Plant Foods Hum Nutr (2012) 67:317325

DOI 10.1007/s11130-012-0314-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

From Genotype to Apricot Fruit Quality: The Antioxidant

Properties Contribution
Annamaria Leccese & Susanna Bartolini & Raffaella Viti

Published online: 2 October 2012

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Abstract Apricot fruit (Prunus armeniaca L.) quality

strictly relates to the eating quality of fresh produce. Since
consumers are more and more interested in healthy food,
and apricot germplasm shows a wide choice of new selections and cultivars, apricot nutraceutical properties are under
evaluation in order to select outstanding genotypes, which
may link breeding and marketing. In the present study, 18
apricot genotypes of the Italian and international germplasm
were evaluated over three years according to pomological,
total antioxidant and total phenols attributes using principal
component and hierarchical cluster analyses. The antioxidant capacity ranged from 1.24 to 11.47 molTE gFW1
and total phenols from 0.22 to 1.58 mgGAE gFW1. Four
outstanding genotypes stood out as healthy food for fresh
consumption which may also be introduced in breeding
programs to produce new cultivars with improved nutraceutical values in addition to fruit qualitative attributes.
Keywords Prunus armeniaca L. genotypes . Apricot .
Quality . Nutraceutical attributes

Introduction
Recently, fruit quality research has received special attention in
view of the possibility to release new appealing cultivars,
which satisfy horticultural and market requirements [1].
A. Leccese (*) : S. Bartolini
Scuola Superiore SantAnna di Studi Universitari e di
Perfezionamento,
Piazza Martiri della Libert, 33,
56127 Pisa, Italy
e-mail: a.leccese@sssup.it
R. Viti
Dipartimento di Coltivazione e Difesa delle Specie Legnose G.
Scaramuzzi, Facolt di Agraria, Pisa University,
Via del Borghetto 80,
Pisa, Italy

Research interests have been focused on the health benefits

of fresh fruit consumption that is involved in preventing or
suppressing diseases [2, 3]. Fruits and vegetables are
antioxidant-rich foods able to counter noxious free radicals,
which, produced in human body, may begin damaging cellular
components leading to several diseases [4, 5]. Many fruit
species have been studied for their nutraceutical properties in
relation to multiple genetic and environmental factors, which
are involved in producing and accumulating antioxidant compounds in fresh fruits. For apricot species, studies on phytocompounds with potential nutritional, medical and commercial
values have been proposed [613] and a large source of variability related to fruit qualitative traits has been attributed to the
genotype effect [8, 11, 1418]. This feature is considered a key
point in the promotion of research on the improvement of
fruits nutritional traits combining breeding and biotechnology
in order to produce new varieties with improved nutraceutical
value, productivity and fruit quality [19].
For over 20 years, apricot breeding at the Department
Coltivazione e Difesa delle Specie Legnose G. Scaramuzzi
(DCDSL, University of Pisa, Italy) has been focused on four
main objectives: extending harvest season, obtaining lateflowering or spring frost resistant cultivars, improving pest
and disease resistance, and the overall fruit quality [20].
New appealing cultivars and advanced selections have been
obtained; most of them show excellent organoleptic traits,
but have yet to be investigated according to the nutraceutical
profile. The breeding objectives of this program were to
maintain the excellent organoleptic traits of Italian cultivars
while acquiring the commercial characters (color, fruit size,
flesh firmness, resistance to handling, transportation and
good storage) of valuable foreign cultivars [20]. Actually,
similar apricot breeding programs are in progress in many
countries (Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Rep., France,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Rumania,
Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ucraine, USA) [21].
In this study, apricot nutritional value was evaluated over
the course of three years in relation to pomological quality,

318

with total antioxidant capacity (TAC) and total phenols (TP)

being used to characterize the total quality of fresh apricots. These parameters were used to analyze 18 genotypes,
which include new released varieties and advanced selections. The relationships among pomological traits and antioxidant properties were studied using multivariate analysis
for classifying genotypes into well-separated groups [22],
with the objective to select the most important variables able
to represent outstanding genotypes, which may link breeding and marketing traits.

