Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:43:04.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

α-Glucosidase inhibitory activity and antioxidant capacity in the peel and pulp of mixed-species blueberry hybrids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2014

Mark K. Ehlenfeldt*
Affiliation:
Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), Chatsworth, NJ08019, USA
Mary J. Camp
Affiliation:
Biometrical Consulting Service, USDA-ARS, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), Beltsville, MD20705-2350, USA
Shiow Y. Wang
Affiliation:
Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory, and Food Quality Laboratory, USDA-ARS, BARC, Beltsville, MD20705-2350, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: mark.ehlenfeldt@ars.usda.gov

Abstract

Inhibition of α-glucosidase activity is considered an effective means for controlling diabetes by regulating glucose uptake, and blueberries have been shown to possess high levels of inhibitory activity. In the present study, we examined the variations in α-glucosidase inhibition, phenolic and anthocyanin levels, and antioxidant capacity in the peel and pulp of 16 mixed-species rabbiteye hybrids (Vaccinium ashei Reade × Vaccinium spp.), one rabbiteye cultivar (V. ashei) and two highbush hybrids (Vaccinium corymbosum). Peel tissue had, on average, about four times higher levels of α-glucosidase inhibitory activity than pulp, and exhibited significantly higher levels of all other measured activities, even though the peel comprised only a small portion of the fruit. Significant variations in the levels of antioxidant activity were observed; however, no consistent differences were observed between the hybrids with various species composition. Significant positive correlations (r≥ 0.84) were found among α-glucosidase inhibitory activity, total anthocyanin (TA) and phenolic levels, and scavenging activity against ROO∙, ∙OH, 1O2 and H2O2 radicals in the extracts from the peel and pulp. There was a high correlation observed between α-glucosidase inhibitory activity levels and ROO∙(ORAC)peel (r= 0.95). A similarly high correlation with TApeel (r= 0.93) suggests that TA would be a suitable assay proxy if a broader genotypic evaluation of blueberry genotypes is desired.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2014. This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States 

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

Babu, K, Tiwari, AK, Srinivas, PV, Ali, AZ, Raju, B and Rao, JM (2004) Yeast and mammalian α-glucosidase inhibitory constituents from Himalayan rhubarb Rheum emodi Wall.ex Meisson. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 14: 38413845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhandari, MR, Nilubon, JA, Gao, H and Kawabata, J (2008) α-Glucosidase and α-amylase inhibitory activities of Nepalese medicinal herb Pakhanbhed (Bergenia ciliata, Haw.). Food Chemistry 106: 247252.Google Scholar
Chakraborty, N and Tripathy, BC (1992) Involvement of singlet oxygen in 5-aminolevulinic acid-induced photodynamic damage of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) chloroplasts. Plant Physiology 98: 711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, GW and Breen, PJ (1991) Activity of phenylalanine ammonialyase (PAL) and concentrations of anthocyanins and phenolics in developing strawberry fruit. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 116: 865869.Google Scholar
Huang, D, Ou, B, Hampsch-Woodill, M, Flanagan, JA and Prior, RL (2002) High-throughput assay of oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) using a multichannel liquid handling system coupled with a microplate fluorescence reader in 96-well format. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50: 44374444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDougall, GJ and Stewart, D (2005) The inhibitory effects of berry polyphenols on digestive enzymes. Biofactors 23: 189195.Google Scholar
McDougall, GJ, Shpiro, F, Dobson, P, Smith, P, Blake, A and Stewart, D (2005) Different polyphenolic components of soft fruits inhibit α-amylase and α-glucosidase. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53: 27602766.Google Scholar
Moore, J, Yin, J and Yu, L (2006) Novel fluorometric assay for hydroxyl radical scavenging capacity (HOSC) estimation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 54: 617626.Google Scholar
Patterson, BD, MacRae, EA and Ferguson, IB (1984) Estimation of hydrogen peroxide in plant extracts using titanium (IV). Analytical Biochemistry 139: 487492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Puls, W, Keup, U, Krause, H, Thomas, PG and Hoffmeister, F (1977) Glucosidase inhibition: a new approach to the treatment of diabetes, obesity, and hyperlipoproteinemia. Naturwissenschaften 64: 536537.Google Scholar
Rabasa-Lhoret, R and Chiasson, J-L (2004) Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors. In: DeFronzo, RA, Ferrannini, E, Keen, H and Zimmet, P (eds) International Textbook of Diabetes Mellitus. vol. 1 3rd edn. London: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 901914.Google Scholar
SAS/STAT(2011) SAS/STAT® 9.3 User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., p. 8640.Google Scholar
Slinkard, K and Singleton, VL (1997) Total phenol analysis: automation and comparison with manual methods. American Journal of Enology & Viticulture 28: 4955.Google Scholar
SPSS Statistics(2008) SPSS 17.0 Command Syntax Reference. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.Google Scholar
Wang, SY, Camp, MJ and Ehlenfeldt, MK (2012) Antioxidant capacity and α-glucosidase inhibitory activity in peel and flesh of blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) cultivars. Food Chemistry 132: 17591768.Google Scholar
Zhang, L, Li, J, Hogan, S, Chung, H, Welbaum, GE and Zhou, K (2010) Inhibitory effect of raspberries on starch digestive enzyme and their antioxidant properties and phenolic composition. Food Chemistry 119: 592599.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ehlenfeldt Supplementary Material

Tables S1-S2

Download Ehlenfeldt Supplementary Material(File)
File 144.9 KB