Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:30:17.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of processing type tomato plant genetic resources (Solanum lycopersicum L.) for their nutritional properties in different environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2019

László Csambalik Open the ORCID record for László Csambalik [Opens in a new window] ,
Izóra Gál ,
László Sipos ,
Attila Gere ,
Dániel Koren ,
Barbara Bíró  and
Anna Divéky-Ertsey
László Csambalik*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecological and Sustainable Production Systems, Faculty of Horticultural Science, Szent István University, 29-43 Villányi út, H-1118Budapest, Hungary
Izóra Gál
Affiliation:
Department of Ecological and Sustainable Production Systems, Faculty of Horticultural Science, Szent István University, 29-43 Villányi út, H-1118Budapest, Hungary
László Sipos
Affiliation:
Department of Postharvest Sciences and Sensory Evaluation, Faculty of Food Science, Szent István University, 29-43 Villányi út, H-1118Budapest, Hungary
Attila Gere
Affiliation:
Department of Postharvest Sciences and Sensory Evaluation, Faculty of Food Science, Szent István University, 29-43 Villányi út, H-1118Budapest, Hungary
Dániel Koren
Affiliation:
Department of Brewing and Distilling, Faculty of Food Science, Szent István University, 29-43 Villányi út, H-1118Budapest, Hungary
Barbara Bíró
Affiliation:
Department of Postharvest Sciences and Sensory Evaluation, Faculty of Food Science, Szent István University, 29-43 Villányi út, H-1118Budapest, Hungary
Anna Divéky-Ertsey
Affiliation:
Department of Ecological and Sustainable Production Systems, Faculty of Horticultural Science, Szent István University, 29-43 Villányi út, H-1118Budapest, Hungary
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: csambalik.laszlo@kertk.szie.hu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this work, 10 processing type Hungarian tomato gene bank accessions were investigated in a 3-year open-field experiment together with three commercial varieties for quantifying the genotype × environment interaction for their total soluble solids, total acid, dry matter, lycopene, total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity. Results showed remarkable differences of accessions in phytonutrient content over the 3 years (environments). Genotype main effect plus genotype × environment interaction biplots were created for the visualization of the best performing samples and of their relation to a theoretical best variety. Obovate fruit-shaped accessions (especially RCAT031257 and RCAT060349) reached outstanding nutritional results in every environment. According to extremities in weather conditions, two landraces (RCAT060348 and RCAT060349) with higher drought tolerance, and two (RCAT031257 and RCAT029837) less prone to excessive rainfalls were identified. The results can contribute to the enrichment of tomato nutritional phenotypic data banks, facilitating the utilization of gene bank accessions in genomic studies.

