Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Review Articles

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2025)

Increasing the shelf life of tomato fruits using physical, chemical and genetic modification methods

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.4631
Submitted
12 August 2024
Published
27-02-2025 — Updated on 07-03-2025
Versions

Abstract

The tomato is one of the most consumed vegetables and is rich in numerous beneficial and nutritious compounds. As climacteric fruits, tomatoes undergo significant metabolic changes during their growth and ripening. During fruit ripening, irreversible changes occur in the color, taste and appearance of the fruit. Shortly after ripening, the fruit begins to lose its shape and structural integrity. Approximately 50% of ripe tomatoes do not reach consumers. The primary cause of this loss is excessive fruit softening, which compromises the integrity of tomatoes during harvesting and transportation, making them susceptible to fungal and bacterial infections. Generally, fruit softening results from increased enzymatic activity that breaks down the fruit cell wall. Currently, chemical, physical and biotechnological methods are employed to extend tomato shelf life. These methods help reduce or inhibit the enzymatic activity responsible for fruit softening. The review provides a concise overview of these preservation methods. We focus on enhancing fruit preservation through plant genome modifications using modern biotechnological techniques, such as RNA interference (RNAi) and CRISPR/Cas9. Additionally, we will briefly discuss the advantages and limitations of these genetic engineering approaches.

