Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF LOUISIANA
Chemistry and Biology of Aroma and Taste
The Relationship between Sensory Attributes and Chemical Composition of Different Mango Cultivars Jeehye Sung, Joon Hyuk Suh, Alan H Chambers, Jonathan Crane, and Yu Wang J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b01018 • Publication Date (Web): 12 Apr 2019 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 15, 2019
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
The Relationship between Sensory Attributes and Chemical Composition of Different Mango Cultivars
Jeehye Sung†, Joon Hyuk Suh, Alan H. Chambers‡, Jonathan Crane‡, Yu Wang*†
† Department
of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Citrus Research and Education Center,
University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Rd, Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA ‡Tropical
Research and Education Center, University of Florida, IFAS, 18905 SW 280 St.,
Homestead, FL 33031, USA
*Corresponding Author: Yu Wang, Ph.D. Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition Citrus Research and Education Center University of Florida 700 Experiment Station Rd, Lake Alfred, FL 33850 USA Tel: +1-863-956-8673
E-mail:
[email protected] 1
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
1
Abstract
2
The present study investigated the relationship between the chemical composition and
3
sensory quality of different mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars by multivariate statistical
4
analysis. The results showed that the high hedonic rating of mango was due in part to its flavor
5
profile such as fruity, pineapple, and coconut with sweetness. High hedonic liking and positive
6
flavors of mango could be responsible for the volatile compounds including fruity esters, 1-
7
octanol, (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal and γ-octalactone with high contents of sugars. On the other hand,
8
turpentine-like and green flavors of mangoes are attributed to the relatively low hedonic liking
9
of mango, which correlated with high contents of amino acids and terpenes. These findings
10
demonstrated that interaction between individual chemical compounds within mango could be
11
responsible for the specific sensory qualities of mango cultivars provided insight into a
12
paradigm for the selection and development of new and more desirable mango cultivars in the
13
future.
14 15
KEYWORDS: mango, sensory, flavor, LC-MS/MS, SPME-GC/MS, multivariate analysis
2
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 2 of 40
Page 3 of 40
16
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
INTRODUCTION
17
Mango (Mangifera indica L.) ranks fifth in world-wide production (55.6 million tones)
18
after banana, apple, grapes, and oranges from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
19
Nations FAOSTAT database for 2019.1 As one of the most popular fruits, mango is consumed
20
fresh, juiced, dried, or processed into candies and deserts. The distinctive flavor of mango has
21
led to continued consumer growth in the consumption of mango fruit.2 A balanced combination
22
of sweet taste and pleasant aroma can be the major characteristics contributing to the sensory
23
appeal of mango fruits.3-4 The sugars and acids are associated with the sweetness variation, as
24
well as the perception of mango flavor attributes.5 In addition, numerous studies have reported
25
that hexanal, (E)-2-hexenal, ethyl butanoate, (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal, (E)-2-nonenal, decanal, δ-
26
3-carene, γ-terpinene, (Z)-β-ocimene, and terpinolene are characteristic aroma compounds in
27
mango fruits.6-8 Although the diverse chemical composition including sugars, acids, and
28
volatile flavor compounds might have an influence on hedonic sensory perception of mango,
29
the impact of these compounds on sensory properties of the fruit still has not yet been described.
30
The palatability of fruit can bebetter understood by examining characteristic
31
components involved in the flavor attributes. Many of the most important flavor-associated
32
volatile compounds in fruits are derived from sugars, organic acids, and amino acids.9-10 The
33
unique flavor profile of mango might also be generated by integration of multiple sugars and
34
acids with their volatile emission. It is assumed that the chemical composition of mango plays
35
a critical role in sensory acceptability. Therefore, understanding the relationships between
36
mango chemical composition and flavor profiles is needed to elucidate the flavor chemistry of
37
mango fruits. Recent studies have suggested that an omics approach in flavor research is a good
38
strategy to elucidate the major sensory elicitors of tastes and aromas, which contribute to the 3
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
39
sensory descriptors and hedonic perception of this fruit. These tastes and aromas are derived
40
from the various chemical components such as sugars, organic acids, amino acids and volatile
41
compounds.11-13
42
Many previous studies have only included single mango cultivars when investigating
43
fruit quality.2, 4-5, 7, 14 While this can provide essential data, comparing multiple cultivars allows
44
for greater separation of traits that might be linked to consumer liking. Additionally, fruit
45
quality can be significantly impacted by growing environment, and, therefore, understanding
46
fruit quality for mangoes grown in southern Florida is important for the domestic industry.
47
Finally, understanding mango fruit quality at the cultivar level is essential for recommending
48
superior types for premium markets and for the development of new, high-quality mango
49
cultivars. Therefore, the objectives of this study were (1) to determine the hedonic perception
50
and flavor attributes of three mango cultivars by consumers and trained sensory panels, (2) to
51
estimate the chemical composition of mango fruits by targeted analysis of sugars, organic acids,
52
amino acids, and volatiles, and (3) to investigate the influence of mango flavor-associated
53
chemical composition on the hedonic perception by multivariate statistical analysis.
54 55
MATERIALS AND METHODS
56
Chemicals. Volatile chemical reference standards (octyl butyrate, ethyl acetate, 2-
57
methylbutyraldehyde, ethyl propionate, methyl butanoate, α-pinene, ethyl butanoate,
58
camphene, ethyl-3-methylbutanoate, hexanal, δ-3-carene, α-pellandrene, α-terpinene, β-
59
myrcene, limonene, (E)-2-hexenal, γ-terpinene, (Z)-β-ocimene, p-cymene, terpinolene, octanal,
60
(Z)-3-hexenyl acetate, 1-hexanol, (Z)-3-hexenol, nonanal, n-hexyl butanoate, (E)-2-octenal,
61
p,α-Dimethylstyrene, ethyl octanoate, (E)-3-hexenyl butanoate, decanal, α-gurjunene, ethyl 34
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 40
Page 5 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
62
hydroxybutanoate, benzaldehyde, (E)-2-nonenal, linalool, 1-octanol, β-caryophyllene, (E,Z)-
63
2,6-nonadienal, α-caryophyllene, ethyl phenylacetate, and γ-octalactone) and non-volatile
64
chemical reference standards (sucrose, fructose, glucose, raffinose, myoinositol, sorbitol, citric
65
acid, isocitric acid, malic acid, shikimic acid, quinic acid, succinic acid, ketoglutaric acid, gallic
66
acid, malonic acid, phenylalanine, leucine, isoleucine, methionine, tryptophan, proline, valine,
67
tyrosine, alanine, threonine, glutamine, serine, glutamic acid, asparagine, aspartic acid, D-
68
glucose-13C6, citric-2,2,4,4,-d4 acid and d3-L-aspartic acid) were purchased from Sigma-
69
Aldrich Co. (St. Louis, MO, U.S.A.). All LC-MS/MS-grade was purchased from Fisher
70
Scientific Co. (Waltham, MA, U.S.A.).
71
Plant Materials. Mango fruits of ‘Glenn’, ‘Mamme’ and ‘Saigon’ were harvested from the
72
Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida in June 2018. A total of 20−30
73
fruits were randomly collected from three clonal replicate trees for ‘Glenn’ and ‘Saigon’. Only
74
one tree of ‘Mamme’ was available at the time of harvest. These mangoes were selected based
75
on their distinct quality profiles including variability for aroma, sweetness, and texture. ‘Glenn’
76
has excellent eating quality, smooth flesh and pale internal color. ‘Mamme’ is a heavy producer
77
with a slightly gritty texture.15 ‘Saigon’ has good eating quality with smooth flesh. The
78
mangoes were picked at horticultural maturity (fruit easily separated from tree with clear or no
79
sap flowing from stem) and ripened at room temperature (24 ± 1 °C) based on conventional
80
ripeness indices such as soft to touch and appropriately colored skin.
