Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Variations in the nutritional makeup of tomato and cherry tomato genotypes and their hybrids in both fresh and processed forms

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11768
Submitted
12 September 2025
Published
22-01-2026

Abstract

Tomato improvement is essential for enhancing processing quality and maximizing antioxidant retention in value-added products. This study aimed to evaluate compositional changes and nutrient retention in fresh and thermally processed fruits of diverse tomato genotypes, including double-cross hybrids derived from four single-cross parents and hybrids developed between purple and cherry tomato lines. Fresh tomatoes and thermally processed tomato puree samples were analysed for lycopene, β-carotene, ascorbic acid, anthocyanin, titratable acidity and total soluble solids (TSS). Highly significant genotypic variation was detected for all quality traits, indicating strong genetic control. PAN12023, a single-cross hybrid genotype, exhibited the highest TSS and lycopene content. Thermal processing led to substantial increases in lycopene levels (673.89 %), especially in purple × cherry and double-cross hybrids, while other nutrients generally declined. Among the hybrids, Bidhan Purple × Cherry Yellow Big Fruit showed the greatest retention of β-carotene, ascorbic acid, anthocyanin and titratable acidity despite processing losses. Standardizing appropriate thermal processing techniques and utilizing multi-parent hybridization can provide genetically diverse germplasm and support the breeding of improved tomato varieties with enhanced nutritional resilience. Overall, the results highlight the importance of genotype selection for developing nutrient-rich processed tomato products having a wide range of health benefits as well as maintaining the consumer preferences.

