Russet Susceptibility in Apple is Associated with Skin Cells that Are Larger, More Variable in Size, and of Reduced Fracture Strain

Uncovering the molecular mechanisms of russet skin formation in Niagara grapevine (Vitis vinifera × Vitis labrusca)

Grape breeding programs are mostly focused on developing new varieties with high production volume, sugar contents, and phenolic compound diversity combined with resistance and tolerance to the main pathogens under culture and adverse environmental conditions. The 'Niagara' variety (Vitis labrusca × Vitis vinifera) is one of the most widely produced and commercialized table grapes in Brazil. In this work, we selected three Niagara somatic variants with contrasting berry phenotypes and performed morphological and transcriptomic analyses of their berries. Histological sections of the berries were also performed to understand anatomical and chemical composition differences of the berry skin between the genotypes. An RNA-Seq pipeline was implemented, followed by global coexpression network modeling. 'Niagara Steck', an intensified russet mutant with the most extreme phenotype, showed the largest difference in expression and showed selection of coexpressed network modules involved in the development of its russet-like characteristics. Enrichment analysis of differently expressed genes and hub network modules revealed differences in transcription regulation, auxin signaling and cell wall and plasmatic membrane biogenesis. Cutin- and suberin-related genes were also differently expressed, supporting the anatomical differences observed with microscopy.

Time course of changes in the transcriptome during russet induction in apple fruit

BACKGROUND

Russeting is a major problem in many fruit crops. Russeting is caused by environmental factors such as wounding or moisture exposure of the fruit surface. Despite extensive research, the molecular sequence that triggers russet initiation remains unclear. Here, we present high-resolution transcriptomic data by controlled russet induction at very early stages of fruit development. During Phase I, a patch of the fruit surface is exposed to surface moisture. For Phase II, moisture exposure is terminated, and the formerly exposed surface remains dry. We targeted differentially expressed transcripts as soon as 24 h after russet induction.

RESULTS

During moisture exposure (Phase I) of 'Pinova' apple, transcripts associated with the cell cycle, cell wall, and cuticle synthesis (SHN3) decrease, while those related to abiotic stress increase. NAC35 and MYB17 were the earliest induced genes during Phase I. They are therefore linked to the initial processes of cuticle microcracking. After moisture removal (Phase II), the expression of genes related to meristematic activity increased (WOX4 within 24 h, MYB84 within 48 h). Genes related to lignin synthesis (MYB52) and suberin synthesis (MYB93, WRKY56) were upregulated within 3 d after moisture removal. WOX4 and AP2B3 are the earliest differentially expressed genes induced in Phase II. They are therefore linked to early events in periderm formation. The expression profiles were consistent between two different seasons and mirrored differences in russet susceptibility in a comparison of cultivars. Furthermore, expression profiles during Phase II of moisture induction were largely identical to those following wounding.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of a unique controlled russet induction technique with high-resolution transcriptomic data allowed for the very first time to analyse the formation of cuticular microcracks and periderm in apple fruit immediately after the onset of triggering factors. This data provides valuable insights into the spatial-temporal dynamics of russeting, including the synthesis of cuticles, dedifferentiation of cells, and impregnation of cell walls with suberin and lignin.

PpyMYB144 transcriptionally regulates pear fruit skin russeting by activating the cytochrome P450 gene PpyCYP86B1

PpyMYB144 directly activates the promoter of PpyCYP86B1, promotes the synthesis of α, ω-diacids, and involves in pear fruit skin russeting. Russeting is an economically important surface disorder in pear (Pyrus pyrifolia) fruit. Previous research has demonstrated that suberin is the pivotal chemical component contributing to pear fruit skin russeting, and fruit bagging treatment effectively reduces the amount of suberin of fruits, and thereby reduces the russeting phenotype. However, the mechanisms of pear fruit skin russeting remain largely unclear, particularly the transcriptional regulation. Here, we dissected suberin concentration and composition of pear fruits along fruit development and confirmed that α, ω-diacids are the predominant constituents in russeted pear fruit skins. Two cytochrome P450 monooxygenase (CYP) family genes (PpyCYP86A1 and PpyCYP86B1) and nine MYB genes were isolated from pear fruit. Expressions of PpyCYP86A1, PpyCYP86B1, and five MYB genes (PpyMYB34, PpyMYB138, PpyMYB138-like, PpyMYB139, and PpyMYB144) were up-regulated during fruit russeting and showed significant correlations with the changes of α, ω-diacids. In addition, dual-luciferase assays indicated that PpyMYB144 could trans-activate the promoter of PpyCYP86B1, and the activation was abolished by motif mutagenesis of AC element on the PpyCYP86B1 promoter. Further, Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression of PpyCYP86B1 and PpyMYB144 in pear fruits induced the deposition of aliphatic suberin. Thus, PpyMYB144 is a novel direct activator of PpyCYP86B1 and contributes to pear fruit skin russeting.

