Article

Climacteric or non-climacteric behavior in melon fruit 2. Linking climacteric pattern and main postharvest disorders and decay in a set of near-isogenic lines

Technical University of Cartagena (UPCT), Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, Campus Paseo Alfonso XIII, 48, ETSIA and Institute of Plant Biotechnology, E-30203 Cartagena (Murcia), Spain; UPCT, Department of Plant Production, Spain; IRTA, Centre de Recerca en Agrigenòmica (CSIC-IRTA-UAB), Carretera de Cabrils Km 2, E-08348 Cabrils (Barcelona), Spain
Postharvest Biology and Technology (Impact Factor: 2.45). 01/2008; 50:125. DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.04.007

ABSTRACT A set of near-isogenic lines (NILs) of melon (Cucumis melo L.) was used to test the relationship between the climacteric pattern and postharvest disorders at harvest and after 30 days at 8 °C. The NILs contained different chromosome introgressions in the linkage group III from the non-climacteric exotic Korean accession PI 161375 transferred into the genetic background of the non-climacteric Spanish cultivar ‘Piel de Sapo’ (PS). A quantitative trait locus (QTL) in this linkage group induced climacteric behavior in eight NILs accompanied by a peak of ethylene production and fruit dehiscence to different degrees. The cultivar ‘Nicolás’ and one NIL showed a non-climacteric pattern of respiration rate and ethylene production. The climacteric NILs were used to test the relationship between this pattern and postharvest disorders. The reference climacteric lines ‘Fado’ and ‘Védrantais’ were more sensitive to CI and associated Cladosporium rot than the NILs or PS. In general, a more intense climacteric behavior was accompanied by fruit dehiscence, and higher total losses and greater skin scald after storage, than in PS. A higher incidence of chilling injury (CI) in the climacteric NILs was found compared with the non-climacteric ones, although with exceptions (one NIL for CI in the form of scald; the same NIL and one more for pitting). The climacteric onset and netting scald were not related, and CI in the form of skin spots was only found in climacteric NILs and was positively correlated with the maximum peak of ethylene production. Some climacteric NILs did not follow the rule of a higher susceptibility to other disorders and decay after storage compared with PS, such as for example in fruit over-ripening (detected externally or internally), Cladosporium rot at the peduncle and Alternaria rot. Mealiness was independent of climacteric behavior. Three climacteric NILs obtained better flavor scores after storage than PS, although the maximum peak of ethylene production was positively correlated with off-flavor. Genotypic correlation between disorder data and the physiological data of climacteric fruit revealed positive (flavor index) or negative postharvest consequences (skin injuries, rots or off-flavors). At least one QTL can be assigned to most of the quality traits analyzed.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
52 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This paper characterizes the quality traits at harvest and the changes associated with fruit senescence based on fruit physiological behaviour (climacteric or non-climacteric) found in a collection of near-isogenic lines (NILs) of melon (Cucumis melo L.). Data from both stages of postharvest development were analyzed by univariate and multivariate statistical analysis.RESULTS: The principal components and random forest analyses of the fruit quality traits allowed the best classification of the NILs by time (harvest, senescence), or by climacteric behaviour at harvest, but not at the senescent stage. The overall quality profile of the non-climacteric senescent melons was, in general, very different from that of the climacteric ones, and was in accord with a longer storage life. Most of the taste quality traits (individual sugars or sucrose equivalents, titratable acidity and the citric, oxalacetic, glutamic and succinic acids) and the traits related to skin, flesh and juice colour parameters (chroma, hue angle) helped to distinguish the climacteric NILs from the non-climacteric ones independently of the time considered.CONCLUSIONS: The time had a stronger effect on quality than the physiological behaviour. The discrimination by climacteric or non-climacteric behaviour was usually better at harvest than at the senescent stage irrespective of the methodology used. Principal component analysis was the best multivariate method to discriminate by time and physiological behaviour followed by random forest and linear discriminant analysis. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry
    Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 06/2009; 89(10):1743 - 1753. · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) of fresh produce relies on the modification of atmosphere inside the package achieved by the natural interplay between two processes: the respiration rates of the commodity and the permeability of the packaging films. MAP has been a proven technology to meet the consumer’s demand for more natural and fresh foods, which is increasing day by day. Because of its dynamic phenomenon, respiration and permeation take place simultaneously, and it is necessary to design the MAP system and select the matching films to achieve desired atmosphere early and maintain as long as possible. To meet the desired film characteristics for MAP, the different plastic films are either laminated or coextruded. In this modern world, the packaging films of required gas transmission properties are made available through advanced technology. Although the MAP industry has an increasing choice of packaging films, most packs are still constructed from four basic sustainable polymers: polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyproylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) for packaging of fresh produce. Polystyrene has also been used but polyvinylidene, polyester and nylon have such low gas permeabilities that they would be suitable only for commodities with very low respiration rates.
    Food Engineering Reviews 1(2):133-158. · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source