nutrients Review Onco-Preventive and Chemo-Protective Effects of Apple Bioactive Compounds Linda Nezbedova 1,2 , Tony McGhie 3 , Mark Christensen 4, Julian Heyes 1,† , Noha Ahmed Nasef 2,† and Sunali Mehta 5,6,*,† ���������� ������� Citation: Nezbedova, L.; McGhie, T.; Christen-sen, M.; Heyes, J.; Nasef, N.A.; Mehta, S. Onco-Preventive and Chemo-Protective Effects of Apple Bioactive Compounds. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ nu13114025 Received: 21 September 2021 Accepted: 3 November 2021 Published: 11 November 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1 School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; l.nezbedova1@massey.ac.nz (L.N.); j.a.heyes@massey.ac.nz (J.H.) 2 Riddet Institute, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; n.nasef@massey.ac.nz 3 The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; tony.mcghie@plantandfood.co.nz 4 Heritage Food Crops Research Trust, Whanganui 4501, New Zealand; mark@heritagefoodcrops.co.nz 5 Pathology Department, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand 6 Maurice Wilkins Centre for Biodiscovery, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand * Correspondence: sunali.mehta@otago.ac.nz; Tel.: +64-3-479-7285 † These authors contribute equally to this work. Abstract: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally. Epidemiological studies have strongly linked a diet high in fruits to a lower incidence of cancer. Furthermore, extensive research shows that secondary plant metabolites known as phytochemicals, which are commonly found in fruits, have onco-preventive and chemo-protective effects. Apple is a commonly consumed fruit worldwide that is available all year round and is a rich source of phytochemicals. In this review, we summarize the association of apple consumption with cancer incidence based on findings from epidemiological and cohort studies. We further provide a comprehensive review of the main phytochemical patterns observed in apples and their bioavailability after consumption. Finally, we report on the latest findings from in vitro and in vivo studies highlighting some of the key molecular mechanisms targeted by apple phytochemicals in relation to inhibiting multiple ‘hallmarks of cancer’ that are important in the progression of cancer. Keywords: fruit; apple; phytochemicals; cancer; chemoprevention; antioxidants; phenolics; triterpenoids 1. Introduction Chronic diseases including cancer continue to remain a public health burden glob- ally [1–5]. In 2020, cancer was the second leading chronic illness following cardiovascular disease, with an estimate of 19 million new cases and accounting for 10 million deaths per year, globally [6,7]. Data from GLOBOCAN [7] show that cancers of the breast are the most commonly diagnosed followed by cancers of the lung, colorectal, and prostate. To reduce cancer’s global health burden, it is necessary to promote both cancer treat- ment and cancer prevention. There is growing evidence that phytochemicals found in vegetables and fruits play a major role in cancer aetiology. Furthermore, diet and simple dietary changes incorporating fruits and vegetables can influence the risk of cancer [8]. Apples are an example of commonly available fruits worldwide that are a rich source of phytochemicals. There is a milieu of studies around the health benefits of apples includ- ing onco-preventive effects. However, translating this information into an appropriate intervention requires understanding of how the different components of apples contribute to their health benefit. These components include differences in the phytochemical con- centration within the skin vs. flesh of the apple, the impact of the apple food matrix, and absorption and bioavailability of apple phytochemicals. In this review, we provide detailed insight into selected dietary phytochemicals found in apples, their onco-protective role in cancer, and their effect on different pathways implicated in cancer development and Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13114025 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients https://www.mdpi.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8736-4066 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8016-0244 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9196-6702 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6212-5026 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1777-1245 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13114025 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13114025 https://creativecommons.org/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13114025 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu13114025?type=check_update&version=3 Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 2 of 29 progression. This review collates details from different studies related to apples and apple phytochemicals in order to provide a more holistic understanding around the effects of apple consumption on cancer. We also highlight the gaps in the literature to promote more relevant studies in this field including clinical trials. 2. Cancer Cancer is a group of heterogeneous diseases that can occur in multiple parts of the body [9]. Triggers for cancer are complex and include genetic predispositions, environment, and lifestyle [10,11]. In this section, we briefly describe the different steps involved in cancer development (carcinogenesis) to better understand the pathways targeted by different phytochemicals described in subsequent sections of this review. Carcinogenesis is a multi-step process involving initiation, promotion, and progres- sion of cancer [12–14]. Initiation is the first irreversible step of carcinogenesis and refers to the genetic and epigenetic alterations in somatic cells mainly involving proto-oncogenes such as RAS, c-Myc, and tumor suppressor genes such as Rb and p53 [15–19]. Promotion is the second phase of carcinogenesis where non-mutagenic promoting agents result in reversible changes in the genome, giving cells the ability to proliferate uncontrollably and expand [14,20]. Growth factors such as epidermal growth factors (EGF), hormones includ- ing estrogen, and external factors such as chemical compounds from diet are examples of agents promoting these non-mutagenic events within the cell [21,22]. Progression repre- sents a later stage of tumor development and is characterized by accumulation of multiple genetic changes, including increased mutational load, number, and arrangement of chromo- somes and epigenetic changes [23]. Continuous accumulation of genomic changes within the cells allows them to acquire multiple ‘hallmarks of cancer’ including uncontrolled growth, ability to resist cell death, alter metabolism, evade the immune system, and invade and spread to other tissues and organs (reviewed in detail [24]). 3. Importance of Phytochemicals from Diet in Management of Cancer Diet can influence cancer development in both positive and negative ways. It is estimated that a healthy lifestyle and healthy dietary practices could help lower incidence of all cancers by 30-40% [25]. Furthermore, a diet rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, dietary fiber, omega-3 fatty acids, and certain micronutrients (e.g., vitamins and calcium) protects against some cancers [26–28]. In contrast, diets rich in meat, processed foods, fried foods, and smoked foods can increase the risk of developing some cancers [29–31]. For a healthy diet, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the consump- tion of a minimum of five portions or 400 g of fruit and vegetables per day, of which two portions should constitute fruit [32,33]. Studies have shown differences in fruit consump- tion across the world based on the socioeconomic status, sex, and geographic location. From these studies, cancer incidence was estimated to decrease by 14% with consumption of 550–600 g of fruit and vegetable per day, which is greater than the current recommenda- tions made by WHO [34,35]. These results suggest that a healthy diet such as one high in fruits and vegetables has protective effects against different types of cancer. Protective effects of fruit against cancer are related to their high content of bioactive compounds (phytochemicals). Phytochemicals are secondary metabolites from plants responsible for the taste, color, and aroma of fruit. Research suggests that phytochemicals are beneficial in preventing and treating oxidative damage and inflammation, which are important risk factors in cancer development [36–39]. Moreover, phytochemicals have significant onco-preventive and chemo-protective effects, and this has been reviewed extensively elsewhere [38,40–45]. One fruit that is a rich and important source of bioactive phytochemicals in Western diets is the apple [46–49]. Apples are globally consumed due to their year-round availability, their cultivar diversity, low price, and easy storage [46,50]. The subsequent sections of this review will focus specifically on the onco-preventive and chemo-protective properties of phytochemicals found in apples. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 3 of 29 4. Apple Phytochemical Profile and Bioavailability To better understand the health benefits of apples, in this section we provide a compre- hensive review of the main phytochemical patterns observed in apples and their potential health benefits depending on variety and the consumed part of the fruit (skin/peel versus the flesh of the apple). Apples contain a wide variety of phytochemicals, including triterpenoids, organic acids, fatty acids, and apple phenolic compounds (Figure 1) [51]. Triterpenoids are compo- nents mainly of apple waxes [52]. The main triterpenoids found in apples are oleanolic, betulinic, and ursolic acid and their derivatives such as maslinic, corosolic, euscaphic, pomaceic, and pomolic acids [53]. Nutrients 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 28 of this review will focus specifically on the onco-preventive and chemo-protective prop- erties of phytochemicals found in apples. 4. Apple Phytochemical Profile and Bioavailability To better understand the health benefits of apples, in this section we provide a com- prehensive review of the main phytochemical patterns observed in apples and their po- tential health benefits depending on variety and the consumed part of the fruit (skin/peel versus the flesh of the apple). Apples contain a wide variety of phytochemicals, including triterpenoids, organic acids, fatty acids, and apple phenolic compounds (Figure 1) [51]. Triterpenoids are com- ponents mainly of apple waxes [52]. The main triterpenoids found in apples are oleanolic, betulinic, and ursolic acid and their derivatives such as maslinic, corosolic, euscaphic, pomaceic, and pomolic acids [53]. Figure 1. Schematic showing the classification of phytochemicals present in apple. The most well-studied group of apple phytochemicals for their health benefits are phenolic compounds [54]. Studies show that apples are an important source of phenolic compounds in our diet contributing to 22% of phenolic intake [55,56]. Most of the phenolic compounds in the fruit are usually present in the conjugated form such as glycosides or esterified carboxylic acids. However, compared to other fruit, apples contain more of the readily bioavailable free forms of phenolic compounds [57–59]. For instance, the ‘Red De- licious’ apple had the highest level of free forms of phenolic compounds compared to pear, plum, kiwifruit, and peach [60]. Phenolic compounds in apple can be sub-divided into two main groups (Table 1, Figure 1) known as flavonoids and phenolic acids. Flavonoids can be further divided into four structural subclasses including anthocyanidins, flavonols, dihydrochalcones, and fla- van-3-ols (flavanols) which can exist in the monomeric and oligomeric form [49,61] (Table 1). Phenolic acids include chlorogenic acid, hydroxycinnamic acid, and hydroxybenzoic acid [49,61]. In general, chlorogenic acid and monomeric and polymeric flavanols are the major phenolic compounds, whereas anthocyanins and dihydrochalcones are minor phe- nolic compounds of apples [62]. Moreover, anthocyanidins are responsible for the apple redness [63,64]. Therefore, anthocyanidins are abundant in the apple cultivars with red skin (e.g., ‘Red Delicious’) and are either present in low concentrations or absent in green skinned apple cultivars (e.g., ‘Granny Smith’) [64,65]. Figure 1. Schematic showing the classification of phytochemicals present in apple. The most well-studied group of apple phytochemicals for their health benefits are phenolic compounds [54]. Studies show that apples are an important source of phenolic compounds in our diet contributing to 22% of phenolic intake [55,56]. Most of the phenolic compounds in the fruit are usually present in the conjugated form such as glycosides or esterified carboxylic acids. However, compared to other fruit, apples contain more of the readily bioavailable free forms of phenolic compounds [57–59]. For instance, the ‘Red Delicious’ apple had the highest level of free forms of phenolic compounds compared to pear, plum, kiwifruit, and peach [60]. Phenolic compounds in apple can be sub-divided into two main groups (Table 1, Figure 1) known as flavonoids and phenolic acids. Flavonoids can be further divided into four structural subclasses including anthocyanidins, flavonols, dihydrochalcones, and flavan-3-ols (flavanols) which can exist in the monomeric and oligomeric form [49,61] (Table 1). Phenolic acids include chlorogenic acid, hydroxycinnamic acid, and hydroxyben- zoic acid [49,61]. In general, chlorogenic acid and monomeric and polymeric flavanols are the major phenolic compounds, whereas anthocyanins and dihydrochalcones are minor phenolic compounds of apples [62]. Moreover, anthocyanidins are responsible for the apple redness [63,64]. Therefore, anthocyanidins are abundant in the apple cultivars with red skin (e.g., ‘Red Delicious’) and are either present in low concentrations or absent in green skinned apple cultivars (e.g., ‘Granny Smith’) [64,65]. There are differences in the distribution and type of phenolic compounds within various parts of an apple such as peel, flesh, core, and seeds. The phenolic compounds distribution and concentration in the peel and flesh of apples vary greatly due to genetic diversity, maturity stage, growing conditions and geographical location, harvest, and storage conditions [59,66–70]. However, studies have highlighted that there is a similar phenolics distribution pattern for most apple cultivars (Figure 2). Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 4 of 29 Table 1. Classification of apple phenolics. Phenolics Group Phenolic Subgroup Phenolic Compounds Flavonoids Anthocyanidins Cyanidin 3-O-arabinoside Cyanidin 3-O-galactoside Cyanidin 3-O-xyloside Cyanidin 3-O-xylgalactoside Flavonols Quercetin Quercetin 3-arabinopyranoside Quercetin-3-arabinofuranoside Quercetin 3-galactoside Quercetin 3-glucoside Quercetin 3-rhamnoside Quercetin 3-rutinoside Quercetin 3-xyloside Dihydrochalcones Phloretin Phloretin-2′-O-xyloglucoside Phloridzin 3-hydroxyphloridzin Flavan-3-ols Monomeric (+)-Catechin (−)-Epicatechin Oligomeric (Procyanidins) Procyanidin B1 Procyanidin B2 Procyanidin B5 Procyanidin B7 Procyanidin C1 Phenolic acids Chlorogenic acid Hydroxy benzoic acid Hydroxy cinnamic acid In general, the apple peel contains about 2–4 times higher concentration of phenolic compounds, and higher concentration of total procyanidins and total flavonoids, compared to flesh [71]. Kalinowska et al. [72] demonstrated that apple peel from the ‘Gold Millennium’ apple contains five times the concentration of phenolic compounds compared to the flesh [68]. Similarly, the peel of 15 different apple cultivars had greater concentration of all phenolic compounds compared to the apple’s flesh [73]. In general, evidence from multiple studies comparing various cultivars of apples has shown that apple peel contains all groups of phenolic compounds and has greater concentration of procyanidins and total flavonoids compared to the flesh [59,74–76]. However, there are some exceptions. Procyanidin B1 concentration in the flesh of ‘Gloster’, ‘Elstar’, and ‘Gala’ is higher compared to their peel [59] and apple flesh of ‘Lodel’ is higher in phloridzin than its peel [77]. Quercetin glycosides are usually found only in the peel [73]. On the other hand, chlorogenic acid can be found in both the flesh and the peel of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Granny Smith’, and ‘Idared’ apples, but tends to be higher in the flesh [59,69]. These findings are in accordance with the study from Kschnosek et al. [73], where the predominant group found in the flesh was the phenolic acids (43%), while the flavonols, namely quercetin and its glycosides, were enriched in the peel (72%) and not detected in the flesh. Taken together, these data suggest that apple peel of most apple varieties contain more phenolic compounds than the flesh. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 5 of 29 Nutrients 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 28 Figure 2. Phenolics distribution pattern in the peel and flesh of an average apple based on the data from Lata, Trampczynska, and Paczesna [71], Tsao et al. [78], Lata [79], and McGhie et al. [62]. It is important to consider that apple peel contributes only up to 10% of the weight of the whole fruit; therefore, the intake of some phenolic compounds from the peel after consumption of a whole apple might not be as significant as the intake from the flesh. Only a few studies have reported on the phenolic compounds content relative to the weight of the peel compared to the whole apple [62,71]. McGhie et al. [80] demonstrated that peel of ‘Braeburn’, ‘Royal Gala’, and ‘Red Delicious’ contributed 55%, 50%, and 52%, respectively, of the apple’s total phenolic compounds. Similarly, apple peel of ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Idared’, ‘Red Rome’, ‘Jonmac’, ‘Gloster’, and ‘Starking Delicious’ contributed 50% or more to the apple’s total phenolic compounds content. In contrast, the peel of ‘Pilot’, ‘McIntosh’, and ‘Prima’ contributed less to the total phenolic compounds of the whole apple [71]. Data from New Zealand heritage apple cultivar ‘Monty’s Surprise’ and the commercial varieties ‘Braeburn’ and ‘Red Delicious’ (Table 2) showed that the contribu- tion of total phenolics was lower from the peel compared to the flesh. However, anthocy- anidins were only present in the peel and flavonols were only found in small quantities in the flesh. Taken together, a combination of unpublished data from New Zealand (Table 2) and other published studies suggests that for most apple varieties the peel is a signifi- cant source of phenolic compounds. Therefore, discarding the peel during production of some traditional apple products, such as apple sauce [81], may decrease the health poten- tial of the apples. The health benefits of an apple’s bioactive compounds depend on their absorption, metabolism, and distribution within the human body [82]. The bioavailability of phenolic compounds (the fraction of the bioactive that has been absorbed and is available for bio- logical activity) is affected by pH, enzymatic activity, their chemical structure, solubility, free and bound form, and synergistic effects with the food matrix (see Section 5.2) [83–85]. Despite absorption of phenolic compounds beginning in the small intestine [85], most of the compounds are released in and absorbed from the large intestine with aid from the gut microbiota [84,86,87]. The gut microbiota is capable of transforming complex phenolic compounds into metabolites that are more easily absorbed [88]. It was demonstrated that once absorbed, phenolic compounds can be detected in human plasma and urine after consumption of apple [89], apple juice [90], and apple cider [91]. Bioavailability of the main apple phytochemicals is described in Section 5.2. While apple is a rich source of nutrients and phytochemicals, there is evidence to suggest that the apple food matrix (non-nutrient component) plays an important role in the absorption and bioavailability of apple phytochemicals. Aprikain et al. [87] demon- strated that the ingestion of phenolics-rich apple extract and apple fiber (pectin) together Figure 2. Phenolics distribution pattern in the peel and flesh of an average apple based on the data from Lata, Trampczynska, and Paczesna [71], Tsao et al. [78], Lata [79], and McGhie et al. [62]. It is important to consider that apple peel contributes only up to 10% of the weight of the whole fruit; therefore, the intake of some phenolic compounds from the peel after consumption of a whole apple might not be as significant as the intake from the flesh. Only a few studies have reported on the phenolic compounds content relative to the weight of the peel compared to the whole apple [62,71]. McGhie et al. [80] demonstrated that peel of ‘Braeburn’, ‘Royal Gala’, and ‘Red Delicious’ contributed 55%, 50%, and 52%, respectively, of the apple’s total phenolic compounds. Similarly, apple peel of ‘Granny Smith’, ‘Idared’, ‘Red Rome’, ‘Jonmac’, ‘Gloster’, and ‘Starking Delicious’ contributed 50% or more to the apple’s total phenolic compounds content. In contrast, the peel of ‘Pilot’, ‘McIntosh’, and ‘Prima’ contributed less to the total phenolic compounds of the whole apple [71]. Data from New Zealand heritage apple cultivar ‘Monty’s Surprise’ and the commercial varieties ‘Braeburn’ and ‘Red Delicious’ (Table 2) showed that the contribution of total phenolics was lower from the peel compared to the flesh. However, anthocyanidins were only present in the peel and flavonols were only found in small quantities in the flesh. Taken together, a combination of unpublished data from New Zealand (Table 2) and other published studies suggests that for most apple varieties the peel is a significant source of phenolic compounds. Therefore, discarding the peel during production of some traditional apple products, such as apple sauce [81], may decrease the health potential of the apples. Table 2. Estimated apple peel contribution to the total phenolics content in whole apple. Phenolic compounds were measured using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS, Dionex Ultimate RS3000 UHPL and a Bruker micrOTOF- QII) in 2019, plant and food research, for 3 apple varieties—Monty’s surprise, Braeburn, and Red Delicious. Each compound concentration was quantified by comparison with an authentic standard where possible or as equivalents to standard compounds. Each phenolic compound in the table is presented as a percentage of total concentration measured using LC-MS. Percentage total phenolics (percentage values presented in bold) was calculated based on the average weight of whole apple (180 g) where apple skin contributed 18 g. Monomeric Flavanols Procyanidins Flavonols Dihydrochalcones Chlorogenic Acid Anthocyanins Total Phenolics Cultivar Skin (%) Flesh (%) Skin (%) Flesh (%) Skin (%) Flesh (%) Skin (%) Flesh (%) Skin (%) Flesh (%) Skin (%) Flesh (%) Skin (%) Flesh (%) Monty’ Surprise * 33 67 29 71 94 6 42 58 10 90 100 n.e. 37 63 Braeburn 19 81 21 79 99 1 8 92 1 99 100 n.e. 31 69 Red Delicious 37 63 36 64 94 6 40 60 2 98 100 n.e. 46 54 * Monty’s Surprise—New Zealand’s heritage apple variety. “n.e.”—not evaluated (Anthocyanins were not evaluated in the flesh as they are not present.). Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 6 of 29 The health benefits of an apple’s bioactive compounds depend on their absorption, metabolism, and distribution within the human body [82]. The bioavailability of phenolic compounds (the fraction of the bioactive that has been absorbed and is available for biological activity) is affected by pH, enzymatic activity, their chemical structure, solubility, free and bound form, and synergistic effects with the food matrix (see Section 5.2) [83–85]. Despite absorption of phenolic compounds beginning in the small intestine [85], most of the compounds are released in and absorbed from the large intestine with aid from the gut microbiota [84,86,87]. The gut microbiota is capable of transforming complex phenolic compounds into metabolites that are more easily absorbed [88]. It was demonstrated that once absorbed, phenolic compounds can be detected in human plasma and urine after consumption of apple [89], apple juice [90], and apple cider [91]. Bioavailability of the main apple phytochemicals is described in Section 5.2. While apple is a rich source of nutrients and phytochemicals, there is evidence to suggest that the apple food matrix (non-nutrient component) plays an important role in the absorption and bioavailability of apple phytochemicals. Aprikain et al. [87] demonstrated that the ingestion of phenolics-rich apple extract and apple fiber (pectin) together had greater effect on gut microbiota metabolism in the large intestine and lipid metabolism than ingestion of the phenolics-rich apple extract alone, suggesting a beneficial interaction between fiber and phenolic compounds [87]. Recent studies have shown that a whole apple has strong prebiotic effects [92,93] and that its fiber content promotes the bioaccessibility of other beneficial phytochemicals [94,95]. Additionally, dietary fiber fermentation by the gut microbiota releases short chain fatty acids that have been shown to modulate expression of cell cycle-regulating proteins and induce apoptosis in colon cancer cells [96]. The majority of dietary fiber originates in the plant cell wall and many phytochemicals are known to bind plant cell wall components [94]. As such, processing of apples (including juicing and cooking) will influence the plant cell wall integrity and fiber content of the fruit, which will consequently change the phytochemical’s bioaccessibility, bioavailabilty, and interactions with the gut microbiota. However, processing and ultra-processing techniques are diverse and complex and their impact on health is outside the scope of this review. The influence of the food matrix (mainly fiber and carbohydrates) on the main apple phytochemicals is described in Section 5.2. The studies reviewed in this section highlight that there are large variabilities in the composition of phytochemicals in apples and that the phytochemical patterns and profiles can vary in relation to cultivar and apple part. Therefore, the type and level of health benefit will vary in relation to the phytochemical profile of the apple consumed. Ultimately, the phytochemical compounds from apple will only achieve benefit once they become bioavailable and reach the cells and tissue of interest. 