Next Article in Journal
Drought-Induced Alterations in Carbon and Water Dynamics of Chinese Fir Plantations at the Trunk Wood Stage
Previous Article in Journal
Potential to Ensure Safe Production of Water Spinach in Heavy Metals-Contaminated Soil by Substituting Chemical Fertilizer with Organic Fertilizer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 13
Issue 20
10.3390/plants13202936
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Enzyme Inhibition, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Activities of Apricots, Plums, and Their Hybrid Fruits

by
Dasha Mihaylova
1,*,
Ivelina Desseva
2,
Yulian Tumbarski
3,
Aneta Popova
4,*,
Svetla Pandova
5 and
Anna Lante
6
1
Department of Biotechnology, University of Food Technologies, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
2
Department of Analytical Chemistry and Physical Chemistry, University of Food Technologies, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
3
Department of Microbiology, University of Food Technologies, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
4
Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Food Technologies, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
5
Department of Breeding and Genetic Resources, Fruit Growing Institute, Agricultural Academy, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria
6
Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals, and Environment—DAFNAE, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(20), 2936; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13202936
Submission received: 13 September 2024 / Revised: 17 October 2024 / Accepted: 17 October 2024 / Published: 20 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Phytochemistry)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The current study focuses on evaluating the enzyme inhibition (acetylcholinesterase, α-amylase, α-glucosidase, pancreatin lipase), antioxidant, and antimicrobial activities of the “Modesto” apricot, “Stanley” plum, and their hybrid the “Stendesto” plum–apricot. The “Stendesto” is the only successful plum–apricot hybrid in Bulgaria. A spectrophotometric approach was used to evaluate the antioxidant activity following four complementary assays (DPPH, ABTS, FRAP, and CUPRAC). The “Stendesto” plum–apricot revealed its enhanced antioxidant potential compared to its parental lines. Apart from the free phenolics extraction, two other techniques (alkaline and acid hydrolysis) were applied to reveal the biological potential of the studied fruit. Not only free but also bound phenolic extracts were able to inhibit α-glucosidase and acetylcholinesterase, while none of the extracts inhibited lipase or α-amylase. None of the apricot extracts had antimicrobial activity, while the other fruit had limited antimicrobial activity. The proposed results undoubtedly reveal that hybrid fruits possess enhanced biological activity compared to their parents. This is a first comprehensive evaluation of hybrid fruits with reference to parental lines. This makes them an interesting research topic that should be better explored.

1. Introduction

Plants are the most important source of bioactive molecules which greatly contribute to the functional role of nutrition [1]. Phenolic compounds are often identified in different plant bases, incl. fruit, which makes them some of the most recognized molecules with biological activity [2]. Polyphenols can influence the taste and appearance of fruit [3]. Flavonoids are revealed as major sources of polyphenols in the human diet [4]. Anthocyanins are not only recognized as powerful natural pigments but also have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antidiabetic, anticancer and cardiovascular properties [5]. Phenolic acids, flavonoids, and anthocyanins, among others, are extracted using different techniques in order to prove their biological values [6]. Both free and bound phenolic compounds are recovered from plant matrices but the current research emphasis falls on the bound ones and their properties [7]. Free phenolics are easily extractable and absorbed in the small intestine, while bound phenolics require specificity based on their solubility or insolubility and are absorbed after reaching the colon [8]. The difference between soluble-bound phenolics and insoluble ones is in the links they form. Soluble-bound phenolics are linked to one or more sugar units (through a hydroxyl group or carbon–carbon linkages) while insoluble-bound phenolics covalently bind to cell wall cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, pectin, and rod-shaped structural proteins forming stable complexes [8]. Phenolic compounds in general are continuously reported for their antioxidant, antiviral, cardioprotective, cancer, and metabolic management activities [9]. Polyphenols also show antibacterial activity against a large number of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [10]. This is of particular importance with the rising resistance of bacteria to conventional drugs [11]. Furthermore, polyphenols are positively associated with the management of gut microbiota health [12].
Some of the major societal challenges include hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia, cardiovascular disease, inflammation, and cancer [13,14,15]. Their manifestations are linked to oxidative stress, thus identifying low-cost, natural, and efficient compounds with antioxidant and other biological activities, and have set an ongoing path for researchers. Different fruit from the Prunus spp., incl. apricots and plums, are known for their antidiabetic and cardioprotective activities [16]. Apricots contain carotenoids and ascorbic acid as well as polyphenols [17]. Plums are known for the presence of epicatechin and neochlorogenic acid as free phenolics, and catechin and epicatechin as the main bound phenolics [16].
Currently, many breeding programs focus on hybridization aiming mainly at eliminating common diseases or targeting an elevated sugar content [18]. Moreover, the modern consumer is constantly demanding new products with enhanced properties. A current review suggests that hybridization may produce fruits that are a source of antioxidant and bioactive compounds and act as human health managers [19]. Plum–apricot hybrids are the result of the successful crossing between highly desirable fruits like the apricot and the plum. Plum–apricot hybridization may result in pluots, apriums, or plumcots [20]. The “Stendesto” is the only Bulgarian plum–apricot, mostly visually resembling a plum. Plum–apricot hybrids are reported to inherit all of their parent’s metabolites [21] but there is not enough research on the topic.
In view of the above, it is of interest to obtain phenolic compounds from hybrid fruits and set a reference to their parental lines bearing in mind their biological activity. In addition, a major gap in the research of hybrid fruit exists, which makes this a pilot study on the topic and a stepping stone for future exploration.

