Literature DB >> 32333754

Model-assisted comparison of sugar accumulation patterns in ten fleshy fruits highlights differences between herbaceous and woody species.

Coffi Belmys Cakpo1, Gilles Vercambre1, Valentina Baldazzi1,2,3, Léa Roch4, Zhanwu Dai5,6, Pierre Valsesia1, Mohamed-Mahmoud Memah1, Sophie Colombié4, Annick Moing4,7, Yves Gibon4, Michel Génard1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sugar concentration is a key determinant of fruit quality. Soluble sugars and starch concentrations in fruits vary greatly from one species to another. The aim of this study was to investigate similarities and differences in sugar accumulation strategies across ten contrasting fruit species using a modelling approach.
METHODS: We developed a coarse-grained model of primary metabolism based on the description of the main metabolic and hydraulic processes (synthesis of compounds other than sugar and starch, synthesis and hydrolysis of starch, and water dilution) involved in the accumulation of soluble sugars during fruit development. KEY
RESULTS: Statistical analyses based on metabolic rates separated the species into six groups according to the rate of synthesis of compounds other than sugar and starch. Herbaceous species (cucumber, tomato, eggplant, pepper and strawberry) were characterized by a higher synthesis rate than woody species (apple, nectarine, clementine, grape and kiwifruit). Inspection of the dynamics of the processes involved in sugar accumulation revealed that net sugar importation, metabolism and dilution processes were remarkably synchronous in most herbaceous plants, whereas in kiwifruit, apple and nectarine, processes related to starch metabolism were temporally separated from other processes. Strawberry, clementine and grape showed a distinct dynamic compared with all other species.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results provide fresh insights into species-specific regulatory strategies and into the role of starch metabolism in the accumulation of soluble sugars in fleshy fruits. In particular, inter-specific differences in development period shape the co-ordination of metabolic processes and affect priorities for carbon allocation across species. The six metabolic groups identified by our analysis do not show a clear separation into climacteric and non-climacteric species, possibly suggesting that the metabolic processes related to sugar concentration are not greatly affected by ethylene-associated events.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Sugar metabolism; cross-species; fleshy fruit; inter-species; model; starch metabolism; sugar uptake; water dilution

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32333754      PMCID: PMC7424760          DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcaa082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Bot        ISSN: 0305-7364            Impact factor:   4.357


  40 in total

1.  Towards a virtual fruit focusing on quality: modelling features and potential uses.

Authors:  M Génard; N Bertin; C Borel; P Bussières; H Gautier; R Habib; M Léchaudel; A Lecomte; F Lescourret; P Lobit; B Quilot
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2007-02-05       Impact factor: 6.992

2.  Black leaf streak disease affects starch metabolism in banana fruit.

Authors:  Lorenzo de Amorim Saraiva; Florence Polegato Castelan; Renata Shitakubo; Neuza Mariko Aymoto Hassimotto; Eduardo Purgatto; Marc Chillet; Beatriz Rosana Cordenunsi
Journal:  J Agric Food Chem       Date:  2013-06-03       Impact factor: 5.279

3.  Phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase and gluconeogenesis in grape pericarp.

Authors:  Robert P Walker; Alberto Battistelli; Stefano Moscatello; László Técsi; Richard C Leegood; Franco Famiani
Journal:  Plant Physiol Biochem       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 4.270

4.  Sucrose Synthase, Starch Accumulation, and Tomato Fruit Sink Strength.

Authors:  F. Wang; A. Sanz; M. L. Brenner; A. Smith
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 8.340

5.  Changes in fruit sugar concentrations in response to assimilate supply, metabolism and dilution: a modeling approach applied to peach fruit (Prunus persica).

Authors:  M Génard; F Lescourret; L Gomez; R Habib
Journal:  Tree Physiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.196

6.  Impact of suppression of ethylene action or biosynthesis on flavor metabolites in apple (Malus domestica Borkh) fruits.

Authors:  Bruno G Defilippi; Abhaya M Dandekar; Adel A Kader
Journal:  J Agric Food Chem       Date:  2004-09-08       Impact factor: 5.279

7.  Optimal concentration for sugar transport in plants.

Authors:  Kaare H Jensen; Jessica A Savage; N Michele Holbrook
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 4.118

8.  Conserved changes in the dynamics of metabolic processes during fruit development and ripening across species.

Authors:  Sebastian Klie; Sonia Osorio; Takayuki Tohge; María F Drincovich; Aaron Fait; James J Giovannoni; Alisdair R Fernie; Zoran Nikoloski
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 8.340

9.  Remarkable reproducibility of enzyme activity profiles in tomato fruits grown under contrasting environments provides a roadmap for studies of fruit metabolism.

Authors:  Benot Biais; Camille Bénard; Bertrand Beauvoit; Sophie Colombié; Duyên Prodhomme; Guillaume Ménard; Stéphane Bernillon; Bernadette Gehl; Hélène Gautier; Patricia Ballias; Jean-Pierre Mazat; Lee Sweetlove; Michel Génard; Yves Gibon
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 8.340

View more
  1 in total

1.  Biomass composition explains fruit relative growth rate and discriminates climacteric from non-climacteric species.

Authors:  Léa Roch; Sylvain Prigent; Holger Klose; Coffi-Belmys Cakpo; Bertrand Beauvoit; Catherine Deborde; Laetitia Fouillen; Pierre van Delft; Daniel Jacob; Björn Usadel; Zhanwu Dai; Michel Génard; Gilles Vercambre; Sophie Colombié; Annick Moing; Yves Gibon
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 6.992

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.