Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality 88, 264 - 273 (2015), DOI:10.5073/JABFQ.2015.088.039
Ministry of Agriculture Key Laboratory of Tropical Fruit Biology, South Subtropical Crops Research Institute,
Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Zhanjiang, Guangdong, China
Evaluation of 28 mango genotypes for physicochemical characters,
antioxidant capacity, and mineral content
S. Shi, X. Ma*, W. Xu, Y. Zhou, H. Wu, S. Wang
(Received May 13, 2015)
* Corresponding author
Summary
Mango germplasm remains underutilized due to the limited know-
ledge of its quality properties. The objective of this study was to
analyze and compare the physicochemical characters, antioxidant
capacity, and mineral content of 28 mango genotypes, in order to
assess useful information for the utilization of mango genetic resour-
ces in China. All the genotypes were grown under the same geo-
graphical conditions and with the same standard cultural practices.
The results showed that there were significant differences among the
genotypes in all studied traits. Potassium, calcium, manganese, and
iron were the dominant mineral components; sucrose and/or fruc-
tose were the dominant sugars; and malic and citric acid were the
dominant organic acids. Variation in sugars (glucose, 15.37-218.20
mg·g-1 fresh weight [FW]; fructose, 39.42-327.67 mg·g-1 FW;
and sucrose 26.32-472.69 mg·g-1 FW), total phenolic compounds
(13.69-82.65 mg gallic acid·100 g-1 FW), and total carotenoids
(10.91-71.21 μg·g-1 FW) was significant among the genotypes. The
total antioxidant potency composite index varied among the geno-
types (6.12-81.39) and was significantly correlated with total phe-
nolic compounds, but not with total carotenoids. Overall, the results
demonstrated that the physicochemical characteristics, antioxidant
capacity, and mineral content in mango are genotype-dependent.
Introduction
Mango [Mangifera indica L. (Anacardiaceae)] is a widely grown
horticulture crop in many tropical and subtropical countries and is
the fifth largest fruit industry in the world after citrus, banana, grape,
and apple. It is popularly known as “the king of tropical fruits” for its
succulence, different flavors and aromas, delicious taste, high caro-
tenoid content, and high pro-vitamin A value (THARANATHAN et al.,
2006).
China is the second-largest mango producer after India, in terms of
production, marketing, and consumption. The total acreage plan-
ted to mango is approximately 129,000 ha, distributed in Hainan,
Guangxi, Yunnan, Sichuan, and Guangdong provinces, and the total
annual production is approximately 906,000 t (WU et al., 2014). In
China, the dry-hot valley of the Jinsha River is the most suitable area
for mango cultivation, especially for late production that commands
high prices. Approximately 40 % of the mango production in China
occurs in this area (CHEN, 2013).
China is the center of the natural distribution of wild mango germ-
plasm (NI et al., 2008); however, mango breeding industry in China
is not as well developed as that in America, Australia, and India.
Most of the cultivars that used in China were introduced from
Australia, America, and India prior to 1980, except for some new
cultivars that were released by our group (HE et al., 2006).
Germplasm resources are the basis of genetic improvement and cul-
tivar development. Due to the long history of cultivation, extensive
geographical distribution, and intense selection, there are more than
a thousand mango cultivars worldwide. During the past decades, the
Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences has collected
and conserved more than 300 mango genotypes representative of
worldwide genetic variability, in order to produce new cultivars with
better traits such as high soluble solid content, early-ripening, late-
maturing, middle size, red peel, resistance to anthracnose, and higher
yield performance. However, mango germplasm remains under-
utilized due to the limited knowledge of quality properties.
The quality of mango greatly depends on fruit physical properties,
such as shape, vertical diameter, cross section, weight, stone weight,
pulp recovery, pulp fibrosis, and fruit color, and on chemical pro-
perties such as total soluble solids, titratable acidity, total sugars,
vitamin C, taste, and aroma. Many studies have focused on the phy-
sicochemical and nutritional properties, such as phenolic compounds
(ROCHA RIBEIRO et al., 2007; MANTHEY and PERKINS-VEAZIE, 2009),
sugars (MEDLICOTT and THOMPSON, 1985), organic acids (VALENTE
et al., 2011; LIU et al., 2013), antioxidant capacity (MAHATTANA-
TAWEE et al., 2006; KIM et al., 2010), fruit aroma (PINO and MESA,
2006; PANDIT et al., 2009), and carotenoids (POTT et al., 2003). How-
ever, studies on the comprehensive and systematic evaluation of fruit
quality attributes and the relationships among pomological traits are
limited, particularly for mango germplasm in the China.
The objective of this study was to analyze and compare the physi-
cochemical characters, antioxidant capacity, and mineral content of
28 mango genotypes from the South Subtropical Crops Research
Institute of the Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences,
in order to assess useful information for the utilization of mango
genetic resources in China.
Materials and methods
Plant materials and quality properties
Twenty-eight genotypes grown in the orchards of the South Sub-
tropical Crops Research Institute (SSCRI) in Zhanjiang, China were
used in this study (Tab. 1). All the genotypes were grown under the
same geographical conditions and with the same standard cultural
practices. For each genotype, four replicates (consisting of five fruits
each) were carried out and used for analysis. Fruits were incubated
at 25 °C for ripening, which was ascertained for each cultivar by
conventional indices such as ripening period after harvest, change
in skin color, smell, and softness to touch. Ripe fruits were washed,
drained, and dried with paper towels, and fruit weight was immedi-
ately measured on a balance with accuracy of 0.01 g. The pulp was
manually separated from the fruit and cut into small pieces to obtain
homogeneous samples. A 300-g fruit pulp sample was homogenized
in a blender, and stone weight, pH, total soluble solids (TSS), and
titratable acidity (TA) were evaluated. The remaining flesh sample
was immediately ground in liquid nitrogen and stored at -70 °C until
use. The pH values were determined from the juice of each sample
with a digital pH meter (DL 25, Mettler Toledo, Greifensee, Switzer-
land). Tiratable acidity (TA) was expressed as a percentage of malic
acid, and total soluble solids (TSS) were measured with a digital
refractrometer (ATC-20E, Atago, Tokyo, Japan).
Evaluation of mango germplasm 265
Mineral content
Dry fruit material (0.5 g) was heated at 550 °C in a muffle furnace for
4-5 h. The resultant ash was dissolved in 2 mL of 30 % (v/v) HNO3
and distilled water was added until the total volume was 50 mL.
Calcium (Ca), zinc (Zn), magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), manganese
(Mn) and copper (Cu) were measured using a Hitachi Z-8000 atomic
absorption spectrometer, and potassium (K) was determined using
a flame photometer (410 Corning) according to the Association of
Analytical Communities (AOAC, 1995).
Sugars and organic acids
Sugars and organic acids were determined by high-performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC) (LC-20A, Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto,
Japan). A 2-g flesh sample was mixed and homogenized with 10 mL
distilled water, incubated at 37 °C for 30 min, and then centrifuged
at 5000 × g for 10 min. The supernatant was collected and evapo-
rated to dryness at 75 ºC in a water bath. The residue was dissolved
with 5 mL distilled water and filtered before analysis. Analysis of
sugars was carried out using an amino column (250 mm × 4.6 mm;
Kromasil, Bohus, Sweden) with a flow rate of 1.0 mL·min-1 at 35 °C.
For the mobile phase, acetonitrile and twice distilled water (70:30
v/v) were used along with a refractive index detector as described
by LIU et al. (2006) with some modifications. Organic acids were
extracted from a 2-g fruit sample mixed with 8 mL of 0.2 % meta-
phosphoric acid. The reaction mixture was centrifuged at 4,000 × g
for 10 min and 1 mL of the supernatant was used for further analysis.