References

  1. 1. Jacob K, Periago MJ, Bohm V, Berruezo GR. Influence of lycopene and vitamin C from tomato juice on biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation. Br J Nutr. 2008;99(1):137-46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114507791894
  2. 2. VanEenwyk J, Davis FG, Bowen PE. Dietary and serum carotenoids and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer. 1991;48(1):34-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.2910480107
  3. 3. Hadley CW, Clinton SK, Schwartz SJ. Consumption of processed tomato products enhances plasma lycopene concentrations and reduces lipoprotein sensitivity to oxidative damage. J Nutr. 2003;133(3):727-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.3.727
  4. 4. Maggio A, Orsini F, Cascone P, De Pascale S, Barbieri G, Corrado G, et al. Systemic-dependent salinity tolerance in tomato: Convergence of abiotic and biotic stress responses. Physiol Plant. 2010;138(1):10-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2009.01292.x
  5. 5. Acharya B, Dutta S, Dutta S, Chattopadhyay A. Breeding tomato for improved processing quality, yield and dual disease tolerance. Int J Veg Sci. 2018;24(5):407-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315260.2018.1427648
  6. 6. Lee TC, Specca DS, Kader A, Janes H. Quality comparison of hydroponic tomatoes ripened on and off vine. J Food Sci. 2000;65(3):545-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2000.tb16045.x
  7. 7. Fernandes RH, da Silva DJH, Delazari FT, Lopes EA. Screening tomato hybrids for resistance to Fusarium wilt. Crop Breed Appl Biotechnol. 2022;22(4):e43352248. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-70332022v22n4a43
  8. 8. Jones CM, Mes P, Myers JR. Characterization and inheritance of the anthocyanin fruit tomato. J Hered. 2003;94:449-56. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esg093
  9. 9. Mukherjee D, Mandal AR, Chatterjee S, Sengupta S, Islam SM, Kundu S, et al. Genetics of qualitative and quantitative traits in cherry and purple tomato crosses. Crop Breed Appl Biotechnol. 2024;24(1):e46302416. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-70332024v24n1a06
  10. 10. Hassan HA, Abdel-Aziz AF. Free radical scavenging and antioxidant properties of blackberry against fluoride toxicity in rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010;48:1999-2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2010.05.018
  11. 11. Chattopadhyay A, Dutta S, Bhattacharya I, Karmakar K, Hazra P. Technology for vegetable crop production. Nadia (India): Directorate of Research, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya; 2007.
  12. 12. Chattopadhyay A, Chakraborty I, Siddique W. Characterization of determinate tomato hybrids for processing quality. J Food Process Technol. 2013;4:222. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7110.1000222
  13. 13. Ranganna S. Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruits and vegetables. New Delhi (India): Tata McGraw Hill; 1986.
  14. 14. Sadasivam S, Manickam A. Peroxidase. In: Methods in biochemistry. New Delhi (India): New Age International; 1996.
  15. 15. Adedeji OE, Anuonye JC, Ekundayo FA, Olaoye TF, Babalola AO, Ogundahunsi GJ. Physicochemical, microbiological and sensory quality of tomato puree under ambient storage. J Food Res. 2015;4:143-49. https://doi.org/10.5539/jfr.v4n2p143
  16. 16. Kumari A, Grewal BB, Banerjee MK, Kumari A. Physicochemical characteristics of tomato genotypes. Veg Sci. 1998;25:127-30.
  17. 17. Barrett DM, Weakley C, Diaz JV, Watnik M. Nutritional differences in organic and conventional processing tomatoes. J Food Sci. 2007;72(9):C441-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00500.x
  18. 18. Young TE, Juvik JA, Sullivan JG. Accumulation of total solids during tomato fruit ripening. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 1993;118:286-92. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.118.2.286
  19. 19. Waskar DP, Khedkar RM, Garande VK. Post-harvest treatments affecting shelf life and quality of pomegranate. J Food Sci Technol. 1999;36(2):114-17.
  20. 20. Colle I, Van Buggenhout S, Van Loey A, Hendrickx M. High pressure homogenization and thermal processing of tomato pulp: Effects on lycopene bioaccessibility. Food Res Int. 2010;43(8):2193-2200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2010.07.029
  21. 21. Dewanto V, Wu X, Adom KK, Liu RH. Thermal processing enhances nutritional value of tomatoes. J Agric Food Chem. 2002;50(10):3010-14. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0115589
  22. 22. Seybold C, Frolich K, Bitsch R, Otto K, Bohm V. Changes in carotenoids and vitamin E during tomato processing. J Agric Food Chem. 2004;52:7005-10. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf049169c
  23. 23. Porter WL, Levasseur LA, Henick AS. Effects of metals and acid synergists on autoxidation of linoleic acid. J Lipid Res. 1972;7(11):699-709. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02533118
  24. 24. Abushita AA, Daood HG, Biacs PA. Changes in carotenoids and antioxidant vitamins in tomato due to varietal and technological factors. J Agric Food Chem. 2000;48(6):2075-81. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf990715p
  25. 25. Hailemariam GA, Wudineh TA. Effect of cooking methods on ascorbic acid loss in vegetables. J Food Qual. 2020;4:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8908670
  26. 26. Deshmukh NA, Rymbai H, Jha AK, Lyngdoh P, Malhotra SK. Effect of thinning time and fruit spacing on peach quality. Indian J Hortic. 2017;74(1):45-50. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0112.2017.00012.3
  27. 27. Barbagallo RN, Chisari M, Spagna G. Polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase role in strawberry browning. J Agric Food Chem. 2007;55(9):3469-76. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf063402k
  28. 28. Lafarga T, Ruiz-Aguirre I, Abadias M, Vinas I, Bobo G, Aguilo-Aguayo I. Effect of thermosonication on quality of anthocyanin-enriched tomato juice. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2019;12(1):147-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-018-2191-5
  29. 29. Aust O, Zhang L, Wollersen H, Sies H, Stahl W. Lycopene oxidation products enhance gap junction communication. Food Chem Toxicol. 2003;41:1399-1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6915(03)00148-0
  30. 30. Willits MG, Kramer CM, Prata RT, De Luca V, Potter BG, Steffens JC, et al. Use of wild species to develop high flavonoid tomato. J Agric Food Chem. 2005;53:1231-36. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf049355i

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.