Russeting of Fruits: Etiology and Management

The skin of a fruit protects the vulnerable, nutrient-rich flesh and seed(s) within from the hostile environment. It is also responsible for the fruit’s appearance. In many fruitcrop species, russeting compromises fruit appearance and thus commercial value. Here, we review the literature on fruit russeting, focusing on the factors and mechanisms that induce it and on the management and breeding strategies that may reduce it. Compared with a primary fruit skin, which is usually distinctively colored and shiny, a secondary fruit skin is reddish-brown, dull and slightly rough to the touch (i.e., russeted). This secondary skin (periderm) comprises phellem cells with suberized cell walls, a phellogen and a phelloderm. Russeted (secondary) fruit skins have similar mechanical properties to non-russeted (primary) ones but are more plastic. However, russeted fruit skins are more permeable to water vapor, so russeted fruits suffer higher postharvest water loss, reduced shine, increased shrivel and reduced packed weight (most fruit is sold per kg). Orchard factors that induce russeting include expansion-growth-induced strain, surface wetness, mechanical damage, freezing temperatures, some pests and diseases and some agrochemicals. All these probably act via an increased incidence of cuticular microcracking as a result of local concentrations of mechanical stress. Microcracking impairs the cuticle’s barrier properties. Potential triggers of russeting (the development of a periderm), consequent on cuticular microcracking, include locally high concentrations of O2, lower concentrations of CO2 and more negative water potentials. Horticulturists sometimes spray gibberellins, cytokinins or boron to reduce russeting. Bagging fruit (to exclude surface moisture) is also reportedly effective. From a breeding perspective, genotypes having small and more uniform-sized epidermal cells are judged less likely to be susceptible to russeting.

Low cuticle deposition rate in 'Apple' mango increases elastic strain, weakens the cuticle and increases russet

Russeting compromises appearance and downgrades the market value of many fruitcrops, including of the mango cv. ‘Apple’. The objective was to identify the mechanistic basis of ‘Apple’ mango’s high susceptibility to russeting. We focused on fruit growth, cuticle deposition, stress/strain relaxation analysis and the mechanical properties of the cuticle. The non-susceptible mango cv. ‘Tommy Atkins’ served for comparison. Compared with ‘Tommy Atkins’, fruit of ‘Apple’ had a lower mass, a smaller surface area and a lower growth rate. There were little differences between the epidermal and hypodermal cells of ‘Apple’ and ‘Tommy Atkins’ including cell size, cell orientation and cell number. Lenticel density decreased during development, being lower in ‘Apple’ than in ‘Tommy Atkins’. The mean lenticel area increased during development but was consistently greater in ‘Apple’ than in ‘Tommy Atkins’. The deposition rate of the cuticular membrane was initially rapid but later slowed till it matched the area expansion rate, thereafter mass per unit area was effectively constant. The cuticle of ‘Apple’ is thinner than that of ‘Tommy Atkins’. Cumulative strain increased sigmoidally with fruit growth. Strains released stepwise on excision and isolation (ε_exc+iso), and on wax extraction (ε_extr) were higher in ‘Apple’ than in ‘Tommy Atkins’. Membrane stiffness increased during development being consistently lower in ‘Apple’ than in ‘Tommy Atkins’. Membrane fracture force (F_max) was low and constant in developing ‘Apple’ but increased in ‘Tommy Atkin’. Membrane strain at fracture (ε_max) decreased linearly during development but was lower in ‘Apple’ than in ‘Tommy Atkins’. Frequency of membrane failure associated with lenticels increased during development and was consistently higher in ‘Apple’ than in ‘Tommy Atkins’. The lower rate of cuticular deposition, the higher strain releases on excision, isolation and wax extraction and the weaker cuticle account for the high russet susceptibility of ‘Apple’ mango.

Russeting in Apple is Initiated after Exposure to Moisture Ends: Molecular and Biochemical Evidence

Exposure of the fruit surface to moisture during early development is causal in russeting of apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.). Moisture exposure results in formation of microcracks and decreased cuticle thickness. Periderm differentiation begins in the hypodermis, but only after discontinuation of moisture exposure. Expressions of selected genes involved in cutin, wax and suberin synthesis were quantified, as were the wax, cutin and suberin compositions. Experiments were conducted in two phases. In Phase I (31 days after full bloom) the fruit surface was exposed to moisture for 6 or 12 d. Phase II was after moisture exposure had been discontinued. Unexposed areas on the same fruit served as unexposed controls. During Phase I, cutin and wax synthesis genes were down-regulated only in the moisture-exposed patches. During Phase II, suberin synthesis genes were up-regulated only in the moisture-exposed patches. The expressions of cutin and wax genes in the moisture-exposed patches increased slightly during Phase II, but the levels of expression were much lower than in the control patches. Amounts and compositions of cutin, wax and suberin were consistent with the gene expressions. Thus, moisture-induced russet is a two-step process: moisture exposure reduces cutin and wax synthesis, moisture removal triggers suberin synthesis.