81
Sample Preparation. The mangoes were used within four days after harvesting for sensory
82
analysis. For the consumer sensory acceptance study, five fruits representing ‘Glenn’,
83
‘Mamme’, and ‘Saigon’ were sorted. The mangoes were washed, peeled, and cut into the
84
uniform mango cubes (1 × 1× 0.5 cm). All mango cubes from the same cultivar were pooled 5
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
85
together and then transferred to polyethylene containers. The samples were stored at 4°C until
86
the sensory analysis. For sensory profile analysis and chemical analysis, three fruits (n=3) from
87
each cultivars were sampled and the mango fleshes were divided two parts: (1) For flavor
88
profile analysis by the trained panels, the mangoes from the same cultivar were collectively
89
treated as one replicate and then homogenized to pastes with a Blender (MAINSTAYSTM
90
Personal Blander; Walmart, Bentonville, AK). The paste batches were prepared on the day
91
before each of the duplicate sensory evaluation session and then transferred to polyethylene
92
containers. The samples were stored at -20 °C until further analysis and were thawed at 4 °C
93
just before the sensory evaluation. (2) For chemical analysis, the mangoes were placed in
94
Ziploc®bags, frozen at −20 °C and tested within a month of preparation. The pulp of each
95
mango cultivar was homogenized in liquid nitrogen using a mortar and pestle to make mango
96
pastes.
97
Sensory Evaluation. For consumer testing, a group of 47 mango consumers were recruited
98
from the Citrus Research and Education Center, at the University of Florida, and were between
99
the ages of 18 and 65 with 60% being women. Panelists self-classified themselves as 16
100
Asian/Pacific, 24 White/Caucasian, and 7 other race/ethnicity. During the test sessions,
101
evaluations took place in individual sensory testing booths under artificial daylight and
102
constant temperature (22 °C) conditions. Each sample was labeled with random 3-digital
103
numbers and was served with a cup of water and unsalted crackers as palate cleansers between
104
samples. All panelists went through a training session to familiarize them with scaling systems
105
and procedures and then fruit pulp samples were rated on an anchored line scale,
106
using Compusense® software (Compusense, Inc., Guelph, Ontario, Canada). Hedonic ratings
107
and sensory intensity ratings used the hedonic general labeled magnitude scale (gLMS) and the 6
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 6 of 40
Page 7 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
108
sensory gLMS, respectively.16-17. Hedonic scales accessed the overall liking and color liking
109
for mango in the context of all pleasure/displeasure experiences: 0 = neutral; −100 = strongest
110
disliking of any kind experienced; +100 = strongest liking of any kind experienced. Sensory
111
intensity scales accessed texture (firmness, juiciness, and fibrousness), taste (sweetness,
112
sourness, and astringent) and flavor sensation (tropical flavor and overall flavor) for mango in
113
the context of all sensory experiences: 0 = no sensation; 100 = strongest imaginable sensation
114
of any kind experienced.18
115
For sensory profile analysis, all procedures involving the human participants were in
116
accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committees and
117
with the 1964 Helsinki declaration. The study protocol and consent procedure received ethical
118
approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Florida.19 Fourteen
119
trained panel members (9 females, 5 males; age 32 ± 6 years) were participated in each sensory
120
analysis. The training sessions and test sessions were completed in one month. The ability of
121
assessors to recognize different taste samples (sweet, sour, bitter, and water) and to rank the
122
taste solution according to sweetness (5 and 10% sucrose) and sourness (0.1 and 0.2% citric
123
acid) were tested. During training sessions the panelists were familiarized with the usage of the
124
flavor attributes and the sensory gLMS. Ten flavor attributes were chosen for evaluation and
125
standard references were used where appropriate to ensure agreement of the descriptive terms
126
chosen (Table S1). The samples of different mango cultivars with random 3-digital numbers
127
were served with a cup of water and unsalted crackers. Panelists were asked to score each
128
attribute on anchored line scales with the sensory gLMS. Sensory intensity scales accessed
129
taste (sweetness, sourness, and bitterness) and flavor (fruity, pineapple, coconut, caramel,
130
terpene-like, green-like, and sweaty) sensation for mango in the context of all sensory 7
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
131
experiences: 0 = no sensation; 100 = strongest imaginable sensation of any kind experienced.
132
Physicochemical Analysis. The color was determined using a digital colorimeter (Model CR-
133
400, Minolta-Konica Sensing Inc., Osaka, Japan), calibrated with a standard white plate.
134
Mango flesh was measured on two opposite sides in L*a*b* mode. L*, a*, b* and a*/b* express
135
lightness, green to red, blue to yellow and intensity of orange coloration, respectively.2 Total
136
soluble solids (TSS, °Brix) and titratable acidity (TA, % citric acid) were determined using by
137
a digital refractometer (PAL-BXIACID1, ATAGO, Tokyo, Japan). Each sample included three
138
replicates.
139
Analysis of Sugars, Organic Acids and Amino Acids. One hundred milligrams of mango
140
pastes were mixed with 1 mL of 80% methanol containing internal standard (D-glucose-13C6,
141
citric-2,2,4,4,-d4 acid and d3-L-aspartic acid). Suspensions were quickly vortexed and extracted
142
using a multi-tube vortex mixer (Fisher Scientific, Ottawa, ON) for 30 min at room temperature.
143
After centrifugation at 10,000 g for 15 min at 4 °C, the supernatants were filtered through 0.22
144
μm nylon clarinet syringe filters (Bonna-Agela Technologies Inc, Wilmington) and analyzed
145
using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS; TSQ Quantiva,
146
Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA). Analytes were chromatographed on a SeQuant
147
ZIC®-pHILIC column (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 5.0 μm particle size, Merck SeQuant, Umeå,
148
Sweden) with an appropriate guard column at a column temperature of 40 °C using (A)
149
acetonitrile−10 mM ammonium acetate, pH 9.2 (90:10, v/v) and (B) acetonitrile as mobile
150
phases. A gradient elution was carried out as follows: 0−1 min 100% B, 1–15 min 100–65%
151
B, 15–30 min 65–0% B and 35–46 min 0–100% B. The column was re-equilibrated with the
152
initial mobile phase before subsequent runs. The flow rate was 0.2 mL/min. The mass
153
spectrometer was operated in positive and negative electrospray ionization (ESI+ and ESI–) 8
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 8 of 40
Page 9 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
154
modes depending on the target analytes with selected reaction monitoring (SRM). The
155
parameters of ESI source were as follows: spray voltage, 3500 V (ESI+) and 2500 V (ESI–);
156
ion transfer tube temperature, 325°C; vaporizer temperature, 275°C; sheath gas, 35 Arb; aux
157
gas, 10 Arb; and sweep gas, 0 Arb. Collision-induced dissociation (CID) gas pressure was 2
158
mTorr, and dwell time was 100 msec. An external standard method for sugars (sucrose, fructose,
159
glucose, raffinose, myoinositol and sorbitol), organic acids (citric acid, isocitric acid, malic
160
acid, shikimic acid, quinic acid, succinic acid, ketoglutaric acid, gallic acid and malonic acid),
161
and amino acids (phenylalanine, leucine, isoleucine, methionine, tryptophan, proline, valine,
162
tyrosine, alanine, threonine, glutamine, serine, glutamic acid, asparagine, and aspartic acid)
163
were used for the quantitation of the analytes of interest. Data analysis was performed using
164
Xcalibur software (Ver. 3.0). Each sample included three replicates.
165
Analysis of Volatile Compounds. Volatiles of mango paste sample were collected and
166
concentrated using headspace solid phase microextraction (HS-SPME) and analyzed using gas
167
chromatography-mass spectrometry/olfactometry (GC-MS/O). The GC-MS/O system
168
consisted of a Clarus 680 GC (Perki-nElmer, Inc., Waltham, MA) equipped with a Clarus SQ
169
8T MS and a SNFR olfactory port. HS-SPME analysis was performed following a modified
170
procedure previously reported.19 Four grams of mango paste samples were placed into 40 mL
171
headspace vials containing internal standard (octyl butyrate) and 1 mL of distilled water.
172
Samples were equilibrated at 40 °C for 10 min in a thermostatically controlled water bath
173
followed
174
(DVB/CAR/PDMS) SPME fiber (50/30 μm film thickness, Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA) to
175
the headspace of each vial for 30 min. Volatile compounds were adsorbed on the SPME fibrer
176
were desorbed for 10 min at 250 °C in the splitless injector of the GC combined with a mass
by
exposure
the
Divinylbenzene/Carboxen/Polydimethylsiloxane
9
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
177
spectrometer operated in electron impact mode (MS-EI, 70 eV ionization energy) with a scan
178
range from m/z 50 to 300 in the positive mode with a 2.5 min solvent delay. Separation was
179
achieved on a TR-FFAP capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm film thickness; Thermo
180
Fisher Scientific, Walthan, MA) with a constant pressure, using helium as carrier gas. The
181
column temperature was programmed to increase from 40 °C (after 2 min hold) to 64 °C at a
182
rate of 2 °C/min with a hold time of 1 min and then increased to 200 °C at a rate of 4 °C/min
183
with a final hold time of 10 min. A Swafer™ S2 mode was used to split the sample into the
184
MS and the olfactory port (240 °C). Aroma quality was perceived through the sniffing port. A
185
series of n-alkanes (C7−C30) was used to determine linear retention indices (RI) for each
186
compound. Compound identifications were based on matching mass spectra from the standard
187
national institute of standards and technology (NIST) 2014 library and on RIs of the
188
authenticated standards. When authenticated standards were not available, tentative
189
identifications (TI) were based on the NIST 2014 library and a comparison of RI in the
190
literature. The relative content of each volatile in samples was calculated based on comparison
191
with leak area of internal standard. Compounds were quantitated using an internal standard of
192
octyl butyrate. Standard substances employed for identification were of analytical grade and
193
purchased from different suppliers. Each sample included three replicates.
194
Statistical Analysis. All sensory and analytical data were performed by one-way analysis of
195
variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test using
196
SPSS Statistics (version 20.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) to compare sensory and analytical
197
variances of different cultivars. The results were considered statistically significant for value
198
of p < 0.05. Pearson’s correlations were determined using GraphPad Prism (version 5;
199
GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA) and visualized as a heatmap using R software. Partial 10
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 10 of 40
Page 11 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
200
least-squares-discriminate analysis (PLS-DA) was utilized to monitor the relationship between
201
mango different cultivars and the experimental data using SIMCA-P (version 12.0; Umetrics,
202
Umeå, Sweden). The PLS-DA models was also validated by the R2Y and Q2 from a random
203
permutation test (n=100) in SIMCA-P. PLS regression analysis was used to investigate
204
relationship between compositional variables (x data) and the sensory attributes (y data) in
205
different mango cultivars using SIMCA-P. The quality of the PLS model was depicted by the
206
cross-validation parameters, R2 and Q2, representing the explained variance and the predictive
207
capability of the model, respectively. Within the context of PLS-DA and PLS regression, the
208
variable importance in the projection (VIP) scores reflect the relative importance of each x
209
variable for each x variate in the prediction model. 20 In this study, variables with VIP values
210
higher than one were considered of potential interest, which can verify discriminating
211
compounds in PLS models.
212 213
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
214
Fruit Characteristics of the Mango Cultivars. The physicochemical characteristics of
215
‘Glenn’, ‘Mamme’, and ‘Saigon’ mangoes are shown in Table 1. The flesh of ripe mangoes
216
ranges from pale yellow to orange.21 In this study, ‘Saigon’ had markedly lower red coloration
217
(a* value) and orange coloration (a*/b* ratio) than other cultivars, while lightness (L* value) had
218
no significant difference between the cultivars.
219
Mangoes are generally considered higher quality if they combine a low fibrousness
220
with a strong sweet taste, a balanced acidity, and an aroma profile high in fruity and low in
221
turpentine-like notes.22 In this study, the sensory characteristics of the mango cultivars were
222
evaluated to find their distinct sensory quality profiles in terms of consumer liking for color 11
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
223
and overall liking, and sensory attributes for texture, taste, and flavor (Table 2). The overall
224
liking ratings of the mangoes were ranked in the following manner, ‘Glenn’ > ‘Saigon’ >
225
‘Mamme’ (p < 0.05). ‘Glenn’ had the highest quality with low firmness, low fibrousness, high
226
juiciness, high sweetness, high tropical flavor, and overall high flavor compared to the other
227
mangoes tested with significant differences (p < 0.05) leading to the highest hedonic rating.
228
However, the sensory attributes of ‘Mamme’ were shown to have the opposite sensory
229
attributes. ‘Mamme’ had the highest scores for firmness and fibrousness, and the lowest scores
230
for sweetness, tropical flavor, and overall flavor (p < 0.05). Among these mango cultivars, no
231
significant differences were observed in color liking and taste attributes of sourness and
232
astringent. The TSS, TA and TSS/TA ratio have been regarded as sensory quality parameters
233
to evaluate sweetness of mango fruits.23-24 However, our results indicated that ‘Saigon’ had
234
similar intensity to ‘Mamme’ on sweetness although ‘Saigon’ had the lowest TSS and TSS/TA
235
ratio. This observation suggested that the TSS, TA, and TSS/TA ratio were not completely
236
informative when measuring these mango sensory qualities.
237
The present study also determined the relationship between the sensory attributes by
238
the Pearson method with Pearson r and two-tailed p values (Table S2 and Figure 1). Overall
239
liking was positively correlated with sweetness (r = 0.43, p < 0.01), tropical flavor (r = 0.69, p
240
< 0.01), and overall flavor (r = 0.74, p < 0.01), and negatively correlated with sourness (r = -
241
0.26, p < 0.01) and astringent (r = -0.23, p < 0.01). Interestingly, sweetness had not only a
242
highly positive correlation with tropical flavor (r = 0.83, p < 0.01) and overall flavor (r = 0.82,
243
p < 0.01), but also a negative correlation with sourness (r = -0.18, p < 0.05). Overall liking had
244
a positive correlation with juiciness (r = 0.54, p < 0.01), but no correlation with firmness and
245
fibrousness. Juiciness also was strongly and positively correlated with sweetness (r = 0.78, p < 12
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 12 of 40
Page 13 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
246
0.01), tropical flavor (r = 0.73, p < 0.01), and overall flavor (r = 0.71, p < 0.01). Even though
247
mango fresh color had a slight influence on several sensory attributes, it was not a reasonable
248
predictor of the overall liking by consumer. This result imply that mango flavor could play a
249
crucial role in the hedonic perception of mango.
250
The taste and flavor profiles of mango cultivars were assessed by trained panels. There
251
were significant differences (p < 0.05) among cultivars for tastes of sweetness and sourness,
252
and the flavors of fruity, pineapple, coconut, and green-like (Figure 2A). The overall flavor of
253
‘Glenn’ was characterized mango-like attributes including high intensities of sweetness, fruity,
254
pineapple and coconut. On the other hand, ‘Mamme’ had lower intensities for sweetness,
255
sourness, fruity, pineapple, and coconut, and a higher intensity for green-like. ‘Saigon’ had the
256
highest intensity of sourness compared to the other cultivars but also higher pineapple and
257
fruity intensities than ‘Mamme'. We also investigated whether the flavor profile of mango was
258
similar among different cultivars. Using PLS-DA as a multivariate data analysis technique, the
259
values of samples and loadings of the variables on the two PLS-DA components were
260
graphically illustrated in a biplot to describe the contribution of individual flavor attributes to
261
variation between cultivars (Figure 2B). The examination of the bidimensional plot emphasized
262
that there was excellent separation of three clusters representing the different mango cultivars.
263
The observed PLS-DA model had good coefficient fractions with R2Y = 0.946, Q2 = 0.845
264
(positive prediction ability), and variables explained 0.844 (R2X) of total variation.
265
Furthermore, R2Y-intercept and Q2Y-intercept of the random permutation test were 0.399 and
266
-0.307, respectively. The criteria for validity of a certain model are: all the Q2 and R2 values on
267
the permuted data sets should be lower than the values on the actual data set.25-26 Therefore,
268
the permutation test showed good predictability and no overfitting of non- PLS-DA model on 13
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 14 of 40
269
flavor attributes to variation between cultivars. This plot also indicated that mango-like flavor
270
attributes such as pineapple, fruity, caramel, and coconut with high sweetness influenced the
271
distinctive flavor of ‘Glenn’. However, ‘Mamme’ located in the left lower part of the plot was
272
characterized by terpene-like and green-like flavors. These results suggest that a balanced
273
combination of sweetness, fruity, pineapple, coconut, and sourness could contribute to the
274
flavor profile in relation to positive hedonic perception of mango.
275
The Chemical Diversity within the Mango Cultivars. Flavor perception of foods is a
276
complex process that involves the senses of smell and taste, and chemesthesis. During the
277
eating process, different types of chemical stimuli including non-volatile and volatile
278
components are released. Saliva facilitates the movement of non-volatile compounds to taste-
279
and irritatant-sensitive regions of oral cavity, while volatile compounds are transported
280
retronasally from the mouth to the nasal cavity and its olfactory receptors through the
281
nasopharynx.27 The congruent interaction of tastants and olfactory stimuli can cause enhanced
282
neural responses in parts of the brain that code for the hedonic value of food.28 Mango flavor
283
is primarily generated by a diverse set of chemicals including sugar, acids, and volatile
284
compounds, which may be considered as chemical stimulus for flavor perception.2,
285
understand on what chemical components are responsible for flavor perception of mango,
286
chemical profiles of three mango cultivars were analyzed. The sugar and acid profiles and
287
volatile profiles of mangoes were analyzed by LC-MS/MS and SPME-GC-MS/O, respectively.
