Skip to main content
. 2024 Apr 16;22(9):2379–2394. doi: 10.1111/pbi.14352

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Fruit firmness, storage and pericarp microstructure of wild‐type (WT) and transgenic lines. (a‐c) Fruit firmness of WT and transgenic fruits at BR, YR and RR stages. (d) Fruits at the RR stage were harvested from WT, CR‐11 and CR‐13 plants and stored at room temperature for 20 days. Scale bar, 10 mm. (e) Physiological water loss (weight loss %) in WT, CR‐11 and CR‐13 fruits during different storage stages. The weight loss per fruit was calculated 10, 15 and 20 days after storage. (f) Protopectin content of WT, CR‐11 and CR‐13 fruits. (g) Pectinase activity of WT, CR‐11 and CR‐13 fruits. (h) Histological analysis of transverse sections of WT, OE‐18 and CR‐11 fruit pericarps at the red ripe stage. Scale bars = 500 μm. (i, j) Cell size and density of WT, OE‐18 and CR‐11 fruit pericarps. (k, l) Fruit cross‐section area and pericarp thickness of WT, OE‐18 and CR‐11 fruits. Values are presented as means ± SD (n = 10). Asterisks indicate the significant difference between WT and transgenic plants revealed by t‐test: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.