2. Results and Discussion

Polyphenols are widely recognized and are some of the most prominent antioxidants with proven effectiveness [22]. Polyphenols are the principal antioxidant compounds that can counteract free radicals in the body. Anthocyanins are the color pigments that mainly contribute to the blue, purple, and red colors of fruits and vegetables. They have antioxidant [23], anti-inflammatory [24], antidiabetic [25], anticancer [26] and neuro- and cardioprotective activities [27]. Table 1 summarizes data on the content of polyphenols, flavonoids, and anthocyanins in the studied fruits. In order to thoroughly evaluate the samples, the extraction of both free and bound phenolic compounds was carried out. The extraction of bound phenolics was carried out by two widely used approaches differing in conditions, namely alkaline and acid hydrolysis, in order to find the one more suitable for the investigated fruits.
The plum–apricot hybrid revealed its highest results for total phenolic content, total flavonoid content, and total monomeric anthocyanins in the free phenolic extract. However, in the bound phenolic extracts, the alkaline hydrolysis resulted in higher values compared to the acid one. The acid hydrolysis produced its highest values in the TPCs of the “Modesto” apricot. These findings suggest that, indeed, hybridization in fruits results in enhanced biological properties. The established TPCs values for plums vary widely in published papers. The values measured for TFs vary from 3.12 to 20.63 mg QE/g [28], which once again proves that not only the variety and growing conditions but also the type of extraction have an influence on the extraction of biologically active compounds. Liaudanskas et al. [29] reported that flavonols accounted for 25.8% of the TPC of plums from the “Stanley” variety. Vlaic et al. [30] found values of 5.56–261.93 mg CE 100 g−1 (TMAs) for plums from the “Stanley” variety. The data available in the literature correspond to the values obtained in the present study for total phenolic content, total flavonoid content, and total monomeric anthocyanins of “Stanley” plum fruits.
Similar to plum fruits, a wide range of data on TPCs and TFs values are reported when analyzing apricots, e.g., for ultrasonic extraction, the TPC was about 165.49 mg GAE/100 g DM [31]. Corresponding to the current results, Dulf et al. [32] also report that the free phenolic extract had higher results compared to the bound one. Other authors found values from 4233.70 to 8180.49 mg of GAE/100 g dry matter for the TPCs of different apricot cultivars grown in regions of Turkey, Pakistan, and Chile [33,34]. Contrary to the current results, Tareen et al. [35] reported amounts of flavonoids and anthocyanins in apricot pomace.
The “Stendesto” hybrid is characterized by having the largest amount of free phenolic compounds as well as total flavonoids and total monomeric anthocyanins. The present data are the first for hybrid fruits, which will add to the existing scientific base and enable future comparisons. A greater similarity is observed between plum–apricot and plum than between plum–apricot and apricot.
Table 2 presents the results of the evaluation of the antioxidant potential of the studied fruits.
The antioxidant potential of the fruit extracts of free phenolic compounds showed higher values for all studied fruits compared to the extracts (acid and alkaline) of bound ones. The fruits of the “Stendesto” hybrid show data more similar to those of the “Stanley” plum than the ”Modesto” apricot. The “Stendesto” hybrid exhibited the highest values for antioxidant potential in almost all applied assays. Its antioxidant potential was nearly fivefold greater than that of the apricot. This may suggest that hybrid fruits have enhanced biological values compared to their parental lines.
There are data in literature on the antioxidant activity of plums from the ”Stanley” variety, where authors reported data on juices, peels, and fruits. However, no data were found for extracts of free and bound phenolic compounds, nor was an assessment made using more than one method measuring the antioxidant potential. The present results represent new complex data that will add to what is available in the literature to date. Miletić et al. [36] investigated the antioxidant potential of plums from the ”Stanley” variety and found no trends during fruit development. There are also data on the antioxidant potential of apricots, but the “Modesto” variety has not been studied. However, high FRAP data are reported for other cultivars [37].
Ozzengin et al. [38] reported that the DPPH assay revealed the highest values in plums from the Karaca and Üryani varieties, which strongly suggests that each variety of the same fruit has a different biological value.
The acetylcholinesterase-inhibitory potential of the samples was also evaluated. For this purpose, the extracts were studied by an in vitro approach and the results are reflected in Table 3.
Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) has an important part in neurodegenerative diseases’ pathogenesis by guiding the inflammatory response, apoptosis, oxidative stress, and aggregation of pathological proteins. New compounds that can inhibit the beginning of neurodegenerative diseases and slow their evolution are constantly being sought [39]. AChE potential was detected only in the fruits of the plum–apricot hybrid and plum. Aluko [40] reported that the aqueous extracts of plums were effective with an IC50 value of 16.75 mg/mL. These data are comparable to those obtained in the present study. However, this activity is low compared to IC50 values of the extracts from other fruits, which have been shown to be <1 mg/mL.
There are reports about the AChE activity of Prunus spp. leaves where apricot leaves were more active compared to plum ones [41]. Additionally, apricot kernels were also found to be effective AChE inhibitors [42].
In vitro analyses were also carried out regarding the inhibitory potential against the digestive enzymes of the extracts. The results are summarized in Table 4.
Activity was found in the plum and plum–apricot extracts, while no activity was present in the apricot ones. The lack of activity in apricots may be due to the fact that total monomeric anthocyanins and total flavonoids were not detected there especially in the bound form (Table 1). However, Wojdyło and Nowicka [43] reported an inhibitory activity, but for apricot leaves. The ”Stanley” plum showed better potential compared to the hybrid fruit. Other authors found that the fruits of different varieties of P. domestica showed inhibitory activity ((IC50) mg/mL) against α-amylase (2.63–61.53), α-glucosidase (0.19–24.07), and pancreatin lipase (0.50–8.20) [44]. The same authors, however, also report that not every variety of plum fruits studied exhibited activity. Human pancreatic α-amylase and intestinal α-glucosidase are accountable for the hydrolysis of carbohydrates into digestible simple sugars. Inhibition of these enzymes lowers blood sugar levels by limiting the breakdown of polysaccharides to glucose [45]. Extracts and isolated compounds from plant sources are believed to be able to inhibit α-amylase, and flavonoids exhibit the greatest inhibition potential related to the number of hydroxyl groups in their molecules [46]. Pancreatic lipase is an important enzyme accountable for the hydrolysis of dietary fats to monoacylglycerols and free fatty acids. This helps decrease overweight and obesity in diabetic patients by significantly controlling the inhibitory effects of fat absorbed into the bloodstream [47]. Additionally, the enzyme is recommended as a means of reducing weight. Fruits can effectively inhibit pancreatic lipase, but this ability strongly depends on the variety.
It has been suggested that phenolic compounds (i.e., flavonoids and phenolic acids) may demonstrate antimicrobial properties [48]. For this reason, the antimicrobial activity of the extracts of the studied fruits was estimated (Table 5) as a marker for their biological potential. No particularly high inhibition was found to estimate the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). Still, the antibacterial potential is important for fruits to repair injuries and/or have an extended shelf life [49]. Regarding both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and yeasts, the associated phenolic fractions had almost no activity. The extracts were also tested against Candida albicans NBIMCC 74; Saccharomyces cerevisiae ATCC 9763; Aspergillus niger ATCC 1015; Aspergillus flavus; Penicillium chrysogenum; and Fusarium moniliforme ATCC 38932. No activity was recorded and the same are not present in the report table. The “Modesto” apricot showed no antimicrobial activity at all, and it is not presented in the following table.
The inhibitory effect of the related phenols was more pronounced against Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633, Bacillus cereus NCTC 11145, E. coli ATCC 25922, and P. aeruginosa ATCC 9027 (Figure 1).
Other authors reported comparable results for plum extracts (the variety was not mentioned) regarding E. coli and Listeria monocytogenes [50]. This is also consistent with the present findings as well as their relationship with polyphenol content and their antioxidant activity. The obtained data on the inhibitory effect of plum–apricot hybrid fruit extracts can be considered new data due to the lack of available information in the literature for comparison. Other authors reported that apricot extracts (seeds and pulp) had a reaction against E. coli, L. monocytogenes, P. aeruginosa PA14, S. typhimurium, and S. aureus [51]. Molecular weight, polarity, and side groups determine the specific inhibitory effect of each phenolic compound [52]. Phenolic acids (ferulic acid and p-coumaric acid), alcohols (e.g., catechol and vanillyl alcohol), and aldehydes (vanillin and syringaldehyde) are thought to be the most effective inhibitors of microbial growth [53]. Additionally, organic acids may be accountable for their activity against Gram-(+) and Gram-(−) bacteria, due not only to their abundance and different biochemical nature, but also to their capability of reducing the pH [54].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Fruit Samples

