Evaluación de atributos sensoriales y parámetros bioquímicos en frutos de tomate transgénico con reducida actividad de poligalacturonasa / Evaluation of sensory attributes and biochemical parameters in transgenic tomato fruit with reduced polygalacturonase activity
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 1997
Evaluación de atributos sensoriales y parámetros bioquímicos en frutos de tomate transgénico con reducida actividad de poligalacturonasa / Evaluation of sensory attributes and biochemical parameters in transgenic tomato fruit with reduced polygalacturonase activity
Sensory, physicochemical and biochemical parameters of fresh market tomatoes were monitored in order to determine the nature and extent of quality changes in transgenic tomato fruit with reduced polygalacturonase activity. Acceptability was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in CR3 transgenic tomatoes than in a commercial long shelf-life hybrid heterozygous for the ripening inhibitor (rin) allele. Preference ratings for CR3 fruits were also significantly superior in some sensory attributes such as colour (p < 0.0002) and flavour (p < 0.0001). A descriptive evaluation of sweetness yielded statistically (p < 0.0143) higher scores for the CR3 control and transgenic fruit, consistent with objec tive measures of soluble solids. Significant increases in survival during longer storage periods were found in polygalacturonase antisense fruits, which were less susceptible to damage or cracking and less prone to infection. In transgenic tomato fruits with reduced polygalacturonase gene expression, the softening rate was not significantly inhibited during ripening but was retarded in the over- ripening stage. Activity assays of α- and β-galactosidases did not show significant differences between antisense and control fruit, except for the β-galactosidase in the breaker stage.
Beattie B.B., Kavanagh E.E., McGlasson W.B., Adams K.H., Smith E.F. y Best D.J. (1983). Fresh market tomatoes: a study of consumer attitudes and quality of fruit offered for sale in Sidney 1981-82. Food Technology Australia35: 450-454.
2.
Carey A.T., Holt K., Picard S., Wilde R., Tucker G.A., Bird C.R., Schuch W. y Seymour G.B. (1995). Tomato exo-(1→ 4)-β-D-galactanase. Isolation, changes during ripening in normal and mutant tomato fruit, and characterization of a related cDNA clone. Plant Physiology108: 1099-1107.
3.
Carrington C.M.S., Greve L.C. y Labavitch J.M. (1993). Cell wall metabolism in ripening fruit. Effect of the antisense polygalacturonase gene on cell wall changes accompanying ripening in transgenic tomatoes: Plant Physiology103: 429-434.
4.
Carrington C.M.S. y Pressey R. (1996). β-Galactosidase II activity in relation to changes in cell wall galactosyl composition during tomato ripening. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science121: 132-136.
5.
Dey P.M. y Campillo E.D. (1984). Biochemistry of the multiple forms of glycosidases in plants. Advances in Enzymology56: 141-249.
6.
Fischer R.L. y Bennett A.B. (1991). Role of cell wall hydro-lases in fruit ripening. Annual Review of Plant Physiology andPlant Molecular Biology42: 675-703.
7.
Giovannoni J.J., DellaPenna D., Bennett A.B. y Fischer R.L. (1989). Expression of a chimeric polygalacturonase gene in transgenic rin (ripening-inhibitor) tomato fruit results in polyuronide degradation but not fruit softening. The Plant Cell1: 53-63.
8.
Gray J., Picton S., Shabbeer J., Schuch W. y. Grierson D. (1993). Molecular biology of fruit ripening and its manipulation with antisense genes. Plant Molecular Biology19: 69-87.
9.
Grierson D. y Tucker G.A. (1983). Timing of ethylene and polygalacturonase synthesis in relation to the control of tomato fruit ripening. Planta157: 174-179.
10.
Handy C.R. y Pfaff M. (1975). Consumer Satisfaction with Food Products and Marketing Services. USDA Economical Research Service Agricultural Econ. Rept. 281, USA.
11.
Hicks J.R., Hayslip N.C. y Showalter R.K. (1975). Consumer preferences in buying pink and red-ripe tomatoes. HortScience10: 11-12.
12.
Hobson G.E. (1965). The firmness of tomato fruit in relation to polygalacturonase activity. Journal of Horticultural Science40: 66-72.
13.
Hobson G. y Grierson D. (1993). Tomato. En: Seymour G.B., Taylor J.E. y Tucker G.A. (eds.), Biochemistry of fruit ripening. Londres: Chapman & Hall. pp. 405-442.
