Next Article in Journal
Changes in Carbohydrates, Organic Acids, and Minerals at Different Development Stages of Hexachlamys edulis Fruit, a Wild South American Species with Horticultural Potential
Previous Article in Journal
Variability of Nutritional, Antioxidant, and Textural Traits of a Collection of Snap Beans of Different Colors
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sugar and Organic Acid Content Is Dependent on Tomato (Solanum Lycoperiscum L.) Peel Color

1
Department of Agriculture and Nutrition, Institute of Agriculture and Tourism, K. Huguesa 8, 52440 Poreč, Croatia
2
Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity and Molecular Plant Breeding, Svetošimunska 1, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
3
Department of Plant Sciences, Institute for Adriatic Crops and Karst Reclamation, Put Duilova 11, 21000 Split, Croatia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Horticulturae 2023, 9(3), 313; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030313
Submission received: 9 February 2023 / Revised: 20 February 2023 / Accepted: 23 February 2023 / Published: 28 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Nutrition)

Abstract

:
The sensory properties of fruit and vegetables are a result of taste and aroma caused by many volatile and nonvolatile compounds. The sum of organic acids (malic and citric acids) and soluble sugars (fructose and glucose), as well as their balanced combination and interaction, contributes to the characterization of the tomato flavour. The ratio of sugars and organic acids is the key to the sweetness and sourness of tomatoes. This study aimed to determine the sugar and organic acid content, as well as several physicochemical parameters, of eight tomato landraces from Croatia. All the parameters investigated differed between the tomato landraces. The PLS-DA analysis showed that the most important parameters in tomato landrace discriminatory character are malic acid, fructooligosaccharide content, citric acid, dry matter. The results obtained show a significant positive correlation between tomato dry matter and sugar content. At the same time, fructose and sucrose content is negatively correlated with the green to red hue of tomato peel, as well as positively with the blue to yellow hue, indicating that the sugar content increases with yellow color intensity. The blue to yellow hue of the peel color also positively correlates with citric acid content.

1. Introduction

The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is an economically important plant cultivated worldwide. Due to its culinary versatility, it is the most widely cultivated vegetable in the world [1]. Tomato belongs to the Solanaceae family, which also includes other significant species such as the potato, peppers, eggplants and tobacco [2]. Solanum is the largest genus in the Solanaceae family, containing 1250 to 1700 species [3]. The Solanum section Lycopersicon consists of 13 species or subspecies out of which, the tomato is the only domesticated member [4]. The hypothesis on the origin of tomato domestication was developed by extensive genetic characterization as part of the SolCAP project [5,6] and it is believed that the tomato was domesticated in two waves. First, from Solanum pimpinellifolium to S. lycopersicun var. cerasiforme in Ecuador and Northern Peru, and second, from S. lycopersicum var. cerasiforme to S. lycopersicum var. lycopersicum in Central America [7]. The tomato was brought to Europe in the 16th century, which resulted in additional improvements to fruit characteristics [8]. Among evolutionary features, the most significant impacts of domestication are those related to the external appearance of the tomato, such as size, shape, color and fruit firmness [3]. Tomato cultivars show a vast morphological diversity that is controlled by a large number of genetic loci [9].
Plant genetic resources, such as traditional landraces, are the basis of food security and their loss can result in genetic erosion [10]. The lack of taste of commercial tomato varieties, due to breeding efforts focused mainly on yield, has led to an increased interest in traditional tomato landraces; however, traditional tomato landraces can yield less and have a shorter shelf-life compared to commercial varieties [11].
In the everyday language of people, a tomato is a vegetable, while from the botanical point of view, it is a fruit. This topic was a question of debate during the 19th century at the Supreme Court in the USA, with the case of Nix vs. Hedden where the court judged the tomato as a vegetable due to the manner of its use [3].
Tomatoes contain nutritional compounds important for human health such as carotenoids and vitamin E which have antioxidative properties. Carotenoids (lycopene and β-carotene) are precursors of vitamin A and are responsible for the red color of ripe tomatoes [12].
The sensory properties of fruit and vegetables are a result of taste and aromas caused by many volatile and nonvolatile compounds. The sum of organic acids (malic, citric, and oxalic) and soluble sugars (fructose and glucose), as well as their balanced combination and interaction, contribute to the characteristic tomato flavours [13]. The content of organic acids is important not only for the flavour but for the processing and storage of the fruit as well. The organic acids determine the pH of the fruit which, if higher than 4.5, allows the development of spoilage microorganisms [3].
The content of sugars and organic acids depends on the tomato’s ripeness. During the ripening of a tomato, a series of biochemical processes take place that converts the unripe, acidic-tasting tomato into a sweet-tasting, aromatic fruit [2]. The total amount of sugar increases during ripening with glucose being predominant in unripe fruits while ripe fruits contain relatively more fructose [14]. After ripening, the sugar content declines again. As with sugars, the amount of organic acid increases during ripening [15]. At all stages, citric acid is the dominant organic acid in tomatoes, however, the content of malic acid may be significant in unripe tomatoes [15]. Moreover, the ratio of malic to citric acid can vary greatly between different tomato cultivars [16]. After ripening, the content of citric acid decreases [17]. Besides ripeness, which can be connected to harvest time, factors influencing the nutritional composition of tomatoes are variety, climate, location and agricultural practices [18].
This study aimed to determine the sugar and organic acid content, as well as the interrelationship with selected physicochemical parameters, in eight tomato landraces from Croatia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material