Apricot, plum–apricot, and plum fruits were harvested on three dates according to their specific ripeness from the fields of the Fruit Growing Institute, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. A total of sixty fruits per variety, with an extra twenty in case of need, were transported in pulp trays in an air-conditioned vehicle to the laboratories of the University of food technologies, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, where the fruits were randomly placed in new trays in order to minimize the differences in fruit quality. Consequently, they were washed, sliced with a ceramic knife, and frozen in vacuum-sealed bags. After 24 h in the freezer, the fruits were subjected to lyophilization in a vacuum freeze dryer (BK-FD12S, Biobase, Jinan, Shandong, China) under the pressure of 3.5 MPa at −55 °C. The resulting samples were then powdered with a Tefal GT110838 grinder (Rumilly, France) at 180 W for 30 s and kept in air-tight containers prior to extraction.

3.2. Extraction of Free and Bound Phenolic Compounds

3.2.1. Extraction of Free Phenolic Compounds

A threefold extraction of free phenolic compounds [55] of each fruit sample was performed by mixing 0.5 g of sample with 10 mL 80% (80:16, v/v) ethanol. The mixture was ultrasonically (UST 5.7150 Siel, Gabrovo, Bulgaria) extracted at 70 °C for 30 min and centrifuged at 10,000× g for 20 min. The resulting phenolic extracts, after combining, were filtered using filter paper (Whatman No. 1) and evaporated until dry (RV 10, Ika, Staufen, Germany). The final volume of the extracts was adjusted by adding 10 mL of 80% methanol (80:20, v/v) and stored at −20 °C until further analysis.

3.2.2. Extraction of Bound Phenolic Compounds

The bound phenolic compounds were extracted by two protocols—the alkaline hydrolysis method and the acid hydrolysis method, respectively. The alkaline extraction procedure was conducted according to the method described by Ding et al. [56] with modifications [55], and the acid extraction procedure was carried out as previously reported by Mihaylova et al. [55]. Both dried bound extracts were reconstituted each in 10 mL 80% HPLC-grade methanol (80:20, v/v) and stored unilluminated at −20 °C until analysis.

3.3. Evaluation of the Total Phenolic Content (TPCs)

The TPCs was evaluated following a modified method of Kujala et al. [57] where a 0.1 mL sample was mixed with 0.5 mL Folin–Ciocalteu reagent followed by 0.4 mL 7.5% Na2CO3. The mixture was vortexed and incubated for 5 min at 50 °C. After that, the absorbance was measured at 765 nm. The result is expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents (GAEs) per g dry weight (mg GAE/g dw).

3.4. Evaluation of Total Flavonoid Content (TFCs)

The method of Kivrak et al. [58] was applied to evaluate the total flavonoid content. An aliquot of 0.5 mL of the sample was mixed with 0.1 mL of 10% Al(NO3)3, 0.1 mL of 1 M CH3COOK, and 3.8 mL of ethanol. The mixture was incubated at room temperature for 40 min and the absorbance was measured at 415 nm. Quercetin (QE) was used as a standard, and the results are expressed as μg quercetin equivalents (QEs)/g dw.

3.5. Determination of Total Monomeric Anthocyanins (TMAs)

The TMAs content was defined using the pH differential method [59] as described by Mihaylova et al. [60]. Results are expressed as µg cyanidin-3-glucoside (C3GE)/g dw.

3.6. Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity Potential (AOA)

The antioxidant activity potential assessment was performed using four widely used and reliable in vitro methods, namely the DPPH• Radical Scavenging Assay (according to the method of Brand-Williams et al. [61] with slight modifications described by Mihaylova et al. [62]), ABTS•+ Radical Scavenging Assay (Re et al. [63]), Ferric-Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay (Benzie and Strain [64]), and Cupric Ion-Reducing Antioxidant Capacity (CUPRAC) Assay (Apak et al. [65]).

3.7. Evaluation of Enzyme-Inhibitory Activities

3.7.1. α-Amylase (AM)-Inhibitory Assay

Each extract was mixed with an enzyme solution (1:1, v/v) to achieve a final concentration of 1 U/mL α-amylase and left for 15 min at 23 °C. The remaining α-amylase activity was completed exactly as descried by the Sigma Aldrich method [66]. Enzyme without inhibitors was used as a negative control. The absorbance was measured at 540 nm and results are expressed as the concentration of the extract (IC50) in mg/mL that inhibited 50% of α-amylase.

