Bioactive Compounds of New Superior Medlar Genotypes (Mespilus germanica) Grown in Turkey

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the bioactive compounds of superior medlar genotypes grown in Terme district (Samsun province in the Black Sea region of Northern Turkey) in 2017 and 2018. In the genotypes, the ascorbic acid varied from 24.6 mg 100 g-1 to 35.1 mg 100 g-1; organic acid contents (citric, malic, succinic) from 2.4 mg 100 g-1 to 13.0 mg 100 g-1, from 576.5 mg 100 g-1 to 707.4 mg 100 g-1, from 111.9 mg 100 g-1 to 188.5 mg 100 g-1, respectively; sugar contents (sucrose, glucose, fructose) from 111.9 mg 100 g-1 to 227.4 mg 100 g-1, from 2226.9 mg 100 g-1 to 2955.5 mg 100 g-1, from 3530.7 mg 100 g-1 to 4740.8 mg /100 g-1, respectively; the total phenol content from 24.0 mg GAE 100 g-1 to 107.4 mg GAE 100 g-1 and antioxidant activity from 9.1 mmol TE 100 g-1 to 50 mmol TE 100 g-1. It can be said that some genotypes are remarkable in terms of total phenolic, antioxidant activity and ascorbic acid contents.

Keywords

• Medlar
• Mespilus germanica
• Phenolics
• Antioxidant Activity
• Organic Acid
• Sugar

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut M, Ercisli S, Jurikova T, Mlcek J and Gozlekci S (2016). Phenotypic and bioactive diversity on medlar fruits (Mespilus germanica L.). Erwerbs-Obstbau, 3:185–191.
2. Anonymous (2013). Reflectoquant, ascorbic acid test (7.76044.0003-6001516376). Merck KGaA, 64271 Darmstadt, Germany.
3. Baird JR and Thieret JW (1989). The medlar (Mespilus germanica, Rosaceae) from antiquity to obscurity. Economic Botany, 43(3): 328-372.
4. Beyhan O, Elmastas M and Gedikli F (2010). Total phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity of leaf, dry fruit and fresh fruit of feijoa (Acca sellowiana, Myrtaceae). Journal Medicinal Plant Research,11:1065-1072.
5. Blois MS (1958). Antioxidant determinations by the use of a stable free radical. Nature, 181: 1199-1200.
6. Browicz K (1972). Mespilus L. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, 4, 128-129.
7. Çakır E and Öztürk A (2019). Determination of promising medlar genotypes in Tekkeköy district of Samsun. (in Turkish), International Journal of Agriculture and Wildlife Science (IJAWS) 5(2): 240-249.
8. Ercisli S, Sengul M, Yildiz H, Sener D, Duralija B, Voća S and Purgar DD (2012). Phytochemical and antioxidant characteristics of medlar fruits (Mespilus germanica L.). Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality. 85(1): 86-90.

9. Glew RH, Ayaz FA, Sanz C, Vanderjagt DJ, Huang HS, Chuang LT and Strnad M (2003a). Effect of postharvest period on sugars, organic acids and fatty acids composition in commercially sold medlar (Mespilus germanica ‘’Dutch’’) Fruit. European Food Science and Technolohy, 216 (5): 390-394.
10. Glew RH, Ayaz FA, Sanz C, Vanderjagt DJ, Huang HS, Chuang LT and Strnad M (2003b). Changes in sugars, organic acids in medlar (Mespilus germanica) during fruit development. Food Chemistry, 83 (3): 363-369.
11. Lee HS and Coates GA (2000). Quantitative study of free sugars and myo-inositol in citrus juices by HPLC and literature compilation. Journal of Liquid Chromatography. Related Technologies, 14: 2123-2141.
12. Lim TK (2012). Edible medicinal and non-medicinal plants (Vol. 4 Fruits, pp.: 437-441). Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York.
13. Nabavi SF, Nabavi SM, Ebrahimzadeh MA and Asgarirad H (2011). The antioxidant activity of wild medlar (Mespilus germanica L.) fruit, stem bark and leaf. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10 (2): 283-289.
14. Özkan Y, Gerçekçioğlu R and Polat M (1997). A study on the determination of fruit characteristics of medlar (Mespilus germanica L) types in Tokat (Turkey) central administrative district. (in Turkish), pp.: 123-129, Pome Fruits Symposium, 2-5 Eylül 1997, Yalova, Turkey.
15. Ozturk A, Yildiz K, Ozturk B, Karakaya O, Gun S, Uzun S and Gundogdu M (2019). Maintaining postharvest quality of medlar (Mespilus germanica) fruit using modified atmosphere packaging and methyl jasmonate. LWT. 111: 117-124.
16. Pető J, Cserni I and Hüvely A (2016). Some beneficial nutrient and mineral content of medlar fruits. Gradus 3(1): 258-262.
17. Rop O, Sochor J, Jurikova T, Zitka O, Skutkova H, Mlcek J, Salas P, Krska B, Babula P, Adam V, Kramarova D, Beklova M, Provaznik I and Kizek R (2011). Effect of five different stages of ripening on chemical compounds in medlar (Mespilus germanica L.). Molecules, 16: 74-91.
18. Selcuk N and Erkan M (2015). The effects of modified and palliflex controlled atmosphere storage on postharvest quality and composition of ‘Istanbul’ medlar fruit. Postharvest biology and technology, 99: 9-19.
19. Vargas R, Nelson C, Glaydys C and Arias A (2009). Bromatological chemical study of the fruit of the Níspero De Palo (Mespilus germanica L.) from Ayacucho. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica Ciencia e Investigación, 12(2): 90-94.
20. Waźbińska J (2007). The yield and content of some chemical components in fruits of common medlar (Mespilus germanica L.). Part II: Content of some chemical components in fruits of common medlar (Mespilus germanica L.). Sodininkystė ir daržininkystė, 26: 69-73.
21. Yılmaz A (2015). Selection of medlar (Mespilus germanica L.) genotypes naturally grown in Tokat region. (in Turkish), PhD. Thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat, Turkey.
22. Yılmaz A, Gerçekçioğlu R and Öz Atasever Ö (2016). Determination of Pomological and Chemical Properties of Some Medlar (Mespilus germanica L.) Genotypes. Journal of New Results in Science, 11: 118-124.