The plant material consisted of eight tomato landraces belonging to an ex situ collection from the Institute of Agriculture and Tourism (N 45°13′20.30″, E 13°36′6.49″). As shown in Supplementary Table S1, the seeds from tomato landraces were obtained from different regions across Croatia and have various morphological characteristics. Tomato seedlings were grown in a local nursery and planted in an experimental field of the Institute of Agriculture and Tourism in Poreč, Croatia on 11 May 2021, on black polyethylene (PE) mulch. Weather data is shown in Table S2. The experiment was set up as a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Tomato plants were grown according to standard agronomic practices for tomatoes [19]. All landraces were left to open pollination.
The harvest was carried out from the 9th to the 13th of August. Only fully ripe fruits without any signs of physical damage, or physiological defects, were harvested. From each landrace 8 to 12 tomato fruits were chosen and divided into 4 replications (2 to 3 fruits per replication) and used for further investigation. The tomato fruit pulp, without the placental tissue and seeds from each replication (approximately 500 g), was homogenized by a hand blender and subsequently used for further analyses. For the HPLC analyses, 500 mg of the sample was mixed with 1 mL of 80% methanol in a tube with 2.4 mm metal beads (Omni kit 19–620, Kennesaw, GA, USA) for 1 min at 5 m/s using a bead mill (Omni Bead Ruptor Elite, Kennesaw, GA, USA). The homogenates were left to macerate for 1 h on a rotator (Biosan RS-60, Riga, Latvia) and subsequently centrifuged for 5 min at 16,000× g. The extracts were filtered through a 0.22 µm nylon filter before analysis.

2.2. Dry Matter, PH, and Color Analyses in Tomato

Dry matter was determined gravimetrically after air drying (Memmert UF160, Schwabach, Germany) approximately 5 g of tomato sample at 80 °C overnight. The pH analysis was conducted by measuring pH with a Seven2Go S2-Basic portable pH meter (Mettler Toledo, Columbus, OF, USA) in the homogenized tomato pulp. The color of the tomato peel was measured by a MiniScan EZ 4500 Portable Spectrophotometer (HunterLab, Reston, VA, USA). The analyses were carried out on four replicates.

2.3. Tomato Sugar Analysis

The fructooligosaccharide (quantified as inulin), glucose, and fructose content in the tomato samples were analysed using: an HPLC, consisting of a system controller (Shimadzu CBM-40, Kyoto, Japan); a degassing unit (Shimadzu DGU-405, Kyoto, Japan); a solvent delivery unit (Shimadzu LC-20Ai, Kyoto, Japan); an autosampler (Shimadzu SIL-20AC, Kyoto, Japan); column oven (Shimadzu CTO-40S, Kyoto, Japan); and a refractive index detector (Shimadzu RID-20A, Kyoto, Japan). Chromatographic separation was achieved by injecting 10 µL of the sample on a 300 × 8 mm, 9 µm particle size, calcium ion exchange column (Dr. Maisch ReproGel Ca, Ammerbuch, Germany) held at 80 °C using deionized water as the mobile phase (0.6 mL/min, isocratic elution). Retention times, and peak areas of the investigated sugars, were compared to analytical standards for identification and quantification.

