You are on page 1of 7

Postharvest Biology and Technology 86 (2013) 529535

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Postharvest Biology and Technology


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/postharvbio

Non-destructive sampling procedure for biochemical or gene


expression studies on post-harvest physiological deterioration of
cassava roots
Jos A. Garca a , Teresa Snchez b , Hernn Ceballos b, , Lismaco Alonso a,b
a
b

Consorcio Latinoamericano para Investigacin y Desarrollo de la Yuca (CLAYUCA), Apartado Areo 6713, Cali, Colombia
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Apartado Areo 6713, Cali, Colombia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 October 2012
Accepted 14 June 2013
Keywords:
Gene expression
Genetic tolerance
Post-harvest losses
Shelf life

a b s t r a c t
Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) roots spoil 23 days after harvest due to post-harvest physiological
deterioration (PPD), which had remained an unsolved problem until recent reports of genetic variation
for tolerance to it. PPD is a genetically active, oxidative process triggered when the harvested roots are
separated from their mother plant. The short shelf life of harvested roots results in large losses and high
transport and marketing costs. Recent reports on positive genetic variation for tolerance to PPD will
facilitate breeding for extended shelf life of the roots and a better understanding of the biochemical and
genetic events leading to PPD. However, PPD scoring is difcult and prone to large experimental errors.
It is often the case that roots from the same plant can have 0 and 100% PPD score due to injuries during
the harvest process, variation in dry matter content and, most likely, other variables yet to be identied.
Therefore, sampling a root for biochemical or genetic studies and measuring PPD in a different root, is not
a reliable approach. A device has been developed and tested for the possibility of extracting a core of root
parenchyma, lling the space with melted parafn (to reduce oxygen availability), and then one or two
weeks later visually quantifying PPD in the same root. Sampling the roots did not have any signicant
effect on PPD suggesting that the protocol can be used for biochemical composition and gene expression
studies related to the causes of PPD and the possibilities of developing tolerance to it.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Cassava is among the most important staple crops in tropical
and subtropical regions of the world. It shows a remarkable and
well recognized adaptation to marginal growing conditions due
to its perennial growth habit. When there are biotic and/or abiotic stresses the plant can assume a dormant status until favorable
growing conditions return. This characteristic provides exibility
and plasticity for the plant to adapt to changes in the environment
(Ceballos et al., 2011). Compared with other staple foods, cassava
also offers the advantage of a exible harvesting date, allowing
farmers to keep the roots in the ground until needed (Iglesias
et al., 1997). Although the starchy root is the primary product, fresh
leaves are also used for animal and/or human consumption in Africa
and Asia (Benesi et al., 2010; Howeler, 2011).
In addition to the important role cassava plays in food security,
there is a growing demand for cassava roots by the starch, food,
animal feed and ethanol industries (Balagopalan, 2002; Buitrago,
2011a,b,c; Chauynarong et al., 2009; Moorthy, 2004; Sriroth et al.,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +57 2 445 0125; fax: +57 2 445 0083.
E-mail address: h.ceballos@cgiar.org (H. Ceballos).
0925-5214/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2013.06.026

2010) as well as for bread making (Pasqualone et al., 2010) or the


snacks industry (Vitrac et al., 2002). Cassava is the second most
important source of starch after maize and no other source of
starch is traded more in international markets than cassava starch
(Stapleton, 2012). The identication of new root quality traits that
offer particular advantages for some of these industries is likely
to strengthen and widen the industrial applications of cassava in
the near future (Rolland-Sabat et al., 2012; Snchez et al., 2010).
The availability and application of genetic transformation is also
an important tool for developing cassava cultivars with new root
quality traits (Liu et al., 2011; Koehorst-van Putten et al., 2012).
However, several factors affect the relative efciency of cassava to satisfy these needs. Cassava is generally grown in marginal
environments, frequently characterized by large distances to the
processing centers and decient transport infrastructure, specically roads. Cassava roots are also bulky, containing approximately
65% water. To complicate matters further, cassava roots have a very
short shelf life because of a process known as post-harvest physiological deterioration (PPD). The PPD rapidly renders the roots
unpalatable and unmarketable (Han et al., 2001; Reilly et al., 2003,
2007).
Consequently, cassava roots need to be consumed soon after
harvesting (van Oirschot et al., 2000). The short shelf-life of the

