518 | ns | 0.482 | ns | 0.575 | ns | 0.595 | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.523 | −0.598 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 15. MI | ns | ns | ns | ns | − | 0.553 | −0.578 | ns | ns | ns | ns | −0.548 |
| − | 1 | |||||||||
| 16. TPs−peel | ns | ns | ns | 0.577 | −0.592 | ns | −0.568 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||
| 17. DPPH−peel | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| 1 | |||||||
| 18. FRAP−peel | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||
| 19. TPs−flesh | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | |||||
| 20. DPPH−flesh | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.469 | ns | ns |
| 1 | ||||
| 21. FRAP−flesh | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.567 | ns | ns |
|
| 1 | |||
| 22. TPs−serving | ns | ns | ns | 0.490 | −0.522 | ns | −0.546 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| 0.457 | ns |
|
|
| 1 | ||
| 23. DPPH−serving | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| 0.477 | ns |
|
|
|
| 1 | |
| 24. FRAP−serving | ns | ns | −0.484 | ns | ns | ns | −0.477 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.598 | 0.563 |
|
| 0.524 |
|
|
| 1 |
Pearson correlation analyses between phenotypic and chemical traits in 24 Japanese plum cvs. Abbreviations as in Table 3.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. RD | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. FW | ns | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. | ns | ns | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 5. | ns | ns | 0.749 | ns | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 6. | ns | ns | −0.414 | ns | − | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 7. Chroma−peel | ns | ns |
| ns |
| − | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| 8. | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 9. | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | − | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 10. | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| − | 0.552 | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 11. | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.575 | − | ns | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 12. Chroma−flesh | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.583 | −0.574 | ns | ns | ns |
| −0.192 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 13. SSC | 0.488 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | |||||||||||
| 14. TA | −0.421 | −0.493 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||||
| 15. MI |
| 0.438 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| − | 1 | |||||||||
| 16. TPs−peel | ns | ns | −0.385 | ns | ns | ns | −0.409 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 1 | ||||||||
| 17. DPPH−peel | ns | ns | −0.181 | ns | ns | ns | −0.132 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| 1 | |||||||
| 18. FRAP−peel | ns | ns | −0.495 | ns | ns | ns | −0.334 | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.411 | ns | ns | ns |
|
| 1 | ||||||
| 19. TPs−flesh | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
|
| 0.259 | 1 | |||||
| 20. DPPH−flesh | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.511 | 0.511 | 0.291 |
| 1 | ||||
| 21. FRAP−flesh | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.590 |
| 0.306 |
|
| 1 | |||
| 22. TPs−serving | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
|
| 0.39 |
|
|
| 1 | ||
| 23. DPPH−serving | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
|
| 0.411 |
|
|
|
| 1 | |
| 24. FRAP−serving | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
|
| 0.565 |
| 0.524 |
|
|
| 1 |
Figure 2Mean (±SE) (a) total phenol content (mg gallic acid equivalent/100 g FW), (b) total antioxidant capacity using the DPPH (TACDPPH), and (c) the FRAP radical (TACFRAP) (mg ascorbic acid equivalent/100 g FW), in fruit peel (solid bars) and flesh (rhombus) tissue of 43 European and Japanese plum cvs. Colored columns represent local cultivars. LSD: TPs–peel, 143.5; TPs–flesh, 40.5; TACDPPH–peel, 181.1; TACDPPH–flesh, 38.3; TACFRAP–peel, 172.4; TACFRAP–flesh, 15.9.
Figure 3Mean (±SE) (a) total phenols (TPs, mg gallic acid equivalent) and total antioxidant capacity using the (b) DPPH (TACDPPH) and (c) FRAP radicals (TACFRAP) (mg ascorbic acid equivalent), expressed as per serving portion (100 g FW). The percentage (%) contributions of peel and flesh are shown as empty and hatched superimposed columns, respectively. Colored columns represent local cultivars. LSD; total phenols = 35.9, TACDPPH = 33.2, TACFRAP = 19.1.
Figure 4(a,c) Segregation and (b,d) factor loadings, of (a,b) 19 European and (c,d) 24 Japanese plum cultivars, on the basis of fruit physical and chemical characters, determined by principal component analysis. Variable annotations are presented in Table 3.
Figure 5Heatmap showing the clustering of fruit phenotyping traits in 19 European plum cultivars using the ClustVis software. The columns correspond to the cultivars and the rows correspond to the fruit phenotypic traits studied. Both the rows and columns were clustered using Euclidean distance and the Ward method.
Figure 6Heatmap showing the clustering of fruit phenotyping traits in 24 Japanese plum cultivars using the ClustVis software. The columns correspond to the cultivars and the rows correspond to the fruit phenotypic traits studied. Both rows and columns were clustered using Euclidean distance and the Ward method.