Postharvest evolution of physical and taste-related parameters, antioxidant capacity, and phenolic composition of berry crop wild relatives in the Pacific Northwest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study quantifies postharvest physiochemical parameters, antioxidant capacity, and phenolic composition of two commercial berry crops (blueberries and cranberries) and seven uncultivated berry crop wild relatives (CWRs) common in the Pacific Northwest (dull Oregon grapes, evergreen huckleberries, flowering currants, salal berries, tall Oregon grapes, red currants and Rowan berries) during storage for four weeks at 0.5 ºC and 95 % relative humidity. Physical analyses of CWRs reveal desirable postharvest traits, such as color and texture stability, and undesirable traits like high water loss and shriveling. Taste-related parameters, including pH and TSS/TA ratios, suggest that flowering currants and salal berries could be more desirable for fresh consumption, while Oregon grapes could be best-suited for processing. Notably, the antioxidant capacities of all but one CWR were 4–15 times greater than the blueberry and cranberry commercial comparisons, correlating with an abundance of specific phenolic compounds rather than total phenolic content. Phenolic profiling and principal component analyses (PCAs) of three species with similar phenolic contents and contrasting antioxidant capacities revealed that the high antioxidant capacity of flowering currant extracts is correlated with high accumulations of cyanidin-3-O-glucoside and delphinidin-3-O-glucoside with minor contributions from catechin, myricetin-3-O-glucoside, and quercetin-3-O-rutinoside. Furthermore, the pure compounds' in vitro antioxidant capacity was 5–10 times higher than that of chlorogenic acid, the most abundant phenolic compound in commercial blueberries. This highlights their potential value as molecular markers in breeding programs to improve the antioxidant capacity and stress resistance in commercial berry crops. • Wild berries exhibit relatively stable physical and taste-related traits in storage. • Six wild berries have 4–15-fold higher antioxidant capacity than commercial berries. • Antioxidant capacity correlates with specific phenolics, not total phenolic content. • PCA associates cyanidin- and delphinidin-3-O-glucosides with antioxidant capacity. • Flowering currant is a promising crop wild relative for future breeding programs.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".