530

J.A. Garca et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 86 (2013) 529535

roots severely limits the marketing options by increasing the likelihood of losses and the overall marketing costs (Salcedo et al.,
2010). Extending shelf life of cassava roots to 45 days would result
in annual benets above 35 million US$ in Thailand alone (Vlaar
et al., 2007). Economic impact would be considerably higher in
other countries where road and transport infrastructure is not as
developed as in Thailand.
The processes involved in PPD is initiated as soon as the
root is detached from the mother plant and resemble typical changes associated with the plants response to wounding.
It triggers a cascade of biochemical reactions, in which reactive oxygen species (ROS) are central. Specic genes involved
in PPD have been identied and characterized, and their
expressions evaluated (Reilly et al., 2001). Several secondary
metabolites, particularly hydroxycoumarins, accumulate in the
process (Bayoumi et al., 2008a,b, 2010). The PPD begins 2448 h
after harvest (at 2030 C and 6580% relative humidity), but
handling and storage conditions of the roots greatly affect its
speed and magnitude. Keeping roots at 10 C and 80% relative humidity delays the onset of PPD by two weeks. The
PPD also has been linked with high dry matter content in
the roots (van Oirschot et al., 2000; Snchez et al., 2006),
an unfortunate association because high dry matter content
of the roots is a common objective of many cassava-breeding
projects.
There are early reports on genotypic variation to PPD (Booth,
1976; Ekanayake and Lyasse, 2003). However in no case the degree
of tolerance reached those recently reported by Morante et al.
(2010). Research on PPD and the physiological, chemical, genetic
and/or environmental factors affecting it is difcult because of the
large experimental errors typically associated with the available
scoring protocols. Root handling during harvest and transport, and
root dry matter content are among the known factors inuencing PPD. It is often the case that roots from the same plant may
have scores from 0 to 100% PPD. A major problem, therefore, is that
the current approach of sampling one root for biochemical or gene
expression studies (usually soon after harvest) and measuring PPD
in a different root from the same genotype (typically 710 d after
harvest), is largely inefcient.
The availability of tolerance and advances in our understanding of the process and factors affecting it (Bayoumi et al., 2008a,b,
2010; Ndidi and Akeem, 2011; Reilly et al., 2007) have lead to
the need for a protocol that: (a) allows a non-destructive sampling of root tissue; (b) that can be performed days before PPD is
quantied; and (c) that will not induce (or prevent) the normal
PPD onset and development. This article describes an innovative,
non-destructive approach for sampling cassava roots soon after
harvest (for biochemical composition proles and/or gene expression) without noticeable changes in PPD development through
periods ranging from one to two weeks of storage. This method will
allow research for a better understanding of the factors leading to
PPD and the biochemical/genetic factors determining tolerance to
this problem.

2. Materials and methods


2.1. Germplasm
The genotypes evaluated in this study were selected because
their contrasting reaction to PPD: clones CM 523-7 and HMC1 are
susceptible, while AM 206-5 and MPER 183, are tolerant (Morante
et al., 2010). AM 206-5 is the genotype where the amylose-free
starch mutation (waxy starch) was rst reported (Ceballos et al.,
2007, 2012).

2.2. Root harvest, handling and PPD evaluation


Scoring the reaction to PPD is a destructive process initially
developed by Booth et al. (1976) and based on the storage of intact
roots (also Booth, 1976, 1977). A new method for quantifying PPD
was described by Marriott et al. (1978, 1979). This methodology
was later modied by Wheatley et al. (1985). In this method, the
proximal and distal ends of the root are removed to accelerate the
process and avoid microbial contamination which occurred during
long storage periods). The distal open section of the root is then
covered with cling lm to prevent further ow of oxygen. Roots
are then stored for 37 d.
Several plants from the genotypes described above were harvested in May 30 to July 1, 2012. Harvest of plants proceeded until
60 commercial-size roots in good conditions per genotype had been
selected. Harvest was done manually (as it is typically done) and
with special care not to cause any injury to the roots. It is well
known that rough handling creates localized damage to the root
tissue that accelerates PPD. Each root was weighted individually
and then randomly assigned to one of the following four treatments
(15 roots per treatment) based on the combination of the following
two main factors:
a. Duration and conditions of storage
a1. Roots were processed following Wheatleys methodology
described above and stored for a period of 7 d. The major
advantage of Wheatleys methodology is to accelerate PPD and
prevent microbial rotting that occasionally occur when roots
are left for long periods of time.
a2. Roots were stored in normal conditions for a period of 14
d. This truly simulates the conditions roots are stored before
processing in different kind of industries.
b. Sampling of roots soon after harvest
b1. Roots were not sampled at the starting of the storage period.
b2. A cylindrical sample of the root was extracted from its mid section, and melted parafn was then added to ll the volume of
the root sampled (see description of the procedure below).
Roots were stored on shelves under a roof but without walls.
Air, therefore, circulated freely through the shelves. Before initiating the storage period, each root was weighted individually. In the
case of sampled roots (treatment b1 above) weighting of roots was
done after taking the core sample. Evaluations were made, as indicated above, 7 d (using Wheatleys protocol) or 14 d (extremes of
the roots left untouched) after harvest. 15 roots per genotype and
treatment were included at the beginning of the experiment. Before
measuring reaction to PPD, roots were weighed again to quantify
weight loss during storage.
Scoring the reaction to PPD is a destructive process. Seven
transversal slices were cut along the root, starting at the proximal end. A score ranging from 1 to 10 was assigned to each slice,
corresponding to the percentage of the cut surface showing discoloration (1 = 10%, 2 = 20%, etc.). The mean PPD score for each root was
calculated by averaging the scores of the seven transversal sections
(Wheatley et al., 1985). The method, however is time consuming
and laborious. It is also prone to large experimental errors (e.g. roots
from the same plant may show both 0 and up to 100% PPD scores).
This large experimental error prompted the research described in
this article.
Roots showing symptoms of microbial rotting (very different
from those related to PPD) or affected by insects, were not used for

