Plant Growth Regulators Affects Texture: study in a Muscat of

Alexandria x Crimson Seedless experimental progeny

Authors: Vicente Salas-Tupper, Javier Gutierrez, Reynaldo Núñez, Nicolás Jiménez, Nallatt Ocarez, Nilo Mejía and Alonso Pérez-Donoso*

Questions

Do plant growth regulators affect firmness?

If they do, how?

Materials and methods

• 640 segregants of Muscat of Alejandria x Crimson Seedless

• Prebloom cytokinin (5ppm) + fruit set gibberellic acid (10ppm)

• 3 seasons:

- 2016-2017

- 2017-2018

- 2018-2019

• Texture measurements with Universal Testing Machine (UTM)

• Double compression test (Texture Profile Analisis)

• Puncture test (2017-2018)

Images extracted from:“Instrumental texture analysis parameters as markers of table-grape and winegrape quality: A review” Rolle et al., 2012

Results2017 2018 2019

Treatment 0.385±0.0035 0.366±0.0034 0.385±0.0036

Control 0.385±0.0033 0.372±0.0033 0.393±0.0037

Significance ns ** **

Treatment 0.702±0.0059 0.841±0.0076 0.878±0.0080

Control 0.708±0.0057 0.848±0.0074 0.890±0.0078

Significance ns ns *

Treatment 0.245±0.0017 0.238±0.0018 0.253±0.0018

Control 0.248±0.0017 0.245±0.0017 0.258±0.0020

Significance * *** **

Treatment 0.040±0.0002 0.038±0.0002 0.039±0.0002

Control 0.041±0.0002 0.039±0.0002 0.039±0.0002

Significance ** *** ns

Treatment 0.021±0.0001 0.022±0.0001 0.022±0.0001

Control 0.021±0.0001 0.022±0.0001 0.022±0.0001

Significance * ns ns

Treatment 0.174±0.0004 0.194±0.0001 0.193±0.0001

Control 0.176±0.0004 0.194±0.0001 0.193±0.0001

Significance *** *** ns

Treatment n/a 0.531±0.0066 n/a

Control n/a 0.543±0.0077 n/a

Significance n/a ns n/a

Treatment n/a 0.037±0.0003 n/a

Control n/a 0.038±0.0003 n/a

Significance n/a * n/a

Table 1. (***) corresponds to p-value<0.0001 , (**) p-value <0.001 between ≥0.0001 , (*) p-value <0.05 between

≥0.001 , p- value above p≥0.05 where considerate non-significative (ns). 2017 sample corresponds to treatment

N=528 control N=533. 2018 sample corresponds to treatment N=517 control N=537. 2019 sample corresponds to

treatment N=496 control N=507. Values represent the RELM proposed mean, and next to them, the standard error.

Cohesiveness/Height (1/mm)

Resiliense/Height (1/mm)

Springiness/Height (mm/mm)

Skin Hardness (N)

Flesh Firmness (N)

Table 1: Texture parameters.

Chewiness/Height (mJ/mm)

Gumminess/Height (N/mm)

Hardness/Height (N/mm)

Results2017 2018 2019

Treatment 0.385±0.0035 0.366±0.0034 0.385±0.0036

Control 0.385±0.0033 0.372±0.0033 0.393±0.0037

Significance ns ** **

Treatment 0.702±0.0059 0.841±0.0076 0.878±0.0080

Control 0.708±0.0057 0.848±0.0074 0.890±0.0078

Significance ns ns *

Treatment 0.245±0.0017 0.238±0.0018 0.253±0.0018

Control 0.248±0.0017 0.245±0.0017 0.258±0.0020

Significance * *** **

Treatment 0.040±0.0002 0.038±0.0002 0.039±0.0002

Control 0.041±0.0002 0.039±0.0002 0.039±0.0002

Significance ** *** ns

Treatment 0.021±0.0001 0.022±0.0001 0.022±0.0001

Control 0.021±0.0001 0.022±0.0001 0.022±0.0001

Significance * ns ns

Treatment 0.174±0.0004 0.194±0.0001 0.193±0.0001

Control 0.176±0.0004 0.194±0.0001 0.193±0.0001

Significance *** *** ns

Treatment n/a 0.531±0.0066 n/a

Control n/a 0.543±0.0077 n/a

Significance n/a ns n/a

Treatment n/a 0.037±0.0003 n/a

Control n/a 0.038±0.0003 n/a

Significance n/a * n/a

Table 1. (***) corresponds to p-value<0.0001 , (**) p-value <0.001 between ≥0.0001 , (*) p-value <0.05 between

≥0.001 , p- value above p≥0.05 where considerate non-significative (ns). 2017 sample corresponds to treatment

N=528 control N=533. 2018 sample corresponds to treatment N=517 control N=537. 2019 sample corresponds to

treatment N=496 control N=507. Values represent the RELM proposed mean, and next to them, the standard error.

Cohesiveness/Height (1/mm)

Resiliense/Height (1/mm)

Springiness/Height (mm/mm)

Skin Hardness (N)

Flesh Firmness (N)

Table 1: Texture parameters.