5. Health Benefits of Apple Phytochemicals: Cancer Current research attributes the health benefits of apples mainly to the phenolic com- pounds which exhibit several biological functions beneficial for human health [54]. Apple phenolic compounds are believed to lower incidence of chronic conditions such as cardio- vascular disease, cancer, asthma and pulmonary disease, diabetes, and obesity [49,97–103]. Apple phytochemicals are suggested to have many chemo-preventive and chemo- protective effects (Figure 3) against various types of cancer. These effects include regulation of proliferation, cell cycle, apoptosis, reactive oxygen species (ROS), and anti-inflammatory activities [36,47,86,104,105]. In this section, we discuss the health benefits of apple phyto- chemicals in relation to cancer from epidemiological studies, their ability to alter ROS in cancer cells, and impact on cancer biology from in vitro and in vivo studies. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 7 of 29 Nutrients 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 28 Figure 3. Main mechanisms of action of apple phytochemicals on cancer cells. 5.1. Epidemiological Evidence of Apple Consumption and Cancer Incidence Epidemiological studies have associated apple and pear consumption with lower in- cidence of different cancers. Reports from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort study demonstrated that consumption of apples and pears is associated with lower lung [106] and bladder [107] cancer incidence. Consump- tion of apples and pears was also associated with lower lung cancer incidence in the Amer- ican Nurses’ Health Study [108]. Apple consumption in particular was associated with lower lung cancer incidence in epidemiological studies from [109], Hawaii [110], and the Zutphen elderly study (Netherlands) [111]. Furthermore, consumption of apples and pears has been associated with lower breast cancer risk from a pooled analysis of two large prospective studies (Nurses’ Health Study—NHS and NHSII) [112]. In one case-con- trol trial from Italy, it was reported that consumption of more than three apples or pears a day was inversely related to pancreatic cancer [113], which is an extra fruit portion above the dietary recommendation by WHO. Both apples and pears are rich in polyphenols, are popular fruit, and are widely available all year round in many countries. Therefore, it is not surprising that apples and pears are identified together in many observational studies that assess dietary habits. Apple consumption specifically was associated with lower cancer incidence in sev- eral observational studies. Apple consumption was associated with decreased breast can- cer incidence in a fruit and vegetable study conducted on pooled cohorts [114] and a case- control study from Mexico in pre-menopausal women [115]. Similarly, consumption of apples was associated with reduced incidence of colorectal [116], oral cavity and pharynx [47,117], esophagus [47], larynx [47], ovary [47], renal [118,119], and prostate [47,120] can- cers. One case-control study looking at fruit and vegetable consumption in pre-menopau- sal women in Shanghai showed an inverse association with fruit intake and breast cancer [121]. While the study found the strongest association was with citrus fruit, consumption of 57 g/day of apple or more was also reported to reduce incidence of breast cancer in the study [121]. In a meta-analysis of 20 case-control studies and 21 cohort studies, it was shown that apple consumption was associated with a reduced risk of lung, colorectal, oral cavity, and breast cancers [122]. Findings from the epidemiological studies reported in this review suggest that the consumption of apples reduce cancer risk. However, the cohort size and composition as well as the intervention vary between the different studies. Additionally, other dietary and lifestyle factors could influence cancer outcome in these cohort and observational studies. Further studies are needed to specifically clarify the effect of apple consumption on the incidence of cancer. In addition, most of these studies are observational and to date, there are no clinical intervention trials reported demonstrating the link between apple Figure 3. Main mechanisms of action of apple phytochemicals on cancer cells. 5.1. Epidemiological Evidence of Apple Consumption and Cancer Incidence Epidemiological studies have associated apple and pear consumption with lower incidence of different cancers. Reports from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort study demonstrated that consumption of apples and pears is associated with lower lung [106] and bladder [107] cancer incidence. Consumption of apples and pears was also associated with lower lung cancer incidence in the American Nurses’ Health Study [108]. Apple consumption in particular was associated with lower lung cancer incidence in epidemiological studies from [109], Hawaii [110], and the Zutphen elderly study (Netherlands) [111]. Furthermore, consumption of apples and pears has been associated with lower breast cancer risk from a pooled analysis of two large prospective studies (Nurses’ Health Study—NHS and NHSII) [112]. In one case-control trial from Italy, it was reported that consumption of more than three apples or pears a day was inversely related to pancreatic cancer [113], which is an extra fruit portion above the dietary recommendation by WHO. Both apples and pears are rich in polyphenols, are popular fruit, and are widely available all year round in many countries. Therefore, it is not surprising that apples and pears are identified together in many observational studies that assess dietary habits. Apple consumption specifically was associated with lower cancer incidence in several observational studies. Apple consumption was associated with decreased breast cancer in- cidence in a fruit and vegetable study conducted on pooled cohorts [114] and a case-control study from Mexico in pre-menopausal women [115]. Similarly, consumption of apples was associated with reduced incidence of colorectal [116], oral cavity and pharynx [47,117], esophagus [47], larynx [47], ovary [47], renal [118,119], and prostate [47,120] cancers. One case-control study looking at fruit and vegetable consumption in pre-menopausal women in Shanghai showed an inverse association with fruit intake and breast cancer [121]. While the study found the strongest association was with citrus fruit, consumption of 57 g/day of apple or more was also reported to reduce incidence of breast cancer in the study [121]. In a meta-analysis of 20 case-control studies and 21 cohort studies, it was shown that apple consumption was associated with a reduced risk of lung, colorectal, oral cavity, and breast cancers [122]. Findings from the epidemiological studies reported in this review suggest that the consumption of apples reduce cancer risk. However, the cohort size and composition as well as the intervention vary between the different studies. Additionally, other dietary and lifestyle factors could influence cancer outcome in these cohort and observational studies. Further studies are needed to specifically clarify the effect of apple consumption on the incidence of cancer. In addition, most of these studies are observational and to date, there are no clinical intervention trials reported demonstrating the link between apple Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 8 of 29 consumption and cancer incidence. Further research and clinical studies would help to better understand and confirm the effect of apple phytochemicals on cancer in humans. 5.2. In Vitro and In Vivo Evidence of the Anticancer Properties of Apple Phytochemicals Apple phytochemicals were reported to have significant effects on inhibiting mul- tiple ‘hallmarks of cancer’ (detailed below) which are important in the progression of cancer [123]. Phenolic compounds from different apple cultivars were positively associated with the higher degree of inhibition of breast cancer cell proliferation [124–126] and induction of cell cycle arrest [125,127]. Additionally, apple extracts inhibited growth of prostate [127] and lung [128] cancer cells. Extracts of phenolics from apple pomace of different apple cultivars were reported to inhibit proliferation of oral [129] and colon cancer cells [58]. In addition to in vitro studies, apple polyphenol extracts also inhibited ex vivo proliferation of a hepatoma cell line [130]. Multiple studies have demonstrated that apple phytochemicals can inhibit the ac- tivity of p21, growth factors, pyruvate dehydrogenase kinases (PDKs), cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs), and extracellular protein kinases (ERKs) essential for cell cycle progres- sion [37,126,131,132]. Furthermore, apple phytochemicals can also prevent cell cycle pro- gression by activation of maspin, a tumor suppressor gene [127]. Reduced expression of the key molecules essential for regulating cell cycle such as phosphorylated Rb, Cyclin D1, and CDK4 by apple phytochemicals lead to cancer cells’ arrest [125,127]. Apple extracts were reported to inhibit apoptosis in breast cancer cells [124,128]. Apple phenolic compounds were shown to elevate the expression of pro-apoptotic genes such as p53 and Bax and re- duction in the expression of anti-apoptotic genes such as p21 and Bcl-2 [133]. In addition to inhibiting cell proliferation and promoting apoptosis, apple phytochemicals have also been implicated in inhibiting angiogenesis by regulating VEGF [123] and inhibiting invasion and metastasis [58,130] by regulating matrix metalloproteinases-2,-9 (MMP-2,-9), cadherins and integrins [123], and regulating COX-2 a marker of inflammation [123]. Additionally, the ability of apple phytochemicals to inhibit cell proliferation and in turn reduce incidence of cancer was also observed in rats fed with one human apple equivalent. These rats had reduced appearance of different precancerous markers (ACF, MDF, genes, and proteins related to colorectal cancer progression) [134]. Similarly, the incidence of mammary tumors in rats was reduced after two weeks of oral administration of 3.3, 10, and 20 g of apple extract/kg of body weight, which correspond to the human consumption of one (200 g), three, and six apples per day, respectively [135]. There is evidence that anticancer properties of apples are due to the synergistic effects between apple phytochemicals and the food matrix [136–139]. Veeriah et al. [136] demonstrated that colon cancer cells treated with an apple extract (extract from a mixture of different apples) reduced cell proliferation to a greater extent compared to a synthetic apple extract composed of eight apple phenolic compounds or individual apple phenolic compounds. They further demonstrated that colon cancer cells treated with a synthetic apple extract composed of eight apple phenolic compounds also reduced cell proliferation to a greater extent compared to individual apple phenolic compounds. [136]. Results from this study indicate the importance of the apple food matrix, which may contain other bioactive compounds present in the apple extract but not in the synthetic mixture. Taken together, evidence from in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo studies suggest that apple phytochemicals work synergistically to inhibit multiple ‘hallmarks of cancer’, which in turn can influence cancer incidence and improve outcomes to chemotherapeutic treatments. Oxidative stress can result in direct or indirect ROS-mediated damage of macro- molecules such as DNA, proteins, and lipids, allowing cells to acquire multiple ‘hall- marks of cancer’ and facilitating carcinogenesis [55,140,141]. Phenolic compounds such as quercetin, epicatechin, procyanidin B2, phloretin, and chlorogenic acid were identified as the biggest contributors to the apple’s antioxidant activity [142]. In one study, apples showed the second highest antioxidant activity in vitro after cranberries among 11 common Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 9 of 29 fruits tested [57]. Both apple peel and flesh extracts from dried and lyophilized apples of four different cultivars reduced ROS in the lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced mouse brain microglia cells (BV-2), with apple peel having a greater antioxidant effect [143]. While these studies have indicated the antioxidant capacity of apples, it is important to note that the methods used to measure antioxidant activity (such as total antioxidant capacity) are syn- thetic assays and do not necessarily capture the complexity of a physiological system [144]. Nevertheless, it has been proposed that antioxidant activity of apple phytochemicals can in- hibit or reduce cancer cell proliferation [124,128,129,145–147] and promote apoptosis [148] of cancer cells based on in vitro studies (Table 3). On the other hand, many bioactive compounds can work as prooxidants and under certain conditions (high concentration, presence of metal ions, and low pH) can induce ROS production and promote cell death [149–151]. In cancer therapy, prooxidants may have a beneficial effect by working as cytotoxic agents for fast growing cells and inducing cancer cell death [152–154]. Prooxidant activity of many phenolic compounds has been associated with their ability to induce apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in different cancer cells [155–157]. For example, Mendoza-Wilson et al. [158] demonstrated that phloridzin exhibited prooxidant activity [158]. Catechin and epicatechin are well known antioxidants, however, they can act also as prooxidants [159,160]. Epicatechin induced ROS production in colon cancer cells led to activation of pro-apoptotic enzymes and therefore induced apoptosis of these cells [159]. These examples suggest that some phytochemicals have a biphasic or hormetic re- sponse depending on the dose administered [161]. Therefore, phytochemicals such as the ones present in apple can be used to produce an antioxidant effect for cancer prevention, but also induce prooxidant effects with benefits in cancer prevention. In the subsequent sections. the review will focus on the anticancer mechanisms of the main apple phenolic compounds (quercetin, phloretin, chlorogenic acid, catechins, epicatechins, and procyanidins) and triterpenoids. The data on in vitro activity of apple phenolics with effective concentrations are summarized in Table 3. 