Material and Methods

Over three harvesting seasons (20092011), we evaluated
the pomological and nutraceutical properties of fruits, collected at physiological maturity from mid-June to mid-July
of 18 apricot genotypes belonging to the Italian and international germplasm, as reported in Table 1.
Trees (12 years old) grown in an experimental field of
DCDSL located in the Tuscan coastal area (Pisa-University,
altitude 6 m, lat. 43.02 N, long. 10.36E), were planted in a
block design, grafted on Myrobolan 29/C rootstock and
trained to a free palmette system (4 m4.5 m) with a row
facing eastwest. The orchard management was typical of
standard commercial practices for weed control and fertilization. Samples of 30 fruits per cultivar at physiological
maturity (ready-to-eat stage) were randomly collected to
determine the main physicochemical parameters, TAC and
TP content.
Pomological Parameters
From each fruit (n030) measurements of fresh weight, peel
and flesh color, flesh firmness, total soluble solids (TSS),
titratable acidity (TA), and pH were determined. The skin
color of the un-blushed side, ranging from yellow to orange
with all shades in between was evaluated using a color chart
for apricot fruit created by the Centre technique interprofessionnel des fruits et legumes, CTIFL, France [23]. This
chart provides the evolution of the un-blushed skin color
according to 10 shades of growing intensity from 1 (green)
to 10 (red-orange) through different categories (14: yellowgreen; 58: yellow-orange; 910 red-orange). The skin color
of the blushed side ranges from pink to red. The area of the
blushes was evaluated visually by classifying the red area
according to the following classes: <35 % (class 1), 35
65 % (class 2), >65 % (class 3). Firmness was evaluated
with a penetrometer (Model 53200SP TR, Forl, Italy) on
two opposite sides at the equatorial region of the apricot,
using an 8-mm-wide plunger. In order to standardize firmness measurements (FIRM), apricot peduncle zone was
always the bottom part and the same operator, looking at

Plant Foods Hum Nutr (2012) 67:317325

the fruit suture line, registered left side firmness (FIRM1)

and right side firmness (FIRM2). TSS was measured using a
refractometer (Model 53015C TR, Forl, Italy) and
expressed in Brix at room temperature. TA of fruit juice
was determined by titrating a known volume of juice with
0.1 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to an end point of neutral
pH (8.1). TA was expressed as percentage of malic acid.
Nutraceutical Parameters
From those fruits previously subjected to the physical and
chemical determinations, samples of 3 g (three replicates) of
fresh material were immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen
and stored at 80 C until extraction. The samples were
homogenized using an ultra-Turrax T25 (Ika, Staufen, Germany) at 4 C to avoid oxidation, for three independent
extractions per year which were performed in 80 % ethanol
for 30 min in a shaker in the dark and subsequently centrifuged at 2,600g for 10 min at 24 C.
TAC Assay TAC was evaluated using the improved Trolox
equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) method [24]. The
TEAC value was calculated in relation to the reactivity of
Trolox, a water-soluble vitamin E analogue that was used as
an antioxidant standard. In the assay, 40 l of the diluted
samples, controls or blanks added to 1,9690 l ABTS+
solution, resulted in a 2080 % inhibition of the absorbance.
The decrease in absorbance at 734 nm was recorded 6 min
after an initial mixing, and plotted against a doseresponse
curve calculated for Trolox (030 M). Antioxidant activity
was expressed as micromoles of Trolox equivalents per
gram of fresh fruit weight (molTE gFW1). Trolox was
purchased from Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, MO).
TP Assay TP content was determined according to the improved Folin-Ciocalteu (F-C) method [25]. The assay provides a rapid indication of the antioxidant status of the
studied material and is valuable for different food samples.
The standard compound for the calibration curve was gallic
acid (GA, Sigma Chemical Co, - St. Louis, MO). Total
phenol content was calculated as milligrams of GA equivalent (GAE) per gram of fresh fruit weight (mgGAE gFW1).
The absorbance of the blue colored solutions was read at
765 nm after incubation for 2 h at room temperature.

Statistical Analysis
Data were reported by means of three independent determinations/year with standard errors of the means (SEM). Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to
standardized (z-scores) variables. Correlation matrix was
used to extract principal components (PCs) and PCs scores

Plant Foods Hum Nutr (2012) 67:317325

319

Table 1 Geographical origin, ripening time, harvest time (days before/after San Castrese reference cultivar for ripening) and parental lines of the
studied genotypes
Genotype

Origin

Ripening time

Harvest

Parents

Gheriana
7C25/5
Bona
Maharani
Sillari
5C9-1
Harcot
Amabile Vecchioni
San Castrese
11-26-2
Boccuccia Spinosa
Sel 7C20/3
Portici

Pisa University (Italy)

Pisa University
Pisa University
Pisa University
Pisa University
Pisa University
Canada (North America)
Pisa University
Campania (Italy)
Pisa University
Campania
Pisa University
Campania

Early
Early
Early-medium
Early-medium
Early-medium
Early-medium
Early-medium
Early-medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium

10
10
7
7
7
7
6
5
a
July 1st
0
0
+3
+3

PorticiHarcot
PorticiHarcot
PorticiHarcot
RivalAntonio Errani
B. SpinosaHarcot
B. SpinosaHarcot
[(GenevaNaramata)Morden 604)(PhelpsPerfection)]
Unknown
Unknown
B. SpinosaHarcot
Unknown
HaggitP. brigantiaca
Unknown

Ammiraglia
Silvana
Pisana
11-37-3
Canino Tardivo

Pisa University
Pisa University
Pisa University
Pisa University
Spain

Medium-late
Late
Late
Late
Late

+6
+11
+11
+11
+18

B. SpinosaHarcot
BergeronCanino T.
Precoce di Toscana open pollinated
Canino T.Pisana
Unknown

Harvest date registered for San Castrese in Central Italy

were plotted for individual observations in relation to the

most significant axes whose eigenvalues were greater than
1.0. In the hierarchical cluster (HC) analysis, mutual distance between objects was calculated by squared Euclidean
distance and clusters connected by Wards method. All
statistical analyses were performed with the statistical package Statistica (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK).

Results and Discussion

Fruit Quality
Table 2 shows the main pomological characteristics, referring to the mean of three harvest seasons, which were in
accordance with those previously observed [26, 27]. Fruit
size by weight was medium-large (> 50 g), except for B.
Spinosa, 7C20/3 and 5C9-1 selections whose fruit weight
was between 40 and 50 g. Overall the genotypes showed
uniformity of flesh firmness (measured on the opposite
equatorial sides) which was between 1 and 3 kg/0.5 cm2,
suitable for ready-to-eat fruits [12]. TSS was between 12
and 16 Brix and TA ranged from 0.60 to 2.28 % malic acid,
while pH was in the range 3.354.41. The TSS/TA ratio, an
index which is used to determine the eating quality, ranged
from 6 to 29. Fruits with a TSS/TA ratio between 10 and 15
had well balanced eating quality, while fruits with lower
ratio showed higher acidity values, and apricots with the

highest TSS/TA ratio showed the lowest acidity and consistent TSS values [28]. Except for Canino Tardivo, the genotypes had red blushing skin. The blushed area of 13
varieties varied in the range 2780 %, while 7C 25/5 sel.,
San Castrese, Portici and Amabile Vecchioni blushing
surface coverage was below 10 %. The skin color of the unblushed area was orange apart from Canino Tardivo,
which had light orange skin ground color. Pomological
results allow the studied genotypes to be described as good
to excellent fruits from a physicochemical point of view.
The antioxidant properties showed a high variability related to the genotype while the standard errors of the 3-year
means were particularly low except for Pisana and 11-37-3
whose values were slightly variable (Fig 1a, b). In our
previous paper [11], we found the effect of the harvest year
on the antioxidant properties of fruit to be dependent on the
cultivar and related to particular climatic conditions (high
temperatures and drought during fruit growth). In the present study, the low standard errors of the mean physicochemical values allow us to focus on the cultivar effect.
Overall, TAC values ranged from 1.240.06 (Canino Tardivo) to 11.470.45 molTE gFW-1 (7C20/3) and TP from
0.220.01 (7C25/5) to 1.580.08 mgGAE gFW1 (7C20/
3). The highest TAC values, shown for Silvana, Ammiraglia, Harcot and 7C20/3, were 79 fold higher than the
lowest one measured in Canino Tardivo fruit and the highest TP values, registered in the same cultivars as it was for
TAC values, were 67 fold higher than the lowest one

69.50

76.26
84.13
55.31
101.53
65.02
44.46
77.78
73.29
67.18
61.86
49.32
39.40
74.62
63.01
76.49
72.52
75.00

Fruit weight

2.69

2.79
2.79
3.61
2.64
2.06
2.90
3.42
1.71
1.95
2.54
1.78
1.29
2.30
2.66
1.82
2.73
2.23

SEM

Genotype ranking by harvest date

Canino T.