Keywords

antioxidantlandracelycopeneorganic farmingphenotyping
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 17 , Issue 6 , December 2019 , pp. 488 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adalid, AM, Rosello, S and Nuez, F (2010) Evaluation and selection of tomato accessions (Solanum section Lycopersicon) for content of lycopene, B-carotene and ascorbic acid. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 23: 613–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agarwal, S and Rao, AV (2000) Tomato lycopene and its role in human health and chronic diseases. Canadian Medical Association Journal 163: 739–744.Google ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, EA, Scott, JW, Shewmaker, CK and Schuch, W (2000) Flavor trivia and tomato aroma: biochemistry and possible mechanisms for control of important aroma components. HortScience 35: 1013–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennet, RN and Wallsgrove, RM (1994) Secondary metabolites in plant defense mechanisms. New Phytologist 127: 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benzie, IIF and Strain, JJ (1996) The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of ‘antioxidant power’: the FRAP assay. Analytical Biochemistry 239: 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canene-Adams, K, Campbell, JK, Zaripheh, S, Jeffery, EH and Erdmann, JW (2005) The tomato as a functional food. Journal of Nutrition 135: 1226–1230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cano, A, Acosta, M and Arnao, MB (2003) Hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidant activity changes during on-vine ripening of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Postharvest Biology and Technology 28: 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carluccio, F, Lenucci, MS, Piro, G, Siems, W and Lu-no, J (2016) Vegetable derived antioxidant and vitamin D: effects on oxidative stress and bone mineral metabolism of aged patients with renal disease. Functional Foods in Health and Disease 6: 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, SK (1998) Lycopene: chemistry, biology, and implications for human health and disease. Nutrition Reviews 56: 35–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 558/93 of 10 March 1993 on the refractometry method of measuring dry soluble residue in products processed from fruit and vegetables.Google Scholar
Davey, MW, Van Montagu, M, Inze, D, Sanmartin, M, Kanellis, A, Smirnoff, N, Benzie, IJJ, Strain, JJ, Favell, D and Fletcher, J (2000) Plant L-ascorbic acid: chemistry, function, metabolism, bioavailability, and effects of processing. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 80: 825–860.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Mascio, P, Kaiser, S and Sies, H (1989) Lycopene as the most efficient biological carotenoid singlet oxygen quencher. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 274: 532–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumas, Y, Dadomo, M, Di Lucca, G and Grolier, P (2003) Effects of environmental factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidant content of tomatoes. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 83: 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esquinaz-Alcazar, JT and Nuez, F (1995) Situación taxonómica, domesticatión y difusión del tomate. In: Nuez, F (ed.) El cultivo del tomate. Madrid: Ed Mundi Prensa, pp. 13–42.Google Scholar
FAOSTAT (2017) Production of crops FAOSTAT Agricultural production database. http://www.fao.org/faostat. Accessed 21 February 2019.Google Scholar
Fayeun, LS, Alake, GC and Akinlolu, AO (2018) GGE biplot analysis of fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis) landraces evaluated for marketable leaf yield in Southwest Nigeria. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 17: 416–423. doi: 10.1016/j.jssas.2016.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, WW, Perkins-Veazie, P and Collins, JK (2002) A quantitative assay for lycopene that utilizes reduced volumes of organic solvents. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 15: 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frutos, E, Galindo, MP and Leiva, V (2014) An interactive biplot implementation in R for modeling genotype-by-environment interaction. Stochastic Environmental Research & Risk Assessment 28: 1629–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giovannucci, E (1999) Tomatoes, tomato-based products lycopene and cancer: review of epidemiological literature. Journal of National Cancer Institute 91: 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helyes, L, Dimény, J, Pék, Z and Lugasi, A (2006) Effect of the variety and growing methods as well as cultivation conditions on ingredient of tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum (L.) Karsten) fruit. Acta Horticulturae 712: 511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, D, Ou, R and Prior, RL (2005) The chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assays. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53: 1841–1856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ilahy, R, Siddiqui, MW, Tlili, I, Montefusco, A, Piro, G, Hdider, C and Lenucci, MS (2018) When color really matters: horticultural performance and functional quality of high-lycopene tomatoes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 37: 15–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (2001) Fruit and vegetable products – Methodology Determination of titratable acidity. (ISO Standard No. 750:2001).Google Scholar
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (2001) Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability. Tomato. (TG 44/11). Geneva. https://www.upov.int/en/publications/tg-rom/tg044/tg_44_10.pdf.Google Scholar
Jack, DB (1995) Keep taking the tomatoes – the exciting world of nutraceuticals. Molecular Medicine Today 1: 118–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kun, Y, Lule, US and Xiao-Lin, D (2006) Lycopene: its properties and relationship to human health. Food Reviews International 22: 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, SK and Kader, AA (2000) Preharvest and postharvest factors influencing vitamin C content of horticultural crops. Postharvest Biology and Technology 20: 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Male, CJ (1999) 100 Heirloom Tomatoes for the American Garden. New York, USA: Smith & Hawken, Workman Publishing.Google Scholar
Marković, K, Krbavčić, I, Krpan, M, Bicanic, D and Vahčić, N (2010) The lycopene content in pulp and peel of five fresh tomato cultivars. Acta alimentaria 39: 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molyneux, P (2003) The use of the stable free radical diphenylpicrylhydrazyl (DPPH) for estimating antioxidant activity. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology 26: 211–219.Google Scholar
Passam, HC, Karapanos, IC, Bebeli, PJ and Savvas, D (2007) A review of recent research of tomato nutrition, breeding and post-harvest technology with reference to fruit quality. The European Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 1: 1–21.Google Scholar
Powell, ALT, Nguyen, CV, Hill, T, Cheng, KL, Figueroa-Balderas, R, Aktas, H, Ashrafi, H, Pons, C, Fernández-Munoz, R, Vicente, A, Lopez-Baltazar, J, Barry, CS, Liu, Y, Chetelat, R, Granell, A, Van Deynze, A, Giovannoni, JJ and Bennett, AB (2012) Uniform ripening encodes a golden 2-like transcription factor regulating tomato fruit chloroplast development. Science 29: 1711–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2008) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rao, AV (2006) Tomatoes, Lycopene and Human Health. Preventing Chronic Diseases. Badalona, Spain: Caledonian Science Press.Google Scholar
Rao, VS, Waseem, Z and Agarwal, S (1998) Lycopene content of tomatoes and tomato products and their contribution to dietary lycopene. Food Research International 31: 737–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Burruezo, A, Prohens, J, Roselló, S and Nuez, F (2005) ‘Heirloom’ varieties as sources of variation for the improvement of fruit quality in greenhouse-grown tomatoes. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology 80: 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouphael, Y, Cardarelli, M, Bassal, A, Leonardi, C, Giuffrida, F and Colla, G (2012) Vegetable quality as affected by genetic, agronomic, and environmental factors. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 10: 680–688.Google Scholar
Singleton, VL and Rossi, JA (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolibdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 161: 144–158.Google Scholar
Stahl, W and Sies, H (1996) Lycopene: a biologically important carotenoid for humans. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 336: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tieman, D, Zhu, G, Resende, MFR Jr, Lin, T, Nguyen, C, Bies, D, Rambla, JL, Beltran, KSO, Taylor, M, Zhang, B, Ikeda, H, Liu, Z, Fisher, J, Zemach, I, Monforte, A, Zamir, D, Granell, A, Kirst, M, Huang, S and Klee, H (2017) A chemical genetic roadmap to improved tomato flavor. Science 355: 391–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tigchelaar, EC (1986) Tomato breeding. In: Bassett, MJ (ed.) Breeding Vegetable Crops. Westport: AVI Publishing Co., pp. 135–166.Google Scholar
Toledo, A and Burlingame, B (2006) Biodiversity and nutrition: a common path toward global food security and sustainable development. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19: 477–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA (1991) United States Standard for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. p. 13.Google Scholar
Weststrate, JA, van Poppel, G and Verschuren, PM (2002) Functional foods, trends and future. British Journal of Nutrition 88: 233–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worthington, V (1998) Effect of agricultural methods on nutritional quality: a comparison of organic with conventional crops. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 4: 58–69.Google ScholarPubMed
Yan, W (2001) GGE biplot- a window application for graphical analysis of multi-environmental data and other types of two-way data. International Journal of Agronomy 93: 1111–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, W and Kang, MS (2003) GGE biplot Analysis. A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticist and Agronomist. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Yan, W, Kang, MS, Ma, B, Woods, S and Cornelius, PL (2007) GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Science 47: 643–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Csambalik et al. supplementary material

Csambalik et al. supplementary material

Download Csambalik et al. supplementary material(File)
File 207.2 KB