3.7.2. α-Glucosidase (AG)-Inhibitory Assay

The reaction mixture containing 10 µL of the extract (a minimum of five extract concentrations were tested in order to calculate the IC50) and 30 µL of α-glucosidase (0.1 U/mL, G5003-100UN, Sigma-Aldrich, Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was incubated for 15 min at 37 °C in a microplate reader (SPECTROstar Nano Microplate Reader, BMG LABTECH, Ortenberg, Germany). Next, 25 µL of 1 mM 4-nitrophenyl-α-D-glucopyranoside (N 1377, Sigma-Aldrich, Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was added. The reaction mixture was then shaken and incubated at 37 °C for 10 min. The reaction was terminated by adding 60 µL of 0.2 M Na2CO3 solution. Blanks were prepared by adding the extract after the termination of the reaction. Enzyme without inhibitor was used as a negative control. The absorbance (405 nm) was measured using a microplate reader and results are expressed as a concentration of the extract (IC50) in mg/mL that inhibited 50% of α-glucosidase [67].

3.7.3. Pancreatic Lipase-Inhibitory Assay

The in vitro pancreatic lipase-inhibitory activity was determined as described by Saifuddin et al. [68] and Dobrev et al. [69] with slight modifications. The results are expressed as concentration of the extract (IC50) in mg/mL that inhibited 50% of pancreatic lipase.

3.7.4. Acetylcholineesterase (AChE)-Inhibitory Assay

The experimental conditions of the in vitro AChE-inhibitory assay were based on the method described by Lobbens et al. [70] with some modifications as described by Mihaylova et al. [55]. The results are expressed as a concentration of the extract (IC50) in mg/mL that inhibited 50% of acetylcholinesterase.

3.8. Antimicrobial Activity

Four Gram-positive bacteria (Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923, Listeria monocytogenes NBIMCC 8632, and Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 19433), four Gram-negative bacteria (Salmonella enteritidis ATCC 13076, Escherichia coli ATCC 8739, Proteus vulgaris ATCC 6380, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027), two yeasts (Candida albicans NBIMCC 74 and Saccharomyces cerevisiae ATCC 9763) and six fungi (Aspergillus niger ATCC 1015, Aspergillus flavus, Penicillium sp., Rhizopus sp., Mucor sp.-plant isolates, and Fusarium moniliforme ATCC 38932) from the collection of the Department of Microbiology at the University of Food Technologies, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, were selected for the antimicrobial activity test. Luria–Bertani agar medium supplemented with glucose (LBG) was prepared as prescribed by the manufacturer (Laboratorios Conda S.A., Madrid, Spain). Malt extract agar (MEA) was prepared as suggested by the manufacturer (HiMedia®, Thane, India). The assay was performed exactly as described by Mihaylova et al. [55].

3.9. Statistical Analyses

Results are expressed as the mean  ±  SD (threefold). The impact of fruit and extraction type on the TPC, TFC, TMA, and AOA was estimated using a two-factor variance analysis [71]. The Tukey–Kramer post hoc test (α = 0.05) aided in the statistical comparison of the data [71].