288
In this study, four sugars (sucrose, fructose, glucose, and raffinose) and two sugar alcohols
289
(myoinositol and sorbitol) were identified (Table 3). The total amount of sugar ranged from
290
160.02 to 225.98 g/kg of fresh weight in mangoes. Glucose (39.1–40.7% of total sugars),
291
fructose (32.9–35.9% of total sugars), and sucrose (23.2–27.7% of total sugars) were the major 14
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
6-7
To
Page 15 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
292
sugars in all the samples. The total amount of organic acid ranges from 5.43 to 11.74 g/kg of
293
fresh weight in mangoes. The major organic acids were citric acid (27.9–55.4% of total organic
294
acids), quinic acid (7.0–34.7% of total organic acids), shikimic acid (22.2–29.9% of total
295
organic acids), malic acid (4.6–12.0% of total organic acids), and isocitric acid (1.5–3.0% of
296
total organic acids). Succinic acid, ketoglutaric acid, gallic acid, and malonic acid were present
297
at less than 1% of total organic acids.
298
A total of 15 amino acids including phenylalanine, leucine, isoleucine, methionine,
299
tryptophan, proline, valine, tyrosine, alanine, threonine, glutamine, serine, glutamic acid,
300
asparagine and aspartic acid ranged from 79.66 to 302.94 mg/kg of fresh weight in mangoes.
301
Alanine (11.3–47.2% of total amino acids), phenylalanine (3.1–36.8% of total amino acids),
302
proline (9.6–22.9% of total amino acids), glutamic acid (8.7–24.8% of total amino acids), and
303
methionine (2.2–7.2% of total amino acids) were the predominant amino acids of mangoes.
304
PLS-DA methods were applied as a multivariate data analysis technique to display the
305
non-volatile pattern of the three mango cultivars (Figure 3A). ‘Glenn’ had the highest total
306
sugar, sucrose, fructose, glucose, and sorbitol content compared to the other two cultivars. The
307
content of total acid in ‘Saigon’ was significantly higher than the other cultivars, especially
308
shikimic acid, quinic acid, succinic acid, ketoglutaric acid and gallic acid. In contrast,
309
‘Mamme’ had the highest amounts of amino acids, followed by ‘Glenn’, and ‘Saigon’. All
310
cultivars were divided into 3 groups on the basis of the first two components in a biplot, which
311
were consistent with the result of qualitative profiling analysis (p < 0.05, R2X = 0.725, R2Y =
312
0.982 and Q2 = 0.924). The y intercepts of R2 and Q2 in the permutation test were 0.403 and -
313
0.236, respectively, indicating a valid model. ‘Glenn’ was positioned in upper right quadrant
314
of the biplot which was characterized by relative high concentrations of fructose, glucose, 15
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
315
isocitric acid, and ketoglutaric acid. Quinic acid, shikimic acid, phenylalanine, and raffinose
316
appeared to be linked to ‘Saigon’ cultivar. Most of the discriminative composition in ‘Mamme’
317
was characterized by the presence of amino acids, such as serine, isoleucine, leucine, tyrosine,
318
leucine, alanine, valine, proline, threonine, and aspartic acid. Moreover, the VIP values were
319
calculated from the non-volatile compositions of three mango cultivars (p < 0.05) (Figure S1A).
320
In total 31 non-volatile compounds, three organic acids (isocitric acid, citric acid, and
321
ketoglutaric acid), three sugars (fructose, raffinose, and glucose), and an amino acid (glutamic
322
acid) had VIP score higher than 1. It highlights the importance of these non-volatile compounds
323
that could be most influential in discriminating among the different mangoes cultivar.
324
The 45 most abundant volatile compounds were identified in three mango cultivars.
325
These compounds included 10 aldehydes, 3 alcohols, 19 terpenes, 12 esters, 1 lactone, and 1
326
acid, all of which have been previously reported in mangoes except for 2-methylbutyraldehyde
327
(Table 4).6-7, 14, 29-30 2-methylbutyraldehyde has been described as malty in malted barley.31 Our
328
results showed that ‘Glenn’ had higher amount of esters including ethyl acetate, ethyl
329
propionate, methyl butanoate, ethyl butanoate, ethyl-3-methylbutanoate, cis-ethyl crotonate,
330
(Z)-3-hexeenyl acetate, ethyl octanoate, ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate, and ethyl phenylacetate
331
than other cultivars. α-Pinene, camphene, δ-3-carene, α-phellandrene, α-terpinene, β-myrcene,
332
limonene, β-phellandrene, γ-terpinene, (Z)-β-ocimene, α-gurjunene and β-selinene were
333
exclusively found in ‘Mamme’. α-Copaene, n-hexyl butanoate and (E)-3-hexenyl butanoate
334
were found only in the ‘Saigon’ cultivar. The biplot of PLS-DA on the volatile compositions
335
revealed a clear separation between the different mango cultivars on the basis of the first two
336
latent variables with good coefficient fractions (p < 0.05, R2X = 0.706, R2Y = 0.908 and Q2 =
337
0.813) (Figure 3B). After the permutation test was performed, y intercepts for R2 and Q2 were 16
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 16 of 40
Page 17 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
338
0.408 and -0.207, respectively, indicating a valid model. ‘Glenn’ was characterized by elevated
339
levels of linalool (floral, citrus), 1-octanol (floral), (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal (cucumber), γ-
340
octalactone (coconut), β-caryophyllene (sweet, floral), 2-butenoic acid (fruity), ethyl butanoate
341
(fruity), cis-ethyl crotonate (floral, fruity), ethyl acetate (pineapple), ethyl propionate (fruity),
342
methyl butanoate (fruity, sweet), ethyl butanoate (fruity), ethyl-3-methylbutanoate (fruity), (Z)-
343
3-hexenyl acetate (banana), ethyl octanoate (peach), ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate (marshmallow),
344
and ethyl phenylacetate (fruity, sweet), which accounts for the general fruity/floral attributes
345
in mango aroma profile.6,
346
characterized by high levels of n-hexyl butanoate (apple peel), (E)-3-hexenyl butanoate
347
(creamy), terpinolene (lemon) and α-copaene (floral).32 ‘Mamme’ located in the left lower part
348
of the plot was mainly linked to the compounds having terpeny/green note including hexanal
349
(green), 2-methylbutyraldehyde (malt), (E)-2-octenal (green), octanal (green), α-pinene
350
(terpeny), camphene (camphor), δ-3-carene (resinous), α-phellandrene (terpeny), α-terpinene
351
(lemon), β-myrcene (terpeny), β-phellandrene (terpeny), γ-terpinene (terpeny), (Z)-β-ocimene
352
(terpeny), α-gurjunene (green), and β-selinene (herb).6 In addition, the VIP values were
353
calculated from PLS-DA model on the volatile compositions of three mango cultivars (p < 0.05)
354
(Figure S1B). The VIP of terpinolene, 2-butenoic acid, ethyl propionate, ethyl phenylacetate,
355
ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate, (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal, ethyl-3-methylbutanoate, γ-octalactone, 1-
356
octanol, ethyl acetate, α-terpinene, p,α-dimethylstyrene, hexanal, camphene, α-pinene, (E)-2-
357
octenal, β-myrcene, (Z)-β-ocimene, cis-ethyl crotonate, δ-3-carene, methyl butanoate, and β-
358
phellandrene were larger than 1, which revealed high discriminative power between different
359
mango cultivars.
360
14
‘Saigon’ was located in upper part of the biplot, which is
Relationship between Mango Flavor Attributes and Chemical Constituents. PLS 17
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
361
regression model was used to investigate the contribution of non-volatile compounds, such as
362
sugars, organic acids, and amino acids (x variables, n = 30) or volatile compounds (x variables,
363
n = 46) to various taste and flavor attributes (y variables, n = 10) in three mango cultivars. In
364
the correlation loading plot for the non-volatile compounds and the flavor attributes (Figure 4),
365
the x variables (R2X = 0.749) explained the variation in the y variables (R2Y = 0.824) according
366
to the first two factors (p < 0.05, Q2 = 0.574). The loading plot allow the cultivars to be
367
classified into uniquely defined sub-groups (Figure 4A). The chemical parameters plotted in
368
the vicinity of the flavor attribute were positively associated with that attribute (Figure 4B).