J.A. Garca et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 86 (2013) 529535


Table 1
Key environmental factors during the duration of this experiment.
Week

Hour

Average

Minimum

Maximum

95.1
57.7
75.1

92
53
72

97
62
79

7:00 AM
1:00 PM
7:00 PM

96.7
62.6
75.1

95
58
70

98
71
81

Daily temperature ( C)
First
Second

24.7
24.4

19.2
19.4

30.8
30.0

Relative air moisture (%)


7:00 AM
1:00 PM
First
7:00 PM
Second

quantication of PPD. Only the visual signs of deterioration (graybluish vascular streaking) were assessed in this study.
2.3. Dry matter content
A sample from these roots was taken for the quantication of
dry matter content after measuring PPD. To estimate it, 2030 g of
chopped and grated fresh roots were dried in an oven at 60 C for
24 h. Dry matter was expressed as the percentage of dry weight
relative to fresh weight.
2.4. Statistical analysis
The PPD values were expressed as percentages following the
scoring procedure originally developed by Wheatley et al. (1985).
The data were arcsine-square root transformed prior to analysis
(Steel and Torrie, 1960). Analysis of variance was conducted using
the PROC GLM from SAS (SAS, 2008). The experimental unit was
each individual root from different cassava cultivars and subjected
to one of four possible treatments (a1b1; a1b2; a2b1; a2b2).
2.5. Extraction of a cylindrical sample of root parenchyma
PPD is an oxidative process actively controlled by the expression of genes in the root which is triggered by the separation of
the root from the mother plant and is clearly linked to the presence of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (Reilly et al., 2003). Different
studies require sampling of the roots soon after harvest (to monitor chemical composition or gene expression) for a phenomenon
that will develop and become evident several days later. However,
this sampling requires that ROS is prevented from promoting or
accelerating PPD around the area injured during the extraction of
the sample. A device was therefore developed for extracting a core
of root tissue and then immediately pouring melted parafn in to
ll the space left by the extraction of the root sample (Fig. 1). Key
features of this device are: (a) A stainless steel heated container on
top containing the melted parafn; (b) a heated valve to manually
release the melted parafn immediately after the sample of the root
was taken; (c) a stainless steel cylinder with an internal diameter
of 8 mm, whose penetrating edge was slanted and sharpened; (d)
a lever connected to the sampling cylinder; and (e) a pusher rod
inside the cylinder that was used to push the core root sample out
of the cylinder.
3. Results
Table 1 presents a summary of key environmental parameters
that have been linked to the development of PPD. Temperature
ranged from 19 to 30 C both in the rst and second week of the
experiment. Data for the second week is only relevant for the roots
stored without their extremes cut. Air moisture was always above