Gheriana
7C25/5
Bona
Maharani
Sillari
5C9-1
Harcot
A. Vecchioni
San Castrese
11-26-2
B. Spinosa
7C20/3
Portici
Ammiraglia
Silvana
Pisana
11-37-3

Genotypea

1.99

1.77
2.56
2.72
3.09
1.83
2.72
2.58
2.91
2.04
2.32
2.68
2.26
3.09
3.19
2.84
2.40
2.04

FIRM 1

0.19

0.18
0.27
0.25
0.17
0.13
0.23
0.18
0.16
0.13
0.25
0.21
0.13
0.27
0.26
0.18
0.19
0.19

SEM

1.93

1.62
2.49
2.77
3.02
1.92
2.48
3.29
2.74
2.14
2.42
3.06
2.07
2.81
3.00
2.93
2.57
1.95

FIRM 2

0.14

0.12
0.31
0.27
0.17
0.16
0.23
0.21
0.19
0.12
0.29
0.25
0.11
0.27
0.47
0.18
0.22
0.18

SEM

13.87

14.55
13.70
12.49
12.82
12.74
14.08
14.82
12.34
12.58
13.13
15.43
15.80
15.01
13.77
14.60
14.09
13.33

TSS

0.30

0.43
0.60
0.44
0.38
0.34
0.34
0.54
0.36
0.27
0.52
0.47
0.20
0.41
0.49
0.40
0.40
0.31

SEM

0.48

2.00
2.28
1.42
1.99
2.00
0.60
1.56
2.12
1.70
1.07
1.31
1.91
1.53
1.27
1.18
1.00
0.90

TA

0.05

0.06
0.16
0.09
0.29
0.16
0.09
0.11
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.30
0.02
0.02
0.02

SEM

28.9

7.3
6.0
8.8
6.4
6.4
23.5
9.5
5.8
7.4
12.3
11.8
8.3
9.8
10.8
12.4
14.1
14.8

TSS/TA

4.06

0.37
1.10
0.26
1.00
0.70
3.50
0.89
0.66
0.63
2.30
1.72
2.07
1.18
1.63
0.00
0.66
2.10

SEM

4.41

3.45
3.4
3.43
3.35
3.42
3.90
3.51
3.40
3.58
3.74
3.35
3.53
3.59
3.60
3.69
3.85
3.90

pH

0.02

0.17
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.07
0.07
0.02
0.14
0.07
0.25
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.01

SEM

0,00

0,77
0,26
1,27
1,25
1,5
1,00
1,63
0,31
0,26
1,80
0,89
1,63
0,33
2,23
1,70
1,00
0,80

SC-B

0.00

0.19
0.10
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.21
0.26
0.10
0.00
0.29
0.23
0.22
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.16
0.22

SEM

5,50

7,27
7,65
6,90
7,30
7,08
7,80
7,85
7,50
7,65
7,50
7,01
7,58
7,43
7,70
6,40
7,32
7,10

SC-UB

0.00

0.19
0.20
0.26
0.21
0.21
0.13
0.13
0.17
0.26
0.17
0.20
0.13
0.22
0.20
0.16
0.20
0.25

SEM

Table 2 Main pomological traits of 18 apricot genotypes. Pomological traits: fruit weight (g), firmness (Kg/0.5 cm2) on the opposite sides (FIRM1, FIRM2), Total Soluble Sugars (TSS, Brix),
titratable acidity (TA, % malic acid), TSS/TA ratio, pH, skin color of the blushed side (SC-B: three classes 10< 35 %, 203565 %, 3>65 %), skin color of the un-blushed side (SC-UB: 10 classes see
Mat and Met). Means of a 3-year period SEM

320
Plant Foods Hum Nutr (2012) 67:317325

Plant Foods Hum Nutr (2012) 67:317325

321

7C20/3
Harcot
Ammiraglia
Silvana
11-37-3
Pisana
11-26-2
Bona
Sillari
5C9-1
San Castrese
B. Spinosa
Maharani
Portici
7C25-5
A. Vecchioni
Gheriana
Canino T.
0,00

a
2,00

4,00

6,00

7C20/3
Harcot
Silvana
Ammiraglia
11-37-3
Pisana
11-26-2
Bona
5C9-1
Sillari
Portici
San Castrese
B. Spinosa
Gheriana
Maharani
A. Vecchioni
Canino T.
7C25-5

8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00

0,00

b
0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

TP, mgGAE gFW-1

TEAC, molTE gFW-1

Fig. 1 a Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) values as

micromoles of Trolox equivalent per gram of fresh weight (molTE
gFW1). Means of a 3-year period SEM. b Total phenols (TP) values

as milligrams of gallic acid equivalents per gram of fresh weight

(mgGAE gFW1). Means of a 3-year period SEM

measured in 7C25/5. Garcia-Alonso et al. [29] reported a

TEAC value for apricot species of 810 molTE gFW1,
which is comparable to our findings. Jimenez et al. [30]
reported in Bulida cultivar a TEAC value of 5 mM,
which was indicated as high antioxidant value; in our
study, the highest TEAC value was 4 mM in 7C20/3
selection. Sochor et al. [13] analyzed 21 apricot selections for the antioxidant properties and TEAC values
varied from 1.5 to 142.6 mgTE 100gFW1 and TP values from 41 to 170 mgGAE 100gFW1. The results from
our cultivar/selections reported herein varied within
TEAC values range 31287 mgTE 100gFW1 and TP
range 22158 mgGAE 100gFW1. Drogoudi et al. [15]
studied the physico-chemical properties of 29 apricot