2.4. Tomato Organic Acid Analysis

The tomato samples were analysed on an HPLC consisting of two solvent delivery units (Shimadzu Nexera LC-40DX3, Kyoto, Japan); an autosampler (Shimadzu Nexera SIL-40CX3, Kyoto Japan); a thermostated column compartment (Shimadzu Nexera CTO-40C, Kyoto, Japan); and a photodiode array detector (Shimadzu Nexera SPD-M40, Kyoto, Japan).
Chromatographic separation was achieved by injecting 10 µL of the sample on an aqueous C18, 4.6 mm × 250 mm, 2.7 µm core-shell particle size column (Advanced Materials Technology, Wilmington, DE, USA) held at 35 °C with isocratic elution of the mobile phase (25 mM phosphate buffer, pH 2.5) at 0.7 mL/min. Malic and citric acids were identified and quantified against their analytical standards.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The obtained data were analysed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and, for significant differences (p ≤ 0.05), a Fischer Least Significant Difference post hoc test was performed. For the differentiation analysis of the investigated tomato landraces, a Partial Least Squares—Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) was performed. Pearson’s correlations were calculated between all investigated parameters and significant correlations were determined at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

The highest dry matter content was observed in landraces IPT503 and IPT500 (8.36 ± 0.26% and 8.21 ± 0.12%, respectively), while the landraces IPT507, IPT506, IPT501, and IPT504 had the lowest dry matter content, ranging from 6.05 ± 0.2% in IPT504 to 5.77 ± 0.1% in IPT506 (Table 1).
IPT500 showed the highest pH level of 4.41 ± 0.04, which was comparable to the values of IPT507 and IPT501 (4.34 ± 0.08 and 4.33 ± 0.03, respectively). The pH levels found in landraces IPT506, IPT499, IPT502, and IPT504 were not significantly different, ranging from 4.27 ± 0.04 in IPT506 to 4.21 ± 0.03 in IPT504. The lowest pH level was observed in IPT503 (4.04 ± 0.03) (Table 1).
The brightest tomato color, measured as lightness in CIELAB color space, was observed in IPT503, while the lowest brightness was measured in landrace IPT500 (Table 1). At the same time, landrace IPT500 had the least intense red hue characterized by the lowest a value, compared to the other investigated landraces, except for IPT502 and IPT503. The most intense yellow hue among the investigated landraces was observed in IPT503 (Table 1).
Significant differences were observed in the sugar content between the samples and the highest content of all the analysed sugars (fructooligosaccharides, fructose, glucose) was found in IPT503. The fructooligosaccharide content varied significantly between the landraces, from the highest value of 0.46 ± 0.03 g/100 g FW found in IPT503, to the lowest value of 0.25 ± 0.01 g/100 g FW found in IPT506. The fructooligosaccharide content of landraces IPT499 and IPT500 was not significantly different from the highest observed value (Table 2).
As mentioned, IPT503 had the highest fructose content (2.64 ± 0.03 g/100 g FW), while the lowest fructose content was found in IPT504 and IPT506 (1.82 ± 0.04 g/100 g FW and 1.87 ± 0.06 g/100 g FW, respectively). Fructose content in other landraces ranged from 2.31 ± 0.11 g/100 g FW in IPT500 to 2.1 ± 0.07 g/100 g FW in IPT507 (Table 2).
Glucose was most abundant in IPT503 (2.56 ± 0.05 g/100 g FW). The lowest glucose content was observed in the IPT506 (1.84 ± 0.06 g/100 g FW), followed by IPT502 and IPT504 (1.89 ± 0.17 g/100 g FW and 1.89 ± 0.06 g/100 g FW, respectively).
IPT507 had the highest content of malic acid (484 ± 22 mg/100 g FW), while landraces IPT506, IPT499, IPT500, and IPT503 did not significantly differ in malic acid content (Table 2).
The citric acid content ranged from 729 ± 20 mg/100 g FW in IPT503, to 385 ± 41 mg/100 g FW in IPT501. Landraces IPT507, IPT506, IPT499, IPT502, and IPT504 were in the mid-range, where the content of citric acid varied from 588 ± 4 mg/100 g FW (IPT504) to 479 ± 22 mg/100 g FW (IPT502) (Table 2).
The PLS-DA analysis showed that the most important parameters in tomato landraces character discrimination were malic acid, fructooligosaccharide content, citric acid, dry matter and lightness (L) (Figure 1). Based on the PLS-DA, the IPT503 was distinguished as the landrace with the highest dry matter, sugar, citric and malic acid content as well as intense red and yellow hues combined with light peel color (Figure 1). On the other hand, the PLS-DA model indicated that the IPT500 landrace, which is also characterized by high dry matter content, had a darker peel color and low b values when compared to the other investigated landraces (Figure 1). The IPT500 landrace is also the only determinate tomato among the investigated landraces. Determinate tomato species are characterized by higher dry matter content compared to indeterminate species [20], which was also the case in our study.
A significant positive correlation between tomato dry matter and sugar content was determined. At the same time the dry matter, as well as fructose and glucose content, was negatively correlated with the a value (green to red hue), indicating that dry matter content in tomatoes decreased with red color (Table 3). On the other hand, the blue to yellow (b) hue was positively correlated with fructose and glucose content, indicating that the yellow tomato peel color was positively associated with sugar content as well as positively correlated with citric acid content (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Previous studies have reported that statistically significant differences in the physiochemical variables such as size, weight, pH, sugar content and organic acid content are more consistently influenced by genotype than by different growing methods, environments or cultural practices [21,22,23].
The dry matter content of tomatoes reported in previous studies [24,25,26] ranged from 4.07% to 7.85%, depending on the cultivar and the different stages of fruit maturity at harvest. These results are comparable to results obtained in this study (5.77% to 8.36%) and the differences can be attributed to different genotypes.
