Fermentation-induced changes in the concentrations of organic acids, amino acids, sugars, and minerals and superoxide dismutase-like activity in tomato vinegar

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of investigated organic acid, amino acid, sugar, and mineral concentrations during the production process of tomato vinegar (mg/100 mL).

	Tomato juice	Tomato wine	Tomato vinegar
Total contents
Organic acids	1388 ± 47^a	2065 ± 33^b	4039 ± 145^c
Amino acids	2619 ± 10^a	2280 ± 44^b	2525 ± 64^ab
Sugars	8311 ± 141^a	519 ± 168^b	418 ± 233^b
Minerals	760 ± 33^a	559 ± 18^b	552 ± 29^b
Organic acids
Acetic acid	7.3 ± 0.8^a	843 ± 9^b	2824 ± 136^c
Citric acid	1211 ± 48^a	1036 ± 25^a	1046 ± 18^a
Malic acid	138 ± 4^a	125 ± 8^a	114 ± 11^a
Succinic acid	8.5 ± 0.5^a	38 ± 2^b	40 ± 2^b
Lactic acid	23 ± 1^a	23.8 ± 0.7^a	16 ± 2^a
Amino acids
Pyro-Glu	367 ± 15^a	429 ± 8^ab	558 ± 45^b
Glu	551 ± 8^a	510 ± 10^a	519 ± 9^a
GABA	422 ± 8^a	348 ± 7^a	398 ± 22^a
Asp	318 ± 7^a	289 ± 6^a	291 ± 5^a
Ala	182 ± 12^a	176 ± 3^a	175 ± 7^a
Asn	188 ± 23^a	119 ± 2^a	162 ± 20^a
Gln	282 ± 23^a	162 ± 3^b	137 ± 8^b
Phe	52 ± 1^a	41 ± 1^b	41 ± 1^b
His	34 ± 3^a	35 ± 1^a	35 ± 5^a
Ser	34 ± 1^a	29 ± 1^a	32 ± 1^a
Cys	22 ± 4^a	13 ± 1^a	27 ± 3^a
Thr	29 ± 1^a	24 ± 1^b	27 ± 1^ab
Arg	27 ± 3^a	26 ± 1^a	26 ± 2^a
Lys	22 ± 2^a	20 ± 1^a	23 ± 1^a
Val	26 ± 6^a	7.9 ± 0.2^a	17 ± 2^a
Tyr	16 ± 1^a	13 ± 1^a	16 ± 1^a
Ile	17 ± 1^a	13 ± 1^b	13 ± 1^b
Leu	15 ± 1^a	12 ± 1^b	13 ± 1^ab
Gly	11 ± 1^a	10 ± 1^a	11 ± 1^a
Pro	1.5 ± 0.8^a	N.D.	4 ± 2^a
Met	3.8 ± 0.4^a	3.1 ± 0.1^ab	1.8 ± 0.2^b
Trp	0.41 ± 0.34	N.D.	N.D.
Sugars
Sucrose	787 ± 25^a	482 ± 198^a	287 ± 218^a
Glucose	3811 ± 122^a	37 ± 30^b	118 ± 49^b
Fructose	3712 ± 16	N.D.	N.D.
Minerals
K	694 ± 29^a	500 ± 16^b	497 ± 26^b
Mg	34 ± 2^a	32 ± 1^a	29 ± 4^a
Na	23 ± 2^a	22 ± 0^a	22 ± 1^a
Ca	8.6 ± 0.9^a	4.1 ± 0.4^b	4.2 ± 0.2^b
Fe	0.31 ± 0.03^a	0.30 ± 0.02^a	0.34 ± 0.02^a

Means within rows followed by the same letter (^{a, b}, or ^C) are not significant different at p < 0.05.

N.D.: not detected.

Figure 1. SOD-like activities of tomato, apple, and rice vinegars (A), 70% MeOH and 10% MeOH fractions, and lyophilized tomato vinegar (B). Significance (assessed using Student’s t-tests): **p < 0.01.

Table 2. Mass spectrometry ion data for compounds detected in the tomato vinegar fractions by liquid chromatography electrospray ionization mass spectrometry.