531

90% at 7:00 AM, and ranged between 70 and 80% at 7:00 PM. At
1:00 PM moisture was 5362% in the rst week and 5871% in the
second.
At the beginning of the study 15 roots were assigned for each
combination of treatments. One of the common problems often
observed while assessing PPD in cassava roots is the rotting of roots
from microbial infections. The symptoms of rotted roots are very
distinctive and different from those of PPD. It is very easy to distinguish one from the other. However, PPD cannot be assessed in
rotten roots. Averages across the 15 roots representing each combination of treatments along with those for the three main effects
are presented in Table 2. This table also presents information on
the averages for dry matter content (DMC) and number of rotten
roots, both variables quantied at the end of the experiment.
A key nding presented in Table 2 is the fact that in no case
sampling the roots resulted in changes on the PPD score (either
increasing or decreasing it). Average PPD scores from sampled or
un-sampled roots were similar when analyzing roots from individual clones and after 7 or 14 d of storage. Therefore, PPD averages
across clones and duration of storage period were not statistically
different. This is important because data would suggest that, in no
case, sampling the roots resulted in a noticeable change in PPD evolution. Although the analysis of variance for PPD was made on the
arcsine-square root transformed data, to facilitate understanding
of results Table 2 presents the original values for PPD. The signicances of those means, however, relate to the transformed data.
As reported in the literature PPD seems to be correlated with
DMC (van Oirschot et al., 2000; Snchez et al., 2006). It is important,
therefore, to report DMC values as a reference point when analyzing PPD in cassava roots. There was a signicant difference for the
average DMC of roots from AM 206-5 sampled or not sampled, after
both 7 and 14 d of storage. Also sampled roots from HMC1 stored
for 7 d had higher DMC than un-sampled roots (41.6 vs. 34.4%). It
is unlikely that these differences are just random sampling variation. Therefore as expected, the overall average of sampled roots
also showed signicantly higher levels of DMC compared with roots
that had not been sampled (41.2 vs. 38.6%). It is not clear why these
differences occurred and only in roots from AM 206-5 and HMC-1. A
feasible explanation would be that in some cases sampling the root
allowed some water loss through the injured tissue which would
explain the observed increases in DMC. It is important to emphasize that the changes observed in DMC for some clones did not have
an impact on PPD scores.
A summary of the analyses of variance is presented in Table 3.
Four variables were analyzed: weight loss expressed in grams or as
percentage of the initial weight, PPD (expressed as percentage and
transformed) and DMC. Highly signicant effects (P > 0.01) were
found for the clone source of variation for the four variables. The
length of storage period also had highly signicant effects on both
ways of measuring weight loss, but not for PPD or DMC. Sampling a
cylinder of root parenchyma had a signicant effect (P > 0.05) only
for weight loss expressed as percentage of the initial weight and for
DMC. No interaction achieved statistical signicance for any variable except for changes in DMC. It is important to highlight that
extracting a cylinder of root parenchyma did not have any noticeable effect on PPD development. This variable, as expected, was
highly affected by the genetic differences.
As indicated by the analysis of variance sampling the roots and
lling the space with parafn did not result in signicant changes
in PPD (11.9 versus 12.5%, Table 2). When individual treatments
(clones and duration of the storage period) are considered, then
larger variation between averages of sampled and un-sampled
roots can be observed. For example, in the case of AM 206-5, roots
stored for 14 days showed 9.1% PPD when they had been sampled but average PPD of un-sampled roots was only 3.9%. However,
these differences were not statistically signicant. The standard

532

J.A. Garca et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 86 (2013) 529535

Fig. 1. (A) Illustration of the system to extract core samples of root parenchyma and ll the space with melted parafn; (B) example of core of the root parenchyma extracted;
(C) appearance of the root after parafn had been applied and solidied; (D) cooled down and solidied cylinder of parafn extracted from the root for illustration.

deviations presented in Table 2 provide further evidence that the


experimental errors associated with PPD scoring are large. However, in some cases sampling resulted in higher PPD values and
in other cases in lower levels of PPD. This observed variation in
PPD (also notice the standard deviations within a given treatment)
is the typical error associated with this trait that prompted this
study.
HMC-1 and CM523-7 were very susceptible to PPD (18.8
and 21.0%, respectively). These results agree with those reported

by Morante et al. (2010), providing further evidence that


there is genetic variation for the reaction to PPD in cassava. Fig. 2 illustrates the differences among roots from a
tolerant (AM206-5) and a susceptible (CM523-7) genotype
(both, sampled or non-sampled). Fig. 2 also helps to describe
the frequent observation on roots from susceptible genotypes
developing what appears to be healing tissue around the parafn cylinder. This tissue acquired a chalky appearance and
consistency.

Table 2
Least square means and standard deviations (within parenthesis) of the experiment to assess PPD in roots from four cassava genotypes. At the bottom of the table the
averages across genotypes, duration of storage period and sampling versus not sampling the roots is provided for comparison.1 Roots stored for 7 d were subjected to
Wheatles method, whereas roots stored for 14 d were not cut at the extremes.
Clone

AM206-5 (Tolerant)

CM523-7 (Suscept.)

HMC1 (Suscept.)

MPER183 (Tolerant)

AM206-5
CM523-7
HMC1
MPER183
Roots stored for 7 days
Roots stored for 14 days
Roots sampled
Roots not sampled
1
2

Sample taken

Storage (d)

7
7
14
14
7
7
14
14
7
7
14
14
7
7
14
14

Rotten roots

0
1
3
1
0
1
4
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
5
3
5
6
1
12
7
17
16
8

Weight loss2

PPD2

DMC2

(g)

(%)

(%)

(%)

24.3(5.4)
21.8(5.3)
41.9(15.2)
28.6(9.8)*
35.0(12.4)
25.3(11.2)*
35.3(19.4)
36.4(20.5)
33.0(8.8)
36.7(14.4)
58.3(25.1)
50.8(28.1)
41.0(17.1)
45.3(14.7)
54.5(25.9)
47.7(32.0)
29.2b
33.0b
44.7a
47.1a
32.8b
44.2a
40.4a
36.6a

7.3(1.6)
6.2(1.1)*
8.9(1.9)
7.3(1.7)
9.0(1.6)
8.5(1.4)
9.7(2.1)
10.1(2.4)
8.6(1.3)
8.4(1.4)
10.0(2.6)
9.5(2.3)
10.1(2.0)
10.8(1.7)
12.5(2.5)
9.7(2.4)*
7.4c
9.3b
9.1b
10.8a
8.6b
9.7a
9.5a
8.8b

3.0(4.6)
0.6(1.9)
9.1(9.3)
3.9(8.4)
24.8(11.2)
20.3(10.9)
18.2(18.3)
20.6(16.1)
13.6(10.9)
17.4(12.5)
17.2(11.3)
27.1(19.0)
4.3(4.6)
5.8(10.6)
4.7(6.8)
3.8(7.7)
4.2b
21.0a
18.8a
4.6a
11.2a
13.1a
11.9a
12.5a

43.2(1.9)
33.4(3.9)**
35.0(2.3)
31.5(4.3)*
43.9(1.7)
44.3(1.6)
43.0(1.7)
43.5(2.0)
41.6(3.0)
34.4(5.1)**
41.7(2.9)
41.7(1.9)
39.5(2.0)
39.0(4.5)
41.8(2.8)
41.4(1.9)
35.8c
43.7a
39.8b
40.5b
39.9a
40.0a
41.2a
38.6b

Treatments followed by the same superscript letters are not statistically different.
Difference between means of sampled versus not sampled roots (for individual clones and specic duration of storage period) signicant at P < 0.05 (*) or P < 0.01 (**).

J.A. Garca et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 86 (2013) 529535

533

Table 3
Mean squares from the analyses of variance for weight losses (expressed in g or in % related to initial weight) and post-harvest physiological deterioration (PPD) and dry
matter content (DMC) expressed in %.
Source of variation

df

Weight loss
(g)

Clone (C)
Root/clone
Length of storage (S)
Root sample taken (R)
CS
CR
CSR
Error
*
**

3
56
1
1
3
3
4
144

(%)
**

**

3886
214
6668**
739
522
119
386

90.14
2.90
64.44**
24.84*
1.04
4.73
9.31

365

3.94

Arcsin ( PPD)

DMC

(%)

(%)
**

34.83
0.73
0.62
0.41
2.60
2.03
0.52
0.04

516.5**
10.1
0.9
295.6**
198.6**
141.0**
312.3**
8.3

Signicant at the P > 0.05.


Signicant at the P > 0.01.

Fig. 2. Photographs of roots from (A) tolerant genotype AM 206-5 and (B) susceptible genotype CM523-7. For each genotype roots on the left had not been sampled and
those of the right had been sampled and the parafn cylinder is clearly visible. In some cases, a chalky healing tissue could be observed around the parafn cylinder (arrows
on right).

4. Discussion
Sampling the roots increased the frequency of rotten roots (16
versus 8 in Table 2). This makes sense, as the injury can serve
as an entry point for different microbes and fungi. MPER183, as
observed in the past, had a good tolerance to PPD but its roots tend
to rot considerably more than those from other genotypes (particularly HMC1). MPER183 also lost a lot of weight. Both MPER183 and
AM206-5 where clearly tolerant to PPD (4.6 and 4.2%, respectively),
however AM 206-5 lost considerably less weight than the former
(both in grams or in %). It can be concluded, therefore, that weight
loss is probably unrelated to tolerance to PPD.
Also in agreement with the analysis of variance information,
there was a clear effect of the duration of the storage period on
weight losses (both expressed in grams or as percentage). Weight
loss is higher in roots stored for 14 d (44.2 g or 9.7%) than for 7
d (32.8 g or 8.6%). However, there was no statistical difference in
the PPD levels when roots were stored for 7 or 14 d (11.2 versus
13.1%). This last nding reinforces the long standing perception that
cutting the extremes of the roots and covering the distal one with
cling lm contributes to accelerating PPD. Since no genotype by
treatment interaction was signicant, it can be concluded that both
methods of storage provide similar information on PPD.
PPD is an enzymatically mediated oxidative process which
parallels plant wound, senescence and defense responses. It is a
very active and complex process in which as many as 72 nonredundant expressed sequence tags were either induced or down

regulated (Reilly et al., 2007). Salcedo et al., published in 2010


data indicating negligible correlation between the accumulation of
hydroxycoumarins (assessed through uorescence) and the visual
symptoms of PPD. These authors concluded that accumulation of
hydroxycoumarins is not a reliable marker for evaluation of PPD.
The information in Table 2 (particularly standard deviations)
illustrates the large experimental error associated with PPD. Early
work had to rely on assessing PPD in a group of roots and making
biochemical or gene expression measurements in a different group
of roots, particularly if the latter analyses had to be made earlier
(at harvest time or soon thereafter) than those for PPD (typically at
least seven days after harvest). These studies relied on the acknowledged weakness of assuming that data taken on one root could be
associated with that from a different root provided they were from
the same genotype and harvested at the same time. With the kind of
experimental errors shown in Table 2, this assumption was clearly
questionable and researchers knew it. The methodology proposed
here offers the advantage that sampling of the root can be made
(earlier if necessary) and then PPD assessed in the same root several days later. Since there is little inuence of sampling the root
on PPD, the possibility of making both measurements in the same
root is clearly very appealing.
Results on DMC (Table 3) were not surprising. Roots during storage loose DMC because of the respiration and an active hydrolysis
of starch to produce simple sugars. On the other hand there is also
loss of water which would tend to increase DMC. Unpublished data
at CIAT demonstrates that there may be differential rates of starch

534

J.A. Garca et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 86 (2013) 529535

hydrolysis into simpler sugars in roots from different genotypes.


This could explain the statistical differences observed in DMC.
There is still one pending issue that needs to be addressed in
future research. It seems that sampling the roots increased slightly
weight losses (if expressed as %). It is not clear why or how this
has been observed. Roots were weighted after the sampling has
been taken and the treatment with parafn completed. So, higher
weight losses are not because parafn may be lighter that the
extracted root sample. Parafn is very hot when applied to the root
so perhaps the high temperature has temporarily induced some
transpiration/evaporation as it was applied. However, this would
last for a very short period of time, so it remains a weak explanation.
5. Conclusions
The recent report of wide genetic variation for tolerance to PPD
has generated interest and opportunities for understanding the
genetic and biochemical factors inuencing PPD and exploiting it to
extend shelf life of cassava roots. The sampling protocol described
here allows early sampling of a root (when gene expression and/or
biochemical characteristics likely determine later evolution of PPD)
without affecting PPD scores on the same root, taken later on. This
procedure overcomes the major problem of making the genetic
and/or biochemical analysis on roots different from those in which
PPD score is taken (which is affected by unacceptably high experimental errors). This study also further conrmed the differences in
susceptibility to PPD among cassava germplasm.
This research justies a follow up study to assess the impact
of taking sequentially several samples (two or three samples of
the root during the storage period), before nally assessing PPD.
This kind of study would be of particular interest for tracking
carotenoids content through storage. High carotenoids content has
been linked with tolerance to PPD (Morante et al., 2010; Snchez
et al., 2006) and it is suspected that these pigments may be
metabolized through storage (CIAT, unpublished data). Sequential
samplings on the same roots may also be helpful for a chronological
study of gene expression through time.
Acknowledgments
Statistical analyses were made with the valuable support of
Myriam Cristina Duque and Juan Bosco Cuasquer.
References
Balagopalan, C., 2002. Cassava utilization in food, feed and industry. In: Hillocks,
R.J., Tresh, J.M., Bellotti, A.C. (Eds.), Cassava: Biology, Production and Utilization.
CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK/New York, USA, pp. 301318.
Bayoumi, S.A.L., Rowan, M.G., Blagbrough, I.S., Beeching, J.R., 2008a. Biosynthesis
of scopoletin and scopolin in cassava roots during post-harvest physiological
deterioration: the E-Z-isomerisation stage. Phytochemistry 69, 29282936.
Bayoumi, S.A.L., Rowan, M.G., Beeching, J.R., Blagbrough, I.S., 2008b. Investigation of
biosynthetic pathways to hydroxycoumarins during post-harvest physiological
deterioration in cassava roots by using stable isotope labeling. ChemBioChem 9,
30133022.
Bayoumi, S.A.L., Rowan, M.G., Beeching, J.R., Blagbrough, I.S., 2010. Constituents and
secondary metabolite natural products in fresh and deteriorated cassava roots.
Phytochemistry 71, 598604.
Benesi, I.R.M., Labuschagne, M.T., Herselman, L., Mahungu, N., 2010. Ethnobotany,
morphology and genotyping of cassava germplasm from Malawi. Journal of
Biological Sciences 10, 616623.
Booth, R.H., de buckle, T.S., Cardenas, O.S., Gomez, G., Hervas, E., 1976. Changes in
quality of cassava roots during storage. International Journal of Food Science &
Technology 11, 245264.
Booth, R.H., 1976. Storage of fresh cassava (Manihot esculenta). I. Post-harvest deterioration and its control. Experimental Agriculture 12, 103111.
Booth, R.H., 1977. Storage of fresh cassava (Manihot esculenta). II. Simple storage
techniques. Experimental Agriculture 13, 119128.
Buitrago, J.A., 2011a. Fresh and ensiled cassava roots and foliage for swine and
ruminants. In: Howeler, R.H. (Ed.), The Cassava Handbook: A Reference Manual based on the Asian Regional Training Course held in Thailand. Centro

Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Chatuchak, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 646


664.
Buitrago, J.A., 2011b. Dry cassava root and foliage meal for poultry. swine and ruminants. In: Howeler, R.H. (Ed.), The Cassava Handbook: A Reference Manual based
on the Asian Regional Training Course held in Thailand. Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical, Chatuchak, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 665692.
Buitrago, J.A., 2011c. Recent developments with dried cassava root and foliage meal
for poultry and swine. In: Howeler, R.H. (Ed.), The Cassava Handbook: A Reference Manual based on the Asian Regional Training Course held in Thailand.
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Chatuchak, Bangkok, Thailand, pp.
693709.
Ceballos, H., Snchez, T., Morante, N., Fregene, M., Dufour, D., Smith, A.M., Denyer,
K., Prez, J.C., Calle, F., Mestres, C., 2007. Discovery of an amylose-free Starch
mutant in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 55, 74697476.
Ceballos, H., Ramirez, J., Bellotti, A.C., Jarvis, A., Alvarez, E., 2011. Adaptation of
cassava to Changing Climates. In: Yadav, S.S., Redden, B., Hateld, J.S., LotzeCampen, G., Hall, A. (Eds.), Crop Adaptation to Climate Change. John Wiley &
Sons/Blackwell Publishing, pp. 411425.
Ceballos, H., Hershey, C., Becerra-Lpez-Lavalle, L.A., 2012. New approaches to cassava breeding. Plant Breeding Reviews 36, 427504.
Chauynarong, N., Elangovan, A.V., Iji, P.A., 2009. The potential of cassava products in
diets for poultry. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 65, 2336.
Ekanayake, I.J., Lyasse, O., 2003. Genotypic variations in physiological deterioration of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) storage roots under inland valley
conditions. Food Agriculture & Environment 1, 108111.
Han, Y., Gmez-Vsquez, R., Reilly, K., Li, H., Tohme, J., Cooper, R.M., Beeching, J.R.,
2001. Hydroxyproline-rich glycoproteins expressed during stress responses in
cassava. Euphytica 120, 5970.
Howeler, R., 2011. Cassava leaf production for animal feeding. In: Howeler, R.H.
(Ed.), The Cassava Handbook: A Reference Manual based on the Asian Regional
Training Course held in Thailand. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical,
Chatuchak, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 626648.
Iglesias, C., Mayer, J., Chvez, A.L., Calle, F., 1997. Genetic potential and stability of
carotene content in cassava roots. Euphytica 94, 367373.
Koehorst-van Putten, H.J., Sudarmonowati, J.E., Herman, M., Pereira-Bertram, I.J.,
Wolters, A.M.A., Meima, H., de Vetten, N., Raemakers, C.J.J.M., Visser, R.G.F., 2012.
Field testing and exploitation of genetically modied cassava with low-amylose
or amylose-free starch in Indonesia. Transgenic Research 21, 3950.
Liu, J., Zheng, Q., Ma, Q., Gadidasu, K.K., Zhang, P., 2011. Cassava genetic transformation and its application in breeding. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 53,
552569.
Marriott, J., Been, B.O., Perkins, C., 1978. The aetiology of vascular discoloration in
cassava roots after harvesting: association with water loss from wounds. Physiologia Plantarum 44 (1), 3842.
Marriott, J., Been, B.O., Perkins, C., 1979. The aetiology of vascular discoloration in
cassava roots after harvesting: development of endogenous resistance in stored
roots. Physiologia Plantarum 45 (1), 5156.
Moorthy, S.N., 2004. Tropical sources of starch. In: Eliasson, A.C. (Ed.), Starch in Food.
CRC Press, Boca Ratn, pp. 321359.
Morante, N., Snchez, T., Ceballos, H., Calle, F., Prez, J.C., Egesi, C., Cuambe, C.E.,
Escobar, A.F., Ortiz, D., Chvez, A.L., 2010. Tolerance to post-harvest physiological
deterioration in cassava roots. Crop Science 50, 13331338.
Ndidi, E.P., Akeem, O.A., 2011. Antioxidant activity during postharvest deterioration
of cassava (Manihot esculenta) root tubers. International Journal of Agriculture
& Biology 13, 455457.
Pasqualone, A., Caponio, F., Summo, C., Michele Paradiso, V., Bottega, G., Pagani, M.A.,
2010. Gluten-free bread making trials from cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz)
our and sensory evaluation of the nal product. International Journal of Food
Properties 13, 562573.
Reilly, K., Han, Y., Tohme, J., Beeching, J.R., 2001. Isolation and characterization of
a cassava catalase expressed during post-harvest physiological deterioration.
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1518, 317323.
Reilly, K., Gomez-Vasquez, R., Buschman, H., Tohme, J., Beeching, J.R., 2003. Oxidative
stress responses during cassava post-harvest physiological deterioration. Plant
Molecular Biology 53, 669685.
Reilly, K., Bernal, D., Cortes, D.F., Gomez-Vasquez, R., Tohme, J., Beeching, J.R., 2007.
Towards identifying the full set of genes expressed during cassava post-harvest
physiological deterioration. Plant Molecular Biology 64, 187203.
Rolland-Sabat, A., Snchez, T., Bulon, A., Colonna, P., Jaillais, B., Ceballos, H., Dufour,
D., 2012. Structural characterization of cassava. maize and potato starches with
low and high amylose contents. Food Hydrocolloids 27, 161174.
Salcedo, A., Del Valle, A., Sanchez, B., Ocasio, V., Ortiz, A., Marquez, P., Siritunga,
D., 2010. Comparative evaluation of physiological post-harvest root deterioration of 25 cassava (Manihot esculenta) accessions: visual vs. hydroxycoumarins
uorescent accumulation analysis. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5,
31383144.
Snchez, T., Chvez, A.L., Ceballos, H., Rodriguez-Amaya, D.B., Nestel, P., Ishitani,
M., 2006. Reduction or delay of post-harvest physiological deterioration in cassava roots with higher carotenoid content. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture 86, 634639.
Snchez, T., Dufour, D., Moreno, I.X., Ceballos, H., 2010. Pasting and gel stability of
waxy and normal starches from cassava, potato, maize, and rice under thermal,
chemical and mechanical stress. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58,
50935099.
SAS, 2008. SAS/STAT 9.1 Users Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