369
The taste of sweetness and sourness and the flavors of pineapple, fruity, caramel, and coconut
370
were located on a right part of loading plot together with ‘Saigon’ and ‘Glenn’. The taste of
371
sweetness and the flavors of pineapple, fruity, coconut, and caramel adjacent to the lower right
372
quadrant of the loading plot were positively correlated with the non-volatile chemical
373
composition of ‘Glenn’ including sucrose, fructose, glucose, sorbitol, isocitric acid and
374
ketoglutaric acid. ‘Saigon’ was located on the upper right quadrant of the loading plot together
375
with the sourness attribute, which was correlated with shikimic acid, phenylalanine, quinic acid,
376
succinic acid and raffinose. On the other hand, ‘Mamme’ was located on a left part of the
377
loading plot together with the taste attribute of bitterness and the flavor attributes of terpene-
378
like, green-like, and sweaty, which were associated with most of the amino acids except for
379
phenylalanine that was closely linked to ‘Saigon’. Moreover, the VIP values were calculated
380
from the PLS regression model on the taste and flavor characteristics and the non-volatile
381
compositions of three mango cultivars (p < 0.05) (Figure S2A). The VIP scores of fructose,
382
glucose, raffinose, sorbitol, isocitric acid, citric acid, shikimic acid, phenylalanine, ketoglutaric
383
acid, and glutamic acid had higher than 1, which can be considered as being responsible for
384
differences in the non-volatile compounds and taste and flavor characteristics among three 18
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 18 of 40
Page 19 of 40
385
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
mango cultivars.
386
These results imply that fructose, glucose, and raffinose may be involved in the non-
387
volatile chemical stimuli of mango for sweet taste receptor cells clustered in taste bud on the
388
tongue, contributing to intense of sweetness.33 Previous researches have reported that free
389
amino acids may affect the tastes of fruits, such as tomato and strawberry by increasing
390
sweetness with glycine, alanine, or proline and increasing sourness with aspartic acid.34-37
391
Nevertheless, our results showed that ‘Mamme’ had the highest concentration of most of amino
392
acids except for phenylalanine, but was the lowest in sweetness and sourness. The interesting
393
was that ‘Saigon’ had higher taste of sweetness and sourness with stronger flavor of fruity and
394
pineapple than ‘Mamme’, although they had similar intensities of green-like, terpene-like and
395
coconut flavors. In addition, the higher levels of shikimic acid and phenylalanine were found
396
in ‘Saigon’ than ‘Mamme’. Phenylalanine, the final product of the shikimate pathway, is
397
known as one of the most important flavor precursor in fruits.38 Phenylalanine metabolism
398
produce floral and fruity volatile compounds such as phenylethyl alcohol, and phenylacetate,
399
which may contribute to the fruity and pineapple-like flavor of mango.39 It has been reported
400
that olfactory stimuli that have regularly been paired with sweet or sour-tasting foods can
401
induce the enhancement of the associated taste quality.28 These findings assume that fruity odor
402
derived from shikimate/phenylalanine pathway may have play a role of olfactory stimuli of
403
mango for the aroma-induced sweetness enhancement.
404
In the correlation loading plot for the volatile compounds and the flavor attributes
405
(Figure 5), the two first principal components explained the x variables (R2X = 0.821) and the
406
y variables (R2Y = 0.805) (p < 0.05, Q2 = 0.545). The VIP values were calculated from the PLS
407
regression model on the taste and flavor characteristics and the volatile compositions of three 19
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
408
mango cultivars (p < 0.05) (Figure S2B). Volatile compounds having VIP scores lager than 1
409
were highly relevant for discriminating different mango cultivars on the volatile compounds
410
and taste and flavor attributes. The volatile profile of mango analyzed were variable with
411
different cultivars, which contributed to different flavor characteristics. ‘Glenn’ had not only
412
high fruity intensity, but also a strong correlation with caramel and coconut flavors along with
413
1-octanol, (E,Z)-2,6-nonadienal, and γ-octalactone as well as several esters derived from
414
fruity/floral/sweet flavors. Remarkably, ethyl propionate, methyl butanonate, ethyl butanoate,
415
cis-ethyl crotonate, ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate, and 2-butenoic acid were only perceived as a
416
fruity note in ‘Glenn’ through the sniffing port of GC-MS/O. Ethyl butanoate and ethyl-3-
417
methylbutanonate have been regarded as potent aroma-active compounds for fruity notes in
418
mango.40 Lactones such as γ-octalactone have been responsible for the coconut-like note in
419
mangoes.41 Our results also suggested that these compounds could be responsible for desirable
420
sensory quality of mango.
421
In contrast, ‘Mamme’ was strongly linked to the volatile compounds involved in
422
terpene/green flavor notes (hexanal, β-selinene, β-phellandrene, octanal, (E)-2-octenal,
423
camphene, α-pinene, β-myrcene, (Z)-β-ocimene, δ-3-carene, γ-terpinene, α-gurjunene and α-
424
phellandrene), a citrusy note (α-terpinene, p-cymene, nonanal and limonene) and a malt note
425
(2-methylbutyraldehyde), all of which are statically correlated with terpene flavor. Even though
426
more study is needed to determine the impact of citrus/malt flavors on the hedonic perception,
427
our results suggested that volatile compounds involved in citrus/malt notes including α-
428
terpinene, p-cymene, nonanal, limonene, and 2-methylbutyraldehyde could affect negative
429
hedonic perception of mango.
430
The sourness of ‘Saigon’ was correlated to n-hexyl butanoate, (E)-3-hexenyl butanoate, 20
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 20 of 40
Page 21 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
431
and α-copaene. Our results indicated that ‘Saigon’ had high flavor intensities of fruity and
432
pineapple and high amount of shikimic acid and phenylalanine, leading to higher overall liking
433
score of ‘Saigon’ than that of ‘Mamme’. Volatile and non-volatile flavor compounds derived
434
from phenylalanine metabolism could result in the flavor and scent of many fruits.42 It can be
435
a potential prerequisite for the formation of volatile metabolites including 2-phenylethanol, 2-
436
phenylethyl ester, and phenylacetate, whose derivatives have pleasant fruity and pineapple-like
437
flavors.43-44 Even though 2-phenylethanol, 2-phenylethyl ester, and phenylacetate were not
438
found in ‘Sagon’, phenylalanine metabolism presumably play the crucial role for the
439
development of fruity and pineapple-like flavor of ‘Saigon’. These findings assume that the
440
derivatives of 2-phenylethanol and phenylacetate may interact with olfactory receptor neurons,
441
leading to partially enhanced neural responses in parts of the brain that code for the hedonic
442
perception of mango.28
443
Fatty acids have been regarded as the major precursors of volatile compounds
444
responsible for the aroma of most plant products.43-44 Several studies reported that the pulp of
445
ripe mango has lipoxygenase (LOX) and hydroperoxide lyase (HPL).45-46 It is widely predicted
446
that the biosynthesis pathway of the key aroma compounds in mango might be implicated in
447
fatty acid metabolism. LOX produces hydroperoxide isomers of polyunsaturated fatty acids,
448
which are subsequently cleaved by HPL to form C6 aldehydes. The aldehydes can be converted
449
to C6 alcohols by alcohol dehydrogenase.47-48 The saturated and unsaturated C6-alcohols
450
formed through the LOX/HPL pathway can be esterified with acyl-CoA moieties to produce
451
hexyl esters such as (E)-2-hexenyl and (Z)-3-hexenyl ester, that lead to the formation of esters
452
or lactones.44,
453
attractive aroma compounds such as 2-butenoic acid, (Z)-hexenyl acetate, and γ-octalactone.
47
This metabolism of fatty acids might be attributed to the presence of the
21
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
454
Moreover, consumer negative perception of mango associated the terpene flavor profile was
455
found to be affected by high concentrations of terpene compounds such as terpinolene, δ-3-
456
carene, caryophyllene, α-pinene, limonene, and β-myrcene. Mango terpene compounds are
457
derived from the C5 prenyl diphosphate precursors (isopentenyl diphosphate and its allylic
458
isomer dimethylallyl diphosphate) by short-chain isoprenyl diphosphate synthases (IDS) in
459
terpenoid biosynthesis.49 This supported the postulate that the terpene compositions involved
460
in terpene/green flavors might be biosynthesized via isoprenoid pathway in mango. Further
461
studies on the additional metabolomics profiling of mango flavor-associated chemical
462
precursors such as phenylalanine, fatty acids, and isoprenoids would be helpful to explore
463
potential biomarker for high sensory quality of mango.
