4.7 Article

Metabolite profiling of phenolics, anthocyanins and flavonols in cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata)

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 8-14

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.05.037

关键词

Flavonols; Anthocyanidins; Phenolic acids; HPLC; Brassica oleracea

资金

  1. Bio-industry Technology Development Program [311022-05-3-HD110, 311022-05-3-SB020]
  2. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA)
  3. Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF)
  4. Rural Development Administration (RDA)
  5. Korea Forest Service (KFS)
  6. Addiriyah Chair for Environmental Studies, Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolite profiling of phenolic acids, anthocyanidins and flavonols in Brassica oleracea var. capitata cultivated in the spring and fall seasons were evaluated. Phenolic acids (caffeic,p-coumaric, ferulic and sinapic acid), anthocyanidins (cyanidin and peonidin), and flavonols (quercetin and kaempferol) were identified and quantified by LC-MS and HPLC analyses. The total phenolic acid contents (10,633 mu g/g DW) were increased 6.3-fold in red cabbages; in contrast, phenolic acids were present in significantly higher levels in the outer parts of the green cabbages in the spring sowing than in those of the fall sowing. In the case of red cabbages, the phenolic acid levels in the outer parts were higher (3147.5 mu g/gDW), but the seasonal factor was not significant. Statistical analysis exhibited a significantly negative correlation between anthocyanidins and quercetin but exhibited a positive correlation between flavonols and phenolic acids in both cultivars. The most dramatic differences in the effect of the tissue position were analyzed by two-way MANOVA. The levels of anthocyanidins were 25-28% higher in the spring than those in the fall cabbages, whereas the contents were similar in the various tissue positions. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据