新疆农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (1): 127-139.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.01.015
收稿日期:
2022-04-17
出版日期:
2023-01-20
发布日期:
2023-03-07
通信作者:
李宏(1962-),男,新疆伊宁人,研究员,博士,博士生导师,研究方向为森林培育,(E-mail)hong1962@126.com
作者简介:
窦子微(1995-),女,新疆沙湾人,硕士研究生,研究方向为森林培育,(E-mail)dou.z.w@qq.com
基金资助:
DOU Ziwei1(), YANG Lu2, CHENG Ping2, ZHANG Zhigang2, LI Hong2()
Received:
2022-04-17
Online:
2023-01-20
Published:
2023-03-07
Correspondence author:
LI Hong (1962 -), male, native place: Yining, Xinjiang. Researcher, doctor, doctoral supervisor, research field: forest cultivation, (E-mail)hong1962@126.com
Supported by:
摘要:
【目的】分析不同品种桑椹的营养成分差异、组成特征,综合评价其品质,筛选出适合在新疆推广的优势品种,为果桑资源的品种优化、新品种培育及多元利用提供参考。【方法】以新疆6个农家品种和2个引进品种为材料,分别测定33个品质指标,运用相关性分析、聚类分析、主成分分析、正交偏最小二乘-判别分析法判别桑葚营养品质差异性和关键性特征指标,根据综合评价得分筛选出品质最优的品种。【结果】不同桑葚间的基础营养成分具有一定的差异性和较强相关性,且存在不同程度的变异;桑葚中均含有较高的芦丁和绿原酸,其中药桑和台湾黑桑的总酚酸含量较高;在8种桑葚中均检出了17个单一氨基酸,Asp、Glu变化最为剧烈且平均含量较高;TAAs含量最高为黑桑,NEAAs是桑葚氨基酸的主要组分,其次是MAAs,最低为CEAAs。不同品种桑葚分为4个类群,OPLS-DA分析筛选得到11个差异性品质指标。主成分分析提取了前5个主成分,构建综合评价数学模型:D综=0.474 8F1+0.219 7F2+0.142 6F3+0.097 2F4+0.065 8F5。【结论】桑葚最终综合评价得分排名前三分别为黑桑、黑珍珠和台湾黑桑,可作为适合在新疆推广的优势果桑品种。
中图分类号:
窦子微, 杨璐, 程平, 张志刚, 李宏. 不同品种桑葚营养品质分析及综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(1): 127-139.
DOU Ziwei, YANG Lu, CHENG Ping, ZHANG Zhigang, LI Hong. Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Nutritional Quality of Different Mulberry Varieties[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(1): 127-139.
品种 Variety | 水分 Moisture content (g/100g) | 灰分 Ash content (g/100g) | 总酸 Total acid (g/kg) | 总酚 Total phenols (mg/100g) | 蛋白质 Protein (g/100g) | 总黄酮 Total flavonoids (mg/g) | 花青素 Anthocyanin (mg/100g) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
药桑 Medicinal mulberry | 81.29±0.95b | 1.52±0.12b | 43.13±0.73a | 2.37±0.14ab | 0.72±0.05g | 67.52±3.41c | 359.74±23.17a |
黑桑 Black mulberry | 90.34±0.51a | 1.98±0.17a | 10.23±0.33d | 0.44±0.03c | 1.93±0.04d | 37.62±2.79d | 5.67±0.39e |
粉桑 Pink mulberry | 80.10±2.19b | 1.37±0.12bc | 7.13±0.61e | 0.42±0.05c | 1.22±0.08f | 10.49±1.15f | ND |
仟格俪桑 Qiange Lisang | 82.10±2.57b | 1.24±0.04cd | 6.96±0.12e | 0.57±0.06c | 1.17±0.06f | 19.69±2.95e | 0.30±0.00e |
白桑 White mulberry | 83.75±1.32b | 1.38±0.06bc | 4.37±0.27f | 0.47±0.04c | 1.55±0.14e | 18.90±1.79e | ND |
山西黑桑 Shanxi black mulberry | 90.24±0.47a | 1.55±0.11b | 7.62±0.75e | 1.98±0.43b | 2.68±0.13b | 111.02±5.39b | 111.22±3.25c |
台湾黑桑 Taiwan black mulberry | 81.18±0.33b | 1.19±0.05d | 16.03±0.68b | 2.78±0.52a | 2.38±0.06c | 148.59±7.95a | 307.61±16.85b |
黑珍珠 Black pearl | 81.33±0.42b | 0.99±0.09e | 12.01±1.07c | 2.87±0.76a | 2.99±0.09a | 111.34±2.73b | 73.67±4.34d |
Mean | 83.79±4.12 | 1.40±0.29 | 13.43±11.98 | 1.49±1.11 | 1.83±0.77 | 65.68±51.23 | 107.28±140.05 |
CV(%) | 4.91 | 20.95 | 138.39 | 74.6 | 42.06 | 76.32 | 130.55 |
表1 不同品种桑葚基础营养成分含量变化
Table 1 Analysis on the content of basic nutrients in different varieties of mulberry
品种 Variety | 水分 Moisture content (g/100g) | 灰分 Ash content (g/100g) | 总酸 Total acid (g/kg) | 总酚 Total phenols (mg/100g) | 蛋白质 Protein (g/100g) | 总黄酮 Total flavonoids (mg/g) | 花青素 Anthocyanin (mg/100g) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
药桑 Medicinal mulberry | 81.29±0.95b | 1.52±0.12b | 43.13±0.73a | 2.37±0.14ab | 0.72±0.05g | 67.52±3.41c | 359.74±23.17a |