References

  1. Causse M, Buret M, Robini K, Verschave P. Inheritance of nutritional and sensory quality traits in fresh market tomato and relation to consumer preferences. Food Sci. 2003;68:2342-350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb05770.x
  2. Banjo TT, Oluwole OR, Nzei VI. Preservation of Lycopersicum esculentum (tomatoes) with extracts of Annona muricata (soursop) and Hibiscus sabdariffa (roselle plant). Trop Life Sci Res. 2022;33(1):1-22. https://doi.org/10.21315/tlsr2022.33.1.1
  3. Ali A, Magbool M, Alderson PG, Zahid N. Effect of gum arabicas an edible coating on antioxidant capacity of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol Techno. 2013;76:119–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2012.09.011
  4. Barka EA, Kalantari S, Makhlouf J, Arul J. Impact of UV-irradiation on the cell wall-degrading enzymes during ripening of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) fruit. J Agric Food Chem. 2000;48:667–71. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf9906174
  5. Abou-Aziz AB, Nabaway SME, Adel-Wahab FK, Kader AS. The effect of storage temperature on quality and decay percentage of ‘Pairi’ and ‘Taimour’ mango fruit. Sci Hortic. 1976;5:65–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2015/12174
  6. Hobson GE. The short-term storage of tomato fruit. J Hortic Sci. 1981;56:363–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221589.1981.11515014
  7. Auito WR, Bramlage WJ. Chilling sensitivity of tomato fruits in relation to ripening and senescence. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 1986;111:201–05. http://dx.doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.111.2.201
  8. Majidi H, Minaei S, Almassi M, Mostofi Y. Tomato quality in controlled atmosphere storage, modified atmosphere packaging and cold storage. J Food Sci Technol. 2014;51(9):2155-61. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13197-012-0721-0
  9. Akbudak B, Akbudak N, Seniz V, Eris A. Sequential treatments of hot water and modified atmosphere packaging in cherry tomatoes. J Food Qual. 2007;30:896–910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.2007.00168.x
  10. Hong JH, Gross KC. Maintaining quality of fresh-cut tomato slices through modified atmosphere packaging and low temperature storage. J Food Sci. 2001;66:960–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2001.tb08219.x
  11. Sandhya S. Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh produce: Current status and future needs–Review. Food Sci Technol. 2010;43:381–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2009.05.018
  12. Meitha K, Pramesti Y, Suhandono S. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidants in postharvest vegetables and fruits. Int J Food Sci. 2020;2020:8817778. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8817778
  13. Jin TZ, Fan X, Mukhopadhyay S. Antimicrobial coating with organic acids and essential oil for the enhancement of safety and shelf life of grape tomatoes. Int J Food Microbiol. 2022;378:109827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.109827
  14. Meli VS, Ghosh S, Prabha TN, Chakraborty N, Chakraborty S, Datta A. Enhancement of fruit shelf life by suppressing N-glycan processing enzymes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(6):2413-18. https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0909329107
  15. Yu QH, Wang B, Li N, Tang Y, Yang S, Yang T, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-induced targeted mutagenesis and gene replacement to generate long-shelf-life tomato lines. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):11874. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12262-1
  16. Eckert JW, Sommer NF. Control of diseases of fruits and vegetables by postharvest treatment. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1967;5:391–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.05.090167.002135
  17. Thole V, Vain P, Martin C. Effect of elevated temperature on tomato post-harvest properties. Plants (Basel). 2021;10(11):2359. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fplants10112359
  18. Rodrigues AAZ, Queiroz MELR, Neves AA, Oliveira AF, Prates LHF, Freitas JF, et al. Use of ozone and detergent for removal of pesticides and improving storage quality of tomato. Food Res Int. 2019;125:108626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108626
  19. Zainuri, Jayaputra, Sauqi A, Sjah T, Desiana RY. Combination of ozone and packaging treatments maintained the quality and improved the shelf life of tomato fruit. International Symposium on Food and Agro-biodiversity (ISFA); 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/102/1/012027
  20. Yadav A, Kumar N, Upadhyay A, Sethi S, Singh A. Edible coating as postharvest management strategy for shelf-life extension of fresh tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.): An overview. J Food Sci. 2022;87(6):2256-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16145
  21. Gao Y, Zhu N, Zhu X, Wu M, Jiang CZ, Grieson D, et al. Diversity and redundancy of the ripening regulatory networks revealed by the fruit encode and the new CRISPR/Cas9 CNR and NOR mutants. Hortic Res. 2019;6:39. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-019-0122-x
  22. Huang W, Hu N, Xiao Z, Qiu Y, Yang Y, Yang J, et al. A molecular framework of ethylene-mediated fruit growth and ripening processes in tomato. Plant Cell. 2022;34:3280–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koac146
  23. Li X, Wang X, Zhang Y, Zhang A, You CX. Regulation of fleshy fruit ripening: From transcription factors to epigenetic modifications. Hortic Res. 2022;9:uhac013. https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhac013
  24. Baranov D, Timerbaev V. Recent advances in studying the regulation of fruit ripening in tomato using genetic engineering approaches. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(2):760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25020760
  25. Li J, Peng C, Mao A, Zhong M, Hu Z. An overview of microbial enzymatic approaches for pectin degradation. Int J Biol Macromol. 2024;254:127804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.127804
  26. Jiang Y, Shi Z, Liu W, Qi M, Xu T, Wu Y, et al. Silencing SlPP2C expression delayed plant senescence and fruit ripening in tomato. Physiol Plant. 2023;175(3):e13925. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13925
  27. Gupta A, Pal RK, Rajam MV. Delayed ripening and improved fruit processing quality in tomato by RNAi-mediated silencing of three homologs of 1-aminopropane-1-carboxylate synthase gene. J Plant Physiol. 2013;170(11):987-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13925
  28. Zhang J, Hu Z, Yao Q, Guo X, Nguyen V, Li F, et al. A tomato MADS-box protein, SlCMB1, regulates ethylene biosynthesis and carotenoid accumulation during fruit ripening. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):3413. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21672-8
  29. Komor AC, Badran AH, Liu DR. CRISPR-based technologies for the manipulation of eukaryotic genomes. Cell. 2017;169:559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.044
  30. Hille F, Richter H, Wong SP, Bratovic M, Ressel S. The biology of CRISPR-Cas: Backward and forward. Cell. 2018;172:1239–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.032
  31. Asmamaw M, Zawdie B. Mechanism and applications of CRISPR/Cas-9-mediated genome editing. Biologics. 2021;15:353-61. https://doi.org/10.2147/btt.s326422
  32. Tiwari JK, Singh AK, Behera TK. CRISPR/Cas genome editing in tomato improvement: Advances and applications. Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1121209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1121209
  33. Nie H, Shi Y, Geng X, Xing G. CRISRP/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis of tomato polygalacturonase gene (SlPG) delays fruit softening. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:729128. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpls.2022.729128
  34. Liu M, Zhang Z, Xu Z, Wang L, Chen C, Ren Z. Overexpression of SlMYB75 enhances resistance to Botrytis cinerea and prolongs fruit storage life in tomato. Plant Cell Rep. 2021;40(1):43-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-020-02609-w
  35. Xie Q, Hu Z, Zhu Z, Dong T, Zhao Z, Cue B, et al. Overexpression of a novel MADS-box gene SlFYFL delays senescence, fruit ripening and abscission in tomato. Sci Rep. 2014;4:4367. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04367
  36. Liu DD, Zhou LJ, Fang MJ, Dong QL, An XH, You CX, et al. Polycomb-group protein SlMSI1 represses the expression of fruit-ripening genes to prolong shelf life in tomato. Sci Rep. 2016;6:31806. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31806
  37. Osakabe K, Osakabe Y, Toki S. Site-directed mutagenesis in Arabidopsis using custom-designed zinc finger nucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(26):12034-39. https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1000234107
  38. Petolino JF. Genome editing in plants via designed zinc finger nucleases. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant. 2015;51:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11627-015-9663-3
  39. Malzahn A, Lowder L, Qi Y. Plant genome editing with TALEN and CRISPR. Cell Biosci. 2017;7:21. https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs13578-017-0148-4
  40. Jinek M, East A, Cheng A, Lin S, Ma E, Doudna J. RNA-programmed genome editing in human cells. eLife. 2013;2:e00471. https://doi.org/10.7554%2FeLife.00471
  41. Pan C, Ye L, Qin L. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated efficient and heritable targeted mutagenesis in tomato plants in the first and later generations. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24765. https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fsrep24765
  42. Xie K, Zhang J, Yang Y. Genome-wide prediction of highly specific guide RNA spacers for CRISPR–Cas9-mediated genome editing in model plants and major crops. Mol Plant. 2014;7:923–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/ssu009
  43. Tang X, Lowder LG, Zhang T, Malzahn AA, Zheng X, Voytas DF, et al. A CRISPR–Cpf1 system for efficient genome editing and transcriptional repression in plants. Nat Plants. 2017;3:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.103
  44. Freudhofmaier M. Gene editing of commercially important genes of Jatropha curcas L. CRISPR/Cas9 mediated gene knock-out. Masters [Thesis]. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU); Vienna, Austria; 2018.
  45. Crystal T, Morten, Trine AK. Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom– A review. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:630396. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.630396

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.