| Literature DB >> 35807615 |
Yating Wang1, Hongmei Di1, Wenjuan Cheng2, Guanru Ren3, Sha Luo1, Jie Ma4, Wei Ma4, Huashan Lian5, Xiaomei Li6,7, Zhi Huang1, Yi Tang1, Yangxia Zheng1, Huanxiu Li1, Fen Zhang1, Bo Sun1.
Abstract
Purple flowering stalks and green flowering stalks of Brassica campestris are widely cultivated in the middle and upper reaches of the Yangtze River. Here, concentrations of the main health-promoting compounds and antioxidant capacity levels were characterized in different parts (leaves, peel, flesh, and inflorescences) of purple and green flowering stalks. There were significant differences in the concentrations of health-promoting compounds between the two variants; the concentrations of pigments, especially anthocyanidins, and gluconapin, were significantly higher in purple flowering stalks than in green flowering stalks, and the progoitrin content was significantly higher in green flowering stalks than in purple flowering stalks. The leaves were judged to be the most nutritional edible part because they had the highest concentrations of pigments, ascorbic acid, proanthocyanidins, flavonoids, and total phenolics. Antioxidant capacity was also highest in the leaves, and it was positively correlated with the concentration of health-promoting compounds. Purple flowering stalks and green flowering stalks were found to be rich in health-promoting compounds, especially glucosinolates. Overall, our findings indicate that consumption of the leaves and peel would provide the most health benefits. Some suggestions are provided regarding the processing and utilization of these edible components.Entities:
Keywords: Brassica campestris; antioxidants; edible parts; glucosinolates; variant
Year: 2022 PMID: 35807615 PMCID: PMC9269110 DOI: 10.3390/plants11131664
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1The visual appearance of purple flowering stalks and green flowering stalks (A) and their anthocyanidin (B), chlorophyll (C), and carotenoid (D) content. Same letter means no significant differences (p < 0.05) according to the LSD’s test.
Figure 2The ascorbic acid (A), proanthocyanidin (B), flavonoid (C), and total phenolic (D) content in different edible parts of the purple and green flowering stalks. Same letter means no significant differences (p < 0.05) according to the LSD’s test.
Figure 3Glucosinolate content in different edible parts of purple flowering stalks and green flowering stalks. (A) gluconapin; (B) progoitrin; (C) glucobrassicanapin; (D) glucoalysin; (E) glucohesperin; (F) sinigrin; (G) glucoraphanin; (H) glucoiberverin; (I) glucobrassicin; (J) 4-methoxyglucobrassicin; (K) 4-hydroxyglucobrassicin; (L) neoglucobrassicin; (M) total aliphatic glucosinolates (AGS); (N) total indolic glucosinolates (IGS); (O) total aromatic glucosinolate (RGS); (P) glucosinolates (GS). Same letter means no significant differences (p < 0.05) according to the LSD’s test.
Figure 4The antioxidant capacity in different edible parts of the purple and green flowering stalks. Same letter means no significant differences (p < 0.05) according to the LSD’s test.
Figure 5PCA analysis of different edible parts of purple and green flowering stalks. (A) Score plot; (B) loading plot. AGS: total aliphatic glucosinolates; IGS: total indolic glucosinolates; RGS: total aromatic glucosinolate; GS: total glucosinolates.
Figure 6Correlation plot of the correlations between health-promoting compounds and antioxidant capacity in purple and green flowering stalks. The dashed lines between indices represent negative correlations, whereas solid lines represent positive correlations (p > 0.9). AGS: total aliphatic glucosinolates; IGS: total indolic glucosinolates; RGS: total aromatic glucosinolate; GS: total glucosinolates.
Estimated proportions of variance components for health-promoting compounds and antioxidant capacity in purple and green flowering stalks.
| Parameter | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Anthocyanidins | 0.402 ** | 0.313 ** | 0.232 ** |
| Chlorophyll | 0.002 | 0.925 ** | 0.001 |
| Carotenoids | 0.000 | 0.902 ** | 0.006 |
| Ascorbic acid | 0.042 ** | 0.806 ** | 0.062 ** |
| Proanthocyanidins | 0.013 * | 0.917 ** | 0.026 * |
| Flavonoids | 0.004 | 0.959 ** | 0.007 |
| Total phenolics | 0.148 ** | 0.685 ** | 0.029 |
| Gluconapin | 0.787 ** | 0.111 ** | 0.092 ** |
| Progoitrin | 0.740 ** | 0.126 ** | 0.127 ** |
| Glucobrassicanapin | 0.091 ** | 0.328 ** | 0.521 ** |
| Glucoalyssin | 0.079 ** | 0.420 ** | 0.483 ** |
| Glucohesperin | 0.830 ** | 0.108 ** | 0.048 ** |
| Sinigrin | 0.190 ** | 0.642 ** | 0.083 ** |
| Glucoraphanin | 0.123 ** | 0.728 ** | 0.119 ** |
| Glucoiberverin | 0.005 ** | 0.921 ** | 0.062 ** |
| Glucobrassicin | 0.289 ** | 0.504 ** | 0.191 ** |
| 4-Methoxyglucobrassicin | 0.413 ** | 0.221 ** | 0.228 ** |
| 4-Hydroxy glucobrassicin | 0.006 * | 0.768 ** | 0.196 ** |
| Neoglucobrassicin | 0.060 ** | 0.811 ** | 0.070 ** |
| Total aliphatic glucosinolates | 0.218 ** | 0.258 ** | 0.480 ** |
| Total indolic glucosinolates | 0.210 ** | 0.595 ** | 0.173 ** |
| Gluconasturtiin | 0.106 ** | 0.735 ** | 0.084 ** |
| Total aromatic glucosinolate | 0.106 ** | 0.735 ** | 0.084 ** |
| Total glucosinolates | 0.073 ** | 0.437 ** | 0.438 ** |
| Antioxidant capacity | 0.107 ** | 0.750 ** | 0.036 |
VV/VP: ratio of variant variance to phenotypic variance; VE/VP: ratio of edible part variance to phenotypic variance; VVE/VP: ratio of variant × edible part interaction variance to phenotypic variance. * and ** indicate the significance at 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels in the same column, respectively.