Advances and current challenges in understanding postharvest abiotic stresses in perishables Romina Pedreschi a, *, Susan Lurie b a Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, School of Agronomy, Chile b Department of Postharvest Science of Fresh Produce, Volcani Center, Israel A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Received 20 January 2015 Received in revised form 4 May 2015 Accepted 6 May 2015 Keywords: Transcriptomics Proteomics Metabolomics Phenotype Storage Cold Heat Oxygen Water loss A B S T R A C T Postharvest abiotic stresses impact not only quality, eating and nutritional attributes of perishables but shelf life and susceptibility to physiological and pathological disorders and thus postharvest losses. Classical postharvest technologies involve applying stress conditions (cold, controlled atmosphere conditions, addition of chemicals) to extend storage and shelf-life. However, recent research has concerned itself with understanding the mechanisms by which abiotic stresses affect postharvest commodity quality. Thus, holistic approaches that incorporate the use of transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic platforms, complemented with biochemical analysis as well as phenotyping are being used to understand stress physiology and its complex regulation at the different levels of cellular control (e.g., epigenetic control, post-transcriptional, post-translational) in order to develop and improve current technological processes. This review aims to highlight key methodological points that need to be addressed for further understanding of key postharvest abiotic stresses (cold/heat, low oxygen/high carbon dioxide and dehydration) and to review research over the last ten years dedicated to understanding postharvest abiotic stresses. ã 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 2. Postharvest stress physiology in perishables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.1. Harvest and postharvest phenotyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.2. Factors influencing the response to postharvest abiotic stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.3. Postharvest abiotic stress physiology of perishables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.3.1. Temperature: cold and heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.3.2. Dehydration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 2.3.3. Low oxygen and high carbon dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 2.4. Epigenetic control in postharvest abiotic stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 2.5. Perspectives: Postharvest Systems Biology approach to understand abiotic stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 1. Introduction Fruits and vegetables are still alive and respiring after being harvested. However, they are cut off from their nutrient and water resources, and thus susceptible to fast deterioration if the right measures are not taken. Reduction of postharvest losses, which are significant and might represent up to 40% of the harvested crop, is one of the leading strategies to assure food safety (quantity and quality of food) given the constantly growing population (FAO, 2011). Different postharvest strategies (e.g., low temperature, air atmosphere modification, chemical treatments) are commercially used to reduce the respiratory rate, retard ripening and senes- cence, deter pathogen development and extend shelf life while * Corresponding author at: Romina Pedreschi. Calle San Francisco s/n, La Palma, Quillota, Chile. Tel.: +56 32 227 4515. E-mail address: romina.pedreschi@ucv.cl (R. Pedreschi). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.05.004 0925-5214/ ã 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Postharvest Biology and Technology 107 (2015) 77–89 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Postharvest Biology and Technology journal homepa ge: www.elsev ier.com/locate/postharvbio