Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Screening tea hybrid with abundant anthocyanins and investigating the effect of tea processing on foliar anthocyanins in tea Cover

Screening tea hybrid with abundant anthocyanins and investigating the effect of tea processing on foliar anthocyanins in tea

Folia Horticulturae
Volume 32 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)
By: ,  ,  ,  ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Nov 2020
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Experimental procedure and the production of tested hybrids. Eight hybrids were obtained by hybridisation with ‘ZJ’ and ‘WNZ’. During 2014–2016, the phenological phase and winter resistance of the hybrids with purple leaves were observed and no further observations of green leaf hybrids were made. ‘B-1’ was not included in the yield test and chemical test because its sprouting time was later than its female parent ‘ZJ’.

Figure 2

Tea shoot colour of the tested hybrids and their parents. From the hybridisation with female parent ‘ZJ’ and male parent ‘WNZ’, eight hybrids were obtained, of which four grew green leaves and the other four grew purple leaves. The hybrids were categorised by their leaf colour, with ‘A’ referring to light purple leaf hybrid, ‘B’ referring to dark purple leaf hybrid, ‘C’ referring to light green leaf hybrid and ‘D’ referring to deep green leaf hybrid.

Figure 3

Scoring system for identifying development stages of tea shoots. The dormant overwintered bud was scored Zero point. When the overwintered bud broke dormancy and began to swell, it scored 0.5 point. When the scale leaf was opened, it scored 1.0 point. When the fish leaf was initially opened, it scored 1.5 point and as the fish leaf was fully opened, it scored 2.0 point. The rest was scored by analogy.

Table 1

Shoot development score

Cultivars or hybridsZJWNZA-1B-1B-2B-3
201520162015201620152016201520162015201620152016
10th March001.3 ± 0.32.2 ± 0.40.2 ± 0.20.6 ± 0.4000000
15th March002 ± 0.32.8 ± 0.40.7 ± 0.31.1 ± 0.4000.6 ± 0.30.5 ± 0.30.4 ± 0.20.3 ± 0.3
20th March002.5 ± 0.33.4 ± 0.41.2 ± 0.31.7 ± 0.2001.1 ± 0.31.3 ± 0.40.9 ± 0.20.9 ± 0.3
25th March0.4 ± 0.20.4 ± 0.53 ± 0.34.4 ± 0.31.7 ± 0.32.2 ± 0.30.7 ± 0.20.3 ± 0.31.6 ± 0.32 ± 0.41.4 ± 0.31.5 ± 0.4
30th March0.9 ± 0.20.8 ± 0.33.7 ± 0.25 ± 0.32.2 ± 0.32.9 ± 0.41.2 ± 0.30.8 ± 0.32.2 ± 0.22.7 ± 0.22.1 ± 0.32 ± 0.4
4th April1.9 ± 0.21.3 ± 0.34.7 ± 0.35.7 ± 0.42.9 ± 0.33.4 ± 0.51.9 ± 0.31.3 ± 0.33.3 ± 0.43.3 ± 0.43.1 ± 0.52.5 ± 0.4
9th April3 ± 0.32.5 ± 0.35.7 ± 0.36.1 ± 0.44 ± 0.34.3 ± 0.52.9 ± 0.32.5 ± 0.44.3 ± 0.44.5 ± 0.44.2 ± 0.53.6 ± 0.5
14th April4.2 ± 0.34.5 ± 0.46.2 ± 0.36.3 ± 0.55 ± 0.35.5 ± 0.34 ± 0.33.7 ± 0.45.3 ± 0.45.8 ± 0.45.3 ± 0.55.5 ± 0.4
Table 2

Fresh leaf yield (g · block−1, mean ± SD)*

YearZJB-2B-3WNZA-1
20182,133.0 ± 68.5 a2,097.7 ± 56.4 b1,986.7 ± 60 c1,913.7 ± 75 d1,798.3 ± 50.4 e
20192,551.3 ± 43 a2,564.3 ± 39.1 a2,415.7 ± 41.5 b2,316.3 ± 38.6 c2,190.3 ± 42.5 d

* The data marked with different alphabetic lowercase letters in the same row were significantly different at p < 0.05 (n = 3).

Figure 4

HPLC profile of anthocyanins. 1. Pelargonidin 3,5-di-O-glucoside; 2. cyanidin 3-O-galactoside; 3. cyanidin 3-O-glucoside; 4. delphinidin; 5. cyanidine; 6. pelargonidin; 7. peonidin; 8. malvidin; peaks A–D were not identified owing to lack of reference compounds.