genotypes and among them, Harcot cultivar showed

either pomological values and TP values (2.2040.015
mgGAE gFW1) similar to our results (TP values 1.57
0.06 mgGAE gFW1). Scalzo et al. [18] studied San
Castrese on Mir 29/C rootstock whose TEAC value
(1.42 0.13 molTE gFW 1 ) was lower than that
reported herein (3.250.15 molTE gFW1). The high
apricot phenolic content, which is a positive attribute of
healthy fruits, might become detrimental during fruit
storage due to susceptibility to browning, well documented for apple species [31]. We consider that this
aspect and preliminary results, on several cultivars studied herein, are still under evaluation in relation to storage, browning and shelf life.

Table 3 Correlation matrix among 10 variables: total antioxidant

capacity and total phenols (TAC and TP), fruit weight (WEIGHT),
flesh firmness on the opposite sides (FIRM1 and FIRM2), total soluble

sugars (TSS), pH, titratable acidity (TA), skin color of the blushed area
(SC-B) and sugars/acids ratio (TSS/TA) for the studied cultivars over a
3-year period. Significance level P<.05

TAC

TP

WEIGHT

FIRM1

FIRM2

TSS

pH

TA

SC-B

TSS/TA

TAC
TP
WEIGHT
FIRM1

1
0,974
0,285
0,099

0,974
1
0,278
0,126

0,285
0,278
1
0,140

0,099
0,126
0,140
1

0,230
0,257
0,158
0,865

0,377
0,359
0,314
0,056

0,014
0,062
0,122
0,289

0,131
0,222
0,321
0,034

0,697
0,740
0,212
0,245

0,068
0,006
0,278
0,140

FIRM2
TSS
pH
TA
SC-B
TSS/TA

0,230
0,377
0,014
0,131
0,697
0,068

0,257
0,359
0,062
0,222
0,740
0,006

0,158
0,314
0,122
0,321
0,212
0,278

0,865
0,056
0,289
0,034
0,245
0,140

1
0,119
0,344
0,007
0,346
0,176

0,119
1
0,056
0,135
0,134
0,171

0,344
0,056
1
0,838
0,341
0,912

0,007
0,135
0,838
1
0,028
0,897

0,346
0,134
0,341
0,028
1
0,296

0,176
0,171
0,912
0,897
0,296
1

322

Plant Foods Hum Nutr (2012) 67:317325

Table 4 Eigenvalues and proportion of total variability among apricot

genotypes as reported by the first 10 principal components (PC)
Eigenvalue

Percent variance

Cumulative

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

3,218
3,043
1,604
0,929
0,710
0,271
0,137
0,053
0,019
0,016

32,184
30,431
16,044
9,290
7,095
2,708
1,374
0,526
0,191
0,157

32,184
62,614
78,659
87,949
95,044
97,752
99,126
99,652
99,843
100

Maharani
Ammiraglia
1
Axis 3

PC

Portici
3

A. Vecchioni

Silvana

Canino T.
-1

Bona
5C9/1
Pisana
10 11-26-2

7C25/5
0

Harcot

B.Spinosa

2
1
6

11-37-3

S. Castrese

7C20/3
Sillari
Gheriana

Correlation Among Variables

-2

A correlation matrix (Table 3) showed significant relationships among the antioxidant traits and the skin blushing
area, and among pomological traits such as titratable acidity,
pH and sugars/acids ratio. In particular, pH showed a negative correlation to TA (r0 0.838) and a positive correlation to TSS/TA ratio, while TA showed a negative
correlation to TSS/TA ratio (r0 0.897), which indicates
the tendency of higher TA content to have smaller TSS/TA
ratio and lower pH. Mratini et al. [12] and Hernandez et al.
[32] reported similar results. There was no relationship
between TSS and TA, in accordance with other published
results [6, 10, 12]. Flesh firmness values from the opposite
apricot sides were highly correlated as expected. TAC and
TP were confirmed to be highly correlated [11, 33]; moreover both variables were positively correlated with the
Fig. 2 Principal component
analysis (PC1-PC2) of
antioxidant and pomological
variables (labeled by number 1
10 see Table 5) in apricot fruits
from 18 genotypes. Axis 1 and
axis 2: 32.18 and 30.43 % of
total variability, respectively

