Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26378911›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Identifying Breeding Priorities for Blueberry Flavor Using Biochemical, Sensory, and Genotype by Environment Analyses.

Jessica L Gilbert, Matthew J Guthart, Salvador A Gezan, Melissa Pisaroglo de Carvalho, Michael L Schwieterman, Thomas A Colquhoun, Linda M Bartoshuk, Charles A Sims, David G Clark, James W Olmstead

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Metabolomic selection-based machine learning improves fruit taste prediction.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica L GilbertPlant Innovation Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America; Horticultural Sciences Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Matthew J GuthartHorticultural Sciences Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Salvador A GezanSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Melissa Pisaroglo de CarvalhoSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Michael L SchwietermanPlant Innovation Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America; Department of Environmental Horticulture, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Thomas A ColquhounPlant Innovation Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America; Department of Environmental Horticulture, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Linda M BartoshukPlant Innovation Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America; Food Science and Human Nutrition, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Charles A SimsPlant Innovation Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America; Food Science and Human Nutrition, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
David G ClarkPlant Innovation Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America; Department of Environmental Horticulture, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
James W OlmsteadPlant Innovation Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America; Horticultural Sciences Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
University of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breeding for a subjective goal such as flavor is challenging, as many blueberry cultivars are grown worldwide, and identifying breeding targets relating to blueberry flavor biochemistry that have a high degree of genetic control and low environmental variability are priorities. A variety of biochemical compounds and physical characters induce the sensory responses of taste, olfaction, and somatosensation, all of which interact to create what is perceived flavor. The goal of this study was to identify the flavor compounds with a larger genetic versus environmental component regulating their expression over an array of cultivars, locations, and years. Over the course of three years, consumer panelists rated overall liking, texture, sweetness, sourness, and flavor intensity of 19 southern highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum hybrids) genotypes in 30 sensory panels. Significant positive correlations to overall liking of blueberry fruit (P<0.001) were found with sweetness (R2 = 0.70), texture (R2 = 0.68), and flavor (R2 = 0.63). Sourness had a significantly negative relationship with overall liking (R2 = 0.55). The relationship between flavor and texture liking was also linear (R2 = 0.73, P<0.0001) demonstrating interaction between olfaction and somatosensation. Partial least squares analysis was used to identify sugars, acids, and volatile compounds contributing to liking and sensory intensities, and revealed strong effects of fructose, pH, and several volatile compounds upon all sensory parameters measured. To assess the feasibility of breeding for flavor components, a three year study was conducted to compare genetic and environmental influences on flavor biochemistry. Panelists could discern genotypic variation in blueberry sensory components, and many of the compounds affecting consumer favor of blueberries, such as fructose, pH, β-caryophyllene oxide and 2-heptanone, were sufficiently genetically controlled that allocating resources for their breeding is worthwhile.

Indexed as

Blueberry PlantsBreedingFlavoring AgentsFood PreferencesFruitGenotypeHumansKetonesOdorantsPolycyclic SesquiterpenesSesquiterpenesSmellTasteTaste Perception2-heptanonecaryophyllene oxideFlavoring AgentsKetonesPolycyclic SesquiterpenesSesquiterpenes

Identifiers

PMID26378911
PMCPMC4574478
OpenAlexW2208268954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.