14.
Institute of Food Technologists (1981). Sensory evaluation guide for testing food and beverage products. Food Technology35: 50-59.
15.
Kader A.A., Stevens M.A., Albright-Holton M., Morris L.L. y Algazi M. (1977). Effect of fruit ripeness when picked on flavor and composition in fresh market tomatoes. Journal of the American Society for HorticulturalScience102: 724-731.
16.
Kim J., Gross K.C. y Solomos T. (1987). Characterization of the stimulation of ethylene production by galactose in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit. Plant Physiology85: 804-807.
17.
Kojima K., Sakurai N., Kuraishi S., Yamamoto R. y Nevins D.J. (1991). Novel technique for measuring tissue firmness within tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit. Plant Physiology96: 545-550.
18.
Kramer M., Sanders R., Bolkan H., Waters C., Sheehy R.E. y Hiatt W.R. (1992). Postharvest evaluation of transgenic tomatoes with reduced levels of polygalacturonase: processing, firmness and disease resistance. Postharvest Biology and Technology1: 241-255.
19.
Langley K.R., Martin A., Stenning R., Murray A.J., Hobson G.E., Schuch W.W. y Bird C.R. (1994). Mechanical and optical assessment of the ripening of tomato fruit with reduced polygalacturonase activity. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture66: 547-554.
20.
Malundo T.M.M., Shewfelt R.L. y Scott J.W. (1995). Flavor quality of fresh tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as affected by sugar and acid levels. Postharvest Biology and Technology6: 103-110.
21.
Murray A.J., Bird C.R., Schuch W.W. y Hobson G.E. (1995). Evaluation of transgenic tomato fruit with reduced polygalacturonase activity in combination with the rin mutation. Postharvest Biology and Technology6: 91-101.
22.
Nuez, F. (1995). Desarrollo de nuevos cultivares. En: Nuez Madrid, F. (ed.), El Cultivo del Tomate . España: Ediciones Mundi-Prensa . pp. 625-669.
23.
Pressey R. (1983). β-Galactosidases in ripening tomatoes. Plant Physiology71: 132-135.
24.
Redenbaugh K., Hiatt W., Martineau B. y Emlay D. (1994). Regulatory assessment of the FLAVR SAVR tomato . Trends in Food Science and Technology5: 105-110.
25.
SAS Institute Inc. (1989). SAS User's Guide 6.04 Release. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.
26.
Schuch W., Kanczler J., Robertson D., Hobson G., Tucker G., Grierson D., Bright S. y Bird C. (1991). Fruit quality charaeteristics of transgenic tomato fruit with altered polygalacturonase activity. HortScience26: 1517-1520.
27.
Sheehy R.E., Kramer M.K. y Hiatt W.R. (1988). Reduction of polygalacturonase activity in tomato fruit by antisense RNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America85: 8805-8809.
28.
Shewfelt, R.L. (1994). Measuring quality and maturity. En: Shewfelt R.L. y PrussiaS.E. (eds), Postharvest Handling: A Systems Approach. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press. pp.99-124.
29.
Smith C.J.S., Watson C.F., Ray J., Bird C.R., Morris P.C., Schuch W. y Grierson D. (1988). Antisense RNA inhibition of polygalacturonase gene expression in transgenic tomatoes. Nature334, 724-726.
30.
Sozzi G.O., Cascone O. y Fraschina A.A. (1996). Effect of a high-temperature stress on endo-β-mannanase and α-and β-galactosidase activities during tomato fruit ripening . Postharvest Biology and Technology9, 49-63.
31.
Stevens M.A., Kader A.A. y Albright M. (1979). Potential for increasing tomato flavor via increased sugar and acid content. Journal of the American Society for HorticulturalScience104: 40-42.
32.
Stevens M.A. y Albright M. (1980). An approach to sensory evaluation of horticultural commodities. HortScience15: 48-50.
33.
Stevens M.A., Kader A.A., Albright-Holton M. y Algazi M. (1977). Genotypic variation for flavor and composition in fresh market tomatoes. Journal of the American Society for HorticulturalScience102: 680-689.
34.
Usda (1975). Color classification requirements in United States standards for grades of fresh tomatoes. USDA Visual Aid TM-L-1. Lansing, MI, USA: John Henry Co.