黑桑 Black mulberry | 90.34±0.51a | 1.98±0.17a | 10.23±0.33d | 0.44±0.03c | 1.93±0.04d | 37.62±2.79d | 5.67±0.39e |
粉桑 Pink mulberry | 80.10±2.19b | 1.37±0.12bc | 7.13±0.61e | 0.42±0.05c | 1.22±0.08f | 10.49±1.15f | ND |
仟格俪桑 Qiange Lisang | 82.10±2.57b | 1.24±0.04cd | 6.96±0.12e | 0.57±0.06c | 1.17±0.06f | 19.69±2.95e | 0.30±0.00e |
白桑 White mulberry | 83.75±1.32b | 1.38±0.06bc | 4.37±0.27f | 0.47±0.04c | 1.55±0.14e | 18.90±1.79e | ND |
山西黑桑 Shanxi black mulberry | 90.24±0.47a | 1.55±0.11b | 7.62±0.75e | 1.98±0.43b | 2.68±0.13b | 111.02±5.39b | 111.22±3.25c |
台湾黑桑 Taiwan black mulberry | 81.18±0.33b | 1.19±0.05d | 16.03±0.68b | 2.78±0.52a | 2.38±0.06c | 148.59±7.95a | 307.61±16.85b |
黑珍珠 Black pearl | 81.33±0.42b | 0.99±0.09e | 12.01±1.07c | 2.87±0.76a | 2.99±0.09a | 111.34±2.73b | 73.67±4.34d |
Mean | 83.79±4.12 | 1.40±0.29 | 13.43±11.98 | 1.49±1.11 | 1.83±0.77 | 65.68±51.23 | 107.28±140.05 |
CV(%) | 4.91 | 20.95 | 138.39 | 74.6 | 42.06 | 76.32 | 130.55 |
图4 不同品种桑葚的17种单一氨基酸含量热图 注:Asp:天门冬氨酸;Thr:苏氨酸;Ser:丝氨酸;Glu:谷氨酸;Gly:甘氨酸;Ala:丙氨酸;Cys:半胱氨酸;Val:缬氨酸;Met:蛋氨酸;Ile:异亮氨酸;Leu:亮氨酸;Tyr:酪氨酸;Phe:苯丙氨酸;Lys:赖氨酸;His:组氨酸;Arg:精氨酸;Pro:脯氨酸;图上色块越红表示含量越高,反之蓝色越深则越少,下同
Fig.4 Heat map of 17 single amino acids in different varieties of mulberry Note: Asp: aspartic acid; Thr: threonine; Ser: serine; Glu: glutamic acid; Gly: glycine; Ala: alanine; Cys: cysteine; Val: valine; Met: methionine; Ile: isoleucine; Leu: leucine; Tyr: tyrosine; Phe: phenylalanine; Lys: lysine; His: histidine; Arg: arginine; Pro: proline; The redder the color block,the hiher the content,Conuersely the darker the blue,the less, the same as below
图5 不同品种桑葚的9个营养品质指标相关性热图 注:“*”:P<0.05;“**”:P<0.01;MC:水分;AC:灰分;TA:总酸;TP:总酚;Pr:蛋白质;TF:总黄酮;An:花青素;TPA:总酚酸;TAA:总氨基酸;图中红色为正相关,蓝色为负相关,椭圆偏圆表示无显著相关性(P>0.05),偏窄表示显著相关(0.01<P<0.05),偏细为极显著相关(P<0.01),下同
Fig.5 Correlation heat map of 9 nutritional quality indexes of different mulberry varieties Note: "*": P<0.05; "**": P<0.01; MC: moisture content; AC: ash content; TA: total acid; TP: total phenolics; Pr: protein; TF: total flavonoids; An: anthocyanins; TPA: total phenolic acids; TAA: total amino acids; Red is positive correlation,Blue is negative correlation,Elliptical deviation indicates no significant correlation(P>0.05),Narrow indicates significant correlation(0.01<P<0.05),Relatively fine is extremely significant(P<0.01),the same as below
图6 不同品种桑葚的17种单一氨基酸含量热图 注:MSZS:没食子酸;KFS:咖啡酸;AWS:阿魏酸;JZS:芥子酸;BECS:表儿茶素;ECS:儿茶素;HPS:槲皮素;LYS:绿原酸;LD:芦丁,下同
Fig.6 Heat map of 17 single amino acids in different varieties of mulberry Note: MSZS: Gallic acid; KFS: caffeic acid; AWS: ferulic acid; JZS: erucic acid; BECS: epicatechin; ECS: catechin; HPS: quercetin; LYS: chlorogenic acid; LD: rutin,the same as below
图7 不同桑果营养品质的OPLS-DA 注:a:得分图;b:置换检验图;c:载荷图;d:变量重要性(VIP值)得分图;红色为远离密集区的点和VIP值大于1的指标
Fig.7 OPLS-DA analysis of nutritional quality of different mulberry fruits Note: a: score chart; b: displacement test chart; c: load chart; d: variable importance (VIP value) score chart;red is the point far away from the dense area and the index of VIP value greater than 1
指标 Index | 主成分Principal component | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
MC | 0.38 | -0.23 | 0.11 | 0.76 | -0.33 |
