Tantapakul Cholpisut, Krobthong Sucheewin, Jakkaew Prasara, Sittisaree Wattanapong, Aonbangkhen Chanat, Yingchutrakul Yodying
The Research Unit of Natural Product Utilization, School of Science, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat 80160, Thailand.
Center of Excellence in Natural Products Chemistry (CENP), Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Foods. 2023 Oct 24;12(21):3893. doi: 10.3390/foods12213893.
Coffee, a widely consumed beverage worldwide, undergoes postharvest methods that influence its physicochemical characteristics, while roasting modulates its composition, affecting sensory attributes. This study investigates the impact of distinct postharvest methods (washed and natural) on the antidiabetic activities, including α-amylase and DPP4, as well as the phytochemical profiling of geological indicator (GI) coffee beans ( L.). The results indicate notable differences in antidiabetic activity and phytochemical profiles between washed and natural processing methods. Coffee beans processed naturally exhibit significant suppression of DPP4 and α-amylase activities (-value < 0.01) compared to beans processed using the washed technique. TLC profiling using the ratios of the solvent systems of ethyl acetate/dichloromethane (DCM) and acetone/DCM as separation solvents reveals dominant spots for the washed technique. LC-MS/MS-based untargeted metabolomics analysis using principle component analysis (PCA) clearly segregates samples processed by the natural and washed techniques without any overlap region. A total of 1114 phytochemicals, including amino acids and short peptides, are annotated. The natural processing of coffee beans has been shown to yield a slightly higher content of chlorogenic acid (CGA) compared to the washed processing method. Our findings highlight the distinct bioactivities and phytochemical compositions of GI coffee beans processed using different techniques. This information can guide consumers in choosing coffee processing methods that offer potential benefits in terms of alternative treatment for diabetes.
咖啡是全球广泛消费的饮品,其收获后处理方法会影响其物理化学特性,而烘焙则会调节其成分,进而影响感官属性。本研究调查了不同收获后处理方法(水洗和日晒)对包括α-淀粉酶和二肽基肽酶4(DPP4)在内的抗糖尿病活性以及地质指示(GI)咖啡豆( )的植物化学特征的影响。结果表明,水洗和日晒处理方法在抗糖尿病活性和植物化学特征方面存在显著差异。与采用水洗技术处理的咖啡豆相比,日晒处理的咖啡豆对DPP4和α-淀粉酶活性具有显著抑制作用(-值<0.01)。以乙酸乙酯/二氯甲烷(DCM)和丙酮/DCM的溶剂系统比例作为分离溶剂的薄层色谱分析显示,水洗技术有主要斑点。基于液相色谱-串联质谱(LC-MS/MS)的非靶向代谢组学分析使用主成分分析(PCA)清晰地将日晒和水洗技术处理的样品区分开来,没有任何重叠区域。总共注释了1114种植物化学物质,包括氨基酸和短肽。结果表明,与水洗处理方法相比,咖啡豆的日晒处理产生的绿原酸(CGA)含量略高。我们的研究结果突出了采用不同技术处理的GI咖啡豆具有不同的生物活性和植物化学组成。这些信息可以指导消费者选择在糖尿病替代治疗方面具有潜在益处的咖啡加工方法。