464
Collectively, the interaction between individual chemical compounds within mango
465
can be correlated with the distinct sensory qualities of mango cultivars. The present study
466
provides a better understanding of the framework for the relationship of the chemical factors
467
and the sensory attributes of different mango cultivars and could be used in the future selection
468
and breeding of superior mango cultivars.
469 470
ABBREVIATIONS USED gLMS TSS TA SRM IRB LC-MS/MS CID ESI HS-SPME
General labeled magnitude scale Total soluble solids Titratable acidity Selected reaction monitoring Institutional review board Liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry Collision-induced dissociation Electrospray ionization Headspace solid phase microextraction 22
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 22 of 40
Page 23 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
GC-MS/O DVB/CAR/PDMS RI PLS-DA ANOVA LOX HPL IDS
Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry/olfactometry Divinylbenzene/Carboxen/Polydimethylsiloxane Linear retention indices Partial least-squares-discriminate analysis One-way analysis of variance Lipoxygenase Hydroperoxide lyase Isoprenyl diphosphate synthases
471 472
Supporting Information Description
473
Mango flavor attributes, definitions, and standard references for the sensory analysis by trained
474
panels; Pearson correlation matrix of hedonic scale and sensory attributes in mangoes by
475
consumer test; The composition of non-volatile compounds in three mango cultivars; The
476
composition of volatile compounds in three mango cultivars.
477 478
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE
479
Corresponding Authors
480
*Telephone: +1-863-956-8673. E-mail:
[email protected] 481
ORCID
482
Yu Wang: 0000-0002-2003-270X
483
Funding
484
This research was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-
485
NIFA 2018-51181-28375).
23
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
486
Notes
487
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
488
24
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 24 of 40
Page 25 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
489
REFERENCES
490
1.
491
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed March 19, 2019).
492
2.
493
ripeness stage at the time of fresh-cut processing on instrumental and sensory qualities of fresh-
494
cut mangos. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2015, 106, 11-20.
495
3.
496
characteristics of mango cultivars during the production of mango puree and sorbet. J. Food Sci.
497
2012, 77 (10), S348-55.
498
4.
499
attributes in fresh mangoes and heat-treated mango purees prepared from Thai cultivars. Lwt-Food
500
Sci. Technol. 2014, 56 (1), 138-144.
501
5.
502
flavor properties of mango (Mangifera indica). J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2001, 126 (1), 115-121.
503
6.
504
the major aroma-active compounds in mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars Haden, White Alfonso,
505
Praya Sowoy, Royal Special, and Malindi by application of a comparative aroma extract dilution
506
analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62 (20), 4544-51.
507
7.
508
compounds in mango (Mangifera indica L. 'Haden') fruits by stable isotope dilution quantitation
509
and aroma simulation experiments. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64 (21), 4312-4318.
510
8.
511
M.; De Voss, J. J.; Wong, S. H.; Smyth, H. E., Stable isotope dilution assay (SIDA) and HS-SPME-GCMS
512
quantification of key aroma volatiles for fruit and sap of Australian mango cultivars. Food Chem.
513
2017, 221, 613-619.
514
9.
515
2013, 23 (9), R374-R378.
516
10.
517
perception with chemical composition of bioprocessed lingonberry. Food Chem. 2014, 157, 148-56.
518
11.
519
for the untargeted analysis of chemical stimuli of orange juice flavour. Flavour Fragr. J. 2011, 26 (6),
520
429-440.
521
12.
522
D. M.; Odabasi, A. Z.; Moskowitz, H. R.; Folta, K. M.; Klee, H. J.; Sims, C. A.; Whitaker, V. M.; Clark, D.
523
G., Strawberry flavor: diverse chemical compositions, a seasonal influence, and effects on sensory
524
perception. PLoS One 2014, 9 (2), e88446.
FAOSTAT.
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
of
the
United
Nations
2019.
Ngamchuachit, P.; Sivertsen, H. K.; Mitcham, E. J.; Barrett, D. M., Influence of cultivar and
Ledeker, C. N.; Chambers, D. H.; Chambers, E. t.; Adhikari, K., Changes in the sensory
Ledeker, C. N.; Suwonsichon, S.; Chambers, D. H.; Adhikari, K., Comparison of sensory
Malundo, T. M. M.; Shewfelt, R. L.; Ware, G. O.; Baldwin, E. A., Sugars and acids influence Munafo, J. P., Jr.; Didzbalis, J.; Schnell, R. J.; Schieberle, P.; Steinhaus, M., Characterization of
Munafo, J. P.; Didzbalis, J.; Schnell, R. J.; Steinhaus, M., Insights into the key aroma
San, A. T.; Joyce, D. C.; Hofman, P. J.; Macnish, A. J.; Webb, R. I.; Matovic, N. J.; Williams, C.
Bartoshuk, L. M.; Klee, H. J., Better fruits and vegetables through sensory analysis. Curr. Biol. Viljanen, K.; Heinio, R. L.; Juvonen, R.; Kosso, T.; Puupponen-Pimia, R., Relation of sensory Charve, J.; Chen, C.; Hegeman, A. D.; Reineccius, G. A., Evaluation of instrumental methods
Schwieterman, M. L.; Colquhoun, T. A.; Jaworski, E. A.; Bartoshuk, L. M.; Gilbert, J. L.; Tieman,
25
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 26 of 40
525
13.
Tieman, D.; Bliss, P.; McIntyre, L. M.; Blandon-Ubeda, A.; Bies, D.; Odabasi, A. Z.; Rodriguez,
526
G. R.; van der Knaap, E.; Taylor, M. G.; Goulet, C.; Mageroy, M. H.; Snyder, D. J.; Colquhoun, T.;
527
Moskowitz, H.; Clark, D. G.; Sims, C.; Bartoshuk, L.; Klee, H. J., The chemical interactions underlying
528
tomato flavor preferences. Curr. Biol. 2012, 22 (11), 1035-9.
529
14.
530
'Kensington Pride' mango. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2003, 27 (3), 323-336.
531
15.
Campbell, R. J., A guide to mangoes in Florida. Fairchild Tropical Carden 1992.
532
16.
Bartoshuk, L. M.; Fast, K.; Snyder, D. J., Differences in our sensory - Invalid comparisons
533
with labeled scales. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2005, 14 (3), 122-125.
534
17.
535
functional genomic inference. Plos Genet. 2009, 5 (5).
536
18.
537
(eg, category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: what we have learned from genetic
538
variation in taste. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003, 14 (2), 125-138.
539
19.
540
sinensis) and mandarin (Citrus reticulata). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 256.
541
20.
542
multicollinearity is present. Chemometr. Intell. Lab 2005, 78 (1-2), 103-112.
543
21.
544
firm-ripe and soft-ripe fruit, stored in clamshell containers and passive MAP. Postharvest Biol.
545
Technol. 2003, 30 (1), 15-28.
546
22.
547
flavors, 2nd ed.; Hui, Y. H., Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA,, 2010; pp 319-343.
548
23.
549
C. H., Describing quality and sensory attributes of 3 mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars at 3
550
ripeness stages based on firmness. J. Food Sci. 2015, 80 (9), S2055-63.
551
24.
552
characteristics of mango cultivars during the production of mango puree and sorbet. J. Food Sci.
553
2012, 77 (10), S348-S355.
554
25.
Zhu, Y.; Feng, Y.; Shen, L.; Xu, D.; Wang, B.; Ruan, K.; Cong, W., Effect of metformin on the
555
urinary
metabolites
556
chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-TOF/MS). J. Chromatogr. B
557
Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2013, 925, 110-6.
558
26.
559
handling metabonomics data from liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry: combinational use
560
of support vector machine recursive feature elimination, genetic algorithm and random forest for
561
feature selection. Metabolomics 2011, 7 (4), 549-558.
