4.6 Article

Triazoles as a Potential Threat to the Nutritional Quality of Tomato Fruits

期刊

METABOLITES
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/metabo13090988

关键词

fruit; tomato; triazoles; penconazole; tebuconazole; stress; nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals the impact of triazole fungicides on metabolic pathways in tomato fruits. Triazole treatment led to changes in free proteinogenic amino acids and saccharide content, increased total phenolics and flavonoids, and stimulated the non-enzymatic antioxidant system. Foliar application of penconazole had the greatest effect on the fruits.
Triazole fungicides can threaten plants as abiotic stressors but can also positively affect plant defense by inducing priming. Thus, plant yield is also both protected and endangered by triazoles that may influence several metabolic pathways during maturation processes, such as the biosynthesis of saccharides or secondary metabolites. Here, Solanum lycopersicum L. plants were exposed to foliar and soil applications of penconazole, tebuconazole, or their combination, and their resulting effect on tomato fruits was followed. The exposure to the equimolar mixture of both triazoles influenced the representation of free proteinogenic amino acids, especially Gln, Glu, Gly, Ile, Lys, Ser and Pro, saccharide content, and led to a significant increase in the contents of total phenolics and flavonoids as well as positive stimulation of the non-enzymatic antioxidant system. Among the identified secondary metabolites, the most abundant was naringenin, followed by chlorogenic acid in tomato peel. In turn, all triazole-treated groups showed a significantly lower content of rosmarinic acid in comparison with the control. Foliar application of penconazole affected the fruit more than other single triazole applications, showing a significant decrease in antioxidant capacity, the total content of secondary metabolites, and the activities of total membrane-bound peroxidases and ascorbate peroxidase.

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

4.6
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