The elution system consisted of 0.2 % metaphosphoric acid running
isocratically with a flow rate of 1 mL·min-1. The organic acids were
eluted through a Venusil XBP-C18 column (250mm × 4.6mm) and
detected at 210 nm. Sugars and organic acids were identified and
calculated using the corresponding external standards.
Carotenoids, total phenolic compounds, and antioxidant capa-
city
The total amount of carotenoids was determined as described by
ZHAO et al. (2013). Carotenoids were extracted from 1-g flesh using
an ethanol:acetone solution (1:3 v/v) at room temperature for 60 min.
After centrifugation at 4,000 × g for 10 min at 4 °C, the supernatant
was collected, and its absorbance was measured in a spectrophoto-
meter at 450 nm. The total carotenoid content was calculated using
the extinction coefficient of β-carotene, E1% = 2592.
A 50-g flesh sample was homogenized and extracted in 200 mL of
ethanol: acetone (7:3 v/v) for 1 h at 37 °C as described by LEE and
WICKER (1991). The extract was filtered through Whatman No. 41
paper and rinsed with 50 mL of ethanol: acetone (7:3 v/v). Extraction
of the residue was repeated under the same conditions and the two
filtrates were combined. The combined extract was used to deter-
mine total phenol and antioxidant activity.
The amount of total phenols was determined following the Folin-
Ciocalteu colorimetric method (RAPISARDA et al., 1999). Absorbance
was measured at 765 nm and total phenols were expressed as mg·L-1
of gallic acid equivalents (GAE). Gallic acid standard solutions were
prepared with concentrations ranging between 0 and 1000 mg·L-1.
The antioxidant capacity was evaluated using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-
hydrazyl (DPPH), 2,2-azinobis (3-ethyl-benzothiazoline-6-sulfonic
acid) (ABTS), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), super-
oxide radical scavenging activity (SRSA), and metal chelating capa-
city (MCC). DPPH scavenging capacity was measured as described
by MASUDA et al. (1999) with some modifications. A 25-μL extract
sample was mixed with 2 mL of 62.5 μM DPPH methanol solution
and 30 min later the absorbance was measured at 517 nm. Results
were expressed as trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity. ABTS as-
say was performed as described by RE et al. (1999). A 25-μL extract
sample was mixed with 2 mL ABTS solution and 30 min later the ab-
sorbance was measured at 734 nm. The radical-scavenging activity
of the test samples were expressed as trolox equivalent antioxidant
capacity. FRAP was assayed as described by BENZIE and STRAIN
(1996). A 20-μL extract sample was mixed with 1.8 mL 2,4,6-tris(2-
pyridyl)-s-triazine (TPTZ) reagent consisted of 0.3 M acetate buffer
(pH 3.6), 10 mM TPTZ, and 20 mM ferric chloride, and the absor-
bance of the colored product was measured at 593 nm. The antioxi-
dant activity was expressed as μmol Trolox equivalents.
SRSA was assayed as described by CHEN and YEN (2007) with a
minor modification. A 50-μL extract sample was mixed with 1 mL
of 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) containing 150 μM nitro blue
tetrazolium, 60 μM N-methylphenazinium methylsulfate, and
468 μM nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate and then in-
cubated for 8 min at 25 ºC. Absorbance was measured at 560 nm.
The superoxide anion scavenging activity was calculated as follows:
scavenging activity (%) = (1-absorbance of sample/absorbance of
Tab. 1: Origin and parentage of the mango genotypes asseyed
Genotype Origin Parentage Genotype Origin Parentage
Yuexi No. 1 China Carabao Kensinton Australia Brooks
Hongmang No. 8 Australia Unknown Lippens America Haden
Saigon Vietnam Unknown Bambaroo India Unknown
Irwin America Lippens KRS Australia Unknown
Guangxi No. 4 China India 901 × Yingzui Xiaoji China Unknown
Mallika India Dashehari × Neelum Edward America Haden × Carabao
Sijimang Thailand Unknown Zihua China Ok-Rung
Lilley America Unknown Guixiang China Golock × Neelum
Carabao Philippines Unknown Jinshui China Zihua
Glenn America Unknown Renong No.1 China Unknown
Nam Dok Mai America Unknown Vandyke America Unknown
Tommy America Haden Xiangjiao Thailand Unknown
Lianmang China Chance seedling Valencia Pride America Haden
Aimang China Chance seedling Yingzui China Unknown
266 S. Shi, X. Ma, W. Xu, Y. Zhou, H. Wu, S. Wang
control) × 100. MCC was determined as described by DINIS et al.
(1994). A 1-mL mango extract in 2.8 mL distilled water was mixed
with 50 μL of 2 mM FeCl 2·4H2O and 150 μL of 5 mM ferrozine.
The mixture was shaken for 10 min and then Fe2+ was measured
by monitoring the formation of ferrous ion-ferrozine complex at
562 nm. The metal chelating capacity was calculated as follows:
scavenging activity (%) = (1-absorbance of sample/absorbance of
control) × 100.
The overall antioxidant potency composite (APC) index was calcu-
lated as described by SEERAM et al. (2008): antioxidant index score
= (sample score/best score) × 100.
Statistical analysis
All samples were prepared and analyzed in triplicate. Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) were performed with SAS 9.0 (SAS Corp., Cary,
NC, USA). Correlation coefficients (r) were determined by Pearson
correlation matrix method also using SAS 9.0. Probability values of
p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 were considered statistically significant and
very significant, respectively. The eigenvectors, contribution rate,
and accumulative contribution rate in principal component analy-
sis were processed using XLStat (Addinsoft, Paris, France) software
package.
Results and discussion
Quality properties
Tab. 2 presents the fruit mass, stone mass, edible ratio, pH, soluble
solids, and titrable acidity of each mango genotype. Valencia Pride
had the highest fruit mass (771.73 g) and stone mass (60.22 g),
whereas Yuexi No. 1 had the lowest fruit mass (138.06 g) and stone
mass (16.71 g). The edible ratio ranged from 67.27 % in Xiaoji to
83.96 % in Nam Dok Mai. We also found a significant positive cor-
relation between fruit mass and edible ratio (r = 0.594, p < 0.001),
suggesting that the bigger-fruit genotypes also had a higher edible
ratio. These results were in agreement with those reported by SHI
et al. (2011). Mango acidity that assessed by pH or titratable acid
was the highest in Guixiang, regardless the method. The pH values
ranged between 3.35 and 5.09. The highest titratable acidity con-
tent was identified in Guixiang (2.35 g·100 g-1), whereas the lowest
Tab. 2: Fruit mass (g), stone mass (g), edible ratio (%), pH, total soluble solids (TSS, °Brix), and titratable acidity (TA, % citric acid) of 28 mango genotypes.