-1

Axis 2

Fig. 3 Principal component analysis (PC2-PC3) of antioxidant and

pomological variables (labeled by number 110 see Table 5) in apricot
fruits from 18 genotypes. Axis 2 and axis 3: 30.43 and 16.04-% of total
variability, respectively

percentage of blushing surface which is likely due to the

higher content of phenolics in fruits with larger blushing
area, as also reported by Oe et al. [34] for a Japanese apricot
cultivar. Borderline correlation coefficients between harvest
date and three pomological attributes (pH, TA and TSS/TA)
resulted positive for pH and TSS/TA and negative for TA
2 1

7C20/3

Harcot
Ammiraglia

Silvana

Axis 2

5C9/1
10 7

11-37-3
11-26-2
Pisana
B. Spinosa

5
4 Bona

Sillari
Gheriana

Portici

S. Castrese
Maharani

-1

Canino T.

7C25/5
A. Vecchioni

-3

-2

-1

0
Axis 1

Plant Foods Hum Nutr (2012) 67:317325

323

Table 5 Component loadings for antioxidant and pomological variables of apricots: total antioxidant capacity and total phenols (TAC and
TP), fruit weight (WEIGHT), flesh firmness on the opposite cheeks
(FIRM1 and FIRM2), total soluble sugars (TSS), pH, titratable acidity
(TA), skin color of the blushed area (SC-B) and sugars/acids (TSS/TA)
ratio. Bold numbers are loadings>0.700

PC1

PC2

PC3

0.027
0,039
0,262
0,064
0,100
0,176
0,926
0,939
0,295
0,980

0,939
0,944
0,499
0,042
0,171
0,495
0,021
0,188
0,785
0,020

0,081
0,124
0,288
0,948
0,946
0,028
0,228
0,052
0,229
0,080

but were not included due to their P values slightly below

the significance level.
In order to classify genotypes for high fruit performances,
multivariate analysis through principal component analysis
(PCA) and hierarchical cluster (HC) analysis was performed.
These analyses have been applied routinely and successfully
to distinguish varieties and identify variable loadings [22, 35].
The 78.66 % of the total variance was explained by the first
three PCs (Table 4). The variables highly correlated to PC1
accounted for pomological traits such as pH, TA and TSS/TA
ratio, while those correlated with PC2 were responsible of the
antioxidant properties and red blushing skin surface of fruit
and flesh firmness were correlated with PC3. The PCs scores
were plotted for individual observations in relation to PC1PC2 (Fig. 2) and PC2-PC3 (Fig. 3) and the component loadings for the studied variables were reported in Table 5.
Fig. 4 Dendrogram by Wards
method resulting from cluster
analysis

80
70

50
40
30
20
10

7C25/5

A. Vecchioni

Portici

Maharani

S. Castrese

Gheriana

Sillari

Canino T.

7C20/3

Harcot

Bona

11-37-3

Pisana

11-26-2

0
5C9-1

Distances

60

Silvana

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Component loadings

Ammiraglia

TAC
TP
WEIGHT
FIRM1
FIRM2
TSS
pH
TA
SC-B
TSS/TA

Var. Code

B. Spinosa

Variables

The first PC axes (Fig. 2), representing 32 % of the

variability, differentiated cultivars with higher TA and lower
pH and TSS/TA ratio from cultivars with lower TA and
higher pH and TSS/TA ratio. It is possible to speculate that
early ripening genotypes tend to have higher acidity and
lower pH and TSS/TA ratio than late ripening ones. The
PC2 axes (31 % of the total variance) opposed highantioxidant cultivars to the low-antioxidant ones. In particular, 7C20/3, Harcot, Ammiraglia and Silvana showed
the best nutraceutical properties followed by 11-26-2, 1137-3, Pisana and Bona which, among the apricots studied
herein, may be still described as good-antioxidant genotypes. PC3 axes explained 16 % of the total variance and
related to flesh firmness. This parameter in apricot fruit,
along with sugars/acids ratio and fruit color, allows technical operators to decide the most appropriate harvest time
which also satisfies consumer expectation. Moreover, it is
particularly important being one of the most susceptible
characteristics under post harvest conditions [11].
Given that, from PCA analysis, we found genotypes with
different characteristics, pomological and chemical data
were submitted to hierarchical cluster (HC) analysis, and a
dendrogram was obtained using the squared Euclidean distance and Wards method (Fig. 4).
Three main groups were observed. Group I: fruits with
high-antioxidant and red blushing skin represented by
Ammiraglia, 7C20/3, Harcot and Silvana opposed to
group II with lower antioxidants amount, lower blushing
skin surface and TSS/TA ratio below 1 (Maharani, Portici, Amabile Vecchioni, 7C25/5, Sillari, Gheriana and
S. Castrese). A third group (5C9-1, 11-26-2, 11-37-3
selections, Pisana, Bona and Boccuccia Spinosa) with
medium-high antioxidant fruits, intermediate blushing skin
surface and lower TA values than group II, was identified.
Finally, the results of both PCA and HC analysis indicated
that Canino Tardivo showed fruit traits extremely different
from the other genotypes, having the lowest acidity, the