Our results showed that the landrace IPT503 had the highest fructose and glucose content, and was among others with the highest fructooligosaccharide content, while at the same time, having the highest citric acid and among others with the highest malic acid content. Another characteristic of this landrace is the brightness and intense orange color as observed by the highest lightness and b values. Cebolla-Cornejo et al. [22] studied the effects of genotype and environment on the taste and aroma of tomatoes and reported that the content of some sugars and organic acids was significantly genotype dependent, and our study confirmed this effect. The authors reported a range between 1.15 g/100 g and 1.68 g/100 g of fructose per fresh weight, which was approximately two times lower than our results. The results obtained by Rosa-Martinez et al. [26] were comparable to ours, they reported a range of 1.53 g/100 g to 2.35 g/100 g of fructose per fresh weight. The glucose content reported by the mentioned authors ranged from 0.74 g/100 g to 1.29 g/100 g [22] and 1.22 g/100 g to 2.23 g/100 g [26] of glucose per fresh weight, with our results being comparable to the latter range, albeit with a higher maximum and average values.
The contents of organic acids obtained in this study were moderately high compared to values reported by previous studies. Regarding the citric acid content, previously published studies [21,22,26,27] have reported values in a range from 132 mg/100 g fresh weight to 543 mg/100 g fresh weight, which was in line with our values of (385 mg/100 g FW to 588 mg/100 g FW), except for IPT503, which had a 729 mg/100 g fresh weight. However, significant differences were observed when compared to the content of malic acid in previous studies. Studies [22,26,27] reported a malic acid content in tomatoes ranging from 60 mg/100 g fresh weight to 254 mg/100 g fresh weight, while in our study it ranged from 277 mg/100 g FW to 484 mg/100 g FW. The discrepancy between results is likely due to different cultivars used in studies, since malic acid content is cultivar-specific, as noticed by Hernández Suárez et al. [28]. Also, malic acid is sourer, while at the same time having a low impact on titratable acidity compared to citric acid [29]. The average pH values measured in this study were lower compared to earlier studies [21,24], where the authors reported a pH range between 4.25 and 4.78, probably owing to the high organic acid content in our accessions.
Our results showed that there is a positive correlation between the tomato dry matter and sugar content. The tomato dry matter and sugar content were negatively correlated with the a value (green to red hue) and at the same time the blue to yellow (b) hue was positively correlated with fructose and glucose content indicating that the yellow tomato peel color was positively associated with sugar content as well as positively correlated with citric acid content. The obtained results can be explained by the higher dry matter and sugar content in tomato landraces characterized by the red/yellow peel color compared to the red peel color tomato landraces, as presented in Supplementary Table S2 and Table 1, determining the strong positive correlation of the b value and negative correlation of the a value. The investigated sugars correlated positively with each other. The pH correlated negatively with citric acid while it was not significantly affected by malic acid content. The pH was also negatively correlated with the tomato lightness (L) as well as the blue to yellow (b) hue.
The red color in tomatoes appears to be a result of the increased biosynthesis of carotenoids (predominantly lycopene) and the depletion of chlorophyll, which is related to the conversion of chloroplasts into chromoplasts during the ripening [30]. According to Selahle et al. [31], the intensity of the red color in tomatoes depends on the relative contents of lycopene and chlorophyll, while the intensity of the yellow color depends on the β-carotene content.
The levels of carotenoids in tomato fruits are affected by a series of factors such as growing conditions and climate [32], but most significantly by the ripening stage and genotype [33]. In previous studies, the a value has shown a linear correlation with the ripening stages of the tomatoes [34]. Stinco et al. [35] reported a positive correlation between the color parameter a (green to red hue) and lycopene content. Furthermore, Arias et al. [34], Brandt et al. [32] and Stinco et al. [35] reported a positive correlation between the a/b ratio and lycopene content, varying between 0.75 and 0.93. In previous studies the analyses reported a close correlation between the a/b ratio and lycopene content, showing that the a/b ratio is a suitable parameter to characterize the maturity stage of fresh tomatoes. However, it is important to note that some tomato genotypes do not exhibit a red color at all, or only exhibit it partially. There are examples of green, orange and yellow mutants and tomatoes with an external violet color due to the accumulation of both carotenoids and anthocyanins [33]. The results of this study show that the yellow tomato peel color is positively associated with sugar content as well as positively correlated with citric acid content, with the best example of this being landrace IPT503, which had the highest fructose, glucose and citric acid content, while having the lowest a/b ratio (Table 1 and Table 2).
L, a and b values of ripe tomatoes obtained by previous studies greatly vary and were highly dependent on the cultivar. L values ranged from 30.2 to 65.9, the a values ranged from 0.9 to 41.0 and the b values ranged from 17.0 to 59.4 [36,37,38]. These results are comparable to results obtained in this study, although the a values were on the higher end of the mentioned range. Young et al. [39] reported that the color of tomatoes is negatively correlated to the total solid content, but positively correlated to the total soluble solids of some tomato lines. Fructose correlated positively with glucose content. Furthermore, it was reported that a value (green to red hue) is significantly negatively correlated to pH and positively correlated to citric acid content [39], and these correlations were shown to be insignificant in this study. Causse et al. [40] reported a positive correlation between overall aroma intensity (sugar and acid content) and dry matter content.