Table 3

The concentration of anthocyanins in fresh tea leaves (μg · g−1, FW)*

CultivarPelargonidin 3,5-di-O-glucosideCyanidin 3-O-galactosideCyanidin 3-O-glucosideDelphinidinCyanidinePelargonidinPeonidinMalvidinTotal
A1925.63 ± 91.19 b211.66 ± 21.50 c0.48 ± 0.02 b18.56 ± 5.1 0ab12.22 ± 1.37 ab741.67 ± 17.58 a0.21 ± 0.18 b1,036.21 ± 36.87 b2,946.64 ± 173.45 c
B-21,489.46 ± 49.93 a494.38 ± 4.13 a151.32 ± 4.92 a20.08 ± 0.84 ab17.77 ± 2.60 ab808.29 ± 1.26 a2.19 ± 0.18 a1,315.06 ± 7.85 a4,298.55 ± 53.49 a
B-31,413.12 ± 101.23 a389.09 ± 28.98 b177.63 ± 15.87 a17.07 ± 0.28 ab12.93 ± 1.55 ab571.11 ± 32.08 b3.23 ± 0.74 a1,084.93 ± 69.14 b3,669.12 ± 249.87 b
WNZ170.25 ± 16.51 c58.09 ± 2.97 d1.12 ± 0.15 b6.89 ± 0.21 b4.29 ± 0.12 b70.79 ± 6.66 d0.19 ± 0.05 b159.26 ± 13.67 c470.88 ± 39.82 d
ZJ1,337.24 ± 38.00 a385.31 ± 18.83 b150.48 ± 6.84 a35.80 ± 12.89 a26.98 ± 8.97 a461.33 ± 30.89 c0.74 ± 0.20b938.94 ± 79.95 b3,336.82 ± 152.45 bc

* The data marked with different lowercase letters in the same column were significantly different at p < 0.05 (n = 2).

Figure 5

HPLC profile of catechins and caffeine references. 1. theobromine; 2. gallocatechin (GC); 3. theophylline; 4. epigallocatechin (EGC); 5. theacrine; 6. catechin (C); 7. caffeine; 8. epicatechin (EC); 9. epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG); 10. gallocatechin gallate (GCG); 11. epicatechin gallate (ECG); 12. catechin gallate (CG).

Table 4

Contents of caffeine and catechins in various hybrids and cultivars (mg · g−1, FW)*

CultivarCaffeineGCEGCCECEGCGGCGECGCGTotal Catechins
A-18.85 ± 0.02 b2.83 ± 0.03 a6.13 ± 0.14 b2.37 ± 0.02 a9.82 ± 0.08 a8.19 ± 0.21 c0.25 ± 0.01 c14.06 ± 0.15 b0.19 ± 0.01 c43.84 ± 0.66 b
B-28.78 ± 0.09 b1.29 ± 0.03 c4.88 ± 0.12 c0.69 ± 0.04 d3.77 ± 0.12 c5.71 ± 0.39 e2.47 ± 0.16 a6.08 ± 0.43 e0.31 ± 0.07 b25.19 ± 1.36 d
B-39.18 ± 0.04 a2.12 ± 0.39 b6.62 ± 0.81 b0.67 ± 0.04 d6.43 ± 0.04 c11.49 ± 0.33 b0.23 ± 0.00 c8.21 ± 0.02 d0.07 ± 0.00 d35.84 ± 1.59 c
WNZ8.62 ± 0.08 b1.32 ± 0.05 c4.04 ± 0.17 c1.06 ± 0.07 c9.91 ± 0.63 a6.49 ± 0.33 d0.13 ± 0.00 c12.11 ± 0.90 c0.05 ± 0.00 d35.11 ± 2.16 c
ZJ9.18 ± 0.25 a2.98 ± 0.04 a8.30 ± 0.06 a1.95 ± 0.01 b8.45 ± 0.05 b23.73 ± 0.52 a0.83 ± 0.02 b17.27 ± 0.32 a1.62 ± 0.03 a65.13 ± 0.92 a

* The data marked with different lowercase letters in a same column were significantly different at p < 0.05 (n = 2).

Table 5

Content of amino acids and the ratio of catechins to amino acids (mean ± SD)*

CultivarAmino acids (mg · g−1, FW)C/A ratio
A-19.80 ± 0.20 a4.47 ± 0.13 bc
B-26.10 ± 0.00 c4.12 ± 0.23 c
B-38.00 ± 0.30 b4.48 ± 0.04 bc
WNZ7.30 ± 0.50 b4.80 ± 0.03 b
ZJ8.40 ± 0.30 b7.75 ± 0.14 a

* The data marked with different lowercase letters in the same column were significantly different at p < 0.05 (n = 3).

Figure 6

The total content of anthocyanins in fresh leaf, green tea and black tea. The data marked with different lower case alphabetic letters were significantly different at p < 0.05 (n = 3).

Figure 7

Changes in the total content of anthocyanins during black tea processing using leaves of hybrid ‘B-2’. The data marked with different lower case alphabetic letters were significantly different at p < 0.05 (n = 3).

Figure 8

Changes in the total content of anthocyanins during black tea processing using leaves of cultivar ‘WNZ’. The data marked with different lower case alphabetic letters were significantly different at p < 0.05 (n = 3).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2020-0025 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 279 - 290
Submitted on: Jul 4, 2020
Accepted on: Oct 1, 2020
Published on: Nov 6, 2020
Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
anthocyanins,
black tea,
Camellia sinensis,
fermentation,
green tea,
hybrid
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Plant science

© 2020 Jian-Guang Hu, Long-Jie Zhang, Yue-Yue Sheng, Kai-Rong Wang, Yun-Long Shi, Yue-Rong Liang, Xin-Qiang Zheng, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 32 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)
Previous article
Next article