Back

Postharvest tomato shelf life is genetically distinct from fruit firmness: evidence from two F2 populations

Rosati, C.; Tirado, F.; Aprea, G.; Bitton, F.; Brault, M.; duboscq, R.; Ferrante, P.; Pellegrino, K.; Stamigna, C.; Giuliano, G.; Causse, M.

2026-07-23 plant biology
10.64898/2026.07.22.739999 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Reducing postharvest fruit loss without compromising fruit quality is a major goal in tomato breeding. Fruit shelf life is a complex trait, influenced by postharvest changes in fruit firmness and weight, as well as by both genetic and environmental factors. A QTL mapping experiment was conducted to identify loci associated with fruit shelf life-related traits using two distinct F2 tomato populations. Fruit weight, firmness, shelf life (evaluated as both loss of fruit weight and loss of firmness over time), and colour space components were measured, and QTLs were mapped using a commercial low-density SNP genotyping panel and bulk segregant sequencing analysis experiments. We show that fruit firmness at harvest is only weakly predictive of postharvest firmness loss, indicating that shelf life should be treated as a dynamic trait rather than a static firmness phenotype. Across the two populations, 60 QTLs defining 26 genomic regions were identified, including both population-specific loci and shared regions on chromosomes 9 and 12. Several narrow intervals contained candidate genes related to ethylene signaling, cell-wall remodeling, calcium transport, aquaporin-mediated water balance and stress responses. The identified QTLs and candidate genes are directly relevant to breeding programmes seeking to improve postharvest performance without using major ripening mutants that compromise fruit quality. Key messageComparative QTL mapping and BSA-Seq in two F2 tomato populations show that postharvest shelf life is only partly explained by fruit firmness at harvest and identify candidate loci for firmness loss and weight loss during storage.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.