J.A. Garca et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 86 (2013) 529535


Sriroth, K., Piyachomkwan, K., Wanlapatit, S., Nivitchanyong, S., 2010. The promise
of a technology revolution in cassava bioethanol: from Thai practice to the world
practice. Fuel 89, 13331338.
Stapleton, G., 2012. Global starch market outlook and competing starch raw materials for starches by product segment and region. In: Cassava Starch World
2012, 2224 February, Centre for Management Technology (CMT), Phnom Penh,
Cambodia.
Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, J.H., 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, Toronto, London.
van Oirschot, Q.E.A., OBrien, G.M., Dufour, D., El-Sharkawy, M.A., Mesa, E., 2000.
The effect of pre-harvest pruning of cassava upon root deterioration and

535

quality characteristics. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 80, 1866
1873.
Vitrac, O., Dufour, D., Trystram, G., Raoult-Wack, A.L., 2002. Characterization of heat
and mass transfer during deep-fat frying and its effect on cassava chip quality.
Journal of Food Engineering 53, 161176.
Vlaar, P.W.L., van Beek, P., Visser, R.G.F., 2007. Genetic modication and its impact
on industry structure and performance: post-harvest deterioration of cassava
in Thailand. Journal on Chain and Network Science 7, 133 142.
Wheatley, C., Lozano, C., Gomez, G., 1985. Post-harvest deterioration of cassava roots.
In: Cock, J.H., Reyes, J.A. (Eds.), Cassava: Research, Production and Utilization.
UNDP-CIAT, Cali, Colombia, pp. 655671.

You might also like