324

highest TSS/TA ratio and pH, the lightest skin color of the
un-blushed surface, absence of red blushing skin and the
lowest antioxidant capacity.

Conclusions
Multivariate analysis was particularly useful in the selection of
genotypes with a high quality-profile. In particular, four genotypes, Ammiraglia, Harcot, Silvana and 7C20/3 selections, were found to be fruits with excellent nutraceutical
quality, appealing blushing surface and balanced eating quality
in terms of sugars/acids ratio. Also Pisana, which has been
studied since 2005 [33], was designated amongst the high
quality genotypes under pomological and nutraceutical profile.
Both 11-26-2 and 11-37-3 selections fruit performances were
valuable for their antioxidant profile. Thus, these apricot genotypes may deserve the additional attribute of healthy fruits.
The results presented in this study will help breeders to
select parents for future programmed crosses, which until
now included mainly the agronomic and pomological traits.
This study suggests the possibility to program crosses between high antioxidant parental lines, in order to produce
new varieties with high fruit antioxidant quality. Some of
the studied genotypes came from crosses, which had the
high-antioxidant Harcot cultivar as parent. Therefore, our
investigations will likely extend to the parent combination
as a genetic base for improving the nutraceutical quality.
Acknowledgement Thanks to Philip R. Schiff from the School of
Chemistry, Tel Aviv University, for the English revision of the text.

References
1. Gatti E, Defilippi BG, Predieri S, Infante R (2009) Apricot (Prunus
armeniaca L.) quality and breeding perspectives. J Food Agric
Environ 7(3&4):573580
2. Kaur C, Kapoor HC (2001) Antioxidants in fruits and vegetables
the millenniums health. Int J Food Sci Technol 36:703725
3. Murat YU, Meltem K, Burhan A, Haluk S, Ali O, smet Y (2010)
Prunus armeniaca L. (apricot) protects rat testes from detrimental
effects of low-dose x-rays. Nutr Res 30:200208
4. Boyer J, Liu RH (2004) Apple phytochemicals and their health
benefits. Nutr J 3:519
5. Liu RH (2003) Health benefits of fruit and vegetables are from
additive and synergistic combinations of phytochemicals. Am J
Clin Nutr 78:517S520S
6. Badenes ML, Martinez Calvo J, Llacer G (1998) Analysis of
apricot germplasm from the European ecogeographical group.
Euphytica 102:9399
7. Hegeds A, Pfeiffer P, Papp N, Abrank L, Blzovics A, Pedryc A,
Stefanovits-Bnyai E (2011) Accumulation of antioxidants in apricot fruit through ripening: Characterization of a genotype with
enhanced functional properties. Biol Res 44:339344
8. Korekar G, Stobdan T, Arora R, Yadav A, Bala S (2011) Antioxidant capacity and phenolics content of apricot (Prunus armeniaca
L.) kernel as a function of genotype. Plant Foods Hum Nutr
66:376383

Plant Foods Hum Nutr (2012) 67:317325

9. Leccese A, Bureau S, Reich M, Renard MGCC, Audergon JM,
Mennone C, Bartolini S, Viti R (2010) Pomological and nutraceutical properties in apricot fruit: Cultivation systems and cold storage fruit management. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 65:112120
10. Leccese A, Viti R, Bartolini S (2011) The effect of solvent extraction on antioxidant properties of apricot fruit. Central Eur J Biol 6
(2):199204
11. Leccese A, Bartolini S, Viti R (2012) Genotype, harvest season
and cold storage influence on fruit quality and antioxidant properties of apricot. Int J Food Prop 15:864879
12. Mratini E, Popovski B, Miloevi T, Popovska M (2011)
Evaluation of apricot fruit quality and correlations between
physical and chemical attributes. Czech J Food Sci 29:161
170
13. Sochor J, Zitka O, Skutkova H, Pavlik D, Babula P, Krska B,
Horna A, Adam V, Provaznik I, Kizek R (2010) Content of
phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity in fruits of apricot
genotypes. Molecules 15:62856305
14. Davarynejad G, Khorshidi S, Nyki J, Szab Z, Gal-Remennyik J
(2010) Antioxidant capacity, chemical composition and physical
properties of some apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) cultivars. Hort
Environ Biotechnol 51(6):477482
15. Drogoudi PD, Vemmos S, Pantelidis G, Petri E, Tzoutzoukou C,
Karayiannis I (2008) Physical characters and antioxidant, sugar, and
mineral nutrient contents in fruit from 29 apricot (Prunus armeniaca
L.) cultivars and hybrids. J Agric Food Chem 56:1075410760
16. Hurtado MA, Westman A, Beck E, Abbott GA, Llacer G, Badenes
ML (2002) Genetic diversity in apricot cultivars based on AFLP
markers. Euphytica 127:297301
17. Ruiz D, Egea J (2008) Phenotypic diversity and relationship of
fruit quality traits in apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) germplasm.
Euphytica 163:143158
18. Scalzo J, Politi A, Pellegrini N, Mezzetti B, Battino M (2005) Plant
genotype affects total antioxidant capacity and Phenolic contents
in fruit. Nutrition 21:207213
19. Capocasa F, Scalzo J, Mezzetti B, Battino M (2008) Combining
quality and antioxidant attributes in the strawberry: The role of
genotype. Food Chem 111:872878
20. Guerriero R, Monteleone P, Iacona C (2006) Apricot breeding in
Pisa: Some new selections for Italian growers. Acta Hort 701:341
346, ISSN: 05677572
21. Bassi D, Audergon JM (2006) Apricot breeding: Update and
perspectives. Acta Hort 701:279294
22. Crossa J, Franco J (2004) Statistical methods for classifying genotypes. Euphytica 137:1937
23. Lichou J, Jay M, Vaysse P, Lespinasse N (2003) Reconnaitre les
varits dabricots. (Recognizing apricot varieties). Ctifl, Paris, pp
1729
24. Arts MJTJ, Dallinga JS, Voss HP, Haenen GRMM, Bast A (2004)
A new approach to assess the total antioxidant capacity using the
TEAC assay. Food Chem 88:567570
25. Waterhouse AL (2001) Determination of total phenolics. In:
Wroslad RE (ed) Current Protocols in Food Analytical Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, pp I1.1.1I1.1.8
26. Guerriero R, Iacona C, Monteleone P, Viti R, Gentili M (2005)
Cinque nuove cultivar di albicocco diffuse dallUniversit di Pisa.
(Five new apricot cultivars selected by Pisa university.). Frutticultura 6:2427
27. Pellegrino S, Capocasa F, Pennone C, Guerriero R (2004) Liste
varietali dei fruttiferi 2004. Albicocco. (Fruit list of 2004. Apricot.). LInformatore Agrario 24:913
28. Kader AA (1999) Fruit maturity, ripening, and quality relationship.
Acta Hort 485:203208
29. Garcia-Alonso M, de Pascual-Teresa S, Santos-Buelga C, RivasGonzalo JC (2004) Evaluation of the antioxidant properties of
fruits. Food Chem 84:1318

Plant Foods Hum Nutr (2012) 67:317325

30. Jimenez AM, Martinez-Tome M, Egea I, Romojaro F, Murcia A
(2008) Effect of industrial processing and storage on antioxidant
activity of apricot (Prunus armeniaca v. Bulida). Eur Food Res
Technol 227:125134
31. Rocha AMCN, Morais AMMB (2001) Polyphenoloxidase activity
and total Phenolic content as related to browning of minimally
processed Jonagored apple. J Sci Food Agric 82:120126
32. Hernandez F, Pinochet J, Moreno MA, Martnez JJ, Legua P
(2010) Performance of prunus rootstocks for apricot in Mediterranean conditions. Sci Hort 124:354359

325
33. Leccese A, Bartolini S, Viti R (2008) Total antioxidant capacity
and phenolics content in fresh apricots. Acta Alim 37:6576
34. Oe T, Sakurai N, Negoro K, Kuwabara A, Okamuro M, Mitani T,
Hosohira M (2012) Relationships between surface blushing and
qualitative components of Japanese apricot (Prunus mume sieb. et
zucc.) Nanko fruit. J Japan Soc Hort Sci 81(1):1118
35. Milella L, Caruso M, Galgano F, Favati F, Padula MC, Martelli G
(2011) Role of the cultivar in choosing clementine fruits with a
high level of health-promoting compounds. J Agric Food Chem
59:52935298

Copyright of Plant Foods for Human Nutrition is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.