4.7 Article

Effect of methyl salicylate in combination with 1-methylcyclopropene on postharvest quality and decay caused by Botrytis cinerea in tomato fruit

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 98, 期 10, 页码 3815-3822

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.8895

关键词

synergistic effects; disease resistance; pathogenesis-related protein 1; defense enzymes; fruit ripening

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31772024, 31201432, 31101587]
  2. Beijing Laboratory for Food Quality and Safety, Beijing Technology and Business University [FQS-201711]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDPostharvest diseases result in major losses in fruits. Tomato is susceptible to postharvest rot caused by Botrytis cinerea and is regarded as a good model system to study postharvest disease and quality deterioration in fruit. To develop a safe and effective technique to alleviate disease and maintain fruit quality, the effects of methyl salicylate (MeSA) and 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) either separately or combined on quality and gray mold caused by B. cinerea in tomato fruit were investigated. RESULTSThe results showed that application of MeSA (0.05 mmol L-1) delayed fruit ripening and reduced gray mold. Compared with MeSA treatment, 1-MCP (0.5 mu L L-1) effectively delayed fruit ripening. Further, MeSA combined with 1-MCP treatment was more effective in inhibiting fungal decay during storage than MeSA treatment alone. The combined treatment not only enhanced pathogenesis-related protein 1 (PR1) expression, activities of defense enzymes and total phenolic content but also inhibited the increase in electrical conductivity and malondialdehyde content. The combined treatment was also more effective in retaining firmness, color change and titratable acidity content than MeSA treatment alone. CONCLUSIONMeSA combined with 1-MCP treatment was a useful technique to maintain quality and alleviate gray mold in postharvest tomato fruit during storage. (c) 2018 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据