Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36199024›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2022

Fruit bagging reduces the postharvest decay and alters the diversity of fruit surface fungal community in 'Yali' pear.

Congcong Gao, Yang Zhang, Huimin Li, Qi Gao, Yudou Cheng, Solabomi Olaitan Ogunyemi, Junfeng Guan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Population Dynamics ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Congcong Gao *Institute of Biotechnology and Food Science, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Yang Zhang *Institute of Biotechnology and Food Science, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Huimin LiInstitute of Biotechnology and Food Science, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Qi GaoInstitute of Biotechnology and Food Science, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Yudou ChengInstitute of Biotechnology and Food Science, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Solabomi Olaitan OgunyemiState Key Laboratory of Rice Biology, Ministry of Agriculture Key Lab of Molecular Biology of Crop Pathogens and Insects, Institute of Biotechnology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310013, China.
Junfeng GuanInstitute of Biotechnology and Food Science, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China. junfeng-guan@263.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFruit bagging is an effective technique for fruit protection in the orchard management. Bagging can create a micro-environment for fruit growth and affect fruit quality during storage, in which the diversity of microorganisms may play an important role. Therefore, various methods including biochemistry, analytical chemistry, and bioinformatics methods were used to reveal the influences of fruit bagging on postharvest fruit quality, physiological characters, decay and surface fungal community of 'Yali' pear fruit were investigated in this study.

resultsFruit bagging significantly decreased the postharvest decay after 15 days of ambient storage. There were no significant differences in fruit firmness, titratable acid and ethylene production rate between the fruit-bagging and non-bagging group after 15 days of storage, while the soluble solids contents (SSC) and respiration rate in non-bagging fruit was significantly higher than that in fruit-bagging after 15 days of storage. Furthermore, the surface microbes of pear were collected and determined by the new generation sequencing technology. The alpha diversity of fungi in non-bagging fruit decreased significantly after 15 days of storage, while there were no significant changes in bagging fruit. Ascomycota and Basidiomycota were the two major phyla detected in the bagging fruit, and the dominant fungal genera were Alternaria (23.7%), Mycosphaerella (17.25%), Vishniacozyma (16.14%), and Aureobasidium (10.51%) after 15 days of storage. For the non-bagging pear, Ascomycota was the only phylum detected, and the dominant genera was Pichia (83.32%) after 15 days of storage. The abundance of Pichia may be regarded as the biomarker to indicate the degree of fruit decay.

conclusionsThis study showed that fruit bagging could significantly reduce postharvest fruit decay and respiration rate of 'Yali' pear. Significant differences were found in fungal composition between bagging and non-bagging pear after storage for 0 or 15 days. Fruit bagging maintained the diversity of fungi on the fruit surface, increased the abundance of non-pathogenic fungi, and even antagonistic fungi such as Aureobasidium, Vishniacozyma, and Mycosphaerella. A reduction in the abundance of pathogenic fungi and incidence of postharvest decay during the storage of 'Yali' pear were also recorded. In conclusion, fruit-bagging changed the fungal diversity on fruit surface of 'Yali' pear, which had significant effect on reducing postharvest fruit decay, and thus prolong the storage period of 'Yali' pears. The future thrust of this study will focus on the isolation of fungi or bacteria from pear fruit surface and identify their roles in causing fruit decay and changing fruit quality during storage.

Indexed as

MycobiomePyrusAlternariaEthylenesFruitEthylenesFruit baggingFungal communityPichiaPostharvest decay‘Yali’ pear

Identifiers

PMID36199024
PMCPMC9533515

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.