4. Conclusions

This study presents new information about plum–apricot hybrids and enlarges the data available about plums and apricots of specific varieties. It focuses on evaluating the enzyme inhibition, antioxidant, and antimicrobial activities of the “Modesto” apricot, the “Stanley” plum, and their hybrid the “Stendesto” plum–apricot. Three types of extracts for each fruit were prepared to assess their biological activity. The “Stendesto” plum–apricot revealed its enhanced activities compared to its parental lines. It showed better antioxidant activity, especially considering the ABTS assay. The enzyme-inhibitory potential was rather low in all three studied fruits and non-existent towards lipase and α-amylase. However, the “Stendesto” plum–apricot had limited inhibition on acetylcholinesterase and α-glucosidase. Additionally, the extract of free phenolics of the “Stendesto” plum–apricot had better antimicrobial activity compared not only to the “Stanley” plum (maternal) but also to the “Modesto” apricot (paternal). These results can effectively be used as a reference work and trampoline for future analyses.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.M. and A.P.; methodology, D.M., I.D. and Y.T.; software, D.M. and A.P.; validation, D.M., I.D., A.L. and Y.T.; formal analysis, D.M., I.D. and Y.T.; investigation, A.P.; resources, S.P.; data curation, D.M. and A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.M. and A.P.; writing—review and editing, D.M., I.D., A.L., Y.T., S.P. and A.P.; visualization, A.P.; supervision, D.M. and A.L.; project administration, A.P.; funding acquisition, D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, grant number KΠ-06-H67/2.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, project no. KΠ-06-H67/2 (granted to Aneta Popova). The authors would like to acknowledge Argir Zhivondov for actively working on expanding plumcot varieties in Bulgaria and registering the “Stendesto”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Gentile, C. Biological Activities of Plant Food Components: Implications in Human Health. Foods 2021, 10, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nurzyńska, R.; Nurzyńska-Wierdak, N. Phenolic Compounds from New Natural Sources—Plant Genotype and Ontogenetic Variation. Molecules 2023, 28, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Alara, O.R.; Abdurahman, N.H.; Ukaegbu, C.I. Extraction of Phenolic Compounds: A Review. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2021, 4, 200–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dai, J.; Mumper, R.J. Plant Phenolics: Extraction, Analysis and Their Antioxidant and Anticancer Properties. Molecules 2010, 15, 7313–7352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lakshmikanthan, M.; Muthu, S.; Krishnan, K.; Altemimi, A.B.; Haider, N.N.; Govindan, L.; Selvakumari, J.; Alkanan, Z.T.; Cacciola, F.; Francis, Y.M. A Comprehensive Review on Anthocyanin-Rich Foods: Insights into Extraction, Medicinal Potential, and Sustainable Applications. J. Agric. Food Res. 2024, 17, 101245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, Y.; Cai, P.; Cheng, G.; Zhang, Y. A Brief Review of Phenolic Compounds Identified from Plants: Their Extraction, Analysis, and Biological Activity. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2022, 17, 1934578X211069721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rocchetti, G.; Gregorio, R.P.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Barba, F.J.; Oliveira, P.G.; Prieto, M.A.; Simal-Gandara, J.; Mosele, J.I.; Motilva, M.J.; Tomas, M.; et al. Functional Implications of Bound Phenolic Compounds and Phenolics–Food Interaction: A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2022, 21, 811–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yao, J.; Chen, J.; Yang, J.; Hao, Y.; Fan, Y.; Wang, C.; Li, N. Free, Soluble-Bound and Insoluble-Bound Phenolics and Their Bioactivity in Raspberry Pomace. LWT 2021, 135, 109995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. da Silva, C.; Kaufmann Robbs, B.; Nestal De Moraes, G.; Aatif, M. Current Understanding of Polyphenols to Enhance Bioavailability for Better Therapies. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ecevit, K.; Barros, A.A.; Silva, J.M.; Reis, R.L. Preventing Microbial Infections with Natural Phenolic Compounds. Future Pharmacology 2022, 2, 460–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chew, J.; Peh, S.-C.; Yeang, T.S.; Chew, J.; Peh, S.-C.; Yeang, T.S. Non-Microbial Natural Products That Inhibit Drug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. In Staphylococcus Aureus; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, Y.; Yu, W.; Zhang, L.; Wang, M.; Chang, W. The Interaction of Polyphenols and the Gut Microbiota in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Nutrients 2022, 14, 5373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Pati, S.; Irfan, W.; Jameel, A.; Ahmed, S.; Shahid, R.K. Obesity and Cancer: A Current Overview of Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Outcomes, and Management. Cancers 2023, 15, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Li, L.; Ouyang, F.; He, J.; Qiu, D.; Luo, D.; Xiao, S. Associations of Socioeconomic Status and Healthy Lifestyle With Incidence of Dyslipidemia: A Prospective Chinese Governmental Employee Cohort Study. Front. Public. Health 2022, 10, 878126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Moieni, M.; Eisenberger, N.I. Effects of Inflammation on Social Processes and Implications for Health. Ann. N. Y Acad. Sci. 2018, 1428, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yu, J.; Li, W.; You, B.; Yang, S.; Xian, W.; Deng, Y.; Huang, W.; Yang, R. Phenolic Profiles, Bioaccessibility and Antioxidant Activity of Plum (Prunus salicina Lindl). Food Res. Int. 2021, 143, 110300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fratianni, F.; Ombra, M.N.; d’Acierno, A.; Cipriano, L.; Nazzaro, F. Apricots: Biochemistry and Functional Properties. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2018, 19, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Guerrero, B.I.; Guerra, M.E.; Rodrigo, J. Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR)-Based Genetic Diversity in Interspecific Plumcot-Type (Prunus salicina × Prunus armeniaca) Hybrids. Plants 2022, 11, 1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cruz, M.A.A.S.; Coimbra, P.P.S.; Araújo-Lima, C.F.; Freitas-Silva, O.; Teodoro, A.J.; Morais, M.M.B.; Cruz, M.A.A.S.; Coimbra, P.P.S.; Araújo-Lima, C.F.; Freitas-Silva, O.; et al. Hybrid Fruits for Improving Health—A Comprehensive Review. Foods 2024, 13, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Popova, A.; Mihaylova, D.; Pandova, S.; Doykina, P. Research-Gap-Spotting in Plum–Apricot Hybrids—Bioactive Compounds, Antioxidant Activities, and Health Beneficial Properties. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lante, A.; Mihaylova, D.; Dincheva, I.; Popova, A. HS-SPME-GC/MS Metabolomic Analysis for the Comparative Evaluation between a Plum–Apricot Hybrid and Its Parents. Chemosensors 2024, 12, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lang, Y.; Gao, N.; Zang, Z.; Meng, X.; Lin, Y.; Yang, S.; Yang, Y.; Jin, Z.; Li, B. Classification and Antioxidant Assays of Polyphenols: A Review. J. Future Foods 2024, 4, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kalt, W.; Cassidy, A.; Howard, L.R.; Krikorian, R.; Stull, A.J.; Tremblay, F.; Zamora-Ros, R. Recent Research on the Health Benefits of Blueberries and Their Anthocyanins. Adv. Nutr. 2020, 11, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rossi, A.; Serraino, I.; Dugo, P.; Di Paola, R.; Mondello, L.; Genovese, T.; Morabito, D.; Dugo, G.; Sautebin, L.; Caputi, A.P.; et al. Protective Effects of Anthocyanins from Blackberry in a Rat Model of Acute Lung Inflammation. Free Radic. Res. 2003, 37, 891–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Montilla, P.; Barcos, M.; Muñoz, M.C.; Muñoz-Castañeda, J.R.; Bujalance, I.; Túnez, I. Protective Effect of Montilla-Moriles Appellation Red Wine on Oxidative Stress Induced by Streptozotocin in the Rat. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2004, 15, 688–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hou, D.-X. Potential Mechanisms of Cancer Chemoprevention by Anthocyanins. Curr. Mol. Med. 2003, 3, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Youdim, K.A.; Martin, A.; Joseph, J.A. Incorporation of the Elderberry Anthocyanins by Endothelial Cells Increases Protection against Oxidative Stress. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2000, 29, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ali, A.; Cottrell, J.J.; Dunshea, F.R. Identification and Characterization of Anthocyanins and Non-Anthocyanin Phenolics from Australian Native Fruits and Their Antioxidant, Antidiabetic, and Anti-Alzheimer Potential. Food Res. Int. 2022, 162, 111951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liaudanskas, M.; Okulevičiūtė, R.; Lanauskas, J.; Kviklys, D.; Zymonė, K.; Rendyuk, T.; Žvikas, V.; Uselis, N.; Janulis, V. Variability in the Content of Phenolic Compounds in Plum Fruit. Plants 2020, 9, 1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vlaic, R.A.; Mureşan, V.; Mureşan, A.E.; Mureşan, C.C.; Păucean, A.; Mitre, V.; Chiş, S.M.; Muste, S. The Changes of Polyphenols, Flavonoids, Anthocyanins and Chlorophyll Content in Plum Peels during Growth Phases: From Fructification to Ripening. Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobot. Cluj Napoca 2018, 46, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bousselma, A.; Abdessemed, D.; Tahraoui, H.; Zedame, F.; Amrane, A.; Amrane Polyphenols, A. Polyphenols and Flavonoids Contents of Fresh and Dried Apricots Extracted by Cold Soaking and Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction. Kemija Industriji 2023, 72, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dulf, F.V.; Vodnar, D.C.; Dulf, E.H.; Pintea, A. Phenolic Compounds, Flavonoids, Lipids and Antioxidant Potential of Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) Pomace Fermented by Two Filamentous Fungal Strains in Solid State System. Chem. Cent. J. 2017, 11, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Akin, E.B.; Karabulut, I.; Topcu, A. Some Compositional Properties of Main Malatya Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) Varieties. Food Chem. 2008, 107, 939–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vega-Gálvez, A.; Quispe-Fuentes, I.; Uribe, E.; Martinez-Monzo, J.; Pasten, A.; Lemus-Mondaca, R. CyTA-Journal of Food Bioactive Compounds and Physicochemical Characterization of Dried Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) as Affected by Different Drying Temperatures Bioactive Compounds and Physicochemical Characterization of Dried Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) as Affected by Different Drying Temperatures. CyTA J. Food 2019, 17, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tareen, A.K.; Panezai, M.A.; Sajjad, A.; Achakzai, J.K.; Kakar, A.M.; Khan, N.Y. Comparative Analysis of Antioxidant Activity, Toxicity, and Mineral Composition of Kernel and Pomace of Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) Grown in Balochistan, Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 2830–2839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Miletić, N.; Popović, B.; Mitrović, O.; Kandić, M. Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Capacity of Fruits of Plum Cv. “Stanley” (Prunus domestica L.) as Influenced by Maturity Stage and on-Tree Ripening. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2012, 6, 681–687. [Google Scholar]
  37. Iordanescu, O.A.; Alexa, E.; Lalescu, D.; Berbecea, A.; Camen, D.; Poiana, M.A.; Moigradean, D.; Bala, M. Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Some Apricot Varieties at Different Ripening Stages. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 78, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ozzengin, B.; Zannou, O.; Koca, I. Quality Attributes and Antioxidant Activity of Three Wild Plums from Prunus Spinosa and Prunus Domestica Species. Meas. Food 2023, 10, 100079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Walczak-Nowicka, Ł.J.; Herbet, M. Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors in the Treatment of Neurodegenerative Diseases and the Role of Acetylcholinesterase in Their Pathogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Aluko, R.E. Food-Derived Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors as Potential Agents against Alzheimer’s Disease. eFood 2021, 2, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bonesi, M.; Tenuta, M.C.; Loizzo, M.R.; Sicari, V.; Tundis, R. Potential Application of Prunus armeniaca L. and P. domestica L. Leaf Essential Oils as Antioxidant and of Cholinesterases Inhibitors. Antioxidants 2018, 8, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saleem, U.; Hussain, L.; Shahid, F.; Anwar, F.; Chauhdary, Z.; Zafar, A. Pharmacological Potential of the Standardized Methanolic Extract of Prunus armeniaca L. in the Haloperidol-Induced Parkinsonism Rat Model. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2022, 2022, 3697522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wojdyło, A.; Nowicka, P. Profile of Phenolic Compounds of Prunus armeniaca L. Leaf Extract Determined by LC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS and Their Antioxidant, Anti-Diabetic, Anti-Cholinesterase, and Anti-Inflammatory Potency. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Rybak, M.; Wojdyło, A. Inhibition of α-Amylase, α-Glucosidase, Pancreatic Lipase, 15-Lipooxygenase and Acetylcholinesterase Modulated by Polyphenolic Compounds, Organic Acids, and Carbohydrates of Prunus domestica Fruit. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yusuf, E.; Wojdyło, A.; Oszmiański, J.; Nowicka, P. Nutritional, Phytochemical Characteristics and In Vitro Effect on α-Amylase, α-Glucosidase, Lipase, and Cholinesterase Activities of 12 Coloured Carrot Varieties. Foods 2021, 10, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. de Sales, P.M.; de Souza, P.M.; Simeoni, L.A.; Magalhães, P.d.O.; Silveira, D. α-Amylase Inhibitors: A Review of Raw Material and Isolated Compounds from Plant Source. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 15, 141–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wojdyło, A.; Turkiewicz, I.P.; Tkacz, K.; Nowicka, P.; Bobak, Ł. Nuts as Functional Foods: Variation of Nutritional and Phytochemical Profiles and Their in Vitro Bioactive Properties. Food Chem. X 2022, 15, 100418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bouarab-Chibane, L.; Forquet, V.; Lantéri, P.; Clément, Y.; Léonard-Akkari, L.; Oulahal, N.; Degraeve, P.; Bordes, C. Antibacterial Properties of Polyphenols: Characterization and QSAR (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship) Models. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hussain, H.; Mamadalieva, N.Z.; Hussain, A.; Hassan, U.; Rabnawaz, A.; Ahmed, I.; Green, I.R. Fruit Peels: Food Waste as a Valuable Source of Bioactive Natural Products for Drug Discovery. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, 44, 1960–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Silvan, J.M.; Ciechanowska, A.M.; Martinez-Rodriguez, A.J. Modulation of Antibacterial, Antioxidant, and Anti-Inflammatory Properties by Drying of Prunus domestica L. Plum Juice Extracts. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lima, E.M.F.; Matsumura, C.H.S.; Da Silva, G.L.; Patrocínio, I.C.S.; Santos, C.A.; Pereira, P.A.P.; Hassimotto, N.M.A.; Pinto, U.M.; Da Cunha, L.R. Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activity of Apricot (Mimusopsis comersonii) Phenolic-Rich Extract and Its Application as an Edible Coating for Fresh-Cut Vegetable Preservation. Biomed. Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 8440304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. van der Maas, L.; Driessen, J.L.S.P.; Mussatto, S.I. Effects of Inhibitory Compounds Present in Lignocellulosic Biomass Hydrolysates on the Growth of Bacillus subtilis. Energies 2021, 14, 8419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ibraheem, O.; Ndimba, B.K. Molecular Adaptation Mechanisms Employed by Ethanologenic Bacteria in Response to Lignocellulose-Derived Inhibitory Compounds. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2013, 9, 598–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Suriyaprom, S.; Mosoni, P.; Leroy, S.; Kaewkod, T.; Desvaux, M.; Tragoolpua, Y. Antioxidants of Fruit Extracts as Antimicrobial Agents against Pathogenic Bacteria. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mihaylova, D.; Popova, A.; Desseva, I.; Dincheva, I.; Tumbarski, Y. Valorization of Peels of Eight Peach Varieties: GC–MS Profile, Free and Bound Phenolics and Corresponding Biological Activities. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ding, Y.; Morozova, K.; Scampicchio, M.; Ferrentino, G. Non-Extractable Polyphenols from Food By-Products: Current Knowledge on Recovery, Characterisation, and Potential Applications. Processes 2020, 8, 925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kujala, T.S.; Loponen, J.M.; Klika, K.D.; Pihlaja, K. Phenolics and Betacyanins in Red Beetroot (Beta vulgaris) Root: Distribution and Effect of Cold Storage on the Content of Total Phenolics and Three Individual Compounds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 5338–5342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kivrak, I.; Kivrak, S. Antioxidant Properties, Phenolic Profile and Nutritional Value for Sorbus umbellata Fruits from Turkey. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2014, 2, 1043. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lee, J.; Durst, R.W.; Wrolstad, R.E.; Barnes, K.W.; Eisele, T.; Giusti, M.M.; Haché, J.; Hofsommer, H.; Koswig, S.; Krueger, D.A.; et al. Determination of Total Monomeric Anthocyanin Pigment Content of Fruit Juices, Beverages, Natural Colorants, and Wines by the PH Differential Method: Collaborative Study. J. AOAC Int. 2005, 88, 1269–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mihaylova, D.; Popova, A.; Desseva, I.; Manolov, I.; Petkova, N.; Vrancheva, R.; Peltekov, A.; Slavov, A.; Zhivondov, A. Comprehensive Evaluation of Late Season Peach Varieties (Prunus persica L.): Fruit Nutritional Quality and Phytochemicals. Molecules 2021, 26, 2818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C. Use of a Free Radical Method to Evaluate Antioxidant Activity. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mihaylova, D.; Lante, A.; Krastanov, A. Total Phenolic Content, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity of Haberlea rhodopensis Extracts Obtained by Pressurized Liquid Extraction. Acta Aliment. 2015, 44, 326–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.; Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant Activity Applying an Improved ABTS Radical Cation Decolorization Assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1999, 26, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Benzie, I.F.F.; Strain, J.J. Ferric Reducing/Antioxidant Power Assay: Direct Measure of Total Antioxidant Activity of Biological Fluids and Modified Version for Simultaneous Measurement of Total Antioxidant Power and Ascorbic Acid Concentration. Methods Enzymol. 1999, 299, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Apak, R.; Güçlü, K.; Özyürek, M.; Karademir, S.E. Novel Total Antioxidant Capacity Index for Dietary Polyphenols and Vitamins C and E, Using Their Cupric Ion Reducing Capability in the Presence of Neocuproine: CUPRAC Method. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 7970–7981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Enzymatic Assay of α-Amylase (EC 3.2.1.1). Available online: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/BG/en/technical-documents/protocol/protein-biology/enzyme-activity-assays/enzymatic-assay-of-a-amylase (accessed on 6 September 2024).
