4.7 Article

Influence of chromoplast morphology on carotenoid bioaccessibility of carrot, mango, papaya, and tomato

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 135, Issue 4, Pages 2736-2742

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.07.035

Keywords

Bioaccessibility; Food matrix; Chromoplast; beta-Carotene; Lycopene; Lutein; beta-Cryptoxanthin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on the observation of outstanding dissimilarities of the morphology of pigment-containing chromoplasts in nutritionally important carotenoid sources, the bioaccessibility (BA) of carotenoids from edible portions of carrot, mango, papaya, and tomato was compared using an in vitro digestion model. While carrot and tomato contained large carotenoid crystals clearly visible by light microscopy, mango and papaya contained different types of carotenoid-bearing structures. Particularly, beta-carotene is deposited in globular and tubular elements in papaya and mango chromoplasts, where carotenoids accumulate in a lipid-dissolved and liquid-crystalline form, respectively. The highest BA of beta-carotene was found for mango (10.1%), followed by papaya (5.3%), tomato (3.1%), and carrot (0.5%). In our digestion model, differences between total lycopene BA from papaya and tomato were insignificant, possibly since both pigments occur in a solid crystalline deposition form in both fruits. Furthermore, the BA of lutein,beta-cryptoxanthin, and beta-cryptoxanthin esters was shown to be superior to that of the carotenes from the respective food sources. The effect of lipid addition to the different food sources was studied. Although BA was enhanced for most carotenoids, the above-mentioned ranking of BAs of beta-carotene remained unchanged after lipid addition. Consequently, the physical form of carotenoid deposition in plant chromoplasts is suggested to have major impact on their liberation efficiency from the food matrices. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available