Lalel, H. J. D.; Singh, Z.; Tan, S. C., Aroma volatiles production during fruit ripening of
Stone, E. A.; Ayroles, J. F., Modulated modularity clustering as an exploratory tool for Bartoshuk, L. M.; Duffy, V. B.; Fast, K.; Green, B. G.; Prutkin, J.; Snyder, D. J., Labeled scales
Feng, S.; Gmitter, F.; Wang, Y., Differentiation between flavors of sweet orange (Citrus Chong, I. G.; Jun, C. H., Performance of some variable selection methods when Beaulieu, J. C.; Lea, J. M., Volatile and quality changes in fresh-cut mangos prepared from
Chauhan, O. P.; Raju, P. S.; Bawa, A. S., Mango flavor. In In Handbook of fuirt and vegetable Nassur Rde, C.; Gonzalez-Moscoso, S.; Crisosto, G. M.; Lima, L. C.; Vilas Boas, E. V.; Crisosto,
Ledeker, C. N.; Chambers, D. H.; Chambers, E.; Adhikari, K., Changes in the sensory
of
diet-induced-obese
mice
studied
by
ultra
performance
liquid
Lin, X. H.; Wang, Q. C.; Yin, P. Y.; Tang, L.; Tan, Y. X.; Li, H.; Yan, K.; Xu, G. W., A method for
26
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 27 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Laing, D. G.; Jinks, A., Flavour perception mechanisms. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 1996, 7 (12),
562
27.
563
387-389.
564
28.
Spence, C., Multisensory flavor perception. Cell 2015, 161 (1), 24-35.
565
29.
Quijano, C. E.; Salamanca, G.; Pino, J. A., Aroma volatile constituents of Colombian varieties
566
of mango (Mangifera indica L.). Flavour Fragr. J. 2007, 22 (5), 401-406.
567
30.
568
(Mangifera indica L.) cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53 (6), 2213-23.
569
31.
570
barley. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1994, 42 (12), 2880-2884.
571
32.
572
active compounds in aqueous essence and fresh pink guava fruit puree (Psidium guajava L.) by GC-
573
MS and multidimensional GC/GC-O. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51 (5), 1421-6.
574
33.
575
9 (7).
576
34.
577
relevance as stress indicators under NaCl salinity. Food Chem. 2008, 111 (3), 642-647.
578
35.
579
tomato fruit ripening: a focus on L-glutamate. Amino Acids 2010, 38 (5), 1523-32.
580
36.
581
ACS Symp. Ser. 1989, 388, 158-174.
582
37.
583
Biochemical changes during fruit development of four strawberry cultivars. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci.
584
2001, 126 (4), 394-403.
585
38.
586
ten tropical fruits by gas-liquid chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1980, 28 (6), 1217-21.
587
39.
588
convert phenylalanine into the flavor volatile 2-phenylethanol. Fungal. Genet. Biol. 2015, 77, 22-30.
589
40.
590
Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47 (9), 1944-1950.
591
41.
592
aroma. Flavour Fragr. J. 2006, 21 (2), 207-213.
593
42.
594
amino acid decarboxylases participate in synthesis of the flavor volatiles 2-phenylethanol and 2-
595
phenylacetaldehyde. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006, 103 (21), 8287-92.
596
43.
597
compounds. Plant J. 2008, 54 (4), 712-32.
598
44.
Pino, J. A.; Mesa, J.; Munoz, Y.; Marti, M. P.; Marbot, R., Volatile components from mango Beal, A. D.; Mottram, D. S., Compounds contributing to the characteristic aroma of malted Jordan, M. J.; Margaria, C. A.; Shaw, P. E.; Goodner, K. L., Volatile components and aroma
Lee, A. A.; Owyang, C., Sugars, Sweet Taste Receptors, and Brain Responses. Nutrients 2017, Keutgen, A. J.; Pawelzik, E., Contribution of amino acids to strawberry fruit quality and their Sorrequieta, A.; Ferraro, G.; Boggio, S. B.; Valle, E. M., Free amino acid production during Kato, H.; Rhue, M. R.; Nishimura, T., Role of free amino-acids and peptides in food taste. Moing, A.; Renaud, C.; Gaudillere, M.; Raymond, P.; Roudeillac, P.; Denoyes-Rothan, B.,
Hall, N. T.; Smoot, J. M.; Knight, R. J., Jr.; Nagy, S., Protein and amino acid compositions of Masuo, S.; Osada, L.; Zhou, S. M.; Fujita, T.; Takaya, N., Aspergillus oryzae pathways that Pino, J. A., Odour-active compounds in mango (Mangifera indica L. cv. Corazon). Int. J. Pino, J. A.; Mesa, J., Contribution of volatile compounds to mango (Mangifera indica L.) Tieman, D.; Taylor, M.; Schauer, N.; Fernie, A. R.; Hanson, A. D.; Klee, H. J., Tomato aromatic
Schwab, W.; Davidovich-Rikanati, R.; Lewinsohn, E., Biosynthesis of plant-derived flavor Song, J.; Forney, C. F., Flavour volatile production and regulation in fruit. Can. J. Plant Sci. 27
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
599
2008, 88 (3), 537-550.
600
45.
601
Giri, A. P.; Gupta, V. S., Transcriptional transitions in Alphonso mango (Mangifera indica L.) during
602
fruit development and ripening explain its distinct aroma and shelf life characteristics. Sci. Rep.
603
2017, 7 (1), 8711.
604
46.
605
Flores, S.; Sanchez-Flores, A.; Kuhn, D. N.; Islas-Osuna, M. A., Mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Kent
606
fruit mesocarp de novo transcriptome assembly identifies gene families important for ripening. Front.
607
Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 62.
608
47.
609
in red delicious and granny smith apples using deuterium-labeled precursors. J. Agric. Food Chem.
610
1999, 47 (7), 2553-62.
611
48.
612
genes associated with aroma formation derived from the fatty acid pathway during peach fruit
613
ripening. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58 (10), 6157-6165.
614
49.
615
Gupta, V., Characterization of three novel isoprenyl diphosphate synthases from the terpenoid rich
616
mango fruit. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013, 71, 121-31.
Deshpande, A. B.; Anamika, K.; Jha, V.; Chidley, H. G.; Oak, P. S.; Kadoo, N. Y.; Pujari, K. H.;
Dautt-Castro, M.; Ochoa-Leyva, A.; Contreras-Vergara, C. A.; Pacheco-Sanchez, M. A.; Casas-
Rowan, D. D.; Allen, J. M.; Fielder, S.; Hunt, M. B., Biosynthesis of straight-chain ester volatiles
Zhang, B.; Shen, J. Y.; Wei, W. W.; Xi, W. P.; Xu, C. J.; Ferguson, I.; Chen, K. S., Expression of
Kulkarni, R.; Pandit, S.; Chidley, H.; Nagel, R.; Schmidt, A.; Gershenzon, J.; Pujari, K.; Giri, A.;
617
28
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 28 of 40
Page 29 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
618
Figure captions
619
Figure 1. Heat map of the correlation between hedonic scale and sensory attributes in mango.
620
The correlation was determined by Pearson method and the heat map was drawn by R.
621
Figure 2. (A) Taste and flavor profiles of three mango cultivars and (B) the loading plot of
622
partial least-squares discriminant analysis scores for of three mango cultivars with taste and
623
flavor attributes. The flavor profiles were assessed by trained panels.
624
Figure 3. The loading plot of partial least-squares discriminant analysis for three mango
625
cultivars with (A) non-volatile compounds and (B) volatile compounds. The sugar and acid
626
profiles and aroma volatile profiles of mangoes analyzed by LC-MS/MS and SPME-GC-MS/O,
627
respectively.
628
Figure 4. Relation of flavor attributes and non-volatile compounds of three mango cultivars.
629
(A) The distribution of three mango cultivars and (B) the loading plot for three mango cultivars
630
with non-volatile compounds.
631
Figure 5. Relation of flavor attributes and volatile compounds of three mango cultivars. (A)
632
The distribution of three mango cultivars and (B) the loading plot for three mango cultivars
633
with volatile compounds.
29
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 1. Physicochemical characteristics of three mango cultivars. Glenn Mamme Saigon TSS (°Brix)A 15.93a 16.40a 13.82b c b TA (%) 0.65 0.89 1.06a TSS/TA ratio 24.41a 18.43b 13.04c * b b L value 59.05 58.07 66.60a * a a a value 7.26 9.92 -0.62b * ns b value 44.11 44.65 40.96 a*/b* ratio 0.16a 0.23a -0.02b AMean values. nsNot significant (P ≤ 0.05). Different letters in the same row indicate significant statistical differences (Tukey's HSD, P ≤ 0.05).
