4.7 Article

Impact of genetic and environmental variation on development of flavonoids and carotenoids in pepper (Capsicum spp.)

期刊

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
卷 106, 期 3, 页码 341-352

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2005.04.008

关键词

beta-carotene; capsicum; lutein; luteolin; quercetin; zeaxanthin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peppers (Capsicum spp.) were grown for phytochemical analyses at three different locations including a greenhouse at College Station and field plots at Uvalde and Weslaco, Texas. Cultivar effects were significant at each location for all compounds. The best sources of P-carotene were mature greenhouse-grown fruit of Fidel (23.7 mu g/g) and C 127 (22.3 mu g/g). Mature greenhouse fruit of Tropic Bell (10.1 mu g/g) and PI 357509 (9.2 mu g/g) had high lutein, but Uvalde field-grown mature fruit of these lines were low in this compound, (1.4 and 0.5 mu g/g, respectively). MJ 201 fruit had the highest zeaxanthin levels (10 (mu g/g) at both College Station and Uvalde. The best sources of quercetin over all locations were the yellow wax types, Banana Supreme (186 mu g/g), PI 357509 (86 mu g/g) and Rio Grande Gold (26 mu g/g). Fidel (37 mu g/g) and Banana Supreme (21.5 mu g/g) were the best sources of luteolin. Immature fruit generally contained lower levels of lutein and xeaxanthin than mature, colored fruit. These differences were not always statistically significant. Greenhouse-grown peppers at College Station contained more carotenoids than the field-grown peppers in,Uvalde and Weslaco, but there were no significant differences among locations for flavonoid concentrations. Several good candidate parents were identified for the breeding program to develop novel pepper varieties with increased health benefits. Families of these varieties are currently being examined to assess the impact of specific environmental factors and identify genes involved in regulating synthesis of these beneficial phytochemicals. (c) 2005 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