| Literature DB >> 35498983 |
Junzheng Sun1,2, Hongbin Chen1,3, Huilin Xie1,2, Meiling Li1,2, Yihui Chen1,2, Yen-Con Hung4, Hetong Lin1,2.
Abstract
Effects of acidic electrolyzed water (AEW) treatment (pH = 2.5, ACC = 80 mg L-1, 10 min) on pulp firmness, amounts of CWM and CWP, activities and expression of relevant genes of CWDEs in pulp of Fuyan longan during storage at 25 °C were evaluated. Compared to control samples, during storage, AEW-treated fruit retained a higher pulp firmness, prevented WSP formation, reduced the degradation of CSP, cellulose and hemicellulose, and lowered CWDEs activities and their corresponding gene expression. When stored for 5 d, pulp firmness (113.6 g mm-1), CWM (13.9 g kg-1), and CSP (1.4 g kg-1) in AEW-treated fruit displayed the clearly higher contents than those in control samples. These data suggest that AEW treatment can slow down the pulp softening and retain higher pulp CWP levels in postharvest fresh longans, which was because AEW lowered activities of CWDEs and its gene expression levels, and maintained the cell wall structure's integrity.Entities:
Keywords: 1-MCP, 1-methylcyclopropene; AEW, acidic electrolyzed water; Acidic electrolyzed water; CEL, cellulase; CSP, covalent-soluble pectin; CWDEs, cell wall degrading enzymes; CWM, cell wall materials; CWP, cell wall polysaccharides; Cell wall degrading enzymes; Cell wall polysaccharides; Gene expression; ISP, ionic-soluble pectin; Longan fruit; NFT, near freezing temperature; PE, pectinesterase; PG, polygalacturonase; Pulp firmness; WSP, water-soluble pectin; XET, xyloglucan endotransglycosylase; β-Gal, β-galactosidase
Year: 2022 PMID: 35498983 PMCID: PMC9040007 DOI: 10.1016/j.fochx.2022.100265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Chem X ISSN: 2590-1575
Fig. 1Effect of AEW treatment on pulp firmness (A), CWM content (B), contents of CSP (C), ISP (D), WSP (E), cellulose (F) and hemicellulose (G) in pulp of harvested longans. Value presented in figure equals mean ± standard error of triplicate analyses, vertical bars express the standard error of mean (n = 3). Significant differences between control (○) and AEW treated fruit (●) are represented by * (p < 0.05) and ** (p < 0.01).
Correlation analysis of pulp firmness of control longan fruit. The correlation coefficients were calculated on the basis of the mean values obtained from three biological replicates.
| Firmness | CWM | CSP | ISP | WSP | Cellulose | Hemicellulose | XET | PE | PG | CEL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firmness | 1 | |||||||||||
| CWM | 0.942** | 1 | ||||||||||
| CSP | 0.915* | 0.842* | 1 | |||||||||
| ISP | – | – | – | 1 | ||||||||
| WSP | −0.893* | −0.951** | −0.863* | – | 1 | |||||||
| Cellulose | 0.938** | 0.930** | 0.951** | – | – | 1 | ||||||
| Hemicellulose | 0.932** | 0.971** | 0.894* | – | – | – | 1 | |||||
| XET | −0.993** | −0.921** | −0.875* | – | – | −0.908* | −0.909* | 1 | ||||
| PE | −0.870* | −0.920** | −0.870* | – | 0.989** | – | – | – | 1 | |||
| PG | −0.894* | −0.919** | −0.884* | – | 0.985** | – | – | – | – | 1 | ||
| −0.942** | −0.938** | −0.951** | – | 0.975** | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | ||
| CEL | −0.995** | −0.931** | −0.903* | – | – | −0.940** | −0.925** | – | – | – | – | 1 |
Note: “−” means the correlation analysis is not done.
Correlation analysis of pulp firmness of AEW-treated longan fruit. The correlation coefficients were calculated on the basis of the mean values obtained from three biological replicates.
| Firmness | CWM | CSP | ISP | WSP | Cellulose | Hemicellulose | XET | PE | PG | CEL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firmness | 1 | |||||||||||
| CWM | 0.926** | 1 | ||||||||||
| CSP | 0.934** | 0.970** | 1 | |||||||||
| ISP | – | – | – | 1 | ||||||||
| WSP | −0.872* | −0.950** | −0.978** | – | 1 | |||||||
| Cellulose | 0.950** | 0.986** | – | – | – | 1 | ||||||
| Hemicellulose | 0.978** | 0.974** | – | – | – | – | 1 | |||||
| XET | −0.996** | −0.908* | – | – | – | −0.939** | −0.969** | 1 | ||||
| PE | −0.975** | −0.965** | −0.973** | – | 0.951** | – | – | – | 1 | |||
| PG | −0.858* | −0.943** | −0.959** | – | 0.988** | – | – | – | – | 1 | ||
| −0.907* | −0.941** | −0.974** | – | 0.981** | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | ||
| CEL | −0.983** | −0.930** | – | – | – | −0.954** | −0.971** | – | – | – | – | 1 |
Note: “−” means the correlation analysis is not done.
Fig. 2Effect of AEW treatment on activities of PE (A), PG (B), β-Gal (C), XET (D), and CEL (E) in pulp of harvested longans. Value presented in figure equals mean ± standard error of triplicate analyses, vertical bars express the standard error of mean (n = 3). Significant differences between control (○) and AEW treated fruit (●) are represented by * (p < 0.05) and ** (p < 0.01).
Fig. 3Effect of AEW treatment on relative genes expression of DlPE (A), DlPG (B), Dlβ-Gal (C), DlXET (D), and DlCEL (E) in pulp of harvested longans. Value presented in figure equals mean ± standard error of triplicate analyses, vertical bars express the standard error of mean (n = 3). Significant differences between control (○) and AEW treated fruit (●) are represented by ** (p < 0.01).
Fig. 4The possible mechanism of AEW inhibited pulp softening of longans by regulating the metabolism of cell wall polysaccharides.