5. Conclusions

The present study showed that the studied parameters, including dry matter, sugars, organic acids, peel color and pH differed according to genotype. Based on the developed PLS-DA model, the IPT503 was distinguished from the other tomatoes as the landrace with the highest dry matter, sugar, citric and malic acid content as well as having intense red and yellow hues combined with light peel color. On the other hand, the PLS-DA model result showed that the IPT500 landrace, which is also characterized by high dry matter content, has a darker peel color and less intense red and yellow color when compared to the other investigated landraces. The IPT500 landrace is also the only determinate tomato among the investigated landraces. The results of this study show that the yellow tomato peel color is positively associated with sugar content as well as positively correlated with citric acid content.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/horticulturae9030313/s1, Table S1: Tomato landraces used in this study, their origin, and morphological characteristics; Table S2: Weather data during the growing season.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.B., M.R. and S.G.B.; Formal analysis, M.A., N.M., N.I. and T.K.K.; Funding acquisition, S.G.B.; Investigation, N.I. and T.K.K.; Methodology, N.M., N.I. and S.G.B.; Resources, I.P. and M.R.; Supervision, D.B. and S.G.B.; Writing—original draft, M.A. and N.M.; Writing—review & editing, N.M., N.I., D.B., I.P., M.R. and S.G.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Croatia through the National Program for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data is available in this manuscript and supplementary materials.

