Modification of sugar profiles in California adapted apricots (Prunus armeniaca L.) through breeding with Central Asian germplasm

Abstract

Central Asian apricot germplasm was used in hybridizations with California adapted apricots to increase Brix levels and improve fresh eating quality. Fruit from parental trees, the F 1 hybrid and two backcross families were evaluated for fruit quality traits and analyzed by HPLC for specific sugar content. The F 1 hybrid between Central Asian and California adapted apricots was intermediate to its parents in many of the evaluated characteristics and levels of specific sugars. When the F 1 hybrid was backcrossed to California adapted apricots 'Lorna' and 'Robada,' the resulting hybrids were diverse in Brix, juice acidity, fruit size and profiles of specific sugars. Glucose: fructose ratios higher that 3.3 were encountered in fruit from five of the 22 analyzed seedlings, and fructose: sorbitol ratio ranged from 0.67 to 6.46. Brix and total sugar content correlated significantly with each other and with both sucrose and glucose. No significant correlations existed between sorbitol and any of the other analyzed sugars, nor with Brix or total sugars. The results demonstrated the extent of sugar profile modification possible in California adapted apricots after just two generations of breeding with Central Asian apricot germplasm.

Evaluation of apricot fruit quality and correlations between physical and chemical attributes

“…The differences between our results and those of Badenes et al (1998) were most SS -soluble solids; TS -total sugars; RS -reducing sugars; SU -sucrose; Y -yield; SS/TA -soluble solids/titratable acids ratio; pH -pH value; SW -stone weight; FW -fruit weight; MP -mesocarp percentage; TA -titratable acidity likely due to the differences in the plant material used and in the size of the group of the cultivars studied. Total sugars showed a significant positive correlation versus RS (r = 0.965) or SU (r = 0.505), in a way that higher RS and SU contents generally meant a higher TS content, as previously reported (Ledbetter et al 2006) (Table 3). In general, the correlation coefficients between the apricot genotype variables were evaluated.…”

“…SS was significantly correlated with RS or TS (r = 0.658 and r = 0.662, respectively) (Gurrieri et al 2001;Ledbetter et al 2006), while no relationship between SS and TA was found, as reported previously by Ruiz and Egea (2008b) (Table 3). A negative significant correlation was observed for TA versus SS/TA ratio (r = -0.897), and TA versus pH (r = -0.659) indicating the tendency of higher TA content to have smaller SS/TA ratio and lower pH.…”

Testing of self-(in)compatibility in apricot cultivars from European breeding programmes

“…The increasing number of self-incompatible cultivars in the last years can be explained by using Asian or North American self-incompatible cultivars in breeding programmes that aim to create new genotypes with the traits such as: Plum pox virus resistance (Badenes, Llácer 2006;Karayiannis 2006;Krška et al 2011), frost tolerance (Benediková 2006;Krška et al 2006), increase of the sugar content (Ledbetter et al 2006), or extending the harvest time (Pedryc, Kerek 1999;Topor et al 2010). Some of the self-incompatible cultivars are frequently used in apricot breeding programmes.…”

Sorbitol, Rubus fruit, and misconception

“…Known findings include apple, peach, apricot, nectarine, pear, plum (red, prune, and yellow), blackberry, red raspberry, cloudberry, red and black currant, elderberry, strawberry, bilberry, sweet cherry, sour cherry, loquat, pomegranate, whortleberry, cranberry, sea buckthorn, common hawthorn, rowan berry, narrow firethorn, mushrooms, celery, avocado, plantain, banana, grapefruit, pineapple, kiwifruit, papaya, coffee, olive, and algae. The plant kingdom is widely represented (families of Actinidiaceae, Adoxaceae, Apiaceae, Bromeliaceae, Caricaceae, Elaeagnaceae, Ericaceae, Grossulariaceae, Lauraceae, Lythraceae, Musaceae, Oleaceae, Plantaginaceae, Rhodomelaceae, Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, and Rutaceae), along with the fungi kingdom (families of Auriculariaceae, Boletaceae, Cantharellaceae, Hericiaceae, Marasmiaceae, Meripilaceae, Pleurotaceae, and Tremellaceae) (Cantin, Gogorcena, & Moreno, 2009;Colaric, Veberic, Stampar, & Hudina, 2005;Haas & Hill, 1932;Ledbetter, Peterson, & Jenner, 2006;Liu, Robinson, Madore, Witney, & Arpaia, 1999;Makinen & Soderling, 1980;MegiasPerez, Gamboa-Santos, Soria, Villamiel, & Montilla, 2014;Moing, 2000;Mizuno & Zhuang, 1995;Muir et al, 2009;Nadwodnik & Lohaus, 2008;Richmond, Brandao, Gray, Markakis, & Stine, 1981;Serrano et al, 2003;Strain, 1937;Turkmen & Eksi, 2011;Wodner, Lavee, & Epstein, 1988;Wu, Quilot, Kervella, Genard, & Li, 2003;Zhou et al, 2012; and additional references listed in Tables 1-3). Additionally, the sugar alcohol concentration within the edible parts of a plant or fungus fluctuate due to many variables, including fraction (leaf, stem, fruit, etc.…”