AC | 0.15 | 0.16 | -0.28 | 0.90 | -0.26 |
TA | -0.05 | 0.98 | 0.13 | -0.05 | -0.08 |
TP | 0.22 | 0.40 | 0.80 | -0.37 | -0.01 |
Pr | 0.52 | -0.48 | 0.68 | -0.10 | -0.13 |
TF | 0.28 | 0.14 | 0.93 | -0.11 | 0.13 |
An | -0.10 | 0.78 | 0.57 | -0.01 | 0.20 |
LD | -0.04 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.05 | 0.47 |
LYSPA | -0.13 | 0.85 | -0.06 | 0.06 | 0.42 |
HPS | -0.11 | 0.45 | 0.75 | 0.22 | 0.36 |
ECS | -0.19 | 0.96 | -0.05 | -0.03 | -0.21 |
BECS | -0.19 | 0.96 | -0.05 | -0.03 | -0.21 |
JZS | 0.40 | -0.13 | 0.44 | 0.76 | 0.20 |
AWS | 0.23 | -0.09 | 0.17 | -0.66 | -0.30 |
KFS | -0.25 | 0.85 | 0.28 | 0.03 | 0.27 |
MSZS | -0.02 | -0.01 | 0.22 | -0.09 | 0.96 |
Pro | 0.79 | 0.57 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.05 |
Arg | 0.92 | -0.17 | 0.29 | 0.01 | -0.01 |
His | 0.98 | -0.02 | 0.09 | 0.05 | -0.15 |
Lys | 0.98 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.17 | -0.03 |
Phe | 0.97 | -0.20 | 0.04 | -0.04 | -0.08 |
Tyr | 0.91 | -0.32 | -0.08 | 0.18 | -0.08 |
Leu | 0.98 | -0.07 | 0.09 | 0.08 | -0.07 |
Ile | 0.98 | -0.06 | 0.04 | 0.06 | -0.11 |
Met | 0.96 | 0.05 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
Val | 0.98 | -0.09 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.00 |
Cys | 0.79 | -0.40 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.12 |
Ala | 0.76 | -0.42 | 0.01 | -0.39 | 0.14 |
Gly | 0.99 | -0.07 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
Glu | 0.87 | -0.04 | 0.49 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
Ser | 0.96 | -0.21 | 0.07 | -0.05 | 0.09 |
Thr | 0.99 | -0.15 | 0.04 | 0.05 | -0.05 |
Asp | 0.55 | -0.35 | 0.63 | 0.41 | -0.08 |
Ev | 15.08 | 6.98 | 4.53 | 3.09 | 2.09 |
CR(%) | 45.70 | 21.15 | 13.72 | 9.36 | 6.33 |
CCR(%) | 45.70 | 66.85 | 80.57 | 89.93 | 96.26 |
表3 不同品种桑葚的旋转因子载荷矩阵、特征值及方差贡献率
Table 3 Analysis of rotation factor load matrix, eigenvalue and variance contribution rate of different mulberry varieties
指标 Index | 主成分Principal component | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
MC | 0.38 | -0.23 | 0.11 | 0.76 | -0.33 |
AC | 0.15 | 0.16 | -0.28 | 0.90 | -0.26 |
TA | -0.05 | 0.98 | 0.13 | -0.05 | -0.08 |
TP | 0.22 | 0.40 | 0.80 | -0.37 | -0.01 |
Pr | 0.52 | -0.48 | 0.68 | -0.10 | -0.13 |
TF | 0.28 | 0.14 | 0.93 | -0.11 | 0.13 |
An | -0.10 | 0.78 | 0.57 | -0.01 | 0.20 |
LD | -0.04 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.05 | 0.47 |
LYSPA | -0.13 | 0.85 | -0.06 | 0.06 | 0.42 |
HPS | -0.11 | 0.45 | 0.75 | 0.22 | 0.36 |
ECS | -0.19 | 0.96 | -0.05 | -0.03 | -0.21 |
BECS | -0.19 | 0.96 | -0.05 | -0.03 | -0.21 |
JZS | 0.40 | -0.13 | 0.44 | 0.76 | 0.20 |
AWS | 0.23 | -0.09 | 0.17 | -0.66 | -0.30 |
KFS | -0.25 | 0.85 | 0.28 | 0.03 | 0.27 |
MSZS | -0.02 | -0.01 | 0.22 | -0.09 | 0.96 |
Pro | 0.79 | 0.57 | 0.17 | 0.00 | 0.05 |
Arg | 0.92 | -0.17 | 0.29 | 0.01 | -0.01 |
His | 0.98 | -0.02 | 0.09 | 0.05 | -0.15 |
Lys | 0.98 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.17 | -0.03 |
Phe | 0.97 | -0.20 | 0.04 | -0.04 | -0.08 |
Tyr | 0.91 | -0.32 | -0.08 | 0.18 | -0.08 |
Leu | 0.98 | -0.07 | 0.09 | 0.08 | -0.07 |
Ile | 0.98 | -0.06 | 0.04 | 0.06 | -0.11 |
Met | 0.96 | 0.05 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
Val | 0.98 | -0.09 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.00 |