  67. Mihaylova, D.; Desseva, I.; Popova, A.; Dincheva, I.; Vrancheva, R.; Lante, A.; Krastanov, A. GC-MS Metabolic Profile and α-Glucosidase-, α-Amylase-, Lipase-, and Acetylcholinesterase-Inhibitory Activities of Eight Peach Varieties. Molecules 2021, 26, 4183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Saifuddin, N.; Raziah, A.Z. Enhancement of Lipase Enzyme Activity in Non-Aqueous Media through a Rapid Three Phase Partitioning and Microwave Irradiation. J. Chem. 2008, 5, 864–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dobrev, G.; Zhekova, B.; Dobreva, V.; Strinska, H.; Doykina, P.; Krastanov, A. Lipase Biosynthesis by Aspergillus Carbonarius in a Nutrient Medium Containing Products and Byproducts from the Oleochemical Industry. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2015, 4, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lobbens, E.S.B.; Vissing, K.J.; Jorgensen, L.; van de Weert, M.; Jäger, A.K. Screening of Plants Used in the European Traditional Medicine to Treat Memory Disorders for Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitory Activity and Anti Amyloidogenic Activity. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2017, 200, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Assaad, H.I.; Zhou, L.; Carroll, R.J.; Wu, G. Rapid Publication-Ready MS-Word Tables for One-Way ANOVA. SpringerPlus 2014, 3, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 13 02936 g001
Figure 1. Inhibitory effect of extracts of plum and plum–apricot fruit on bacteria, yeasts, and fungi.
Figure 1. Inhibitory effect of extracts of plum and plum–apricot fruit on bacteria, yeasts, and fungi.
Plants 13 02936 g001
Table 1. Total phenolic compounds (TPCs) (mgGAE/g dw), total flavonoids (TFs) (μgQE/g dw), and total monomeric anthocyanins (TMAs) (μg cyanidin-3-glucoside (C3GE)/g dw) in studied extracts.
Table 1. Total phenolic compounds (TPCs) (mgGAE/g dw), total flavonoids (TFs) (μgQE/g dw), and total monomeric anthocyanins (TMAs) (μg cyanidin-3-glucoside (C3GE)/g dw) in studied extracts.
Samples/AssaysTPCsTFsTMAs
“Stendesto” plum–apricot hybridFree23.52 ± 0.75 a5840.7 ± 108.8 a1502.70 ± 24.10 a
Alkaline hydrolysis0.72 ± 0.01 d76.5 ± 0.9 d25.61 ± 1.09 c
Acid hydrolysis0.40 ± 0.00 d--
“Stanley” plumFree19.08 ± 0.58 b1971.96 ± 13.32 c1219.96 ± 34.29 b
Alkaline hydrolysis0.61 ± 0.01 d54.04 ± 3.55 d19.71 ± 1.34 c
Acid hydrolysis0.50 ± 0.01 d25.37 ± 5.54 d-
“Modesto” apricotFree4.45 ± 0.09 c3277.71 ± 11.79 b-
Alkaline hydrolysis1.01 ± 0.00 d--
Acid hydrolysis0.97 ± 0.01 d--
Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to ANOVA and the Tukey test.
Table 2. Antioxidant profile of fruit extracts according to four in vitro methods (DPPH, ABTS, FRAP and CUPRAC, µM/g dw).
Table 2. Antioxidant profile of fruit extracts according to four in vitro methods (DPPH, ABTS, FRAP and CUPRAC, µM/g dw).
Sample/AssayDPPHABTSFRAPCUPRAC
“Stendesto” plum–apricot hybridFree58.86 ± 1.46 a340.27 ± 1.54 a173.77 ± 2.60 a260.16 ± 4.49 a
Alkaline hydrolysis1.79 ± 0.01 d10.14 ± 1.82 d4.16 ± 0.08 d7.52 ± 0.19 d
Acid hydrolysis1.03 ± 0.03 d8.15 ± 0.45 d1.07 ± 0.02 d5.07 ± 0.07 d
“Stanley” plumFree52.78 ± 0.58 b239.50 ± 4.90 b136.57 ± 6.73 b191.85 ± 1.65 b
Alkaline hydrolysis1.517 ± 0.026 d˂LOD2.77 ± 0.05 d5.65 ± 0.34 d
Acid hydrolysis1.146 ± 0.036 d˂LOD2.81 ± 0.04 d5.92 ± 0.25 d
“Modesto” apricotFree12.98 ± 0.06 c64.20 ± 0.39 c33.96 ± 0.16 c55.31 ± 0.63 c
Alkaline hydrolysis0.54 ± 0.06 d˂LOD2.98 ± 0.06 d6.48 ± 0.03 d
Acid hydrolysis0.35 ± 0.02 d˂LOD2.32 ± 0.08 d5.40 ± 0.25 d
˂LOD—level of detection; different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to ANOVA and the Tukey test.
Table 3. Acetylcholinesterase-inhibitory potential of extracts of bound and free phenolic compounds of studied fruits, IC50, g/mL.
Table 3. Acetylcholinesterase-inhibitory potential of extracts of bound and free phenolic compounds of studied fruits, IC50, g/mL.
SampleExtraction TypeIC50, g/mL
“Stendesto” plum–apricot hybridFree0.0219 ± 0.001 b
Alkaline hydrolysis-
Acid hydrolysis-
“Stanley” plumFree0.0547 ± 0.003 a
Alkaline hydrolysis0.0584 ± 0.002 b
Acid hydrolysis-
“Modesto” apricotFree-
Alkaline hydrolysis-
Acid hydrolysis-
Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to ANOVA and the Tukey test.
Table 4. Enzyme-inhibitory potential against digestive enzymes (α-glucosidase, lipase, and α-amylase) of extracts of bound and free phenolic compounds of fruits, IC50, g/mL.
Table 4. Enzyme-inhibitory potential against digestive enzymes (α-glucosidase, lipase, and α-amylase) of extracts of bound and free phenolic compounds of fruits, IC50, g/mL.
Sample/Assayα-GlucosidaseLipaseα-Amylase
“Stendesto” plum–apricot hybridFree0.00425 ± 0.001 c--
Alkaline hydrolysis0.0416 ± 0.001 a--
Acid hydrolysis---
“Stanley” plumFree0.005254 ± 0.0003 c--
Alkaline hydrolysis0.029735 ± 0.002 b--
Acid hydrolysis---
“Modesto” apricotFree---
Alkaline hydrolysis---
Acid hydrolysis---
Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to ANOVA and the Tukey test.
Table 5. Effect of free and bound phenols from plum and plum–apricot fruit extracts on antimicrobial potential against bacteria, yeasts, and fungi.
Table 5. Effect of free and bound phenols from plum and plum–apricot fruit extracts on antimicrobial potential against bacteria, yeasts, and fungi.
Test MicroorganismsInhibition Zone, mm
Sample“Stanley” Plum“Stendesto” Plum–Apricot Hybrid
ExtractionFreeAlkaline HydrolysisAcid HydrolysisFreeAlkaline HydrolysisAcid Hydrolysis
B. subtilis ATCC 66338-811--
B. cereus NCTC 111458-810-8
St. aureus ATCC 25923------
L. monocytogenes NBIMCC 8632--88--
E. faecalis ATCC 29212---10--
S. enteritidis ATCC 13076---10--
K. pneumoniae ATCC 13883---8--
E. coli ATCC 259228881088
P. vulgaris ATCC 6380---8--
P. aeruginosa ATCC 9027--810-12
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

Mihaylova, D.; Desseva, I.; Tumbarski, Y.; Popova, A.; Pandova, S.; Lante, A. Evaluation of the Enzyme Inhibition, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Activities of Apricots, Plums, and Their Hybrid Fruits. Plants 2024, 13, 2936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13202936

AMA Style

Mihaylova D, Desseva I, Tumbarski Y, Popova A, Pandova S, Lante A. Evaluation of the Enzyme Inhibition, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Activities of Apricots, Plums, and Their Hybrid Fruits. Plants. 2024; 13(20):2936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13202936

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mihaylova, Dasha, Ivelina Desseva, Yulian Tumbarski, Aneta Popova, Svetla Pandova, and Anna Lante. 2024. "Evaluation of the Enzyme Inhibition, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Activities of Apricots, Plums, and Their Hybrid Fruits" Plants 13, no. 20: 2936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13202936

APA Style

Mihaylova, D., Desseva, I., Tumbarski, Y., Popova, A., Pandova, S., & Lante, A. (2024). Evaluation of the Enzyme Inhibition, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Activities of Apricots, Plums, and Their Hybrid Fruits. Plants, 13(20), 2936. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13202936

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