Chewiness/Height (mJ/mm)

Gumminess/Height (N/mm)

Hardness/Height (N/mm)

Results2017 2018 2019

Treatment 0.385±0.0035 0.366±0.0034 0.385±0.0036

Control 0.385±0.0033 0.372±0.0033 0.393±0.0037

Significance ns ** **

Treatment 0.702±0.0059 0.841±0.0076 0.878±0.0080

Control 0.708±0.0057 0.848±0.0074 0.890±0.0078

Significance ns ns *

Treatment 0.245±0.0017 0.238±0.0018 0.253±0.0018

Control 0.248±0.0017 0.245±0.0017 0.258±0.0020

Significance * *** **

Treatment 0.040±0.0002 0.038±0.0002 0.039±0.0002

Control 0.041±0.0002 0.039±0.0002 0.039±0.0002

Significance ** *** ns

Treatment 0.021±0.0001 0.022±0.0001 0.022±0.0001

Control 0.021±0.0001 0.022±0.0001 0.022±0.0001

Significance * ns ns

Treatment 0.174±0.0004 0.194±0.0001 0.193±0.0001

Control 0.176±0.0004 0.194±0.0001 0.193±0.0001

Significance *** *** ns

Treatment n/a 0.531±0.0066 n/a

Control n/a 0.543±0.0077 n/a

Significance n/a ns n/a

Treatment n/a 0.037±0.0003 n/a

Control n/a 0.038±0.0003 n/a

Significance n/a * n/a

Table 1. (***) corresponds to p-value<0.0001 , (**) p-value <0.001 between ≥0.0001 , (*) p-value <0.05 between

≥0.001 , p- value above p≥0.05 where considerate non-significative (ns). 2017 sample corresponds to treatment

N=528 control N=533. 2018 sample corresponds to treatment N=517 control N=537. 2019 sample corresponds to

treatment N=496 control N=507. Values represent the RELM proposed mean, and next to them, the standard error.

Cohesiveness/Height (1/mm)

Resiliense/Height (1/mm)

Springiness/Height (mm/mm)

Skin Hardness (N)

Flesh Firmness (N)

Table 1: Texture parameters.

Chewiness/Height (mJ/mm)

Gumminess/Height (N/mm)

Hardness/Height (N/mm)

Materials and methods

• 640 segregants of Moscatel de Alejandría X Crimson Seedless

• 8 sensory analisys sessions (one for each texture parameter)

• Sensory panel composed by 12 non trained judges

• 5 samples x 5 repetitions

Results

Texture Parameters Sensory/Instrumental Firmness

Hardness 0.828

Chewiness 0.747

Gumminess 0.870

Cohesiveness -0.080

Resilience -0.266

Springiness 0.168

Skin Hardness 0.805

Flesh Firmness 0.642

Table 2: Sensorial, instrumental correlation

Table 2. UTM values and sensory values corresponds to

2018 season.

Results

y = 13,018x - 0,823R² = 0,6831

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7

Sensory Firmness vs. Hardness/mm

y = 6,7957x - 1,1105R² = 0,6309

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

Sensory Firmness vs. Chewiness/mm

y = 31,673x - 3,6487R² = 0,754

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4

Sensory Firmness vs. Gumminess/mm

y = 93,023x + 0,4802R² = 0,4127

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08

Sensory Firmness vs Flesh Firmness

y = 5,43x + 0,222R² = 0,6474

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4

Sensory Firmness vs. Skin Hardness

Results

y = 13,018x - 0,823R² = 0,6831

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7

Sensory Firmness vs. Hardness/mm

y = 6,7957x - 1,1105R² = 0,6309

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

Sensory Firmness vs. Chewiness/mm

y = 31,673x - 3,6487R² = 0,754

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4

Sensory Firmness vs. Gumminess/mm

y = 93,023x + 0,4802R² = 0,4127

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08

Sensory Firmness vs Flesh Firmness

y = 5,43x + 0,222R² = 0,6474

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4

Sensory Firmness vs. Skin Hardness

Conclusions

• Among all the textural parameters, only gumminess showed a significant and stable decrease due to PGR treatments, other parameters have a varied response, reflecting the season effect.

• Results reveal a strong correlation between sensorial firmness and instrumental gumminess (0.87), hardness (0.83), chewiness (0.75) and skin hardness (0.8).

• Gumminess seems to be an interesting candidate for assessing firmness in grapes at industry and scientific level.

Acknowledgments

• This work was funded by FONDECYT program Nº 1170586

• Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) / Scholarship Program / DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2019 - 21190118

• We thank the economic support of “Dirección de Investigación y Posgrado de la Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile”

Plant Growth Regulators Affects Texture: study in a Muscat of

Alexandria x Crimson Seedless experimental progeny

Authors: Vicente Salas-Tupper, Javier Gutierrez, Reynaldo Núñez, Nicolás Jiménez, Nallatt Ocarez, Nilo Mejía and Alonso Pérez-Donoso*