Postharvest Properties of Ultra-Late Maturing Peach Cultivars and Their Attributions to Melting Flesh (M) Locus: Re-evaluation of M Locus in Association With Flesh Texture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The postharvest properties of two ultra-late maturing peach cultivars, “Tobihaku” (TH) and “Daijumitsuto” (DJ), were investigated. Fruit were harvested at commercial maturity and held at 25°C. TH exhibited the characteristics of normal melting flesh (MF) peach, including rapid fruit softening associated with appropriate level of endogenous ethylene production In contrast, DJ did not soften at all during 3 weeks experimental period even though considerable ethylene production was observed. Fruit of TH and DJ were treated with 5,000 ppm of propylene, an ethylene analog, continuously for 7 days. TH softened rapidly whereas DJ maintained high flesh firmness in spite of an increase in endogenous ethylene production, suggesting that DJ but not TH lacked the ability to be softened in response to endogenous and exogenous ethylene/propylene. DNA-seq analysis showed that tandem endo-polygalacturonase ( endoPG ) genes located at melting flesh (M) locus, Pp-endoPGM ( PGM ), and Pp-endoPGF ( PGF ), were deleted in DJ. The endoPG genes at M locus are known to control flesh texture of peach fruit, and it was suggested that the non-softening property of DJ is due to the lack of endoPG genes. On the other hand, TH possessed an unidentified M haplotype that is involved in determination of MF phenotype. Structural identification of the unknown M haplotype, designated as M 0 , through comparison with previously reported M haplotypes revealed distinct differences between PGM on M 0 haplotype ( PGM-M 0 ) and PGM on other haplotypes ( PGM-M 1 ). Peach M haplotypes were classified into four main haplotypes: M 0 with PGM-M 0 ; M 1 with both PGM-M 1 and PGF ; M 2 with PGM-M 1 ; and M 3 lacking both PGM and PGF . Re-evaluation of M locus in association with MF/non-melting flesh (NMF) phenotypes in more than 400 accessions by using whole genome shotgun sequencing data on database and/or by PCR genotyping demonstrated that M 0 haplotype was the common haplotype in MF accessions, and M 0 and M 1 haplotypes were dominant over M 2 and M 3 haplotypes and co-dominantly determined the MF trait. It was also assumed on the basis of structural comparison of M haplotypes among Prunus species that the ancestral haplotype of M 0 diverged from those of the other haplotypes before the speciation of Prunus persica .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".