5.2.1. Quercetin Anticancer Properties Of all the apple phenolic compounds, quercetin glycosides are the most efficiently ab- sorbed compounds from apples [162–164], mainly absorbed in the large intestine. Quercetin in apples is present in glycoside forms, and interestingly, these are more readily absorbed compared to quercetins from tea [165] but less readily absorbed compared to the quercetins from onion [166]. Quercetin glycosides can be absorbed as intact molecules where the sugar moiety helps to improve absorption through the gut lumen [167]. Furthermore, the presence of carbohydrates and pectin in the apple food matrix significantly increases quercetin absorption [168–171]. Quercetin has been detected in the plasma of humans (Cmax 0.30 µM/92 ng/mL, Tmax 2.5 h) [166] and rats (Cmax 118 µM ± 08) [172] after apple consumption. These studies suggest that quercetin is absorbed and present in the plasma at a sufficient concentration to elicit the anticancer effects. Recent in vitro and in vivo studies have reported that quercetin is one of the flavonoids responsible for the apple’s anticancer properties [173,174]. Quercetin has been shown to inhibit cell proliferation of breast [175–178], ovarian [179], lung [180,181], and liver [180] cancer cells in vitro (Table 3). Additionally, studies have demonstrated quercetin’s ability to induce apoptosis in multiple cancer cell lines ([177,178,182,183], Table 3) and in vivo using colon cancer cell line xenografts in mice [182]. The ability of quercetin to promote apoptosis and cell cycle arrest is believed to be due to its regulation of p53, GADD45, and AMPK [182,184]. Autophagy is another form of cell death in which damaged organelles are degraded [185]. Interestingly, quercetin is also shown to induce autophagy in lung cancer cells [181] and in breast cancer bearing mice by reducing the activity of AKT-mTOR pathway [186]. Additionally, quercetin inhibited invasion and migration of breast [186] and colorectal [187] cancer cells (Table 3). Quercetin was also shown to inhibit the ac- Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 10 of 29 tivity of VEGFR2 and therefore inhibit angiogenesis in breast [188], prostate [189], and retinoblastoma [190] cancer cells. Based on the results from in vitro studies, quercetin has strong anticancer properties in different cancer cells. However, the absorption and metabolism of quercetin glycosides from whole foods such as apples are not well known. Therefore, to better understand the anticancer effects of quercetin in humans, further studies are needed to identify factors that influence quercetin mechanisms of action and bioavailability in vivo. 5.2.2. Phloretin and Phloridzin Anticancer Properties Phloretin and its glucoside form (phloridzin) are other flavonoids found in apple. Phloretin and phloridzin are metabolized into phloretin glucuronides and phloretin sulfate glucuronides in the human intestine [169]. Phloridzin has been detected in the plasma (Cmax 66.9.0 µM ± 19.4, Tmax 10 h) and urine of rats [191,192]. It has also been detected in the plasma of humans (Cmax 73 nM ± 11, Tmax 0.6 h) [193]. Phloretin and its glycosides has been detected in ileal fluid in humans after consumption of apple juice [194] and cider [193], whereas phloridzin was not detected, suggesting that phloridzin is more readily absorbed. Based on the available evidence, it is unclear how the apple food matrix and com- position of the gut microbiota would affect uptake and metabolism of phloretin, which in turn may impact its anticancer properties against cancer cells. Despite limited infor- mation on the bioavailability of phloretin, several lines of evidence support its anticancer properties from in vitro and in vivo studies. Phloretin was shown to inhibit proliferation of breast cancer [195] and colorectal [196] cancer cell lines via inhibition of glucose trans- porter 2 (Glut-2) in vitro and in vivo [197]. Additionally, phloretin inhibited proliferation by promoting cell cycle arrest [198,199], ROS production [200], apoptosis [198,201–203], and by inhibition of autophagy via mTOR/ULK1 [204]. Phloretin also inhibited invasion and migration [197,200,205,206]. Moreover, phloretin promoted an anti-inflammatory en- vironment by inhibiting the expression of pro-inflammatory molecules PGE2, IL-8 and advanced glycation end products (AGEs) receptor [207]. Finally, evidence from in vivo studies suggest that phloretin may enhance the effect of commercial chemotherapeutic drugs such as Paclitaxel [208]. Details of these in vitro and in vivo studies are provided in Table 3. It is important to note that most of the in vitro cancer studies use synthetic phloretin, thus, to maxi- mize the anticancer benefits of phloretin, there is a need to further our understanding of phloretin bioavailability. 5.2.3. Chlorogenic Acid Anticancer Properties Chlorogenic acid is one of the phenolic acids abundant in apples and is reported to have anticancer potential, details of which have been summarized in Table 3. Chlorogenic acid is metabolized mainly in the large intestine by the gut microbiota from its aglycone form to its microbial metabolites, some of which include caffeic acid, 3-phenylpropionic acid, 3-phenylpropionic acid, hippuric acid, and quinic acid [209–212]. Interestingly, after consumption of foods rich in chlorogenic acid, its microbial products have been detected in the plasma of rats (Cmax 0.34 µM, Tmax 1 h) and human urine [209,210,213] but not its aglycone forms [209,210]. Studies in vitro and in vivo have demonstrated that chlorogenic can inhibit cell proliferation [214–218], promote cell cycle arrest [214,218,219] via affecting miR-17 family [214], induce apoptosis [26,218] by binding to annexin and suppressing the NF-κB pathway [220,221], and inhibit invasion and metastasis via downregulation of MMP-2 and MMP-9 [216]. Chlorogenic acid also inhibited growth of the liver [216] and breast [220,221] cancer tumor in xenograft mice in vivo. Chlorogenic acid possesses different anticancer properties in vitro. However, the lim- iting factor for its anticancer properties in humans is its low bioavailability. The microbial produced metabolites of the gut might be contributors to the chemo-preventive effects of chlorogenic acid, however, further research in this area is needed. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 11 of 29 5.2.4. Catechins and Epicatechins Anticancer Properties Catechins and epicatechins are monomeric flavanols that are unstable in the gastroin- testinal tract and poorly absorbed [222], with only 1.6% of the ingested catechins/epicatechins from tea, detected in human plasma, feces, and urine (plasma epicatechin Cmax 174 nM, Tmax 7 h) [223]. Similar results were obtained in the plasma of rats where the oral bioavail- ability of radioactively labeled catechin was about 3% and for radioactively labeled epicate- chins was 4% of the orally administrated dose (catechins: Cmax 30.40 ± 1.80 ng/mL, Tmax 1.25 h; epicatechins: Cmax 196.5 ± 18.1 ng/mL, Tmax 1.1 h) [224,225]. Notwithstanding the limitation with their bioavailability, catechins and epicatechins have been reported to have a multitude of anticancer properties summarized in Table 3. Both catechins and epicatechins in vitro and in vivo have inhibited cancer cell proliferation [226–228], induced cell cycle arrest by upregulating the expression of p21 [229] and inhibition of CDC25A [226], induced apoptosis [227,229–233], and reduced invasion and migration [233]. In several of these studies, the catechins and epicatechins used were derived from sources other than apple. However, the impact of the apple matrix and the gut microbiome on the bioavailability of catechins and epicatechins remains unknown. Thus, further studies are required to investigate the bioavailability and anticancer properties of epicatechins and catechin from apples. 5.2.5. Procyanidins Anticancer Properties Procyanidins are another group of oligomeric flavanols, which are abundant in apples and have many anticancer properties. Procyanidin dimers from grape seed extract and cocoa were detected in human plasma (Cmax 16 ± 5 nM, Tmax 0.5 h; Cmax 10.6 ± 2.5 nM, Tmax 2 h) [234,235] but not rat plasma [236]. Moreover, larger procyanidins were not absorbed efficiently by intestinal epithelial cells and are metabolized to low weight phenolic acids by the gut microbiota [237]. It was reported that compared to other apple phenolics, procyani- dins have a greater effect on cancer cell proliferation and apoptosis in vitro [238,239]. Like their monomeric counterparts (catechins and epicatechins), procyanidins have been shown in vitro and in vivo to inhibit proliferation [238,240–242], induce cell cycle arrest [238,240,241], promote apoptosis [238,239,243,244], induce ROS [245,246], inhibit migration [242], and an- giogenesis [247]. In addition, procyanidins isolated from apple also inhibited breast [239] and liver [242] cancer tumor growth in xenograft mouse. Table 3 provides details of the in vitro studies. The bioavailability of procyanidins varies and is dependent on their structure and the composition of the gut microbiome, where the metabolites may elicit the anticancer effects. Therefore, to further understand the anticancer properties of procyanidins, studies are needed to investigate the anticancer properties of their metabolites and their bioavailability in humans. 5.2.6. Triterpenoids Anticancer Properties Triterpenoids are another group of bioactive compounds found predominantly in apple peel. Triterpenoids are suggested to contribute to anticancer activity, details of which are summarized in Table 3. Triterpenoids consist of oleanolic acid and its iso- mer ursolic acid and betulinic acid. Triterpenoids are known to have low bioavailability and are poorly absorbed in the intestine [248,249]. It has been shown that only 2.3% of orally administered betulinic acid was detected in mouse plasma (Cmax 3.1 µg/mL, Tmax 2 h) [250], while only 0.7% of orally administered oleanolic acid was detected in rat plasma samples (Cmax 74.0 ± 57.2 ng/mL, Tmax 25 mins) [251]. In contrast, oleano- lic acid has been detected in human plasma four hours after raisin consumption (Cmax 24.4 ± 14.4 ng/mL, Tmax 4 h) [252]. Like other apple phytochemicals, triterpenoids were shown to inhibit proliferation [253–260], induce apoptosis [80,253–255,257–259,261–267], alter ROS production [262,268,269], inhibit invasion and metastasis [255–257,270–273], and angiogenesis [270]. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 12 of 29 Current research on apple phytochemicals is focused more on the anticancer properties of apple phenolic compounds with relatively few studies looking at apple triterpenoids. Future research on other triterpenoids and their derivatives present in apples such as pomaceic acid (which is unique to the apples) or pomolic, euscaphic, and maslinic acid is necessary to better understand the anticancer properties specific to apples. Table 3. Summary of mentioned in vitro studies with the effective concentration. In Vitro Effect Expression Markers Affected Effective Concentration Cell Line Ref. Q U ER C ET IN Lung cancer Anti-proliferative ↓ PDK3 55.90 ± 2.25 µM A549 [180] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, autophagy inhibition ↑LC3-II, SIRT 1, AMPK, beclin 1 ↓ p62 100 µM A549, H1299 [181] Breast cancer Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest ↑cyclin B1 and CDK-1 ↓p21 10 µM SK-BR3, MDA-MB-453 [175] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↑miR-146a, bax, caspase-3 ↓ EGFR 80 µM/mL, 50 µM/mL (respectively) MCF-7, MDA-MB-231 [177] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↓ survivin 40 mg/mL MCF-7 [178] Pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↓ Foxo3a, p53, GADD45 20 µM MDA-MB-231 [182] Metastasis and invasion inhibition ↓MMP-2,9, VEGF, PKM2, GLUT1, LDHA, Akt, mTOR 30 µM MCF-7, MDA-MB-231 [186] Angiogenesis inhibition ↓ VEGF, Pin1 30 µM MCF-7 [188] Colorectal cancer Metastasis and invasion inhibition, anti-inflammatory ↑ E-cadherin ↓MMP-2,9, p65, TLR4, TNF-α, COX-2, IL-6 5,10, 20 µM Caco-2 [187] Liver cancer Anti-proliferative ↓ PDK3 49.10 ± 1.45 µM HepG2 [180] Ovarian cancer Pro-apoptotic ↑ phospho-eIF2α, p53 ↓ Rad51 25, 50, 75, 100 µM OV2008, A2780, GM9607 [183] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↓ survivin 30 mg/ml SKOV-3 [179] Prostate cancer Anti-proliferative, angiogenesis inhibition ↓ Akt, mTOR, VEGFR2, S6 kinase 10-40 mmol/L HUVECs [189] Retinoblastoma Angiogenesis inhibition ↓ VEGFR 25, 50, 200 µM Y79 [190] Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 13 of 29 Table 3. Cont. In Vitro Effect Expression Markers Affected Effective Concentration Cell Line Ref. PH LO R ET IN A N D PH LO R ID Z IN Lung cancer Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, invasion and migration inhibition ↑ caspase-3,-9 ↓ Bcl-2, MMP-2,-9 25, 50, 75 µg/mL A549, H838, H520, Calu-1 [205] Pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↑ Bax, caspase-3, -9 ↓ Bcl-2 50, 100, 200 µM A549 [199] Breast cancer Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest ↓ GLUT-2 25, 50, 100, 150 µM MDA-MB-231 [195] Anti-proliferative, autophagy inhibition ↓mTOR, ULK1, LC3B-II 100, 200 µM MDA-MB-231, MCF7, ERα+ [204] Colorectal cancer Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest ↑ E-cadherin, p53 ↓ GLUT-2 100, 200 µM Colo 205, HT-29 [196] Pro-apoptotic ↑ caspase-3,-7, -9, Bax, cytochrome C ↓ Bcl-2 100 µmol/L HT-29 [206] Anti-inflammatory ↓ PGE2, IL-8, AGEs 50 µM CCD-18Co [207] Liver cancer Pro-apoptotic, invasion and migration inhibition ↓ GLUT-2, Bcl-2, Akt 200 µM HepG2 [197] Pro-apoptotic ↑ SHP-1 ↓ p-Akt, pERK, mTOR, VEGFR2, p-JNK 25, 50, 100 µM SK-Hep1, Hep3B2.1-7, Huh7, PLC5, HepG2 [201] Prostate cancer Prooxidant, anti-proliferative, migration inhibition ↑ ROS ↓ β-catenin, TCF4, FoxA2, c-Myc, CISD2 20, 50, 100 µM PC3, DU145 [200] Gastric cancer Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↓ p-JNK, p-38 4, 8, 16 µM AGS [198] Esophageal cancer Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↑ BAX, p53 ↓ Bcl-2 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 µg/mL EC-109 [203] Brain cancer Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↑ p27 ↓ CDK-2,-4,-6, cyclin-D,-E 100, 200, 300 µM U87, U251 [202] Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 14 of 29 Table 3. Cont. In Vitro Effect Expression Markers Affected Effective Concentration Cell Line Ref. C H LO R O G EN IC A C ID Lung cancer Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest ↑ p21, p53, and KHSRP ↓ c-Myc, miR-17 family 25, 50 µM H446 [214] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↓ cIAP1, cIAP2, binding of annexin A2 to p50 and actin => ↓ NF-κB 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 µM A549 [220] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↑ Bax, caspase-3, p38, JNK, annexin V ↓ Bcl-2, SOX2 30, 50 µM A549 [215] Breast cancer Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, migration and invasion inhibition ↓ annexin, NF-κB, p65 10,20 µM MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-453 [221] Colorectal cancer Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest, prooxidant ↑ ROS, p53 ↓ ERK 125, 250, 500, 1000 µmol/L HCT116, HT29 [217] Cell cycle arrest, pro-apoptotic ↑ caspase-3 250, 500, 1000 µM Caco-2 [219] Liver cancer Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest, invasion, and metastasis inhibition ↓MMP-2,-9, ERK1/2 250, 500, 1000 µM HepG2 [216] Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest ↑ p21, p53, and KHSRP ↓ c-Myc, miR-17 family 25, 50 µM Huh7 [214] Kidney cancer Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↑ caspase, Bax ↓ Bcl-2, PI3K, Akt, mTOR 40 µM A498 [26] Osteosarcoma Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↑ ERK1/2 200, 400 µM U2OS, Saos-2 [218] C A TE C H IN A N D EP IC A TE C H IN Breast cancer Pro-apoptotic ↑ ZIP9 ↓ cAMP agonists to membrane androgen receptors 200 nM MDA-MB-468 [230] Pro-apoptotic agonists to membrane androgen receptors 21.4 nM T47D [231] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, antioxidant ↑ IRK ↓ ROS 40, 100 µg/mL MCF-10A [227] Pro-apoptotic, prooxidant ↑ ROS, Bad, Bax 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500 µM MDA-MB-231 [232] Colorectal cancer Pro-apoptotic, migration and invasion reduction ↑ E-cadherin ↓ ERK1/2, c-Myc, β-catenin 12.5, 20 µM HT-29 [233] Liver cancer Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest ↑ p21, waf1/cip1 ↓ CDC25A 50, 75, 100, 125, 150 µM HepG2, Huh7 [226] Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 15 of 29 Table 3. Cont. In Vitro Effect Expression Markers Affected Effective Concentration Cell Line Ref. Biliary tract cancer Pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↑ caspase, p21, gene dr5 20, 50 µM CCSW-1, BDC, EGI-1, SkChA-1, TFK-1, MzChA-1, MzChA-2, GBC [229] Prostate cancer Pro-apoptotic ↑ ZIP9 ↓ cAMP agonists to membrane androgen receptors 200 nM PC-3 [230] Pancreatic cancer Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↑ Bax ↓ Ras, NF-κB, p65, Bcl-2, Pi3K, Akt 25, 50 µM E6E7-Kras-st [228] PR O C YA N ID IN S Breast cancer Pro-apoptotic ↑ cytochrome-c, caspase-3,-9 25 µg/m B16, BALB-MC.E12 [239] Pro-apoptotic, migration and invasion reduction ↑maspin, E-cadherin, BRCA1 ↓ DNA methyltransferases 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 µM MDA-MB-231 [243] Pro-apoptotic n/a 50 µM MCF-7 [244] Pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↑ Bax, caspase-3,-9 ↓ Bcl-2 31.5, 36.6 mg/mL MDA-MB-231, MCF-7 [274] Colorectal cancer Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↑ caspase-3, ERK1/2, JNK ↓ PKC 45 µg/mL SW620 [238] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest ↑MMP-2,-9, caspase-3,-9, ERK 1/2, MEK, Akt, PI3K ↓ EGFR 10–60 µM Caco-2, HT-29, HCT-15, HCT-116 [240] Pro-apoptotic, prooxidant ↑ caspase-3,-8,-9, Bax, ROS, cytochrome-c ↓Bcl-2 80 µg/mL SW480 and SW620 [246] Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest, pro-apoptotic ↑ ERK1/2, MEK, PI3K, Akt ↓ EGFR 10, 20, 30 µM Caco-2 [241] Pro-apoptotic ↑ PKB, Akt, ERK1/2, p38 2.5–20 µM Caco-2 [275] Pro-apoptotic ↑ caspase-3,-9, cytochrome-c ↓ PI3K, Akt, bad 2.5–50 µM Caco-2 [276] Liver cancer Anti-proliferative, migration inhibition ↓ Kv10.1 10, 100, 1000 µM HepG2 [242] Prostate cancer Pro-apoptotic, prooxidant ↑ ROS, ERK1/2, AMPKα 25, 50 µM (PCa LNCaP); 50, 100, 200 µM (22Rv1) PCa LNCaP, 22Rv1 [245] Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 16 of 29 Table 3. Cont. In Vitro Effect Expression Markers Affected Effective Concentration Cell Line Ref. TR IT ER PE N O ID S Breast cancer Anti-proliferative n/a n/a MCF-7 [260] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↑ Bax, cytochrome-c, p53 ↓ Bcl-2 2.57, 5.45 µM (respectively) MDA-MB-231, MCF-7 [254] Anti-proliferative, migration and invasion inhibition ↑ caspase-3 ↓MMP-2,-9, TIMP-2 5, 10, 20 µM MCF-7, 4T1, MDA-MB-231 [256] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, migration and invasion inhibition ↓ aerobic glycolysis, c-Myc, lactate dehydrogenase A (LDH-A), p-PDK1, Caveloin-1 48.55, 19.06 µM (respectively) MDA-MB-231, MCF-7 [255] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, migration and invasion inhibition ↑ GRP78, PERK ↓ aerobic glycolysis, c-Myc, β-catenin 5-50 µM MDA-MB-231, BT-549, HBL-100 [257] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, autophagy inhibition, anti-inflammatory ↓ PI3K, Akt, NF-κB 232, 221, 240 µg/mL (respectively) T47D, MCF-7, MDA-MB-231 [258] Cell cycle arrest, pro-apoptotic, autophagy ↑ p53, p21, AMPK ↓ ERK1/2, glycolysis, PKM2, HK2 20 µM MCF-7, MDA-MB-231, SK-BR-3 [80] Lung cancer Pro-apoptotic, angiogenesis inhibition ↑ Bax ↓ VEGF 25, 50 µg/ml A549, H460 [270] Colorectal cancer Anti-proliferative n/a n/a Caco-2 [260] Invasion and metastasis inhibition ↓ cadherins, integrins 10, 20, 40, 80 µM SW620 [272] Liver cancer Anti-proliferative, prooxidant ↑ ROS ↓ PI3K, Akt1, mTOR 10, 30, 100 µM [268] Anti-proliferative n/a n/a HepG2 [260] Invasion and metastasis inhibition ↓ cadherins, integrins 10, 20, 40, 80 µM HepG2 [272] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↑ p53, caspase-3 ↓ Bcl-2, Mcl-a mRNA 10, 20, 30 µM HUH7, PLC/PRF/5, L02 [265] Pancreatic cancer Cell cycle arrest, pro-apoptotic, autophagy induction ↑ Bax, ATG5, LC3-II ↓ Bcl-2, RAGE 25, 50, 75, 100 µM MIA Paca-2 [266] Prostate cancer Pro-apoptotic ↑ cytochrome-c, PARP, p21, p53 ↓ NF-κB, Bcl-2, p65 10, 25 µM LNCaP, DU145 [263] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↑ survivin ↓ Bcl-2, Bcl-xl, survivin, PI3K, Akt, mTOR LNCaP, PC-3 [259] Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 17 of 29 Table 3. Cont. In Vitro Effect Expression Markers Affected Effective Concentration Cell Line Ref. Cervical cancer Pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest, prooxidant ↑ ROS, p21, Bad, caspase-9 ↓ PI3K, Akt 30 µmol/: HeLa [262] Ovarian cancer Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↑ Bax, caspase-3,-8,-9 ↓ Bcl-2 44.47 µM A2780 [264] Gallbladder cancer Anti-proliferative, cell cycle arrest, pro-apoptotic ↑ Bax, cytochrome-c, caspase-3,-9 ↓ Bcl-2 50 µmol/L GBC-SD, NOZ [267] Brain cancer Pro-apoptotic, migration and invasion reduction ↑ JNK signaling pathway, caspases ↓ enzyme MGMT 20 µM U373MG [273] Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic ↓ enzyme MGMT, STAT3 20, 30, 40, 50 µM LN229, LN18, T98G [253] Osteosarcoma Anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic, antioxidant ↑ caspase-3 ↓ Notch signaling pathway, Bcl-2, ROS 50, 80 µM (respectively) Saos-2, MG63 [269] Melanoma Invasion and metastasis inhibition ↓ cadherins, integrins 10, 20, 40, 80 µM B16-F10 [272] ↑: increased expression; ↓: decreased expression. 6. Conclusions Cancer is a leading cause of death globally and represents one of the greatest health challenges. Therefore, it is necessary to find effective prevention tools to lower incidence of this chronic disease. Phytochemicals are secondary metabolites present in vegetables and fruit that provide many health benefits such as chemo-preventive and chemo-protective effects in different cancers. As highlighted in this review, apples are a promising fruit to consider in dietary plans for cancer prevention as they are widely available and contains various beneficial phytochemicals. There is evidence from epidemiological studies that regular apple consumption decreases the incidence of different cancers. However, from these observational studies, it is difficult to distinguish the effects of apple specifically from other lifestyle factors that influence cancer risk. The anticancer effects of apples are believed to be mainly due to their phenolic compounds such as phloretin, quercetin and its glycosides, chlorogenic acid, catechin, and epicatechin. However, while most of the research is focused on phenolics, there is evidence that triterpenoids, which are present mainly in apple skin, have significant chemo-preventive and chemo-protective effects. A limiting factor of the apple’s anticancer benefits is their low bioavailability in vivo and in humans. Apart from the in vivo and in vitro studies that overwhelmingly support the impact of apples in cancer prevention and inhibition, clinical interventions are lacking. Therefore, in this review article, we describe some of the considerations that need to be accounted for when using apples in an interventional setting or dietary plans. The levels and profiles of phytochemicals in apple depends on many factors such as cultivar and maturity stage, but also vary greatly within the apple parts (peel, flesh). Apple’s skin is known to be a rich source of phenolics and significantly contributes to the health benefits of apples, therefore, Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 18 of 29 consumption of whole apple with skin and consumption of different apple cultivars might help to obtain greater anticancer effects. Furthermore, the food matrix components such as fiber have an important role to play in the health benefits of apples and influence the bioavailability of the apple phytochemicals. Apple phytochemicals provide many beneficial health effects and could work as a preventive tool in cancer. However, more research (especially in vivo and clinical studies) is needed to confirm apple’s anticancer effects and bioavailability in humans. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.N., N.A.N., S.M. and J.H.; writing—original draft preparation, L.N.; writing—review and editing, T.M., M.C., L.N., N.A.N., S.M. and J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by Heritage Food Crops Research Trust. S.M. was supported by Maurice Wilkins Centre for Biodiscovery and HRC: Sir Charles Hercus Fellowship (21-030). L.N. is supported by a Massey University Doctoral Scholarship. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: Massey University Doctoral Scholarship support for L.N., Heritage Food Crops Research Trust. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Funding by Heritage Food Crops Research Trust. Abbreviations AGEs Advanced glycation end products Akt Protein kinase B AMPK Activated protein kinase ATG5 Autophagy protein 5 Bad Bcl2 Associated Agonist Of Cell Death protein Bax Bcl2 Associated X protein Bcl-2 B-cell lymphoma 2 BRCA1 Breast cancer 1 gene cAMP Cyclic adenosine monophosphate CDC25A Cell division cycle 25 A gene CDK-1,-2,-4,-6 Cyclin dependent kinase cIAP1,2 Cellular Inhibitor of Apoptosis Protein 1 cip1 CDK- interacting protein CISD2 CISD2 gene c-Myc Cellular myelocytomatosis oncogene COX-2 Cyclooxygenase-2 EGFR Epidermal growth factor receptor ERK, ERK1/2 Extracellular regulated kinase FoxA2 Forkhead box protein A2 FoxO3a Forkhead box protein o3a GADD45 Growth arrest and DNA damage-inducible protein Glut1 Glucose transporter 1 GRP78 (BiP) Binding immunoglobulin protein HK2 Hexokinase-2 IL-6,-8 Interleukin-6,-8 IRK The arabidopsis receptor kinase JNK C-Jun N-terminal Kinase KHSRP Kh-type splicing regulatory protein Kv10.1 Kv10.1 potassium channel LC3-II Light chain membrane protein LDHA Lactate dehydrogenase A LDH-A Lactate dehydrogenase A Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 19 of 29 Mcl-1 Induced myeloid leukemia cell differentiation protein MEK Mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase MGMT Methylated-DNA—protein-cysteine methyltransferase miR-146a Micro Ribonucleic Acid 146a MMP-2,-9 Matrix metalloproteinase-2,-9 mTOR Mammalian target of rapamycin protein NF-κB Nuclear Factor kappa B p21, p65, p62, Protein 21,65,62,53,38,27 p53, p38, p27 PARP Poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 1 PDK3,1 Pyruvate dehydrogenase pERK R-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase PGE2 Prostaglandin E2 Phosphor-eIF2α Phosphorylation of eukaryotic initiation factor-2 alpha PI3K Phosphoinositide 3-kinase Pin1 Prolyl isomerase p-JNK Phosphorylated c-Jun N-terminal Kinase (JNK) PKB Protein kinase B PKC Protein kinase C PKM2 Pyruvate kinase m2 rad51 RAD51 Recombinase (gene) RAGE Advanced glycosylation end product-specific receptor Ras Ras protein ROS Reactive oxygen species SHP-1 Protein tyrosine phosphatase shp 1 SIRT-1 Sirtiuin 1 SOX2 Sry-box transcription factor 2 STAT3 Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 TCF4 Transcription factor 4 (gene) TIMP-2 Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase 2 TLR4 Toll-like receptor 4 TNF- α Tumor necrosis factor alpha ULK-1 Unc-51 like autophagy activating kinase 1 VEGF Vascular endothelial growth factor VEGFR Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor Waf1 Wild type p53 activated protein-1 ZIP9 Zinc transporter 9 References 1. Harris, R.E. Epidemiology of Chronic Disease: Global Perspectives; Jones & Bartlett Learning: Burlington, MA, USA, 2019. 2. Wilkins, E.; Wilson, L.; Wickramasinghe, K.; Bhatnagar, P.; Leal, J.; Luengo-Fernandez, R.; Burns, R.; Rayner, M.; Townsend, N. European Cardiovascular Disease Statistics 2017; European Heart Network: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. 3. Bowry, A.D.; Lewey, J.; Dugani, S.B.; Choudhry, N.K. The Burden of Cardiovascular Disease in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Epidemiology and Management. Can. J. Cardiol. 2015, 31, 1151–1159. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Magliano, D.J.; Islam, R.M.; Barr, E.L.M.; Gregg, E.; Pavkov, M.E.; Harding, J.L.; Tabesh, M.; Koye, D.N.; Shaw, J.E. Trends in incidence of total or type 2 diabetes: Systematic review. BMJ 2019, 366, l5003. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Maxwell, O.; Kayode, A.A.; Olusola, Y.O.; Joshua, A.I.; Chinedu, O.V. Lung Cancer: A Chronic Disease Epidemiology; Prevalence Study. Asian J. Adv. Res. Rep. 2019, 3, 1–7. [CrossRef] 6. World Health Organization. Noncommunicable Diseases: Progress Monitor 2020; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. 7. Ferlay, J.; Ervik, M.; Lam, F.; Colombet, M.; Mery, L.; Piñeros, M.; Znaor, A.; Soerjomataram, I.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today; International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2018; Available online: https://gco.iarc.fr/today (accessed on 23 July 2021). 8. Reiss, R.; Johnston, J.; Tucker, K.; DeSesso, J.M.; Keen, C.L. Estimation of cancer risks and benefits associated with a potential increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2012, 50, 4421–4427. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Mathur, G.; Nain, S.; Sharma, P.K. Cancer: An Overview. Acad. J. Cancer Res. 2015, 8, 1. 10. Sun, Y.S.; Zhao, Z.; Yang, Z.N.; Xu, F.; Lu, H.J.; Zhu, Z.Y.; Shi, W.; Jiang, J.; Yao, P.P.; Zhu, H.P. Risk factors and preventions of breast cancer. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 13, 1387. [CrossRef] http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2015.06.028 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26321437 http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5003 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31511236 http://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2019/v3i430096 https://gco.iarc.fr/today http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.055 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22981907 http://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.21635 Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 20 of 29 11. Rawla, P.; Barsouk, A. Epidemiology of gastric cancer: Global trends, risk factors and prevention. Prz. Gastroenterol. 2019, 14, 26. [CrossRef] 12. Botelho, M.C.; Teixeira, J.P.; Oliveira, P.A. Carcinogenesis. In Encyclopedia of Toxicology, 3rd ed.; Wexler, P., Ed.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 713–729. 13. Fan, A.M. Chapter 11—Cancer. In Information Resources in Toxicology, 4th ed.; Wexler, P., Gilbert, S.G., Hakkinen, P.J., Mohapatra, A., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 103–121. 14. Basu, A.K. DNA damage, mutagenesis and cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 970. [CrossRef] 15. Bajaj, J.; Diaz, E.; Reya, T. Stem cells in cancer initiation and progression. J. Cell Biol. 2019, 219, e201911053. [CrossRef] 16. Mäki-Nevala, S.; Valo, S.; Ristimäki, A.; Sarhadi, V.; Knuutila, S.; Nyström, M.; Renkonen-Sinisalo, L.; Lepistö, A.; Mecklin, J.P.; Peltomäki, P. DNA methylation changes and somatic mutations as tumorigenic events in Lynch syndrome-associated adenomas retaining mismatch repair protein expression. EBioMedicine 2019, 39, 280–291. [CrossRef] 17. Takeshima, H.; Ushijima, T. Accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations in normal cells and cancer risk. Npj Precis. Oncol. 2019, 3, 1–8. [CrossRef] 18. Pogribny, I.P.; Rusyn, I. Environmental Toxicants, Epigenetics, and Cancer. In Epigenetic Alterations in Oncogenesis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 215–232. 19. Botezatu, A.; Iancu, I.V.; Popa, O.; Plesa, A.; Manda, D.; Huica, I.; Vladoiu, S.; Anton, G.; Badiu, C. Mechanisms of Oncogene Activation. New Aspects in Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Human Carcinogenesis; Bulgin, D., Ed.; BoD—Books on Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–52. 20. Kinsella, A.R. Multistage Carcinogenesis and the Biological Effects of Tumor Promoters. In Naturally Occurring Phorbol Esters; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 33–61. 21. Mulshine, J.L.; Treston, A.M.; Brown, P.H.; Birrer, M.J.; Shaw, G.L. Initiators and promoters of lung cancer. Chest 1993, 103, 4S–11S. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 22. Weston, A.; Harris, C.C. Multistage Carcinogenesis. In Cancer Medicine; Kufe, D.W., Pollock, R.E., Weichselbaum, R.R., Bast, R.C., Jr., Gansler, T.S., Holland, J.F., Frei, E., III, Eds.; BC Decker: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2003. 23. Klein, C.A. Cancer progression and the invisible phase of metastatic colonization. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2020, 20, 681–694. [CrossRef] 24. Hanahan, D.; Weinberg, R.A. Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation. Cell 2011, 144, 646–674. [CrossRef] 25. Divisi, D.; Di Tommaso, S.; Salvemini, S.; Garramone, M.; Crisci, R. Diet and cancer. Acta Bio-Med. Atenei Parm. 2006, 77, 118–123. 26. Wallace, T.C.; Bailey, R.L.; Blumberg, J.B.; Burton-Freeman, B.; Chen, C.-Y.O.; Crowe-White, K.M.; Drewnowski, A.; Hooshmand, S.; Johnson, E.; Lewis, R.; et al. Fruits, vegetables, and health: A comprehensive narrative, umbrella review of the science and recommendations for enhanced public policy to improve intake. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 60, 2174–2211. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 27. Schulze, M.B.; A Martínez-González, M.; Fung, T.T.; Lichtenstein, A.H.; Forouhi, N. Food based dietary patterns and chronic disease prevention. BMJ 2018, 361, k2396. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 28. Afshin, A.; Sur, P.J.; Fay, K.A.; Cornaby, L.; Ferrara, G.; Salama, J.S.; Mullany, E.C.; Abate, K.H.; Abbafati, C.; Abebe, Z.; et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2019, 393, 1958–1972. [CrossRef] 29. Lippi, G.; Mattiuzzi, C.; Cervellin, G. Meat consumption and cancer risk: A critical review of published meta-analyses. Crit. Rev. Oncol. 2015, 97, 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Johnson, I. The cancer risk related to meat and meat products. Br. Med Bull. 2016, 121, 73–81. [CrossRef] 31. Yu, H.; Xu, Q.; Xiong, W.; Liu, Z.; Cai, L.; He, F. Association of pickled food, fired food and smoked food combined with smoking and alcohol drinking with lung cancer: A case-control study. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu J. Hyg. Res. 2019, 48, 925–931. 32. WHO; FAO. Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases: Report of a Joint Who/Fao Expert Consultation; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003. 33. WHO. Healthy Diet—Fact Sheet No. 394 2018; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. 34. Hurtado-Barroso, S.; Trius-Soler, M.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.M.; Zamora-Ros, R. Vegetable and Fruit Consumption and Prognosis among Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. Adv. Nutr. 2020, 11, 1569–1582. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Aune, D.; Giovannucci, E.; Boffetta, P.; Fadnes, L.T.; Keum, N.; Norat, T.; Greenwood, D.C.; Riboli, E.; Vatten, L.J.; Tonstad, S. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality—A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2017, 46, 1029–1056. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 36. Basli, A.; Belkacem, N.; Amrani, I. Health Benefits of Phenolic Compounds against Cancers. In Phenolic Compounds–Biological Activity; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017; pp. 193–210. 37. Davidson, K.T.; Zhu, Z.; Fang, Y. Phytochemicals in the Fight against Cancer. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 2016, 22, 655–660. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 38. Johnson, I.T. Phytochemicals and cancer. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2007, 66, 207–215. [CrossRef] 39. Shree, T.J.; Poompavai, S.; Begum SM, F.M.; Gowrisree, V.; Hemalatha, S. Cancer-fighting phytochemicals: Another look. J. Nanomedine Biother. Discov. 2019, 8, 162. 40. Scarpa, E.-S.; Ninfali, P. Phytochemicals as Innovative Therapeutic Tools against Cancer Stem Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 15727–15742. [CrossRef] [PubMed] http://doi.org/10.5114/pg.2018.80001 http://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19040970 http://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201911053 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.12.018 http://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-019-0079-0 http://doi.org/10.1378/chest.103.1_Supplement.4S http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8380133 http://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-020-00300-6 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 http://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1632258 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31267783 http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2396 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29898951 http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.11.008 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26633248 http://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldw051 http://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmaa082 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32717747 http://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw319 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28338764 http://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-016-0045-x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26857640 http://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665107005459 http://doi.org/10.3390/ijms160715727 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26184171 Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 21 of 29 41. Talalay, P.; Fahey, J.W. Phytochemicals from Cruciferous Plants Protect against Cancer by Modulating Carcinogen Metabolism. J. Nutr. 2001, 131, 3027S–3033S. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 42. Yang, S.-F.; Weng, C.-J.; Sethi, G.; Hu, D.-N. Natural Bioactives and Phytochemicals Serve in Cancer Treatment and Prevention. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2013, 2013, 698190. [CrossRef] 43. Meybodi, N.M.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Monfared, A.B.; Sohrabvandi, S.; Meybodi, F.A. Phytochemicals in Cancer Prevention: A Review of the Evidence. Iran. J. Cancer Prev. 2017, 10, e7219. [CrossRef] 44. Ranjan, A.; Ramachandran, S.; Gupta, N.; Kaushik, I.; Wright, S.; Srivastava, S.; Das, H.; Srivastava, S.; Prasad, S.; Srivastava, S.K. Role of phytochemicals in cancer prevention. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4981. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 45. Zubair, H.; Azim, S.; Ahmad, A.; Khan, M.A.; Patel, G.K.; Singh, S.; Singh, A.P. Cancer Chemoprevention by Phytochemicals: Nature’s Healing Touch. Molecules 2017, 22, 395. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 46. Boyer, J.; Liu, R.H. Apple phytochemicals and their health benefits. Nutr. J. 2004, 3, 5. [CrossRef] 47. Gallus, S.; Talamini, R.; Giacosa, A.; Montella, M.; Ramazzotti, V.; Franceschi, S.; Negri, E.; La Vecchia, C. Does an apple a day keep the oncologist away? Ann. Oncol. 2005, 16, 1841–1844. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 48. Rupasinghe, H.V.; Thilakarathna, S.; Nair, S. Polyphenols of Apples and Their Potential Health Benefits. In Polyphenols: Chemistry, Dietary Sources and Health Benefits; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 333–368. 49. Rana, S.; Bhushan, S. Apple phenolics as nutraceuticals: Assessment, analysis and application. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 1727–1738. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 50. Konopacka, D.; Jesionkowska, K.; Kruczyńska, D.; Stehr, R.; Schoorl, F.; Buehler, A.; Egger, S.; Codarin, S.; Hilaire, C.; Höller, I.; et al. Apple and peach consumption habits across European countries. Appetite 2010, 55, 478–483. [CrossRef] 51. Kidoń, M.; Grabowska, J. Bioactive compounds, antioxidant activity, and sensory qualities of red-fleshed apples dried by different methods. LWT 2020, 136, 110302. [CrossRef] 52. Dashbaldan, S.; Pączkowski, C.; Szakiel, A. Variations in triterpenoid deposition in cuticular Waxes during development and maturation of selected fruits of Rosaceae family. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9762. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 53. Sut, S.; Poloniato, G.; Malagoli, M.; Dall’Acqua, S. Fragmentation of the main triterpene acids of apple by LC-APCI-MSn. J. Mass Spectrom. 2018, 53, 882–892. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 54. Davis, M.A.; Bynum, J.P.; Sirovich, B.E. Association between apple consumption and physician visits: Appealing the conventional wisdom that an apple a day keeps the doctor away. JAMA Intern. Med. 2015, 175, 777–783. [CrossRef] 55. Vinson, J.A.; Su, X.; Zubik, L.; Bose, P. Phenol Antioxidant Quantity and Quality in Foods: Fruits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 5315–5321. [CrossRef] 56. Scalbert, A.; Williamson, G. Dietary Intake and Bioavailability of Polyphenols. J. Nutr. 2000, 130, 2073S–2085S. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 57. Sun, J.; Chu, Y.-F.; Wu, X.; Liu, R.H. Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities of Common Fruits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 7449–7454. [CrossRef] 58. McCann, M.; Gill, C.; Brien, G.O.; Rao, J.; McRoberts, W.; Hughes, P.; McEntee, R.; Rowland, I. Anti-cancer properties of phenolics from apple waste on colon carcinogenesis in vitro. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2007, 45, 1224–1230. [CrossRef] 59. Kalinowska, M.; Bielawska, A.; Lewandowska-Siwkiewicz, H.; Priebe, W.; Lewandowski, W. Apples: Content of phenolic compounds vs. variety, part of apple and cultivation model, extraction of phenolic compounds, biological properties. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2014, 84, 169–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 60. Imeh, U.; Khokhar, S. Distribution of conjugated and free phenols in fruits: Antioxidant activity and cultivar variations. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 6301–6306. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 61. Almeida, D.P.; Gião, M.S.; Pintado, M.; Gomes, M.H. Bioactive phytochemicals in apple cultivars from the Portuguese protected geographical indication “Maçã de Alcobaça:” Basis for market segmentation. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017, 20, 2206–2214. [CrossRef] 62. McGhie, T.K.; Hunt, M.; Barnett, L.E. Cultivar and growing region determine the antioxidant polyphenolic concentration and composition of apples grown in New Zealand. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 3065–3070. [CrossRef] 63. Honda, C.; Moriya, S. Anthocyanin Biosynthesis in Apple Fruit. Hortic. J. 2018, 87, 305–314. [CrossRef] 64. De Paepe, D.; Valkenborg, D.; Noten, B.; Servaes, K.; Diels, L.; De Loose, M.; Van Droogenbroeck, B.; Voorspoels, S. Variability of the phenolic profiles in the fruits from old, recent and new apple cultivars cultivated in Belgium. Metabolomics 2015, 11, 739–752. [CrossRef] 65. Kruger, M.J.; Davies, N.; Myburgh, K.H.; Lecour, S. Proanthocyanidins, anthocyanins and cardiovascular diseases. Food Res. Int. 2014, 59, 41–52. [CrossRef] 66. Wang, X.; Li, C.; Liang, D.; Zou, Y.; Li, P.; Ma, F. Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity in red-fleshed apples. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 18, 1086–1094. [CrossRef] 67. Rana, S.; Rana, A.; Gupta, S.; Bhushan, S. Varietal influence on phenolic constituents and nutritive characteristics of pomace obtained from apples grown in western Himalayas. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 58, 166–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 68. Laaksonen, O.; Kuldjärv, R.; Paalme, T.; Virkki, M.; Yang, B. Impact of apple cultivar, ripening stage, fermentation type and yeast strain on phenolic composition of apple ciders. Food Chem. 2017, 233, 29–37. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 69. Alberti, A.; Zielinski, A.; Couto, M.; Judacewski, P.; Igarashi-Mafra, L.; Nogueira, A. Distribution of phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity in apples tissues during ripening. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 1511–1518. [CrossRef] http://doi.org/10.1093/jn/131.11.3027S http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694642 http://doi.org/10.1155/2013/698190 http://doi.org/10.17795/ijcp-7219 http://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20204981 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31600949 http://doi.org/10.3390/molecules22030395 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28273819 http://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-3-5 http://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdi361 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16091428 http://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-2093-8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27413201 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.08.011 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110302 http://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21249762 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33371323 http://doi.org/10.1002/jms.4264 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29992756 http://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5466 http://doi.org/10.1021/jf0009293 http://doi.org/10.1093/jn/130.8.2073S http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10917926 http://doi.org/10.1021/jf0207530 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2007.01.003 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2014.09.006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25282014 http://doi.org/10.1021/jf020342j http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12381107 http://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2016.1233431 http://doi.org/10.1021/jf047832r http://doi.org/10.2503/hortj.OKD-R01 http://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-014-0730-2 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.01.046 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2014.06.013 http://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04526-y http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33505061 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.04.067 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28530577 http://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2582-z Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 22 of 29 70. Van der Sluis, A.A.; Dekker, M.; de Jager, A.; Jongen, W.M. Activity and concentration of polyphenolic antioxidants in apple: Effect of cultivar, harvest year, and storage conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 3606–3613. [CrossRef] 71. Łata, B.; Trampczynska, A.; Paczesna, J. Cultivar variation in apple peel and whole fruit phenolic composition. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 121, 176–181. [CrossRef] 72. Kalinowska, M.; Gryko, K.; Wróblewska, A.M.; Jabłońska-Trypuć, A.; Karpowicz, D. Phenolic content, chemical composition and anti-/pro-oxidant activity of Gold Milenium and Papierowka apple peel extracts. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 14951. [CrossRef] 73. Kschonsek, J.; Wolfram, T.; Stöckl, A.; Böhm, V. Polyphenolic Compounds Analysis of Old and New Apple Cultivars and Contribution of Polyphenolic Profile to the In Vitro Antioxidant Capacity. Antioxidants 2018, 7, 20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 74. Shehzadi, K.; Rubab, Q.; Asad, L.; Ishfaq, M.; Shafique, B.; Modassar, M.; Ranjha, A.N.; Mahmood, S.; Mueen-Ud-Din, G.; Javaid, T. A critical review on presence of polyphenols in commercial varieties of apple peel, their extraction and Health benefits. Open Access J. Biog. Sci. Res. 2020, 6, 18. 75. Veberic, R.; Trobec, M.; Herbinger, K.; Hofer, M.; Grill, D.; Stampar, F. Phenolic compounds in some apple (Malus domestica Borkh) cultivars of organic and integrated production. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 1687–1694. [CrossRef] 76. Francini, A.; Sebastiani, L. Phenolic compounds in apple (Malus × domestica Borkh): Compounds characterization and stability during postharvest and after processing. Antioxidants 2013, 2, 181–193. [CrossRef] 77. Raudone, L.; Raudonis, R.; Liaudanskas, M.; Janulis, V.; Viskelis, P. Phenolic antioxidant profiles in the whole fruit, flesh and peel of apple cultivars grown in Lithuania. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 216, 186–192. [CrossRef] 78. Tsao, R.; Yang, R.; Young, A.J.C.; Zhu, H. Polyphenolic Profiles in Eight Apple Cultivars Using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 6347–6353. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 79. Łata, B. Relationship between Apple Peel and the Whole Fruit Antioxidant Content: Year and Cultivar Variation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 663–671. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 80. Lewinska, A.; Adamczyk-Grochala, J.; Kwasniewicz, E.; Deregowska, A.; Wnuk, M. Ursolic acid-mediated changes in glycolytic pathway promote cytotoxic autophagy and apoptosis in phenotypically different breast cancer cells. Apoptosis 2017, 22, 800–815. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 81. Le Bourvellec, C.; Bouzerzour, K.; Ginies, C.; Regis, S.; Plé, Y.; Renard, C.M. Phenolic and polysaccharidic composition of applesauce is close to that of apple flesh. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2011, 24, 537–547. [CrossRef] 82. Selby-Pham, S.N.; Miller, R.B.; Howell, K.; Dunshea, F.; Bennett, L.E. Physicochemical properties of dietary phytochemicals can predict their passive absorption in the human small intestine. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1931. [CrossRef] 83. Marín, L.; Miguélez, E.M.; Villar, C.J.; Lombó, F. Bioavailability of dietary polyphenols and gut microbiota metabolism: Antimi- crobial properties. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 905215. [CrossRef] 84. Bondonno, N.P.; Bondonno, C.P.; Ward, N.C.; Hodgson, J.M.; Croft, K.D. The cardiovascular health benefits of apples: Whole fruit vs. isolated compounds. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 69, 243–256. [CrossRef] 85. Cosme, P.; Rodríguez, A.B.; Espino, J.; Garrido, M. Plant phenolics: Bioavailability as a key determinant of their potential health-promoting applications. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 1263. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 86. Anantharaju, P.G.; Gowda, P.C.; Vimalambike, M.G.; Madhunapantula, S.V. An overview on the role of dietary phenolics for the treatment of cancers. Nutr. J. 2016, 15, 1–16. [CrossRef] 87. Aprikian, O.; Duclos, V.; Guyot, S.; Besson, C.; Manach, C.; Bernalier, A.; Morand, C.; Rémésy, C.; Demigné, C. Apple pectin and a polyphenol-rich apple concentrate are more effective together than separately on cecal fermentations and plasma lipids in rats. J. Nutr. 2003, 133, 1860–1865. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 88. Selma, M.V.; Espín, J.C.; Tomas-Barberan, F. Interaction between Phenolics and Gut Microbiota: Role in Human Health. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 6485–6501. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 89. Stracke, B.A.; Rüfer, C.E.; Bub, A.; Seifert, S.; Weibel, F.P.; Kunz, C.; Watzl, B. No effect of the farming system (or- ganic/conventional) on the bioavailability of apple (Malus domestica Bork., cultivar Golden Delicious) polyphenols in healthy men: A comparative study. Eur. J. Nutr. 2010, 49, 301–310. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 90. Wruss, J.; Lanzerstorfer, P.; Huemer, S.; Himmelsbach, M.; Mangge, H.; Höglinger, O.; Weghuber, D.; Weghuber, J. Differences in pharmacokinetics of apple polyphenols after standardized oral consumption of unprocessed apple juice. Nutr. J. 2015, 14, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 91. DuPont, M.S.; Bennett, R.N.; Mellon, F.A.; Williamson, G. Polyphenols from alcoholic apple cider are absorbed, metabolized and excreted by humans. J. Nutr. 2002, 132, 172–175. [CrossRef] 92. Koutsos, A.; Lima, M.; Conterno, L.; Gasperotti, M.; Bianchi, M.; Fava, F.; Vrhovsek, U.; Lovegrove, J.A.; Tuohy, K.M. Effects of Commercial Apple Varieties on Human Gut Microbiota Composition and Metabolic Output Using an In Vitro Colonic Model. Nutrients 2017, 9, 533. [CrossRef] 93. Shinohara, K.; Ohashi, Y.; Kawasumi, K.; Terada, A.; Fujisawa, T. Effect of apple intake on fecal microbiota and metabolites in humans. Anaerobe 2010, 16, 510–515. [CrossRef] 94. Williams, B.A.; Grant, L.J.; Gidley, M.J.; Mikkelsen, D. Gut fermentation of dietary fibres: Physico-chemistry of plant cell walls and implications for health. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 2203. [CrossRef] 95. Efimtseva, E.A.; Chelpanova, T.I. Apples as a Source of Soluble and Insoluble Dietary Fibers: Effect of Dietary Fibers on Appetite. Hum. Physiol. 2020, 46, 224–234. [CrossRef] http://doi.org/10.1021/jf001493u http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009.01.038 http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71351-w http://doi.org/10.3390/antiox7010020 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29364189 http://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2113 http://doi.org/10.3390/antiox2030181 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.01.005 http://doi.org/10.1021/jf0346298 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14518966 http://doi.org/10.1021/jf062664j http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17263458 http://doi.org/10.1007/s10495-017-1353-7 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28213701 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2010.12.012 http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01888-w http://doi.org/10.1155/2015/905215 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.04.012 http://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9121263 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33322700 http://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-016-0217-2 http://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.6.1860 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12771330 http://doi.org/10.1021/jf902107d http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19580283 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-009-0088-9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20033417 http://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-015-0018-z http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25890155 http://doi.org/10.1093/jn/132.2.172 http://doi.org/10.3390/nu9060533 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2010.03.005 http://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18102203 http://doi.org/10.1134/S036211972002005X Nutrients 2021, 13, 4025 23 of 29 96. Andoh, A.; Tsujikawa, T.; Fujiyama, Y. Role of dietary fiber and short-chain fatty acids in the colon. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2003, 9, 347–358. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 97. Starowicz, M.; Achrem-Achremowicz, B.; Piskula, M.; Zielinski, H. Phenolic compounds from apples: Reviewing their occurrence, absorption, bioavailability, processing, and antioxidant activity—A review. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2020, 70, 321–336. [CrossRef] 98. Zou, T.; Wang, B.; Li, S.; Liu, Y.; You, J. Dietary apple polyphenols promote fat browning in high-fat diet-induced obese mice through activation of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase α. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 2389–2398. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 99. Zhao, C.-N.; Meng, X.; Li, Y.; Li, S.; Liu, Q.; Tang, G.-Y.; Li, H.-B. Fruits for Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases. Nutrients 2017, 9, 598. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 100. Gayer, B.A.; Avendano, E.E.; Edelson, E.; Nirmala, N.; Johnson, E.J.; Raman, G. Effects of Intake of Apples, Pears, or Their Products on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2019, 3, nzz109. [CrossRef] 101. Hyun, T.K.; Jang, K.I. Apple as a source of dietary phytonutrients: An update on the potential health benefits of apple. EXCLI J. 2016, 15, 565. 102. Mahmud, L.S.M.; Tisha, A.; Sagor, A.T. A comprehensive review on effective role of Apple polyphenols in the treatment of obesity, diabetes, and liver dysfunctions with some possible molecular mechanisms. Oxid. Antioxid. Med Sci. 2018, 7, 9–27. 103. Guo, X.F.; Yang, B.; Tang, J.; Jiang, J.J.; Li, D. Apple and pear consumption and type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Food Funct. 2017, 8, 927–934. [CrossRef] 104. Alam, M.N.; Almoyad, M.; Huq, F. Polyphenols in colorectal cancer: Current state of knowledge including clinical trials and molecular mechanism of action. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 4154185. [CrossRef] 105. Martínez-Rodríguez, O.P.; Thompson-Bonilla, M.D.R.; Jaramillo-Flores, M.E. Association between obesity and breast cancer: Molecular bases and the effect of flavonoids in signaling pathways. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 3770–3792. [CrossRef] 106. Linseisen, J.; Rohrmann, S.; Miller, A.B.; Bueno-De-Mesquita, H.B.; Büchner, F.; Vineis, P.; Agudo, A.; Gram, I.T.; Janson, L.; Krogh, V.; et al. Fruit and vegetable consumption and lung cancer risk: Updated information from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Int. J. Cancer 2007, 121, 1103–1114. [CrossRef] 107. Büchner, F.L.; Bueno-de-Mesquita, H.B.; Ros, M.M.; Kampman, E.; Egevad, L.; Overvad, K.; Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Tjønneland, A.; Roswall, N.; Clavel-Chapelon, F.; et al. Consumption of vegetables and fruit and the risk of bladder cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int. J. Cancer 2009, 125, 2643–2651. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 108. Feskanich, D.; Ziegler, R.G.; Michaud, D.S.; Giovannucci, E.L.; Speizer, F.E.; Willett, W.C.; Colditz, G. Prospective Study of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and Risk of Lung Cancer Among Men and Women. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000, 92, 1812–1823. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 109. Knekt, P.; Järvinen, R.; Seppänen, R.; Heliövaara, M.; Teppo, L.; Pukkala, E.; Aromaa, A. Dietary flavonoids and the risk of lung cancer and other malignant neoplasms. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1997, 146, 223–230. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 110. Le Marchand, L.; Murphy, S.P.; Hankin, J.H.; Wilkens, L.R.; Kolonel, L.N. Intake of flavonoids and lung cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000, 92, 154–160. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 111. Arts, I.C.; Hollman, P.C.; Bueno de Mesquita, H.B.; Feskens, E.J.; Kromhout, D. Dietary catechins and epithelial cancer incidence: The Zutphen elderly study. Int. J. Cancer 2001, 92, 298–302. [CrossRef] 112. Farvid, M.S.; Chen, W.Y.; Rosner, B.A.; Tamimi, R.M.; Willett, W.C.; Eliassen, A.H. Fruit and vegetable consumption and breast cancer incidence: Repeated measures over 30 years of follow-up. Int. J. Cancer 2018, 144, 1496–1510. [CrossRef] 113. Rossi, M.; Lugo, A.; Lagiou, P.; Zucchetto, A.; Polesel, J.; Serraino, D.; Negri, E.; Trichopoulos, D.; La Vecchia, C. Proanthocyanidins and other flavonoids in relation to pancreatic cancer: A case–control study in Italy. Ann. Oncol. 2012, 23, 1488–1493. [CrossRef] 114. Smith-Warner, S.A.; Spiegelman, D.; Yaun, S.S.; Adami, H.O.; Beeson, W.L.; Van Den Brandt, P.A.; Folsom, A.R.; Fraser, G.E.; Freudenheim, J.L.; Goldbohm, R.A.; et al. Intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of breast cancer: A pooled analysis of cohort studies. JAMA 2001, 285, 769–776. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 115. Torres-Sánchez, L.; López-Carrillo, L.; Ló-Cervantes, M.; Rueda-Neria, C.; Wolff, M.S. Food Sources of Phytoestrogens and Breast Cancer Risk in Mexican Women. Nutr. Cancer 2000, 37, 134–139. [CrossRef] 116. Jedrychowski, W.; Maugeri, U.; Popiela, T.; Kulig, J.; Sochacka-Tatara, E.; Pac, A.; Sowa, A.; Musial, A. Case–control study on beneficial effect of regular consumption of apples on colorectal cancer risk in a population with relatively low intake of fruits and vegetables. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2010, 19, 42–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 117. Kreimer, A.R.; Randi, G.; Herrero, R.; Castellsagué, X.; Vecchia, C.L.; Franceschi, S. Diet and body mass, and oral and oropharyn- geal squamous cell carcinomas: Analysis from the IARC multinational case–control study. Int. J. Cancer 2006, 118, 2293–2297. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 118. Rashidkhani, B.; Lindblad, P.; Wolk, A. Fruits, vegetables and risk of renal cell carcinoma: A prospective study of Swedish women. Int. J. Cancer 2004, 113, 451–455. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 119. Lindblad, P.; Wolk, A.; Bergström, R.; Adami, H.O. Diet and risk of renal cell cancer: A population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 1997, 6, 215–223. 120. Askari, F.; Parizi, M.K.; Jessri, M.; Rashidkhani, B. Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Relation to Prostate Cancer in Iranian Men: A Case-Control Study. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014, 15, 5223–5227. [CrossRef] [PubMed] http://doi.org/10.2174/1381612033391973 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12570825 http://doi.org/10.31883/pjfns/127635 http://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10248 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31916584 http://doi.org/10.3390/nu9060598 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28608832 http://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzz109 http://doi.org/10.1039/C6FO01378C http://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4154185 http://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1708262 http://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22807 http://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24582 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19618458 http://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.22.1812 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11078758 http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009257 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9247006 http://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.2.154 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10639518 http://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0215(200102)9999:9999<::AID-IJC1187>3.0.CO;2-8 http://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31653 http://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr475 http://