30
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 30 of 40
Page 31 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 2. Sensory characteristics of three mango cultivars assessed by consumer test. Sensory variables Glenn Mamme Hedonic liking Color likingA 47.82a 47.69a a Overall liking 42.19 3.56b Texture Firmness 28.43b 42.61a a Juiciness 32.73 22.22b Fibrousness 18.31bc 38.52a Taste Sweetness 38.83a 22.70c ns Sourness 12.86 16.78 Astringentns 13.27 17.88 Flavor Tropical 45.10a 26.40c a Overall flavor 49.04 28.57c AMean values. nsNot significant (P ≤ 0.05). Different letters in the same statistical differences (Tukey's HSD, P ≤ 0.05).
31
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Saigon 35.09ab 24.91a 27.31b 31.96a 26.86b 28.61bc 17.04 14.58 36.47b 34.51bc row indicate significant
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 3. The composition of non-volatile compounds in three mango cultivars Glenn Mamme Saigon Sugar Sucrosens 52492.35 37874.73 53692.38 Fructose 80991.17a 56549.99b 64329.72ab ns Glucose 91890.64 65170.45 76233.18 Raffinose 323.64b 348.12b 649.92a ns Myoinositol 281.55 274.05 282.26 Sorbitol 5.30a 4.17b 3.24b a b Total sugars 225984.64 160221.50 195190.70ab Organic acid Citric acidns 2769.33 3026.48 3269.22 Isocitric acid 234.37a 135.71b 179.22ab ns Malic acid 563.03 639.78 536.81 Shikimic acid 1911.59b 1202.08b 3517.88a b c Quinic acid 2249.61 386.26 4082.46a Succinic acid 60.35ab 32.38b 72.84a a b Ketoglutaric acid 60.87 4.40 42.50a a b Gallic acid 33.15 4.04 39.34a ns Malonic acid 0.85 0.81 0.80 Total organic acids 7882.29b 5431.13c 11740.27a Amino acid Phenylalanine 18.87b 9.27c 29.35a b a Leucine 1.52 4.00 0.75b b a Isoleucine 1.42 2.70 0.80c ns Methionine 6.44 6.60 5.73 Tryptophanns 3.05 2.68 2.00 Proline 12.35b 69.28a 7.61b Valine 3.29b 9.86a 1.70b b a Tyrosine 2.13 4.79 1.04b b a Alanine 29.08 143.02 9.04b b a Threonine 0.90 2.35 0.84b ns Glutamine 2.43 5.20 3.86 Serine 2.91b 7.62a 1.22b Glutamic acid 29.06a 26.31a 12.94b ab a Asparagine 2.24 2.91 1.64b b a Aspartic acid 1.31 6.36 1.15b b a Total amino acids 116.99 302.94 79.66b AMean concentration values (mg/kg of fresh mango fruit). Retention indices were determined nsNot significant (p ≤ 0.05). Different letters in the same row indicate significant statistical differences (Tukey's HSD, p ≤ 0.05).
32
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 32 of 40
Page 33 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 4. The composition of volatile compounds in three mango cultivars. RIA
Glenn
Mamme
Saigon
856
1.225a
0.386b
0.345b
Aroma descriptsB Pineapple
2-Methylbutyraldehydens
889
ndD
0.435E
0.089
Malt
R, MS, O
Ethyl propionatens
934
0.11
nd
nd
Fruity
R, MS, O
Methyl butanoatens
959
0.114
nd
nd
Fruity, sweet
R, MS, O
α-Pinene
993
0.381b
2.214a
0.356b
Terpeny
R, MS, O
Ethyl butanoate
1016 4.010a
ndb
ndb
Fruity
R, MS, O
Camphene
1021 ndb
0.242a
0.019b
Camphor
R, MS
Ethyl-3-methylbutanoatens
1039 0.061
nd
nd
Fruity
R, MS
Hexanal
1054 ndb
0.999a
0.383ab
Green
R, MS, O
2-Butenoic acid
1078 3.269a
ndb
ndb
Fruity
MS, O, TI
214.474a
18.707b
Resinous
R, MS, O
Ethyl acetate
IdentificationC R, MS, O
δ-3-Carene
1114
α-Phellandrene
1124 1.272b
3.289a
ndb
Terpeny
R, MS
α-Terpinenens
1128 nd
2.627
2.076
Lemon
R, MS, O
11.841a
0.988b
Terpeny
R, MS
43.255b
1.373b
β-Myrcene
1131
cis-Ethyl crotonatens
1139 4.729
nd
nd
Floral, fruity
MS, O, TI
Limonenens
1151 42.241
64.091
34.246
Citrusy
R, MS
3.860a
ndb
Terpeny
MS, TI
ndb
β-Phellandrene
1157
(E)-2-Hexenal
1195 0.232ab
ndb
0.337a
Green
R, MS
γ-Terpinenens
1210 0.554
1.305
0.521
Terpeny
R, MS
0.496a
0.044b
Terpeny
R, MS
0.088b
(Z)-β-ocimene
1225
p-Cymenens
1238 0.97
1.222
1.342
Citrusy
R, MS
Terpinolenens
1250 4.508
22.381
50.919
Lemon
R, MS, O
Octanalns
1255 0.19
0.48
0.217
Green
R, MS, O
(Z)-3-Hexenyl acetate
1287 0.591a
0.059b
0.661b
Banana
R, MS
1-Hexanolns
1334 0.027
0.053
0.07
Green
R, MS
(Z)-3-Hexenolns
1361 0.141
0.166
0.173
Moss
R, MS
Nonanalns
1367 0.254
0.435
0.14
Citrusy
R, MS, O
ndb
0.096a
Apple peel
R, MS
ndb
n-Hexyl butanoate
1388
(E)-2-Octenal
1397 ndb
0.109a
0.009b
Green
R, MS
p,α-Dimethylstyrenens
1405 nd
0.982
1.499
Pine
R, MS, O
ndb
ndb
Peach
R, MS, O
1.162a
Ethyl octanoate
1408
(E)-3-Hexenyl butanoate
1408 ndb
ndb
0.432a
Creamy
R, MS, O
α-Copaenens
1449 nd
nd
1.024
Floral
MS, TI
Decanalns
1470 0.071
0.009
0.056
Soapy
R, MS, O
33
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 34 of 40
α-Gurjunene Ethyl 3hydroxybutanoatens Benzaldehyde
1480 0.306b
0.683a
0.177b
Green
R, MS, O
1487 0.066
nd
nd
Marshmallow
R, MS, O
1495 0.039b
0.143a
ndb
Burnt sugar
R, MS
(E)-2-Nonenalns
1503 0.056
0.057
nd
Cucumber
R, MS, O
Linaloolns
1523 0.157
0.114
0.103
Floral, citrus
R, MS
1-Octanol
1531 0.161a
ndb
ndb
Floral
R, MS
3.891a
1.782b
Sweet, floral
R, MS, O
β-Caryophyllene
1547
(E,Z)-2,6-Nonadienal
1553 0.339a
ndb
ndb
Cucumber
R, MS
α-Caryophyllenens
1618 1.587
1.388
0.222
Sweet, floral
R, MS
4.161a
0.079b
Herb
MS, TI
β-Selinene
1674
5.470a
0.180b
Ethyl phenylacetate 1751 0.150a ndb ndb Fruity, sweet R, MS a b b γ-Octalactone 1881 0.148 0.024 nd Coconut R, MS ARetention indices were determined on TR-FFAP capillary column using n-alkanes C -C as external 7 30 BFlavor reference. descriptors from the Cornell University Flavornet (http://www.flavornet.org/flavornet.html) and the Good Scents Company (http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/index.html). CThe reliability of the identification proposal is indicated by the following: R, mass spectrum and retention index were consistent with those of an authentic standard; MS, mass spectrum was consistent with that of the NIST library; O, Odor quality perceived at the sniffing-port; TI, tentatively identified from the NIST library and a comparison of retention indices reported in the literature. DNot detected. nsNot significant (p ≤ 0.05). Different letters in the same row indicate significant statistical differences (Tukey's HSD, p ≤ 0.05).EMean concentration values (μg/kg, referred to octyl butyrate).
34
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 35 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Figure 1.
35
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Figure 2.
36
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 36 of 40
Page 37 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Figure 3.
37
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Figure 4.
38
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 38 of 40
Page 39 of 40
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Figure 5.
39
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
For TOC graphic
40
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 40 of 40