Cys | 0.79 | -0.40 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.12 |
Ala | 0.76 | -0.42 | 0.01 | -0.39 | 0.14 |
Gly | 0.99 | -0.07 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
Glu | 0.87 | -0.04 | 0.49 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
Ser | 0.96 | -0.21 | 0.07 | -0.05 | 0.09 |
Thr | 0.99 | -0.15 | 0.04 | 0.05 | -0.05 |
Asp | 0.55 | -0.35 | 0.63 | 0.41 | -0.08 |
Ev | 15.08 | 6.98 | 4.53 | 3.09 | 2.09 |
CR(%) | 45.70 | 21.15 | 13.72 | 9.36 | 6.33 |
CCR(%) | 45.70 | 66.85 | 80.57 | 89.93 | 96.26 |
性状 Character | 主成分Principal component | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
MC | -0.019 | -0.024 | 0.074 | 0.240 | -0.167 |
AC | 0.005 | 0.056 | -0.062 | 0.289 | -0.092 |
TA | 0.026 | 0.162 | -0.005 | -0.019 | -0.092 |
TPh | -0.013 | 0.031 | 0.208 | -0.125 | -0.129 |
TPr | -0.026 | -0.099 | 0.220 | -0.043 | -0.137 |
TF | -0.029 | -0.023 | 0.242 | -0.035 | -0.056 |
An | -0.010 | 0.091 | 0.109 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
LD | -0.002 | 0.056 | 0.078 | 0.030 | 0.170 |
LYSPA | 0.045 | 0.134 | -0.121 | 0.027 | 0.220 |
HPS | -0.037 | 0.017 | 0.164 | 0.087 | 0.086 |
ECS | 0.018 | 0.165 | -0.028 | -0.011 | -0.146 |
BECS | 0.018 | 0.165 | -0.028 | -0.011 | -0.146 |
JZS | -0.014 | -0.038 | 0.093 | 0.250 | 0.082 |
AWS | 0.010 | -0.007 | 0.079 | -0.231 | -0.195 |
KFS | 0.004 | 0.112 | 0.015 | 0.021 | 0.084 |
MSZS | 0.025 | -0.041 | -0.067 | -0.013 | 0.511 |
Pro | 0.086 | 0.119 | -0.046 | -0.022 | 0.022 |
Arg | 0.055 | -0.008 | 0.035 | -0.020 | -0.005 |
His | 0.074 | 0.036 | -0.022 | -0.014 | -0.053 |
Lys | 0.082 | 0.040 | -0.058 | 0.029 | 0.025 |
Phe | 0.075 | 0.007 | -0.038 | -0.040 | -0.004 |
Tyr | 0.068 | -0.010 | -0.060 | 0.035 | 0.018 |
Leu | 0.075 | 0.026 | -0.031 | -0.001 | -0.009 |
Ile | 0.078 | 0.032 | -0.042 | -0.009 | -0.023 |
Met | 0.070 | 0.034 | 0.001 | -0.006 | 0.006 |
Val | 0.079 | 0.022 | -0.050 | 0.013 | 0.038 |
Cys | 0.044 | -0.048 | -0.004 | 0.058 | 0.094 |
Ala | 0.068 | -0.043 | -0.053 | -0.148 | 0.116 |
Gly | 0.083 | 0.027 | -0.051 | -0.018 | 0.036 |
Glu | 0.041 | 0.000 | 0.090 | -0.013 | -0.030 |
Ser | 0.080 | -0.002 | -0.050 | -0.042 | 0.088 |
Thr | 0.078 | 0.015 | -0.045 | -0.011 | 0.012 |
Asp | -0.026 | -0.074 | 0.190 | 0.128 | -0.094 |
表4 不同品种桑葚营养品质主成分得分系数矩阵
Table 4 Principal component score coefficient matrix of nutritional quality of different mulberry varieties
性状 Character | 主成分Principal component | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
MC | -0.019 | -0.024 | 0.074 | 0.240 | -0.167 |
AC | 0.005 | 0.056 | -0.062 | 0.289 | -0.092 |
TA | 0.026 | 0.162 | -0.005 | -0.019 | -0.092 |
TPh | -0.013 | 0.031 | 0.208 | -0.125 | -0.129 |
TPr | -0.026 | -0.099 | 0.220 | -0.043 | -0.137 |
TF | -0.029 | -0.023 | 0.242 | -0.035 | -0.056 |
An | -0.010 | 0.091 | 0.109 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
LD | -0.002 | 0.056 | 0.078 | 0.030 | 0.170 |
LYSPA | 0.045 | 0.134 | -0.121 | 0.027 | 0.220 |
HPS | -0.037 | 0.017 | 0.164 | 0.087 | 0.086 |
ECS | 0.018 | 0.165 | -0.028 | -0.011 | -0.146 |
BECS | 0.018 | 0.165 | -0.028 | -0.011 | -0.146 |
JZS | -0.014 | -0.038 | 0.093 | 0.250 | 0.082 |
AWS | 0.010 | -0.007 | 0.079 | -0.231 | -0.195 |
KFS | 0.004 | 0.112 | 0.015 | 0.021 | 0.084 |
MSZS | 0.025 | -0.041 | -0.067 | -0.013 | 0.511 |