Genotype Fruit Stone Edible pH TSS TA TSS/TA
mass mass ratio
Yuexi No. 1 138.06k 16.71i 70.94hi 4.09c-f 9.40jk 0.98c-e 9.56mn
Hongmang No. 8 336.01c-g 33.20b-e 79.00a-e 3.75f 15.10b-e 1.71b 8.85n
Saigon 227.97h-k 34.77bc 71.99g-i 3.59d-f 14.13d-f 0.36h-l 39.39e-g
Irwin 266.22f-j 22.04d-i 78.82a-f 3.53d-f 10.87ij 0.85de 12.71k-n
Guangxi No. 4 205.84h-k 21.42e-i 77.17b-g 4.33b-f 16.27a-c 0.30i-l 54.98cd
Mallika 377.24b-e 31.32b-f 80.75a-c 3.62d-f 15.67a-d 0.74e-g 21.31i-m
Sijimang 211.31h-k 22.76d-i 71.56g-i 4.08c-f 15.27b-e 0.23kl 67.48b
Lilley 227.51h-k 25.89b-i 73.34e-h 4.20b-f 12.47f-i 0.23kl 54.98cd
Carabao 225.50h-k 21.38e-i 78.57a-f 3.93c-f 17.27a 1.12c 15.46j-n
Glenn 420.06bc 31.99b-f 80.92a-c 4.33b-e 12.20f-i 0.44h-k 27.67g-j
Nam Dok Mai 274.24f-j 17.96hi 83.96a 5.09ab 17.40a 0.14l 120.16a
Tommy 422.11b-e 37.41b 82.04ab 4.87a-c 13.47e-g 0.38kl 35.44bc
Lianmang 242.43g-k 29.20b-h 74.50d-h 5.54a 16.47a-c 0.23h-l 71.59ef
Aimang 178.77jk 20.31f-i 70.96hi 4.03c-f 17.00ab 0.89c-e 19.04h-l
Kensinton 398.13b-e 33.37b-e 78.62a-f 4.04c-f 14.73c-e 1.79b 8.21n
Lippens 348.02b-f 27.70b-i 79.20a-e 4.21b-f 11.67g-i 0.34i-l 34.71f-h
Bambaroo 298.67e-i 30.49b-g 75.76c-h 3.66d-f 13.27e-h 0.54g-j 24.49h-l
KRS 353.07b-f 37.08b 77.87b-f 3.37ef 13.60e-g 1.87b 7.28n
Xiaoji 144.69k 24.97c-i 67.27i 3.91c-f 13.60e-g 0.29j-l 46.34de
Edward 445.48b 26.32b-i 79.99a-d 4.25b-f 14.60c-e 0.56f-j 26.30h-k
Zihua 188.46jk 27.37b-i 73.03f-h 4.27b-f 7.60k 1.02cd 7.42n
Guixiang 207.97h-k 25.15c-i 75.37c-h 3.35d-f 11.47hi 2.35a 4.88n
Jinshui 186.35jk 19.18h-g 78.62a-f 3.66d-f 8.60k 0.94c-e 9.15mn
Renong No. 1 405.61b-d 35.02bc 80.49a-c 4.31b-f 11.27i 0.48g-k 23.39h-l
Vandyke 307.02d-h 30.38b-g 77.31b-g 4.47b-d 14.77c-e 0.61f-h 24.33h-l
Xiangjiao 201.19i-k 27.90b-i 71.78g-i 4.43b-d 13.33e-h 1.66b 8.02n
Valencia Pride 771.73a 60.22a 78.40a-f 3.95c-f 11.67g-i 0.80d-f 14.55k-n
Yingzui 214.12h-k 31.53b-f 70.51hi 4.86a-c 16.00a-d 0.56f-i 28.69g-i
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences across genotypes at p < 0.01.
Evaluation of mango germplasm 267
in Nam Dok Mai (0.14 g·100 g-1). These results were in agreement
with those reported by VASQUEZ-CAICEDO et al. (2002). The highest
TSS (17.00-17.40 %) were found in Kensinton, Carabao, and Nam
Dok Mai, whereas the lowest in Zihua and Jinshui (7.60-8.60 %).
It is widely believed that the TSS/TA ratio is widely applied as the
most reliable parameter to evaluate mango fruit quality, and the typi-
cal values for high quality mango fruits range between 23 and 50
(VAQUEZ-CAICEDO et al., 2005). In this study, 11 (39.3 %) mango
genotypes fell within this range, suggesting high quality.
Mineral content
The mineral concentration of mango genotypes is shown in Tab. 3.
Mineral content differed widely and significantly among the geno-
types. Potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) were the
dominant minerals in mango pulp. K, an essential mineral for control-
ling the salt balance in human tissues, is the most abundant mineral
in mango fruits. Lippens had the highest K content [32.80 g·Kg-1 dry
weight (DW)], while Kensinton had the lowest (7.81 g·Kg-1 DW).
Mg is the second most abundant element in mango fruits, which is
required by many enzymes, especially sugar and protein kinases that
catalyze ATP-dependent phosphorylation reactions (GORINSTEIN
et al., 2001). Banana had the highest Mg content (816.98 g·Kg-1
DW) and Carabao had the lowest (312.76 g·Kg-1 DW). Ca is the
third most abundant mineral and in this study ranged between
146.77 g·Kg-1 DW in Saigon and 640.82 g·Kg-1 DW in Renong
No. 1. Ca concentration is closely related to cell structure and mem-
brane stability and associated with the physiological diseases of
mango. Our results showed that Renong No.1, Xiaoji, and Jinshui
had the highest Ca content and can be used as potential donors for
developing Ca-rich mango varieties. Trace elements (i.e., Fe, Mn,
Cu, and Zn) are essential regulators of cell redox homeostasis, be-
cause they are co-factors for several antioxidant enzymes as well
as contributors to signal transduction (LU et al., 2014). Among the
different mango genotypes, the highest content was found for Mn
(12.69-103.48 mg·Kg-1 DW), followed by Fe (8.84-16.49 mg·Kg-1
DW), Zn (5.17-12.12 mg·Kg-1 DW), and Cu (3.84-7.18 mg·Kg-1
DW). Guangxi No. 4 had the highest content of Fe and Cu, while
Xiaoji had the highest content of Mn and Zn and considerable
amounts of Fe and Cu.
Our study is one of the few to focus on mineral content as part of
mango quality. While mineral content is influenced by many factors,
Tab. 3: Minerals content (mg·Kg-1) of 28 mango genotypes referred to dry matter (DM) content.
Genotype K Ca Mg Fe Mn Zn Cu
Yuexi No. 1 14504.25c-d 205.62j 606.10e-h 13.05b-d 16.95m 9.08bc 6.54ab
Hongmang No. 8 10449.68g-j 230.89ij 806.98ab 11.38c-g 23.90jk 5.53f-h 5.10d-h
Saigon 11823.86d-h 146.77k 489.07kl 11.00c-g 22.37kl 6.23e-g 4.24f-i
Irwin 9424.95h-j 347.53f 535.58ij 10.29d-g 22.07kl 3.91h 4.66e-i
Guangxi No. 4 8206.01ij 454.95d 472.10lm 16.49a 28.54hi 6.69d-g 7.18a
Mallika 9462.35h-j 216.78j 449.17mn 10.50d-g 36.81e 5.52f-h 4.67e-i
Sijimang 9614.98h-j 292.68g 614.04e-h 12.78b-e 18.14m 7.36c-f 5.14d-g
Lilley 11559.55d-i 456.62d 583.34h 13.58a-d 54.30d 5.59f-h 5.16d-g
Carabao 9188.43h-j 298.43g 312.76p 11.64c-g 34.00ef 6.54d-g 3.93i
Glenn 14641.88c-d 250.13i 632.98d-f 10.28d-g 29.21g-i 8.22cd 3.95i
Nam Dok Mai 14112.69b-f 255.53hi 552.86i 12.00c-g 12.69n 6.45d-g 4.27g-i
Tommy 17063.11b 331.21f 610.92e-h 10.19d-g 31.91f-h 6.01fg 5.17d-f
Lianmang 10365.92g-j 169.07k 433.90n 15.78ab 21.85kl 5.90fg 3.84i
Aimang 11299.45d-j 281.61gh 778.06b 11.49c-g 25.54i-k 9.08bc 4.71e-i
Kensinton 7814.45j 502.46c 601.31f-h 11.23d-g 58.32c 7.10d-g 5.63cd
Lippens 142798.9a 330.48f 442.69mn 10.18d-g 27.21ij 5.20g-h 4.45f-i
Bambaroo 14284.10b-e 356.25f 656.56d 8.84g 20.15ml 7.95c-e 7.00a
KRS 13541.25c-g 285.67g 599.50gh 12.66b-f 26.49ij 7.91c-e 5.49c-e
Xiaoji 9689.88h-j 628.71a 808.14ab 14.35a-c 103.48a 12.12a 6.18bc
Edward 10580.14g-j 294.87g 515.28jk 11.13c-g 17.58m 10.49ab 4.33f-i
Zihua 8998.00h-j 409.56e 635.62de 10.53d-g 36.81e 5.52f-h 4.67e-i
Guixiang 11017.39e-j 444.81d 629.18d-g 9.28e-g 57.87c 5.53f-h 3.90i
Jinshui 16486.78bc 544.45b 740.09c 13.55a-d 65.52b 11.62a 4.07i
Renong No.1 11579.99d-i 640.82a 389.84o 11.56c-g 29.23g-i 5.17gh 4.34f-i
Vandyke 10767.57f-j 361.40f 603.90e-h 9.02fg 32.59fg 5.81fg 4.74e-i
Xiangjiao 14471.75c-d 336.53f 816.98a 11.62c-g 60.58c 8.04c-e 4.42f-i
Valencia Pride 9688.39h-j 232.69ij 538.20ij 11.91c-g 17.87m 5.63f-h 5.19d-f
Yingzui 10131.47g-j 256.34hi 547.37i 11.48c-g 27.19ij 6.31e-g 5.81b-d
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences across genotypes at p < 0.01.
268 S. Shi, X. Ma, W. Xu, Y. Zhou, H. Wu, S. Wang
such as environmental conditions, agricultural practices, and water
quality, the present study demonstrated that in mango fruits, the ac-
cumulation of K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu is primarily dependent
on genotype.
Sugars and organic acids
The organoleptic quality of fruits greatly depends on the content
and composition of sugars in fruits. Three soluble sugars were de-
tected and quantified in mango flesh. The concentration of glucose,
varied significantly between 15.37 and 218.20 mg·g-1 FW; of fruc-
tose between 39.42 and 327.67 mg·g-1 FW; and of sucrose between
26.32 and 472.69 mg·g-1 FW (Tab. 4 ). Based on the concentration of
fructose and sucrose, mango varieties were classified into 2 groups.
The first group included 16 genotypes (Saigon, Guangxi No. 4,
Mallika, Sijimang, Lilley, Nam Dok Mai, Tommy, Lianmang,
Lippens, Bambaroo, Xiaoji, Edward, Renong No. 1, Vandyke, Va-
lencia Pride, and Yingzui) with higher sucrose than fructose con-
centration. The two genotypes with the highest sucrose content
were Nam Dok Mai and Lianmang that was 3.13 and 2.17 times
higher than fructose, respectively. The second group included 12
genotypes (Yuexi No. 1, Hongmang No. 8, Irwin, Carabao, Glenn,
Aimang, Kensinton, KRS, Zihua, Guixiang, Jinshui, and Xiangjiao)
with higher fructose than sucrose concentration. However, LIU et al.
(2013) found that sucrose predominated in mango varieties. This dif-
ference between the two studies could be attributed to the different
mango genotypes and number of samples used in the experiments.
It is concluded that the content and composition of sugars in mango
fruit is genotype-depended. Total sugars ranged between 138.38 and
698.12 mg·g-1 FW. The highest total sugars were found in Edward
(698.12 mg·g-1 FW) and Aimang (671.38 mg·g-1 FW), while the
lowest in Vandyke (138.38 mg·g-1 FW) (Tab. 4).
In the present study, statistically significant differences were found
in the individual organic acids and the total acid content among the
28 genotypes. Total acids ranged between 12.91 and 57.08 mg·g-1
FW (Tab. 4). The three genotypes with the highest acid content were
Edward, Guixiang, and Hongmang No. 8. In all mango genotypes,
malic acid was the dominant organic acid, which ranged between
4.31 and 41.74 mg·g-1 FW, followed by citric acid that ranged be-
tween 0.59 and 20.63 mg·g-1 FW (Tab. 4). These results are in agree-
ment with previous studies (TOVAR et al., 2001). The high malic acid
content genotype, Edward, and the three high tartaric acid content
genotypes (Hongmang No. 8, KRS, and Kensinton) were distinct
from all other genotypes. Oxalic acid content ranged between 1.98
and 6.17 mg·g-1 FW (Tab. 4) and two genotypes, Saigon and Guangxi
No. 4, had the highest content. Previous studies showed that the con-
tent of tartaric acid is genotype-depended. LIU et al. (2013) found no
tartaric acid in any mango samples, while MEDLICOTT and THOMPSON
(1985) identified a low concentration of tartaric acid in Keitt. In this
study, five genotypes (Sijimang, Lilley, Cacarbao, Glenn, and Zihua)
had no tartaric content; 23 genotypes had a low tartaric content that
ranged between 0.07 and 5.58 mg·g-1 FW; and 2 genotypes (Vandyke
and Nam Dok Mai) had high tartaric content (Tab. 4). In addition,
previous studies also found (TOVAR et al., 2001; LIU et al., 2013) that
mango fruit contains trace levels of succinic and a-ketoglutaric acid,
in addition to the high levels of ascorbic and fumaric acid.
Carotenoids, total phenolic compounds, and antioxidant capa-
city
Carotenoids are the main pigments in mature mango fruit. Consider-
able variation was found in total carotenoids among the 28 mango
genotypes (Tab. 4). The highest total carotenoid content (68.34-
71.21 μg·g-1 FW) was found in Tommy, Vandyke, Bambaroo, and
Zihua, while the lowest in Lianmang, Kensinton, Vanlencia Pride,
and Renong No.1 (10.91-16.67 μg·g-1 FW). The mean values of
total carotenoids did not differ significantly from a previous study
in 60 mango cultivars (10.52-50.24 μg·g-1 FW; ZHAO et al., 2013),
but the maximum values of total carotenoids were higher in the pre-
sent study. Phenolic compounds are considered the most important
antioxidants of plant materials. Mean values of the total phenolic
content varied between 13.69 and 82.65 mg gallic acid·100 g-1 FW.
A relatively high total phenolic content was found in Aimang and
Lianmang, whereas low values were found in Lippens and Valencia
Pride (Tab. 4).
The antioxidant capacity of fruits is an important indicator of health
promoters, and a number of methods have been adapted to assess
antioxidants. Our results showed that there were significant diffe-
rences in antioxidant capacity among the 28 genotypes (Tab. 5). The
range of DPPH was 807.17-2963.89 μM Trolox, of ABTS 237.23-
1573.07 μM Trolox, of FRAP 8607.88-58298.18 μM Trolox, of
SRAR 2.50-93.33 %, and of MCC 1.87-26.17 %. Tab. 5 shows the
rank order of mango genotypes according to the APC index. The
APC index showed significant variation (6.12-81.39) among the
28 mango genotypes. Aimang and Lianmang had the highest APC
indices, while Lippens and Tommy the lowest. Therefore, Aimang
and Lianmang had a stronger antioxidant capacity than other mango
genotypes, which is a potential trait for further utilization and im-
provement.
Correlation analysis was used to explore the relationships among
the different antioxidant variables measured in all mango extracts
(Tab. 6). FRAP, ABTS, and DPPH were significantly correlated
with total polyphenols (p < 0.01, FRAP, r = 0.629; ABTS, r = 0.624;
DPPH, r = 0.741). No significant correlation was found between
MCC and SRSA and total polyphenols. The absence of correlation
between the two assays and total polyphenols was probably due to a
diverse sensibility of MCC and SRSA assays for hydrophilic antioxi-
dants. Some research (PEREZ-JIMENEZ and SAURA-CALIXTO, 2005)
suggested that carotenoids may also contribute to the antioxidant ac-
tivity of carotenoid-rich fruits. However, no significant relationship
was observed between carotenoids and antioxidant capacity deter-
mination methods. Therefore, total polyphenols are probably the ma-
jor contributor of the antioxidant capacity in mango fruits.
PCA of genotypes
PCA was used in order to understand the underlying interrelation-
ships and to select the best linear combination of measured traits that
explains the largest proportion of variation. The results showed that
more than 80 % of the observed variability was explained by 9 com-
ponents (Tab. 7). The results indicated that variation in mango fruit
quality was multi-directional, in accordance with previous results
demonstrating that mango fruit quality is influenced by multiple
traits (PRADEEPKUMAR et al., 2006). PC1 represented 21.24 % of the
variation and PC2 represented 16.70 % of the variation. Fig. 1 shows
the score scatter plot of PCA of all mango samples. Fig. 1 as a total
shows the relationships between genotypes (scores) and variables
(loadings). The positive values for PC1 indicated genotypes with
a higher content of citric acid and glucose and higher titratable
acidity (Guixiang, Kensinton, and Hongmang No. 8), while the
negative values indicated genotypes with higher pH, SSC/TA, and
sucrose content (Nam Dok Mai and Guangxi No. 4). The positive
values for PC2 indicated genotypes with higher total phenolic con-
tent and antioxidant capacity (Xiaoji, Lianmang, and Aimang), while
the negative values indicated genotypes with higher fruit weight,
stone weight, and edible rate (Valencia Pride and Lippens).
Conclusions
Mango quality is defined as the conjunction of good appearance
and inherent qualities to the consumable product. In China, mango
Evaluation of mango germplasm 269
Ta
b.
4
:
C
ar
ot
en
oi
ds
(μ
g·
g-
1 )
, t
ot
al
p
he
no
lic
s
(m
g·
10
0
g-
1 )
, t
ot
al
s
ug
ar
s
(m
g·
10
0
g-
1 )
, a
nd
o
rg
an
ic
a
ci
ds
(m
g·
10
0
g-
1 )
o
f 2
8
m
an
go
g
en
ot
yp
es
.
G
en
ot
yp
e
C
ar
ot
en
oi
ds
To
ta
l
Fr
uc
to
se
G
lu
co
se
Su
cr
os
e
To
ta
l
O
xa
lic
Ta
rt
ar
ic
M
al
ic
C
itr
ic
To
ta
l
ph
en
ol
ic
s
su
ga
rs
ac
id
ac
id
ac
id
ac
id
ac
id
s
Y
ue
xi
N
o.
1
42
.9
0c
-f
48
.6
9d
e
19
6.
45
c-
g
12
3.
48
de
29
.2
3i
j
34
9.
15
h-
j
3.
44
d-
i
4.
13
ab
13
.0
6m
n
9.
70
g
30
.3
3f
H
on
gm
an
g
N
o.
8
27
.5
2e
-k
26
.4
5l
m
24
9.
16
bc
18
6.
69
ab
39
.7
5h
-j
47
5.
61
e-
h
2.
57
g-
i
3.
34
ab
30
.5
5d
e
20
.6
3a
57
.0
8a
Sa
ig
on
30
.8
1d
-k
33
.8
0h
-j
14
8.
71
f-
j
60
.9
8f
-i
42
6.
20
ab
63
5.
89
a-
b
6.
17
a
4.
18
ab
15
.7
9k
l
7.
17
hi
33
.3
1e
f
Ir
w
in
20
.2
3h
-k
24
.8
9m
n
22
1.
06
b-
e
13
5.
77
c-
e
89
.5
8h
44
6.
41
f-
h
3.
32
d-
i
1.
34
ab
21
.1
8i
j
7.
39
h
33
.2
2e
f
G
ua
ng
xi
N
o.
4
37
.2
4d
-h
32
.2
4h
-k
15
8.
87
f-
j
29
.1
7i
j
29
3.
07
f
48
1.
11
e-
h
5.
79
ab
0.
07
b
15
.0
8k
l
3.
72
kl
24
.6
7g
M
al
lik
a
46
.2
6b
-e
35
.4
1h
i
15
1.
99
f-
j
14
1.
90
c-
e
18
4.
49
g
47
8.
39
e-
h
2.
44
hi
2.
82
ab
32
.1
2c
d
9.
18
g
46
.5
5b
Si
jim
an
g
25
.6
9e
-k
37
.4
3g
h
12
8.
48
h-
j
69
.8
9f
-i
36
2.
30
c-
e
56
0.
66
b-
f
4.
29
b-
g
0.
00
b
24
.5
8j
7.
28
h
36
.1
5c
-e
L
ill
ey
57
.9
6a
-c
35
.9
6h
i
16
8.
97
d-
j
46
.3
3h
-j
42
9.
35
a-
b
64
4.
65
ab
4.
41
b-
f
0.
00
b
5.
01
qr
3.
49
l
12
.9
1i
C
ar
ab
ao
34
.6
4d
-j
69
.0
8b
27
5.
36
ab
19
8.
88
ab
14
2.
25
g
61
6.
50
a-
d
5.
70
ab
0.
00
b
13
.9
7l
m
14
.8
2e
34
.4
9d
-f
G
le
nn
50
.7
0a
-d
35
.7
5h
i
20
7.
57
c-
f
10
2.
87
ef
17
6.
88
g
48
7.
32
d-
g
3.
34
d-
i
0.
00
b
11
.2
8n
7.
84
h
22
.4
6g
h
N
am
D
ok
M
ai
30
.0
2d
-k
37
.5
9g
h
12
1.
12
j
28
.6
5i
j
47
2.
69
a
62
2.
46
a-
c
3.
50
d-
i
5.
53
a
12
.2
8m
n
1.
86
m
23
.1
8g
h
To
m
m
y
68
.3
4a
19
.2
1o
13
5.
00
h-
j
49
.8
7h
-j
29
0.
92
f
47
5.
79
e-
h
3.
59
d-
i
2.
41
ab
9.
20
o
3.
84
kl
19
.0
4h
L
ia
nm
an
g
10
.9
1k
81
.5
1c
d
13
7.
22
g-
j
73
.9
9f
-h
45
8.
26
a
66
9.
47
ab
4.
29
b-
g
3.
68
ab
28
.1
1f
4.
49
j-
l
40
.5
7c
A
im
an
g
60
.5
2a
-c
82
.6
5f
g
27
5.
79
ab
21
8.
20
a
17
7.
39
g
67
1.
38
ab
3.
58
d-
i
3.
17
ab
22
.6
1h
i
9.
47
g
38
.8
2c
d
K
en
si
nt
on
15
.2
6i
-k
54
.5
0c
32
7.
67
a
21
7.
82
a
43
.4
8h
-j
58
8.
98
a-
e
2.
67
f-
i
2.
34
ab
7.
21
p
17
.7
0c
29
.9
3f
L
ip
pe
ns
42
.0
3c
-g
13
.6
9p
12
4.
26
ij
71
.3
6f
-i
39
1.
24
bc
58
6.
87
a-
e
2.
33
hi
0.
26
b
16
.6
1k
4.
07
j-
l
23
.2
7g
h
B
am
ba
ro
o
70
.2
9a
27
.2
3k
-m
15
5.
54
f-
j
48
.3
5h
-j
29
5.
45
f
49
9.
34
c-
g
3.
87
c-
h
0.
43
b
4.
31
r
5.
05
j
13
.6
7i
K
R
S
31
.9
0d
-k
29
.4
2j
-m
22
6.
90
b-
d
17
6.
77
bc
39
.6
1h
-j
44
3.
27
h-
f
2.
40
hi
2.
56
ab
6.
25
pq
19
.4
9b
30
.7
1f
X
ia
oj
i
65
.6
7a
b
78
.9
9a
12
4.
52
i-
j
65
.7
3f
-i
37
7.
12
b-
d
56
7.
37
a-
f
4.
79
a-
d
3.
29
ab
34
.0
9b
4.
13
j-
l
46
.3
0b
E
dw
ar
d
30
.1
8d
-k
81
.1
4a
18
5.
98
d-
h
16
5.
25
bc
34
6.
88
c-
f
69
8.
12
a
2.
56
g-
i
2.
88
ab
41
.7
4a
6.
29
i
53
.4
7a
Z
ih
ua
71
.2
1a
43
.3
7f
16
4.
18
e-
j
77
.3
8f
-h
60
.6
2h
-j
30
2.
18
j
5.
40
a-
c
0.
00
b
23
.6
5g
h
9.
49
g
38
.5
4c
d
G
ui
xi
an
g
22
.0
5f
-k
31
.2
8i
-l
20
7.
07
c-
f
16
2.
19
b-
d
26
.3
2i
j
39
5.
58
g-
j
3.
48
d-
i
2.
59
ab
32
.9
1b
c
16
.4
4d
55
.4
1a
Ji
ns
hu
i
36
.7
1d
-i
27
.7
0k
-m
14
1.
06
g-
j
10
2.
10
e-
g
74
.3
8h
-j
31
7.
54
ij
2.
97
e-
i
1.
91
ab
16
.2
2k
9.
63
g
30
.7
3f
R
en
on
g
N
o.
1
16
.6
7h
-k
28
.8
1j
-m
11
6.
48
j
59
.4
6g
-i
31
0.
72
ef
48
6.
66
d-
g
3.
22
d-
i
4.
27
ab
7.
79
op
3.
54
l
18
.8
1h
V
an
dy
ke
69
.6
2a
37
.3
9g
h
39
.4
2k
15
.3
7j
83
.5
9h
i
13
8.
38
k
4.
97
a-
d
5.
58
a
11
.4
9n
0.
59
n
22
.6
3g
h
X
ia
ng
jia
o
20
.7
4g
-k
44
.8
9e
f
25
0.
25
bc
17
0.
16
bc
22
.0
3j
44
2.
45
f-
i
4.
50
a-
e
1.
35
ab
11
.4
4n
13
.8
2f
31
.1
0f
V
al
en
ci
a
Pr
id
e
13
.4
5j
k
20
.0
5n
o
16
0.
32
f-
j
14
0.
59
c-
e
17
7.
87
g
47
8.
78
e-
h
1.
98
i
0.
89
ab
28
.8
4e
f
6.
32
i
38
.0
2c
-e
Y
in
gz
ui
34
.7
0d
-j
36
.3
0g
-i
18
3.
76
d-
i
76
.9
6f
-h
33
1.
03
d-
f
59
1.
75
a-
e
4.
89
a-
d
0.
32
b
19
.9
4j
4.
59
jk
29
.7
3f
D
iff
er
en
t s
up
er
sc
ri
pt
le
tte
rs
in
di
ca
te
s
ig
ni
fic
an
t d
iff
er
en
ce
s
ac
ro
ss
g
en
ot
yp
es
a
t p
<
0
.0
1.
270 S. Shi, X. Ma, W. Xu, Y. Zhou, H. Wu, S. Wang
Tab. 6: Correlation coefficients between antioxidant content and antioxidant capacity determined by ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP; μM Trolox),
2,2-azinobis (3-ethyl-benzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS; μM Trolox), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH; μM Trolox), metal chelating capa-
city (MCC; %), and superoxide radical scavenging activity (SRSA; %).
TPC TC FRAP MCC ABTS SRSA DPPH
TPC 1
TC 0.030ns 1
FRAP 0.671** -0.336 ns 1
MCC 0.320 ns -0.245 ns 0.518** 1
ABTS 0.623** 0.036 ns 0.571** 0.454* 1
SRSA -0.073 ns 0.004 ns 0.023 ns 0.067 ns 0.278 ns 1
DPPH 0.696** -0.022 ns 0.491** 0.214 ns 0.524** -0.195 ns 1
Note: TC: Total carotenoids; TPC: Total phenolics; ns: Non-significant; *: level of significance (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001).
Tab. 5: Antioxidant capacity in pulp extract of 28 mango genotypes determined by ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP; μM Trolox), 2,2-azinobis (3-ethyl-
benzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS; μM Trolox), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH; μM Trolox), metal chelating capacity (MCC; %), super-
oxide radical scavenging activity (SRSA; %) and antioxidant index score (APC; %).
Genotype FRAP MCC ABTS SRSA DPPH APC index Rank
Yuexi No. 1 37188.92b-d 23.83ab 1573.07a 26.67j-m 2419.36b-d 69.80 4
Hongmang No. 8 15801.16l-n 20.33b-e 953.07e 69.17b-d 1008.69kl 45.21 21
Saigon 23282.55h-k 21.25b-e 1342.44a-c 25.83i-m 1241.20f-h 47.52 20
Irwin 11969.22no 22.58a-d 291.14f 19.17j-n 1823.78i-k 32.27 25
Guangxi No. 4 14773.55m-o 1.83j 279.16f 11.67l-n 1682.79fg 13.23 26
Mallika 22408.60i-l 14.42f 965.05e 93.33a 1281.51i-k 50.98 16
Sijimang 35133.70c-f 10.75gh 1570.07a 66.67b-e 1287.71i-k 56.39 11
Lilley 22206.92i-l 14.25fg 1303.50a-c 52.50e-h 1495.42g-i 48.92 18
Carabao 41107.29bc 26.17a 1558.09a 15.00k-n 2318.53c-e 69.59 5
Glenn 19681.11k-m 13.17fg 1189.69c-e 62.50c-e 1239.65i-k 45.11 23
Nam Dok Mai 27143.30g-j 12.33fg 1570.07a 50.00e-h 1689.18f-h 54.57 13
Tommy 9760.34no 2.50j 237.23f 9.17l-n 1388.65h-j 7.86 27
Lianmang 53246.55a 21.42b-e 1555.10a 57.50c-g 2400.68b-d 80.55 2
Aimang 31820.37c-f 23.17ab 1573.07a 83.33ab 2630.85bc 81.39 1
Kensinton 29918.81e-h 21.92b-e 1258.58b-d 46.67e-i 2182.12de 62.74 7
Lippens 8607.88o 8.67hi 258.19f 2.50n 827.10l 6.12 28
Bambaroo 20420.61j-m 18.25e 1024.95de 65.00b-e 965.28kl 45.12 22
KRS 25597.08g-k 20.58b-e 1195.68c-e 46.67e-i 1307.86i-k 50.86 17
Xiaoji 29381.00e-i 13.17fg 1546.11a 49.17e-h 1990.38ef 58.41 9
Edward 58298.18a 22.83a-c 1564.08a 5.83mn 2963.89a 77.85 3
Zihua 36910.41b-d 23.17ab 1567.08a 28.33i-l 1535.72ef 61.22 8
Guixiang 28900.80f-i 23.17ab 1201.67c-e 74.17a-c 1064.49a 58.13 10
Jinshui 23023.25h-k 20.08b-e 1471.23ab 40.83f-i 1535.72g-i 54.38 14
Renong No.1 23292.16h-k 18.92de 1357.42a-c 38.33g-j 1259.80j-l 48.72 19
Vandyke 15205.72m-o 19.17c-e 1558.09a 15.00k-n 2346.44b-d 53.67 15
Xiangjiao 36132.50b-e 18.83de 1570.07a 19.17j-n 2674.61ab 65.95 6
Valencia Pride 42682.32b 20.67b-e 446.89f 33.33h-k 807.17l 39.05 24
Yingzui 23090.48h-k 6.00i 1390.36a-c 60.83c-f 2604.11bc 55.89 12
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences across genotypes at p < 0.01.
Evaluation of mango germplasm 271
Tab. 7: Eigenvectors and percentages of accumulated contribution of principal components (PC).
PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8 PC9
Fruit weight -0.056 -0.601 -0.508 0.023 0.259 -0.207 -0.466 0.004 0.093
Stone weight -0.014 -0.548 -0.314 -0.038 0.263 -0.058 -0.487 -0.280 -0.066
pH -0.548 0.378 -0.278 0.176 -0.155 -0.067 -0.203 0.097 -0.024
SSC -0.146 0.414 -0.498 -0.314 -0.190 0.353 -0.114 0.179 0.052
Edible rate -0.172 -0.568 -0.391 0.177 -0.052 -0.069 -0.068 0.482 -0.011
Carotene -0.259 0.099 0.601 0.074 0.076 0.227 -0.102 -0.058 0.559
Fructose 0.731 -0.008 -0.146 -0.424 -0.435 -0.048 -0.045 0.109 0.069
Glucose 0.889 -0.072 -0.287 -0.203 -0.139 -0.085 -0.014 0.114 0.143
Surcose -0.762 0.370 -0.308 -0.182 0.196 -0.046 0.112 0.039 0.030
Total sugar -0.142 0.405 -0.574 -0.515 -0.037 -0.118 0.105 0.153 0.136
TA 0.858 -0.298 0.090 -0.018 -0.149 0.071 0.034 0.072 -0.166
SSC/TA -0.709 0.428 -0.276 -0.086 0.088 0.175 0.080 0.215 -0.177
Total phenolic 0.380 0.799 -0.092 0.007 -0.007 -0.161 -0.104 0.071 0.278
K -0.308 -0.333 -0.009 -0.105 0.020 -0.328 0.491 0.181 0.400
Ca 0.003 0.023 0.598 -0.040 0.193 -0.418 -0.012 0.322 -0.311
Mg 0.394 0.133 0.521 -0.131 0.314 0.257 -0.193 0.145 0.152
Fe -0.156 0.517 -0.024 -0.339 0.059 -0.277 -0.096 -0.047 -0.503
Mn 0.270 0.233 0.578 -0.151 0.312 -0.268 0.073 0.227 -0.195
Zn 0.263 0.527 0.318 -0.088 0.302 -0.235 -0.253 0.233 0.238
Cu -0.160 0.031 0.418 -0.484 -0.035 0.070 -0.455 -0.245 0.037
FRAP 0.375 0.541 -0.461 0.188 0.089 -0.294 -0.165 -0.240 -0.041
MCC 0.721 0.061 -0.150 0.446 -0.096 -0.048 0.044 -0.073 -0.031
ABTS 0.312 0.705 0.053 0.378 -0.035 0.161 -0.038 0.109 -0.069
SRSA 0.256 0.121 -0.077 -0.301 0.328 0.665 0.017 0.138 -0.122
DPPH 0.227 0.706 -0.069 0.196 -0.338 -0.188 -0.202 0.039 0.190
Oxlic acid -0.271 0.514 0.311 0.071 -0.373 0.104 0.150 -0.431 -0.159
Tartaric acid 0.046 0.203 -0.162 0.550 0.201 0.296 -0.149 0.378 -0.122
Malic acid 0.312 0.243 -0.361 -0.002 0.647 -0.051 0.271 -0.299 0.106
Citric acid 0.858 -0.210 -0.044 -0.222 -0.180 0.107 0.087 0.075 -0.139
Total acid 0.643 0.193 -0.324 -0.014 0.466 0.060 0.265 -0.209 -0.007
Eigen value 6.371 5.009 3.665 1.969 1.900 1.585 1.399 1.350 1.267
Contribution rate (%) 21.238 16.698 12.217 6.562 6.333 5.284 4.664 4.501 4.224
Cumulative percentage (%) 21.238 37.936 50.153 56.715 63.048 68.332 72.996 77.497 81.721
germplasm resources are valuable gene pools of resistance, perfor-
mance, and functional constituents that used in genetic improvement
programs. In the present study, we analyzed the physicochemical
characters, antioxidant capacity, and mineral content of 28 mango
genotypes. Considerable variation was found in all measured traits
among the genotypes. Since all the genotypes were grown under the
same environmental conditions and with the same standard condi-
tions of irrigation, fertilization, and disease control, trait variation
corresponded to the genetic diversity of the genotypes.
The content and composition of sugars and acids in mango fruits
was genotype-depended. Sucrose and/or fructose were the dominant
sugars, while malic and citric were the dominant organic acids in
mango fruits. Edward showed the highest content of total sugars and
organic acid content, whereas Vandyke and Lilley had the lowest
values, respectively. Aimang had the highest total phenolic content,
and Zihua had the highest total carotenoid content. Aimang and
Lianmang had significantly higher APC indices than the other man-
go genotypes. Among all studied genotypes, Valencia Pride showed
the highest fruit mass, edible ratio, and total sugar content, traits
preferred by the processing industry. However, Edward, Aimang,
and Zihua were the most suitable genotypes for fresh consumption,
due to their better biochemical properties and related health bene-
fits.
Our work provided information on the physicochemical characters,
antioxidant capacity, and mineral content of 28 mango genotypes.
However, mango fruit quality is affected by many factors, such as
geographic region, climate, soil characteristics, and cultivation tech-
niques. Therefore, further studies are needed to investigate the geno-
type by environment interactions and identify superior genotypes
suitable for fresh consumption, processing, or breeding research.
272 S. Shi, X. Ma, W. Xu, Y. Zhou, H. Wu, S. Wang
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Special Fund for Crop Germ-
plasm Resources Protection (2015NWB049), the Agro-scientific
Research for the Public Interest (No. 201203092), and the Funda-
mental Research Funds of the National Nonprofit Research Insti-
tute for the South Subtropical Crops Research Institute, CATAS
(1630062013003 and1630062014008).
References
AOAC, 1995: Official methods of analysis, 15th edn. Association of Official
Analytical Chemists. Arlington.
BENZIE, I.F.F., STRAIN, J.J., 1996: The ferric reducing ability of plasma
(FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: the FRAP assay. Anal.
Biochem. 239, 70-76.
CHEN, H.Y., YEN, G.C., 2007: Antioxidant activity and free radical-scaveng-
ing capacity of extracts from guava (Psidium guajava L.) leaves. Food
Chem. 101, 686-694.
CHEN, Q.B., 2013: Perspectives on the mango industry in mainland China.
Acta Hort. 992, 25-35.
DINIS, T.C.P., MADEIRA, V.M.C., ALMEIDA, L.M., 1994: Action of phenolic
derivates (acetoaminophen, salicylate, and 5-aminosalicylate) as inhibi-
tors of membrane lipid peroxidation and as peroxyl radical scavengers.
Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 315, 161-169.
GORINSTEIN, S., ZACHWIEJA, Z., FOLTA, M., BARTON, H., PIOTROWICZ, J.,
ZEMSER, M., WEINZ, M., TRAKHTENBERG, S., MARTIN-BELLOSO, O.,
2001: Comparative contents of dietary fiber, total phenolics, and mine-
rals in persimmons and apples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49, 952-957.
HE, J.H., CHEN, Y.Y., WEI, S.X., 2006: Status, issues and their resolutions of
mango industry in China. Chin. J. Trop. Agric. 26, 59-62.
KIM, H., MOON, J.Y., KIM, H., LEE, D.S., CHO, M., CHOI, H.K., KIM, Y.S.,
MOSADDIK, A., CHO, S.K., 2010: Antioxidant and antiproliferative ac-
tivities of mango (Mangifera indica L.) flesh and peel. Food Chem. 121,
429-436.
LEE, H.S., WICKER, L., 1991: Anthocyanin pigments in the skin of lychee
fruit. J. Food Sci. 56, 466-468.
LIU, H.F., WU, B.H., FAN, P.G., LI, S.H., LI, L.S., 2006: Sugar and acid
concentrations in 98 grape cultivars analyzed by principal component
analysis. J. Sci. Food Agric. 86, 1526-1536.
LIU, F.X., FU, S.F., BI, X.F., CHEN, F., LIAO, X.J., HU, X.S., WU, J.H., 2013:
Physicochemical and antioxidant properties of four mango (Mangifera
indica L.) cultivars in China. Food Chem. 138, 396-405.
LU, X.H., SUN, D.Q., WU, Q.S., LIU, S.H., SUN, G.M., 2014: Physico-
chemical properties, antioxidant activity and mineral contents of pine-
apple genotypes grown in China. Molecules 19, 8518-8532.
MAHATTANATAWEE, K., MANTHEY, J.A., LUZIO, G., TALCOTT, S.T., BALD-
WIN, E., 2006: Total antioxidant activity and fiber content of select florida
grown tropical fruits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54 (19), 7355-7363.
MANTHEY, J.A., PERKINS-VEAZIE, P., 2009: Influences of harvest date and
location on the levels of beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, total phenols, the
in vitro antioxidant capacity, and phenolic profiles of five commercial
varieties of mango (Mangifera indica L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 57,
10825-10830.
MASUDA, T., YONGEMORI, S., OYAMA, Y., TAKEDA, Y., TAMLA, T., ANDOH,
T., SHINOHARA, A., NAKATA, M., 1999: Evaluation of the antioxidant
activity of environmental plants: Activity of the leaf extracts from sea-
shore plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47, 1749-1754
MEDLICOTT, A.P., THOMPSON, A.K., 1985: Analysis of sugars and organic
acids in ripening mango fruits (Mangifera indica L. var. Keitt) by high
performance liquid chromatography. J. Sci. Food Agric. 36, 561-566.
NI, Z.G., ZHANG, L.H., LUO, X.P., XIE, D.H., WEN, D.L., YU, Y.C., LV,
Y.L., 2008: Investigation and analysis of the wild mango (Mangifera in-
dica L.) germplasm resources in Nujiang low and hot valley. Southwest
China J. Agric. Sci. 21, 436-439
PINO, J., MESA, J., 2006: Contribution of volatile compounds to mango
(Mangifera indica L.) arom. Flavour Fragr. J. 21 (2), 207-213.
Fig. 1: Segregation of 28 mango genotypes according to their quality characteristics determined by principal component analysis (PCA).
Evaluation of mango germplasm 273
PANDIT, S.S., CHINDLEY, H.G., KULKARNI, R.S., PUJARI, K.H., GIRI, A.P.,
GUPTA, V.S., 2009: Cultivar relationships in mango based on fruit vola-
tile profiles. Food Chem. 114 (1), 363-372.
POTT, I., MARX, M., NEIDHART, S., MUHLBAUER, W., CARLE, R., 2003:
Quantitative determination of β-carotene stereoisomers in fresh, dried,
and solar-dried mangoes (Mangifera indica L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51
(16), 4527-4531.
PRADEEPKUMAR, T., JOSEPH, P., JOHNKUTTY, I., 2006: Variability in phy-
sicochemical characteristics of mango genotypes in northern Kerala. J.
Tropic. Agric. 44, 57-60.
PEREZ-JIMENEZ, J., SAURA-CALIXTO, F., 2005: Literature data may un-
der-estimate the actual antioxidant capacity of cereals. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 53, 5036-5040.
RE, R., PELLEGRINI, N., PROTEGGENTE, A., PANNALA, A., YANG, M.,
RICE-EVANS, C., 1999: Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS
radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 26, 1231-
1237.
ROCHA RIBEIRO, S.M., QUEIROZ, J.H., LOPES RIBEIRO DE QUEIROZ, M.E.,
CAMPOS, F.M., PIBEIRO-SANT’ ANA, H.M., 2007: Antioxidant in mango
(Mangifera indica, L.) pulp. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 62, 13-17.
RAPISARDA, P., TOMAINO, A., LO CARSCIO, R., BONINA, F., DE PASQALE,
A., SAIJA, A., 1999: Antioxidant effectiveness as influenced by phenolic
content of fresh orange juices. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47, 4718-4723.
SHI, S.Y., WU, H.X., YAO, Q.S., LIU, L.Q., WANG, Y.C., MA, W.H.,
ZHAN, R.L., 2011: Fruit Quality diversity of mango (Mangifera indica
L.) germplasm. Acta Hortic. Sin. 38 (5), 840-848.
SEERAM, N.P., AVIRAM, M., ZHANG, Y., HENNING, S.M., FENG, L., DREHER,
M., HEBER, D., 2008: Comparison of antioxidant potency of commonly
consumed polyphenolrich beverages in the United States. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 56, 1415-1422
TOVAR, B., GARCIA, H.S., MATA, M., 2001: Physiology of pre-cut mango II.
Evolution of organic acids. Food Res. Int. 34, 705-714.
THARANATHAN, R.N., YASHODA, H.M., PRABHA, T.N., 2006: Mango (Man-
gifera indica L.), “The king of fruits”-an overview. Food Res. Int. 22,
95-123.
VALENTE, A., ALBUQUERQUE, T.G., SANCHES-SILVA, A., COSTA, H.S., 2011:
Ascorbic acid content in exotic fruits: A contribution to produce quality
data for food composition databases. Food Research International 44,
2237-2242.
VASQUEZ-CAICEDO, A.L., NEIDHART, S., PATHOMRUNGSIYOUNGGUL, P.,
WIRIYACHAREE, P., CHATTRAKUL, A., SRUAMSIRI, P., MANOCHAI, P.,
BANGERTH, F., CARLE, R., 2002: Physical, chemical, and sensory pro-
perties of nine Thai mango cultivars and evaluation of their technologi-
cal and nutritional potential. International Symposium Sustaining Food
Security and Managing Natural Resources in Southeast Asia-Challenges
for the 21st Century. Chiang Mai, Thailand.
VASQUEZ-CAICEDO, A.L., PITTAYA, S., REINHOLD, C., SYBILLE, N., 2005:
Accumulation of all-trans-β-carotene and its cis-stereoisomers during
postharvest ripening of nine Thai mango cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem.
53, 4827-4835.
WU, H.X., JIA, H.M., MA, X.W., WANG, S.B., YAO, Q.S., XU, W.T., ZHOU,
Y.G., GAO, Z.S., 2014: Transcriptome and proteomic analysis of mango
(Mangifera indica Linn) fruits. J. Proteomics 105, 19-30.
ZHAO, J.J., ZHANG, X.C., LI, H.L., ZHOU, Z.X., WANG, J.B., 2013: Studies
on quality characteristics during the development of different embryos
sex of mango fruit. Acta Bot. Boreal. 33 (11), 2273-2277.
Address of the corresponding author:
E-mail: maxiaowei428@126.com
© The Author(s) 2015.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License (http://creative-
commons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).