Abstract
Shading during early fruit development reduces fruit growth and initiates fruit abscission in apple ( Malus × domestica ). The mechanisms mediating the decline in fruit growth in response to shading are not well understood. In this study, the effects of shading during early fruit development on cell production and expansion were investigated. Additionally, the effects of shading on the expression of genes associated with carbohydrate metabolism, fruit growth, and cell production and expansion were investigated to develop a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms and to identify genes that mediate the reduction in fruit growth. Shading of isolated branches or entire trees ≈15 to 18 days after full bloom resulted in a sharp decline in fruit growth by 3 days after treatment. Reduction in fruit growth was consistently mediated by a decline in cell production within 3 days after treatment. Reduced fruit growth was also associated with lower cell size by 3 to 7 days after shading in two different years. These data indicate that the reduction in fruit growth as a result of shading is mediated by a reduction in cell production and expansion. The expression of two sorbitol dehydrogenase ( SDH ) genes, MdSDH1 and MdSDH2 , was higher in the shaded fruit by up to 10-fold, suggesting an increase in SDH activity to meet the immediate respiratory demands of the developing fruit. The auxin response factor ( ARF ), MdARF106 , displayed ≈3-fold higher expression in the shaded fruit, suggesting its involvement in regulating mechanisms that mediate the reduction in fruit growth. Two A2-type cyclins, MdCYCA2;2 and MdCYCA2;3 , which are positively associated with cell production, displayed lower expression in the shaded fruit by up to 4.6-fold. Conversely, MdKRP4 and MdKRP5 , cell cycle genes negatively associated with cell production, displayed 3.9- and 5.3-fold higher expression in the shaded fruit, respectively. Additionally, two genes associated with cell expansion, MdCOB1 ( cobra1 ) and MdEXPA10;1 ( expansin ), displayed lower expression in the shaded fruit. Together, these data indicate that shading results in coordinated changes in the expression of carbohydrate metabolism-related genes, key transcription factors related to fruit growth, and genes associated with cell production and expansion. These changes may subsequently decrease the progression of the primary processes that mediate fruit growth.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
Shading reduced apple fruit growth within three days.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- Shadinge0
- Outcome
- fruit growthe0
- Direction
- declinee0
- Qualifier
- ≈15 to 18 days after full bloome0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading of isolated branches or entire trees ≈15 to 18 days after full bloom resulted in a sharp decline in fruit growth by 3 days after treatment.”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading reduced cell production in apple fruit within three days.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadingt1
- Outcome
- cell productione0
- Direction
- declinee0
- Qualifier
- within 3 days after treatmente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reduction in fruit growth was consistently mediated by a decline in cell production within 3 days after treatment.”
t0“Apple”
t1“Shading”
Claim · model-written summary
Shaded apple fruit had lower cell size within 3 to 7 days in two years.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadinge0
- Outcome
- cell sizee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- by 3 to 7 days after shading in two different yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reduced fruit growth was also associated with lower cell size by 3 to 7 days after shading in two different years.”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
MdSDH1 expression was up to tenfold higher in shaded apple fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadede0
- Gene
- MdSDH1e0
- Outcome
- expressione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- up to 10-folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The expression of two sorbitol dehydrogenase ( SDH ) genes, MdSDH1 and MdSDH2 , was higher in the shaded fruit by up to 10-fold”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
MdSDH2 expression was up to tenfold higher in shaded apple fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadede0
- Gene
- MdSDH2e0
- Outcome
- expressione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- up to 10-folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The expression of two sorbitol dehydrogenase ( SDH ) genes, MdSDH1 and MdSDH2 , was higher in the shaded fruit by up to 10-fold”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
MdARF106 expression was about threefold higher in shaded apple fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadede0
- Gene
- MdARF106e0
- Outcome
- expressione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- ≈3-folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MdARF106 , displayed ≈3-fold higher expression in the shaded fruit”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
MdCYCA2;2 expression was lower in shaded apple fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadede0
- Gene
- MdCYCA2;2e0
- Outcome
- expressione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- up to 4.6-folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MdCYCA2;2 and MdCYCA2;3 , which are positively associated with cell production, displayed lower expression in the shaded fruit by up to 4.6-fold.”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
MdCYCA2;3 expression was lower in shaded apple fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadede0
- Gene
- MdCYCA2;3e0
- Outcome
- expressione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- up to 4.6-folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MdCYCA2;2 and MdCYCA2;3 , which are positively associated with cell production, displayed lower expression in the shaded fruit by up to 4.6-fold.”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
MdKRP4 expression was 3.9-fold higher in shaded apple fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadede0
- Gene
- MdKRP4e0
- Outcome
- expressione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 3.9-e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MdKRP4 and MdKRP5 , cell cycle genes negatively associated with cell production, displayed 3.9- and 5.3-fold higher expression in the shaded fruit, respectively.”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
MdKRP5 expression was 5.3-fold higher in shaded apple fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadede0
- Gene
- MdKRP5e0
- Outcome
- expressione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5.3-folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MdKRP4 and MdKRP5 , cell cycle genes negatively associated with cell production, displayed 3.9- and 5.3-fold higher expression in the shaded fruit, respectively.”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
MdCOB1 expression was lower in shaded apple fruit.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MdCOB1 ( cobra1 ) and MdEXPA10;1 ( expansin ), displayed lower expression in the shaded fruit.”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
MdEXPA10;1 expression was lower in shaded apple fruit.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MdCOB1 ( cobra1 ) and MdEXPA10;1 ( expansin ), displayed lower expression in the shaded fruit.”
t0“Apple”
The same questions in other papers
shade · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →shade · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.