Pro | 0.086 | 0.119 | -0.046 | -0.022 | 0.022 |
Arg | 0.055 | -0.008 | 0.035 | -0.020 | -0.005 |
His | 0.074 | 0.036 | -0.022 | -0.014 | -0.053 |
Lys | 0.082 | 0.040 | -0.058 | 0.029 | 0.025 |
Phe | 0.075 | 0.007 | -0.038 | -0.040 | -0.004 |
Tyr | 0.068 | -0.010 | -0.060 | 0.035 | 0.018 |
Leu | 0.075 | 0.026 | -0.031 | -0.001 | -0.009 |
Ile | 0.078 | 0.032 | -0.042 | -0.009 | -0.023 |
Met | 0.070 | 0.034 | 0.001 | -0.006 | 0.006 |
Val | 0.079 | 0.022 | -0.050 | 0.013 | 0.038 |
Cys | 0.044 | -0.048 | -0.004 | 0.058 | 0.094 |
Ala | 0.068 | -0.043 | -0.053 | -0.148 | 0.116 |
Gly | 0.083 | 0.027 | -0.051 | -0.018 | 0.036 |
Glu | 0.041 | 0.000 | 0.090 | -0.013 | -0.030 |
Ser | 0.080 | -0.002 | -0.050 | -0.042 | 0.088 |
Thr | 0.078 | 0.015 | -0.045 | -0.011 | 0.012 |
Asp | -0.026 | -0.074 | 0.190 | 0.128 | -0.094 |
品种 Variety | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | D综 | 排序 Sorting |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
药桑 Medicinal mulberry | -0.46 | 2.37 | -0.11 | -0.07 | -0.52 | 0.24 | 4 |
黑桑 Black mulberry | 1.56 | -0.06 | -0.85 | 1.59 | -0.14 | 0.75 | 1 |
粉桑 Pink mulberry | -1.50 | -0.70 | -0.57 | -0.14 | -0.44 | -0.99 | 8 |
仟格俪桑 Qiange Lisang | -0.09 | -0.19 | -1.01 | -0.53 | 1.23 | -0.20 | 6 |
白桑 White mulberry | -0.42 | -0.63 | -0.77 | -0.06 | -0.15 | -0.46 | 7 |
山西黑桑 Shanxi black mulberry | -0.42 | -0.60 | 1.46 | 0.91 | -1.02 | -0.10 | 5 |
台湾黑桑 Taiwan black mulberry | 0.00 | 0.11 | 1.40 | 0.13 | 1.82 | 0.36 | 3 |
黑珍珠 Black pearl | 1.33 | -0.30 | 0.46 | -1.82 | -0.79 | 0.40 | 2 |
表5 不同品种桑葚营养品质综合评价得分与排名
Table 5 Comprehensive evaluation score and ranking of nutritional quality of different mulberry varieties
品种 Variety | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | D综 | 排序 Sorting |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
药桑 Medicinal mulberry | -0.46 | 2.37 | -0.11 | -0.07 | -0.52 | 0.24 | 4 |
黑桑 Black mulberry | 1.56 | -0.06 | -0.85 | 1.59 | -0.14 | 0.75 | 1 |
粉桑 Pink mulberry | -1.50 | -0.70 | -0.57 | -0.14 | -0.44 | -0.99 | 8 |
仟格俪桑 Qiange Lisang | -0.09 | -0.19 | -1.01 | -0.53 | 1.23 | -0.20 | 6 |
白桑 White mulberry | -0.42 | -0.63 | -0.77 | -0.06 | -0.15 | -0.46 | 7 |
山西黑桑 Shanxi black mulberry | -0.42 | -0.60 | 1.46 | 0.91 | -1.02 | -0.10 | 5 |
台湾黑桑 Taiwan black mulberry | 0.00 | 0.11 | 1.40 | 0.13 | 1.82 | 0.36 | 3 |
黑珍珠 Black pearl | 1.33 | -0.30 | 0.46 | -1.82 | -0.79 | 0.40 | 2 |
[1] | 黄新球, 杨文, 杨娟, 等. 云南省主要果用桑葚的营养品质及理化特性[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(21): 181-187. |
HUANG Xinqiu, YANG Wen, YANG Juan, et al. Nutritional quality and physicochemical properties of main fruit mulberries in Yunnan Province[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 49(21): 181-187. | |
[2] | 刘培刚, 朱燕, 徐璐珊, 等. 浙江主栽果桑品种品质性状评价[J]. 蚕桑通报, 2021, 52(4): 4-10. |
LIU Peigang, ZHU Yan, XU Lushan, et al. Evaluation of quality characters of main fruit mulberry varieties in Zhejiang[J]. Sericulture Bulletin, 2021, 52(4): 4-10. | |
[3] | Zhang H, Ma Z F, Luo X, et al. Effects of mulberry fruit (Morus alba L.) consumption on health outcomes: A mini-review[J]. Antioxidants, 2018, (7): 69. |
[4] |
Jiang Y, Nie W-J. Chemical properties in fruits of mulberry species from the Xinjiang province of china[J]. Food Chemistry, 2015, 174: 460-466.
DOI PMID |
[5] | Singh R, Bagchi A, Semwal A, et al. Traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology of Morus alba Linn.: A review[J]. Journal of Medicinal Plant Research, 2013, (7): 461-469. |
[6] | Wen P, Hu T-G, Linhardt R J, et al. Mulberry: A review of bioactive compounds and advanced processing technology[J]. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2019, 83: 138-158. |
[7] | Bhattacharjya D, Sadat A, Dam P, et al. Current concepts and prospects of mulberry fruits for nutraceutical and medicinal benefits[J]. Current Opinion in Food Science, 2021, 40. |
[8] | 新疆植物志编辑委员会. 新疆植物志[M]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆科技卫生出版社, 1992. |
Xinjiang Flora Editorial Committee. Flora of Xinjiang[M]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Science and Technology Health Publishing House, 1992. | |
[9] | 刘和洋, 伊萨尔古丽·艾合买提, 左少纯, 等. 新疆地区果桑引种试验研究[J]. 北方蚕业, 2015, 36(3): 24-27. |
LIU Heyang, Isarguri Ahmat, ZUO Shaochun, et al. Experimental study on introduction of Fruit Mulberry in Xinjiang[J]. Northern Sericulture, 2015, 36(3): 24-27. | |
[10] | 刘和洋, 印玉萍, 龚明, 等. 新疆抗逆性桑品种的筛选试验[J]. 北方蚕业, 2018, 39(1): 23-26. |
LIU Heyang, YIN Yuping, GONG Ming, et al. Screening experiment of stress-resistant mulberry varieties in Xinjiang[J]. Northern Sericulture, 2018, 39(1): 23-26. | |
[11] | 沈甜, 牛锐敏, 黄小晶, 等. 基于层次-关联度和主成分分析的无核鲜食葡萄品质评价[J]. 食品工业科技, 2021, 42(3): 53-60,67. |
SHEN Tian, NIU Ruimin, HUANG Xiaojing, et al. Quality evaluation of seedless table grape based on hierarchy-correlation degree and principal component analysis[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2021, 42(3): 53-60,67. | |
[12] | 李慧, 魏天军. 基于主成分和灰色关联度分析的鲜食枣果实品质评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2021, 39(1): 60-67. |
LI Hui, WEI Tianjun. Fruit quality evaluation of fresh jujube based on principal component and grey correlation analysis[J]. Economic Forest Research, 2021, 39(1): 60-67. | |
[13] | 张芳, 王晓红, 罗泽虎, 等. 贵州省野生桑果实品质指标的主成分和聚类分析[J/OL]. 果树学报.https://doi.org/10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20210367 |
ZHANG Fang, WANG Xiaohong, LUO Zehu, et al. Principal component and cluster analysis of wild mulberry fruit quality index in Guizhou Province[J/OL]. Journal of Fruit Trees.https://doi.org/10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20210367 | |
[14] | 赵珮, 黄传书, 唐小平, 等. 桑椹品质评价的主要指标及模型研究[J]. 蚕业科学, 2020, 46(3): 295-305. |
ZHAO Pei, HUANG Chuanshu, TANG Xiaoping, et al. Study on the main index and model of mulberry quality evaluation[J]. Sericulture Science, 2020, 46(3): 295-305. | |
[15] | 李芳红, 张晓煜, 冯蕊, 等. 陕甘宁地区红富士苹果品质评价[J]. 北方园艺, 2021,(19): 29-36. |
LI Fanghong, ZHANG Xiaoyu, FENG Rui, et al. Quality Evaluation of Red Fuji Apple in Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia area[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2021,(19): 29-36. | |
[16] | 李明玥, 石国朝, 朱家瑞, 等. 冬枣果实品质综合评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2021, 39(4): 256-263. |
LI Mingyue, SHI Guochao, ZHU Jiarui, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality of winter jujube[J]. Economic Forest Research, 2021, 39(4): 256-263. | |
[17] | 王天果, 胡会刚, 孙德权, 等. 5个新品系香蕉的果实品质分析及模糊综合评判[J]. 热带作物学报, 2022, 43(2): 271-276. |
WANG Tianguo, HU Huigang, SUN Dequan, et al. Fruit quality analysis and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of five new banana strains[J]. Journal of Tropical Crops, 2022, 43(2): 271-276. | |
[18] | GB 5009.3-2016.食品安全国家标准食品中水分的测定[S]. |
GB 5009.3-2016.determination of moisture in national standard food[S]. | |
[19] | GB 5009.4-2016.食品安全国家标准食品中灰分的测定[S]. |
GB 5009.4-2016.Determination of Ash in National Standard Food[S]. | |
[20] | GB/T 12456-2021.食品安全国家标准食品中总酸的测定[S]. |
GB/T 12456-2021.Determination of Total Acid in Food Safety National Standard Food[S]. | |
[21] | 李会端, 崔旭, 耿仕香. 昭通金帅苹果中总黄酮提取及抗氧化研究[J]. 楚雄师范学院学报, 2015, 30(3): 26-33. |
LI Huidan, CUI Xu, GENG Shixiang. Study on extraction and antioxidation of total flavonoids from Zhaotong Jinshuai apple[J]. Journal of Chuxiong Normal University, 2015, 30(3): 26-33. | |
[22] | 吴晓敏, 韩利文, 王希敏, 等. 不同产地新鲜紫色马铃薯中花色苷及总酚的含量测定[J]. 中国食物与营养, 2014, 20(5): 24-26. |
WU Xiaomin, HAN Liwen, WANG Ximin, et al. Determination of anthocyanins and total phenols in fresh purple potatoes from different areas[J]. Chinese Food and Nutrition, 2014, 20(5): 24-26. | |
[23] | GB 5009.5-2016.食品安全国家标准食品中蛋白质的测定[S]. |
GB 5009.5-2016.State Food and Drug Administration.determination of protein in Food Safety National Standard Food[S]. | |
[24] | DB12/T 885-2019.植物提取物中原花青素的测定紫外/可见分光光度法[S]. |
DB12/T 885-2019.Tianjin Local Standard: Determination of proanthocyanidins in plant extracts by UV/visible spectrophotometry[S]. | |
[25] | 马帅, 王纪华, 高媛, 等. 超高效液相色谱-串联质谱法同时测定5个产地花椰菜和西兰花中的23种酚酸类化合物[J]. 食品科学, 2018, 39(4): 176-187. |
MA Shuai, WANG Jihua, GAO Yuan, et al. Simultaneous determination of 23 phenolic acids in cauliflower and broccoli from 5 producing areas by ultra high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry[J]. Food Science, 2018, 39(4): 176-187. | |
[26] | GB 5009.124-2016.食品安全国家标准食品中氨基酸的测定[S]. |
GB 5009.124-2016.Determination of Amino Acids in Food Safety National Standard Food[S]. | |
[27] |
Wang Z, Lin Y, Li T, et al. Phenolic profiles and antioxidant capacities of mulberry (Morus atropurpurea Roxb.) juices from different cultivars[J]. International Journal of Food Properties, 2019, 22: 1340-1352.
DOI URL |
[28] |
Orhan E. Chemical composition of white (Morus alba), red (Morus Rubra), and black (Morus nigra) mulberry fruits[J]. Food Chemistry, 2007, 103: 1380-1384.
DOI URL |
[29] | 彭赛男. 桑葚中主要化学成分的研究[D]. 西安: 西北大学, 2019. |
PENG Sainan. Studies on the main chemical constituents of mulberry[D]. Xi'an: Northwest University, 2019. | |
[30] | Makhoul G, Mahfoud H, Baroudi H. Some chemical characteristics of white (Morus alba L) and black (Morus nigra L) mulberry phenotypes in tartussyria[J]. International Journal of Agriculture & Environmental Science, 2017, 4: 54-63. |
[31] | 宋志姣, 樊金欣, 李德焕, 等. 不同果桑品种加工品质评价[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(15): 134-139. |
SONG Zhijiao, FAN Jinxin, LI Dehuan, et al. Evaluation of processing quality of different fruit mulberry varieties[J]. Food and Fermentation Industry, 2020, 46(15): 134-139. | |
[32] | 王香君, 吴劲轩, 夏川林, 等. 不同品种桑椹加工品质比较研究[J]. 中国酿造, 2019, 38(3): 139-143. |
WANG Xiangjun, WU Jinxuan, XIA Chuanlin, et al. Comparative study on processing quality of different mulberry varieties[J]. Chinese Brewing, 2019, 38(3): 139-143. | |
[33] | 贾漫丽, 李娜, 王彬彬, 等. 9个品种桑果营养、香气成分与抗氧化活性评价[J]. 果树学报, 2022, 39(2): 221-231. |
JIA Manli, LI Na, WANG Binbin, et al. Evaluation of nutrition, aroma components and antioxidant activity of 9 mulberry varieties[J]. Journal of Fruit Trees, 2022, 39(2): 221-231. | |
[34] | 汪荷澄, 蒲云峰, 侯旭杰. 新疆不同桑葚品种营养品质分析[J]. 农产品加工, 2021(4): 54-56. |
WANG Hecheng, PU Yunfeng, HOU Xujie. Analysis of nutritional quality of different mulberry varieties in Xinjiang[J]. Processing of Agricultural Products, 2021(4): 54-56. | |
[35] | 邓真华, 郑蜀云, 黄金枝, 等. 阿克陶引种栽培的5个果桑品种桑葚氨基酸分析与评价[J]. 食品工业科技, 2020, 41(17): 297-301,307. |
DENG Zhenhua, ZHENG Shuyun, HUANG Jinzhi, et al. Analysis and evaluation of amino acids in mulberry of 5 mulberry varieties introduced by Aktao[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2020, 41(17): 297-301,307. | |
[36] | 李勋兰, 魏召新, 彭芳芳, 等. 35份果桑资源果实品质分析与综合评价[J]. 果树学报, 2022, 39(3): 332-342. |
LI Xunlan, WEI Zhaoxin, PENG Fangfang, et al. Analysis and comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality of 35 mulberry resources[J]. Journal of fruit trees, 2022, 39(3): 332-342. | |
[37] | 李长城, 张志刚, 刘玉芳, 等. 吐鲁番地区12个桑葚品种的品质分析及评价[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(9): 1892-1897. |
LI Changcheng, ZHANG Zhigang, LIU Yufang, et al. Quality analysis and evaluation of 12 mulberry varieties in Turpan[J]. Southwest Agricultural Journal, 2020, 33(9): 1892-1897. | |
[38] |
张涛, 宋海云, 贺鹏, 等. 不同澳洲坚果种质果仁氨基酸组成分析与评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(1): 119-127.
DOI |
ZHANG Tao, SONG Haiyun, HE Peng, et al. Analysis and evaluation of amino acid composition in kernels of different macadamia nut germplasm[J]. China Agricultural Science and Technology Guide, 2022, 24(1): 119-127. |
[1] | 杨寒珺, 黄星宇, 王旭哲, 张凤华, 鲁为华, 张凡凡. 田间晾晒时间对饲用油菜发酵品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1433-1441. |
[2] | 姚庆, 阿里别里根·哈孜太, 杨明花, 李强, 苗昊翠, 崔宏亮. 藜麦种子对萌发温度的响应及低温胁迫萌发能力鉴定[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1141-1149. |
[3] | 孙小惠, 李静, 玛尔哈巴·帕尔哈提, 王贤, 马玉娥, 汪晖, 朱靖蓉. 不同等级阿克苏冰糖心苹果在低温贮藏条件下营养成分变化[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1181-1189. |
[4] | 杨明花, 刘强, 廖必勇, 彭云承, 布阿依夏木·那曼提, 达吾来·杰克山. 不完全双列杂交玉米组合抗倒伏综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 832-840. |
[5] | 徐鹏飞, 王旭哲, 杨寒珺, 黄星宇, 付东青, $\boxed{\hbox{鲁为华}}$, 孙新文. 添加糖蜜对棉秆微贮品质及有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 715-726. |
[6] | 马旭, 赵英, 韩炜, 武胜利, 韩晓燕. 14种沙棘果实中氨基酸组成的主成分分析与综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 378-388. |
[7] | 马辉, 戴路, 李星星, 阿布都艾尼·阿布都维力, 艾麦尔江·阿布力提甫, 田立文, 欧欢. 不同化学药剂处理对长绒棉封顶效果的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2601-2608. |
[8] | 布哈丽且木·阿不力孜, 张燕红, 袁杰, 赵志强, 文孝荣, 杜孝敬, 王奉斌, 吕玉平, 阿曼古丽·艾孜子. 新疆优质丰产香型水稻品种筛选与评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2694-2703. |
[9] | 柳萍, 张凯, 马超, 张慧, 杨川. 有机物料对不同磷肥用量条件下棉田综合效益评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(10): 2521-2531. |
[10] | 许俊锋, 杨蓉, 詹发强, 侯敏, 包慧芳, 王宁, 龙宣杞, 张志东, 崔卫东. 有机-无机液体复合肥功能菌筛选及对设施番茄品质、生理活性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(7): 1758-1766. |
[11] | 李枭, 郭栋良, 李恭泽, 薛敏, 江海霞, 叶佳丽, 谢丽琼. 亚麻萌发期耐盐鉴定体系优化及150份种质耐盐性综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(6): 1438-1449. |
[12] | 李江艳, 张鲜花, 袁小强, 袁惠, 刘雯欣. 干旱胁迫下鸭茅苗期生长特性及耗水规律[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(6): 1502-1512. |
[13] | 郭江龙, 高占林, 刘振宇, 窦亚楠, 安静杰, 刘忠宽, 党志红, 李耀发. 苜蓿盲蝽对紫花苜蓿植株生长和营养品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(4): 1001-1008. |
[14] | 杨璐, 范少丽, 李宏, 程平, 张志刚. 不同澄清剂对桑葚果酒品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(4): 863-873. |
[15] | 杨璐, 范少丽, 李宏, 程平, 张志刚. 基于响应面法优化桑葚果酒主发酵工艺及其品质评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(3): 634-644. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||