Acknowledgments

The work of doctoral students Nina Išić and Tvrtko Karlo Kovačević was supported by the “Young researchers’ career development project–training of doctoral students” program under the Croatian Science Foundation projects DOK-2020-01-2958 and DOK-2021-02-5148, respectively.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAOSTAT—Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  2. Padmanabhan, P.; Cheema, A.; Paliyath, G. Solanaceous Fruits Including Tomato, Eggplant, and Peppers. In Encyclopedia of Food and Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bergougnoux, V. The History of Tomato: From Domestication to Biopharming. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 170–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Knapp, S.; Peralta, I.E. The Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L., Solanaceae) and Its Botanical Relatives; Spirnger: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hamilton, J.P.; Sim, S.-C.; Stoffel, K.; van Deynze, A.; Buell, C.R.; Francis, D.M. Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Discovery in Cultivated Tomato via Sequencing by Synthesis. Plant Genome 2012, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sim, S.C.; Durstewitz, G.; Plieske, J.; Wieseke, R.; Ganal, M.W.; van Deynze, A.; Hamilton, J.P.; Buell, C.R.; Causse, M.; Wijeratne, S.; et al. Development of a Large SNP Genotyping Array and Generation of High-Density Genetic Maps in Tomato. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e40563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Blanca, J.; Cañizares, J.; Cordero, L.; Pascual, L.; Diez, M.J.; Nuez, F. Variation Revealed by SNP Genotyping and Morphology Provides Insight into the Origin of the Tomato. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e48198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Lin, T.; Zhu, G.; Zhang, J.; Xu, X.; Yu, Q.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Lun, Y.; Li, S.; Wang, X.; et al. Genomic Analyses Provide Insights into the History of Tomato Breeding. Nat. Genet. 2014, 46, 1220–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xu, J.; Ranc, N.; Muños, S.; Rolland, S.; Bouchet, J.P.; Desplat, N.; Le Paslier, M.C.; Liang, Y.; Brunel, D.; Causse, M. Phenotypic Diversity and Association Mapping for Fruit Quality Traits in Cultivated Tomato and Related Species. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2012, 126, 567–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lázaro, A. Tomato Landraces: An Analysis of Diversity and Preferences. Plant Genet. Resour. 2018, 16, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baldina, S.; Picarella, M.E.; Troise, A.D.; Pucci, A.; Ruggieri, V.; Ferracane, R.; Barone, A.; Fogliano, V.; Mazzucato, A. Metabolite Profiling of Italian Tomato Landraces with Different Fruit Types. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Migliori, C.; di Cesare, L.F.; Lo Scalzo, R.; Campanelli, G.; Ferrari, V. Effects of Organic Farming and Genotype on Alimentary and Nutraceutical Parameters in Tomato Fruits. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 2833–2839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Azodanlou, R.; Darbellay, C.; Luisier, J.L.; Villettaz, J.C.; Amadò, R. Development of a Model for Quality Assessment of Tomatoes and Apricots. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 36, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Davies, J.N.; Kempton, R.J. Changes in the Individual Sugars of Tomato Fruit during Ripening. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1975, 26, 1103–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Davies, J.N. Changes in the Non-Volatile Organic Acids of Tomato Fruit during Ripening. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1966, 17, 396–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Loiudice, R.; Impembo, M.; Laratta, B.; Villari, G.; Lo Voi, A.; Siviero, P.; Castaldo, D. Composition of San Marzano Tomato Varieties. Food Chem. 1995, 53, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Anthon, G.E.; Lestrange, M.; Barrett, D.M. Changes in PH, Acids, Sugars and Other Quality Parameters during Extended Vine Holding of Ripe Processing Tomatoes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 1175–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hernández, M.; Espinosa, F.; Galindo, P. Tomato Fruit Quality as Influenced by the Interactions between Agricultural Techniques and Harvesting Period. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2014, 177, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lešić, R.; Borošić, J.; Buturac, I.; Herak Ćustić, M.; Poljak, M.; Romić, D.P. Povrćarstvo (Vegetable Crops), 3rd ed.; Zrnski d.d.: Čakovec, Croatia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  20. Anjaneyulu, K.; Iyengar, B.R.V. Genotypic Variations in Tomato (Lycopersicon Esculentum) in the Recovery of Applied Nitrogen. J. Nucl. Agric. Biol. 1995, 24, 92–97. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ordóñez-Santos, L.E.; Arbones-Maciñeira, E.; Fernández-Perejón, J.; Lombardero-Fernández, M.; Vázquez-Odériz, L.; Romero-Rodríguez, A. Comparison of Physicochemical, Microscopic and Sensory Characteristics of Ecologically and Conventionally Grown Crops of Two Cultivars of Tomato (Lycopersicon Esculentum Mill.). J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cebolla-Cornejo, J.; Roselló, S.; Valcárcel, M.; Serrano, E.; Beltrán, J.; Nuez, F. Evaluation of Genotype and Environment Effects on Taste and Aroma Flavor Components of Spanish Fresh Tomato Varieties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 2440–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lee, S.K.; Kader, A.A. Preharvest and Postharvest Factors Influencing Vitamin C Content of Horticultural Crops. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2000, 20, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Alenazi, M.M.; Shafiq, M.; Alsadon, A.A.; Alhelal, I.M.; Alhamdan, A.M.; Solieman, T.H.I.; Ibrahim, A.A.; Shady, M.R.; Al-Selwey, W.A. Improved Functional and Nutritional Properties of Tomato Fruit during Cold Storage. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 27, 1467–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rodica, S.; Apahidean, S.; Apahidean, M.; Măniuţiu, D.; Paulette, L. Yield, Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Greenhouse Tomato Grown on Soil and Organic Substratum. In Proceedings of the 43rd Croatian and 3rd International Symposium on Agriculture, Opatija, Croatia, 18–21 February 2008. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rosa-Martínez, E.; García-Martínez, M.D.; Adalid-Martínez, A.M.; Pereira-Dias, L.; Casanova, C.; Soler, E.; Figàs, M.R.; Raigón, M.D.; Plazas, M.; Soler, S.; et al. Fruit Composition Profile of Pepper, Tomato and Eggplant Varieties Grown under Uniform Conditions. Food Res. Int. 2021, 147, 110531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bastías, A.; López-Climent, M.; Valcárcel, M.; Rosello, S.; Gómez-Cadenas, A.; Casaretto, J.A. Modulation of Organic Acids and Sugar Content in Tomato Fruits by an Abscisic Acid-Regulated Transcription Factor. Physiol. Plant. 2011, 141, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hernández Suárez, M.; Rodríguez Rodríguez, E.; Díaz Romero, C. Analysis of Organic Acid Content in Cultivars of Tomato Harvested in Tenerife. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2007, 226, 423–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Leiva-Brondo, M.; Martí, R.; Macua, J.I.; Lahoz, I.; González; Campillo, C.; Roselló, S.; Cebolla-Cornejo, J. Sugar and Acid Profile of Processing Tomato Cultivars Grown under Conventional or Organic Conditions. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1081, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Harris, W.M.; Spurr, A.R. Chromoplasts of Tomato Fruits. II. The Red Tomato. Am. J. Bot. 1969, 56, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Selahle, M.K.; Sivakumar, D.; Soundy, P. Effect of Photo-Selective Nettings on Post-Harvest Quality and Bioactive Compounds in Selected Tomato Cultivars. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 2187–2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brandt, S.; Pék, Z.; Barna, É.; Lugasi, A.; Helyes, L. Lycopene Content and Colour of Ripening Tomatoes as Affected by Environmental Conditions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 86, 568–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Borghesi, E.; González-Miret, M.L.; Escudero-Gilete, M.L.; Malorgio, F.; Heredia, F.J.; Meléndez-Martínez, A.J. Effects of Salinity Stress on Carotenoids, Anthocyanins, and Color of Diverse Tomato Genotypes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 11676–11682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Arias, R.; Lee, T.C.; Logendra, L.; Janes, H. Correlation of Lycopene Measured by HPLC with the L*, A*, B* Color Readings of a Hydroponic Tomato and the Relationship of Maturity with Color and Lycopene Content. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 1697–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Stinco, C.M.; Rodríguez-Pulido, F.J.; Escudero-Gilete, M.L.; Gordillo, B.; Vicario, I.M.; Meléndez-Martínez, A.J. Lycopene Isomers in Fresh and Processed Tomato Products: Correlations with Instrumental Color Measurements by Digital Image Analysis and Spectroradiometry. Food Res. Int. 2013, 50, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oluk, A.C.; Ata, A.; Ünlü, M.; Yazici, E.; Karaşahin, Z.; Eroğlu, E.Ç.; Canan, I. Biochemical Characterisation and Sensory Evaluation of Differently Coloured and Shaped Tomato Cultivars. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2019, 47, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Kerkhofs, N.S.; Lister, C.E.; Savage, G.P. Change in Colour and Antioxidant Content of Tomato Cultivars Following Forced-Air Drying. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2005, 60, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bhandari, S.R.; Lee, J.G. Ripening-Dependent Changes in Antioxidants, Color Attributes, and Antioxidant Activity of Seven Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Cultivars. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2016, 2016, 5498618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Young, T.E.; Juvik, J.A.; Sullivan, J.G. Accumulation of the Components of Total Solids in Ripening Fruits of Tomato. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1993, 118, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Causse, M.; Saliba-Colombani, V.; Lecomte, L.; Duffé, P.; Rousselle, P.; Buret, M. QTL Analysis of Fruit Quality in Fresh Market Tomato: A Few Chromosome Regions Control the Variation of Sensory and Instrumental Traits. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 2089–2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Partial Least Square—Discriminant Analysis of the investigated tomato landraces; L- lightness; a—green to red; b—blue to yellow; FOS—fructooligosaccharides.
Figure 1. Partial Least Square—Discriminant Analysis of the investigated tomato landraces; L- lightness; a—green to red; b—blue to yellow; FOS—fructooligosaccharides.
Horticulturae 09 00313 g001
Table 1. Dry matter, pH and CIELAB colorspace values of the investigated tomato landraces.
Table 1. Dry matter, pH and CIELAB colorspace values of the investigated tomato landraces.
LandraceDry MatterPHLab
%
IPT4996.41 ± 0.1 bc 14.25 ± 0.03 bc43.4 ± 0.2 b35.9 ± 0.3 a–c30.9 ± 0.5 cd
IPT5008.21 ± 0.12 a4.41 ± 0.04 a32.2 ± 1.8 c33.4 ± 0.6 d22.6 ± 1.3 e
IPT5015.98 ± 0.11 c4.33 ± 0.03 a–c43.0 ± 0.6 b37.3 ± 0.3 a30.4 ± 1.1 cd
IPT5026.90 ± 0.41 bc4.22 ± 0.03 bc45.7 ± 3 b34.7 ± 1.3 b–d34.7 ± 3.4 bc
IPT5038.36 ± 0.26 a4.04 ± 0.03 d54.3 ± 0.8 a34.2 ± 1.2 cd49.2 ± 1.5 a
IPT5046.05 ± 0.2 c4.21 ± 0.03 c46.4 ± 1 b36.6 ± 0.2 ab36.5 ± 1.2 b
IPT5065.77 ± 0.1 c4.27 ± 0.04 bc43.5 ± 0.4 b36.2 ± 0.4 a–c30.0 ± 0.4 d
IPT5075.94 ± 0.24 c4.34 ± 0.08 ab43.4 ± 0.8 b37.1 ± 0.3 a30.9 ± 1.1 cd
p-value**************
1 different letters indicate significant differences in Fischer’s Least Significant Difference test; *** p ≤ 0.001; ** p ≤ 0.01; L—lightness; a—green to red; b—blue to yellow.
Table 2. Sugar and organic acid content of tomato accessions.
Table 2. Sugar and organic acid content of tomato accessions.
LandraceFructooligo-SaccharidesFructoseGlucoseMalic AcidCitric Acid
g/100 g FWmg/100 g FW
IPT4990.45 ± 0.01 ab 12.22 ± 0.03 bc2.13 ± 0.03 b374 ± 23 a–c507 ± 34 b–d
IPT5000.40 ± 0.02 ab2.31 ± 0.11 b2.13 ± 0.13 b452 ± 35 ab443 ± 41 de
IPT5010.39 ± 0.01 b2.11 ± 0.04 bc1.98 ± 0.05 bc277 ± 65 c385 ± 41 e
IPT5020.31 ± 0.01 c2.11 ± 0.12 bc1.89 ± 0.17 bc349 ± 43 bc479 ± 22 cd
IPT5030.46 ± 0.03 a2.64 ± 0.03 a2.56 ± 0.05 a430 ± 49 ab729 ± 20 a
IPT5040.31 ± 0.01 c1.87 ± 0.06 d1.89 ± 0.06 bc354 ± 36 bc588 ± 4 b
IPT5060.25 ± 0.01 d1.82 ± 0.04 d1.84 ± 0.06 c394 ± 36 a–c573 ± 11 b
IPT5070.40 ± 0.04 b2.10 ± 0.07 c1.97 ± 0.08 bc484 ± 22 a563 ± 42 bc
p-value*************
1 different letters indicate significant differences in Fischer’s Least Significant Difference test; *** p ≤ 0.001; * p ≤ 0.05.
Table 3. Pearson’s correlations between the analysed parameters.
Table 3. Pearson’s correlations between the analysed parameters.
VariableDry matterPHFOSFructoseGlucoseMalic AcidCitric AcidLab
Dry matter1.00
pH−0.181.00
FOS0.44 *−0.141.00
Fructose0.75 *−0.220.74 *1.00
Glucose0.65 *−0.330.68 *0.93 *1.00
Malic acid0.14−0.040.040.210.201.00
Citric acid0.20−0.65 *0.000.220.37 *0.40 *1.00
L−0.01−0.70 *0.070.210.35 *−0.100.60 *1.00
a−0.61 *0.12−0.15−0.44 *−0.38 *−0.34−0.13−0.011.00
b0.24−0.76 *0.210.40 *0.52 *−0.040.64 *0.93 *−0.121.00
* Significant correlation at p ≤ 0.05; FOS—fructooligosaccharides; L—lightness; a—red to green hue; b—blue to yellow hue.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Anđelini, M.; Major, N.; Išić, N.; Kovačević, T.K.; Ban, D.; Palčić, I.; Radunić, M.; Goreta Ban, S. Sugar and Organic Acid Content Is Dependent on Tomato (Solanum Lycoperiscum L.) Peel Color. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 313. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030313

AMA Style

Anđelini M, Major N, Išić N, Kovačević TK, Ban D, Palčić I, Radunić M, Goreta Ban S. Sugar and Organic Acid Content Is Dependent on Tomato (Solanum Lycoperiscum L.) Peel Color. Horticulturae. 2023; 9(3):313. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030313

Chicago/Turabian Style

Anđelini, Magdalena, Nikola Major, Nina Išić, Tvrtko Karlo Kovačević, Dean Ban, Igor Palčić, Mira Radunić, and Smiljana Goreta Ban. 2023. "Sugar and Organic Acid Content Is Dependent on Tomato (Solanum Lycoperiscum L.) Peel Color" Horticulturae 9, no. 3: 313. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030313

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop