Where To Buy Soursop Fruit In Philadelphia
The seeds of a soursop tree are highly toxic, which leads some gardeners to believe that the fruits are not safe to eat. However, that is not the case. While you should avoid eating the seeds at all costs, it is entirely safe to eat the white flesh you find within the fruit. This flesh has an intriguing tropical flavor that can be hard to describe, but most people find it to be delicious.
where to buy soursop fruit in philadelphia
One of the reasons why so many people love the soursop tree is that it not only produces tasty fruits but also does so in a relatively short time frame. In just over three years, you can expect a new soursop tree to begin developing viable fruits that will make for a good harvest. The relatively fast growth rate of this plant allows it to increase its size and fruit quantity faster than you might expect.
As an herbal drink, soursop tea can be combined with other ingredients to add flavor and additional health benefits. For example, some add fruit or herbal tea blends while others mix in matcha or spices.
There are many ways to ingest soursop, from smoothies to juices, but tea is by far the most popular choice. By drinking one to three cups a day, individuals can safely reap the benefits of the fruit without majorly changing their diets or making separate meals.
You may know the soursop fruit as graviola, guanabana, or guyabano. It all relates the same tree and fruit, that has been used by generations of people as a delicious ingredient or a soothing beverage - some people just love the taste and eat it for pleasure and enjoyment. Others consume it for its nutrients.
The rapid softening during postharvest storage is one of the most critical problems that avoid the commercialization of this fruit. The most used method to preserve soursop and prevent its softening is refrigeration, with which the shelf life has been extended up to 8 days [4]. Moreover, other factors have also reduced the marketing to international markets such as irregular production, low fruit quality, and pathogen attack [5]. In this regard, fruits are attacked by the fungi Colletotrichum spp., which produce a disease called anthracnose [6]. Álvarez et al. [7] identified several species of Colletotrichum, such as C. theobromicola, C. tropicale, C. siamense, and C. gloeosporioides, among others in different tissues of soursop by PCR using the sequences of the ITS regions.
On the other hand, the plants have generated defense mechanisms that allow them to tolerate the damages caused by pathogens [8]. However, when the organisms exceeded the structural defense mechanisms of the plant, a second defense barrier associated with the translation of the pathogen-induced signals are activated in messages that trigger defense strategies specific to plant immunity [9]. One of these mechanisms is the induction of systemic defense that includes the production of secondary metabolites such as phenols, flavonoids, tannins, saponins, anthocyanins, acetogenins, lignins, proteinase inhibitors, lectins, defensins, volatile, phytoalexins (including isoflavonoids), terpenoids, and alkaloids [10], which have an essential role in biotic interactions such as chemical defense against herbivores and pathogens [11]. Nevertheless, few reports exist that evaluate the secondary metabolisms as an anthracnose resistance defense mechanism in the soursop fruit-pathogen interaction.
Due to the abovementioned, the objective of the present work was to evaluate the pathogenic damage and the effect of the pathogens C. siamense and C. gloeosporioides on the response of soursop fruits in the phytochemical content and antioxidant activity.
C. gloeosporioides is considered the principal causative agent of anthracnose in soursop [29], while C. siamense has been described recently for this fruit [7]. Possibly, this is because C. gloeosporioides has developed strategies to avoid the defense mechanisms of the fruit. In contrast, C. siamense has not yet fully developed these abilities, which may cause soursop fruits to be more sensitive to the presence of this fungus, triggering biochemical responses and the production of different types of metabolites, as it is shown in later results.
The phytochemical profile results were positive for the presence of total soluble phenols, saponins, flavonoids, and phytosterols in the three evaluated treatments (control fruits, fruits inoculated with C. gloeosporioides, and fruits inoculated with C. siamense) (Table 1). The presence of phenols, saponins, flavonoids, and phytosterols has been reported in ethanolic and aqueous extracts of soursop fruits [30]. These compounds have been previously reported by their antibacterial and antifungal activities [31]. The quantitative analysis of the compounds is shown in the following sections.
Balois-Morales et al. [15] mentioned that when abiotic factors stress the vegetative tissues, exists an accumulation of phenolic compounds. The high values obtained in this investigation indicate that the increase in the concentration of phenols is a response to stress, which can be abiotic or biotic [33], in this work by the presence of the pathogens. That involves the production of biochemical inhibitors (phenolic compounds) for the damage caused by pathogens in soursop fruits. Kim et al. [34] mentioned that phenols content could be associated with the infection process of the pathogen and the characteristics of defense materials such as phytoanthropin.
The increase in the concentration of phenolic compounds in soursop fruits can cause cell shrinkage, integrity loss of cell wall and cell membrane and the inhibition of the activity of essential enzymes in the metabolism of pathogens [35].
The ability to form complexes with sterols, proteins, and membrane phospholipids represents the primary mechanism of antifungal activity of saponins [44]. The saponins are within the constitutive defenses of the plants, which represent a chemical barrier [45]. The above could explain the reason for the early response in the soursop fruits inoculated with the pathogens.
The DPPH method can trap the DPPH radical. The increase in this specific activity is given by the rise in the concentration of phenolic compounds on the third and fifth day of storage in all treatments. This increase in antioxidant activity in the soursop fruits could be related to the rise of phenolic compounds because they can neutralize free radicals by the presence and action of hydroxyl groups of phenolic compounds [46].
The increase of antioxidant activity may be related to the secondary responses of soursop fruits to defend against an infective process, which includes an elevation of the levels of constitutive defensive toxins, of pathogen receptors and structural reinforcement of cell walls in tissues. The process determines a substantial change in the metabolic profile of the active cells [52].
The marked responses in the fruits inoculated with C. siamense (early and late response) in comparison with those inoculated with C. gloeosporioides and the control fruits, whether in phytochemicals or antioxidant activity, might be related to the fact that the soursop presents higher resistance to the attack of C. siamense, so that its response mechanism is more sensitive.
The induction of the quercetin production on day one indicates recognition of C. siamense by the fruits and the activation of its defense mechanism. Wilkinson et al. [56] mention that the first inducible defenses are faster and stronger against pathogen attack, which could be related to the low virulence of C. siamense against soursop fruit. Quercetin has been reported as a compound with antifungal activity [57], and it is produced as a strategy of plant defense against phytopathogenic fungi [58]. Likewise, quercetin can cause severe damage to fungi as Penicillium expansum, and this compound can increase defense proteins in the plants [57].
Soursop fruits had a response to the attack of pathogens during ripening at the physicochemical and oxidative levels, which are associated with the production of compounds that, in high concentrations, inhibit the development of the pathogens. Both pathogens cause an early response in the fruit, increasing the concentration of saponins and decreasing the production of quercetin 3-O-glucoside. C. siamense decreased total soluble phenols and flavonoids and increased antiradical activity DPPH. C. gloeosporioides decreased the levels of kaempferol 3-O-rutoside and ferulic acid. On the other hand, both pathogens cause a late response in soursop fruits decreasing the concentration of saponins and increasing flavonoids and phytosterols. C. siamense increased total soluble phenols, p-coumaric acid, kaempferol, and antiradical activity FRAP. Also, C. gloeosporioides decreased the production of quercetin 3-O-glucoside. As well as, pathogens could produce compounds that inhibit the production of defense compounds by fruits, which could be related to an increase of disease severity. The soursop fruits showed higher sensitivity to the attack of C. siamense, which could be related to higher resistance to the attack of this pathogen compared to C. gloeosporioides.
Objective: The present study aims to formulate instant granule drink from soursop (Anonna muricata Linn) fruit juice and investigate its antihypertensive effect on Sprague-Dawley rats suffer from level 1 hypertensive disease.
Methods: Soursop instant granule was formulated using the wet granulation method, comprising of soursop fruit juice as the main ingredient with the addition of natrium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), citric acid, saccharalose, and maltodextrin as excipient and flavoring substances. The obtained granule, then administered orally to natrium chloride (NaCl)-induced hypertensive Sprague-Dawley rats and the systolic and diastolic blood pressure of rats was measured subsequently on the day 4th, 8th, 11th and 14th of treatment. 041b061a72