Peak no.	RT (min)	Compound	Observed mass (m/z)	Calculated exact mass	Reference
A	3.5	Malic acid	133.0 [M-H]^−	134.0215	Iijima et al.^[^23^]
B	3.8	Citric acid	191.0 [M-H]^−	192.0270	Iijima et al.^[^23^]
C	4.3	Pyroglutamic acid	128.0 [M-H]^−	129.0426	Iijima et al.^[^23^]
D	5.3	Tyrosine	182.0 [M+H]^+	181.0739	Iijima et al.^[^23^]
E	8.8	Phenylalanine	164.0 [M-H]^−	165.0790	Carrari et al.^[^33^]
F	5.0	Uridylic acid	323.1 [M-H]^−	324.0359	Iijima et al.^[^23^]
			243.1 [M-H2PO3]^−
G	6.7	Adenylic acid	348.0 [M+H]^+	347.0631	Iijima et al.^[^23^]
			268.0 [M-H2PO3]^+
H	7.2	Guanylic acid	362.0 [M-H]^−	363.0580	Iijima et al.^[^23^]
			282.0 [M-H2PO3]^−
I	9.0	Caffeic acid-hexose	340.9 [M-H]^−	342.0951	Winter and Herrmann^[^34^]
			182.0 [M-hexose]^+
J	10.3	p-Coumaric acid-hexose	325.1 [M-H]^−	326.1002	Buta and Spaulding^[^35^]
			166.0 [M-hexose]^+
K	11.5	Sinapinic acid-hexose	387.1 [M+H]^+	386.1213	Schmidtlein and Herrmann^[^36^]
			224.0 [M-hexose]^+
L	12.6	Glutathione	308.0 [M+H]^+	307.0838	Iijima et al.^[^23^]
			251.0 [M-glycine]^+
M	14.6	Tuliposide B	295.0 [M+H]^+	294.0951	Shoji et al.^[^37^]
		Wogonoside	458.9 [M-H]^−	460.1006	Seo et al.^[^38^]
N	20.2	Caffeic acid	179.0 [M-H]^−	180.0423	Le Gall et al.^[^39^]
O	21.2	Naringin	579.3 [M-H]^−	580.1792	Bovy et al.^[^40^]
P	22.5	Chlorogenic acid	353.3 [M-H]^−	354.0951	Le Gall et al.^[^39^]
			161.2 [M-quinic acid]^−
Q	30.0	Naringenin chalcone-hexose	433.0 [M-H]^−	434.1213	Bino et al.^[^41^]
			273.0 [M-hexose]^+
R	31.5	Quercetin-hexose-deoxyhexose-pentose	741.0 [M-H]^−	742.1956	Minoggio et al.^[^42^]
			303.0 [M-hexose-deoxyhexose-pentose]^+
S	32.5	Rutin	611.0 [M+H]^+	610.1534	Minoggio et al.^[^42^]
			303.0 [M-rutinose]^+

Figure 2. Chromatograms from liquid chromatography analyses of tomato vinegar: 10% MeOH (A) and 70% MeOH fraction (B). The detection wavelength was 215 nm.

Iijima, Y.; Nakamura, Y.; Ogata, Y.; Tanaka, K.; Sakurai, N.; Suda, K.; Suzuki, T.; Suzuki, H.; Okazaki, K.; Kitayama, M.; Kanaya, S.; Aoki, K.; Shibata, D. Metabolite Annotations Based on the Integration of Mass Spectral Information. The Plant Journal 2008, 54, 949–962.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carrari, F.; Baxter, C.; Usadel, B.; Urbanczyk-Wochniak, E.; Zanor, M-I.; Nunes-Nesi, A.; Nikiforova, V.; Centero, D.; Ratzka, A.; Pauly, M.; Sweetlove, L-J.; Fernie, A.R. Integrated Analysis of Metabolite and Transcript Levels Reveals the Metabolic Shifts That Underlie Tomato Fruit Development and Highlight Regulatory Aspects of Metabolic Network Behavior. Plant Physiology 2006, 142, 1380–1396.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Winter, M.; Herrmann, K. Esters and Glucosides of Hydroxycinnamic Acids in Vegetables. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1986, 34, 616–620.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buta, J.G.; Spaulding, D.W. Endogenous Levels of Phenolics in Tomato Fruit During Growth and Maturation. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 1997, 16, 43–46.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schmidtlein, H.; Herrmann, K. Uber die phenolsauren des gemuses. II. Hydroxyzimtsauren und hydroxybenzoesauren der frucht- und samengemusearten. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch [About the phenolic acid of Gemuses. II. Hydroxycinnamic acid and monohydroxybenzoic acid of fruit and Samengemusearten]. 1975, 159, 213–218.

 Google Scholar

Shoji, K.; Ubukata, M.; Momonoi, K.; Tsuji, T.; Morimatsu, T. Anther-Specific Production of Antimicrobial Tuliposide B in Tulips. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science 2005, 74, 469–475.

 Google Scholar

Seo, O.N.; Kim, G.S.; Kim, Y. H.; Park, S.; Jeong, S.W.; Lee, S.J.; Jin, J.S.; Shin, S.C. Determination of Polyphenol Components of Korean Scutellaria Baicalensis Georgi Using Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Contribution to Overall Antioxidant Activity. Journal of Functional Foods 2013, 5, 1741–1750.

 Google Scholar

Le Gall, G.; Colquhoun, I.J.; Davis, A.L.; Collins, G.J.; Verhoeyen, M.E. Metabolite Profiling of Tomato (Lycopersicon Esculentum) Using 1HNMR Spectroscopy as a Tool to Detect Potential Unintended Effects Following a Genetic Modification. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2003, 51, 2447–2456.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bovy, A.; de Vos, C.H.R.; Kemper, M.; Schijlen, E.; Almenar Pertejo, M.; Muir, S.; Collins, G.; Robinson, S.; Verhoeyen, M.; Hughes, S.; Santos-Buelga, C.; van Tunena, A. High-Flavonol Tomatoes Resulting from the Heterologous Expression of the Maize Transcription Factor Genes LC and C1. Plant Cell 2002, 14, 2509–2526.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bino, R.J.; de Vos, C.H.R.; Lieberman, M.; Hall, R.D.; Bovy, A.; Jonker, H.H.; Tikunov, Y.; Lommen, A.; Moco, S.; Levin, I. The Light-Hyperresponsive High Pigment-2dg Mutation of Tomato: Alterations in the Fruit Metabolome. New Phytologist 2005, 166, 427–438.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Minoggio, M.; Bramati, L.; Simonetti, P.; Gardana, C.; Iemoli, L.; Santangelo, E.; Mauri, P.L.; Spigno, P.; Soressi, G.P.; Pietta, P.G. Polyphenol Pattern and Antioxidant Activity of Different Tomato Lines and Cultivars. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 2003, 47, 64–69.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar