## 3 Results and Discussion
### Descriptive Analysis and Principal Components Analysis (PCA)  
Fifteen attributes were evaluated: one was related to appearance, six related to the product flavor, and eight about its texture. All the attributes of the descriptive analysis showed significant differences in both pear cherry tomato and round cherry tomato. In pear cherry cultivars (Table 4), Angelle, Seychelles, and Santylpum did not show significant differences in their appearance (9.2, 9.1, and 8.8, respectively). Regarding the attributes of flavor, a more specifically, sweet flavor, Santylpum showed the highest value (7.6), while between Angelle and Seychelles there were no significant differences (7.2 and 7.1, respectively). In fruity attribute, Angelle showed an intermediate value (6.9), not showing a significant difference between Seychelles and Santylpum (7.1 and 6.7, respectively). In round cherry cultivars (Table 5), Karelya obtained the highest value in sour flavoring (6.3) showing a great difference with cultivars whose scores were closest (Katalina and C-95, 4.2 and 4.4, respectively). In the case of the herbaceous attribute, the trend was similar to the sour attribute with Karelya showing the highest value (5.8) followed by Katalina and C-95, for which scores were 4.5 and 4.4, respectively. Regarding hardness, Katalina was the cultivar with the highest value (8.3), while Sweet star showed the lowest (6.9). Crunchy showed a trend very similar to hardness, with Katalina and C-95 showing the highest values (7.9 and 7.7, respectively) while Sweet star showed again the lowest one (6.5). Juiciness was an attribute with great differences among samples, where Katalina obtained a score of 8.8 and C-95 reported a value of 4.9. With respect to the saliva solubility \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Attributes** & **ANOVA \({}^{\ddagger}\)** & _Angelle_ & _Seychelles_ & _Santylpum_ & _Dolcetini_ \\ \hline
**Appearance** & & & & & \\ Homogeneity & *** & 9.2 a \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 9.1 a & 8.8 a & 6.0 b \\
**Flavor** & & & & & \\ Sweet & *** & 7.2 b & 7.1 b & 7.6 a & 5.9 c \\ Sour & *** & 3.3 b & 3.3 b & 2.7 b & 4.2 a \\ Tomato ID & *** & 7.1 b & 7.8 a & 7.2 b & 7.0 b \\ Fruity & *** & 6.9 ab & 7.1 a & 6.7 b & 6.2 c \\ Herbaceous & *** & 2.7 c & 2.9 b & 2.9 b & 3.8 a \\ Afterstate & *** & 5.9 b & 6.1 b & 6.8 a & 5.8 b \\
**Texture** & & & & & \\ Hardness & *** & 6.1 b & 6.1 b & 6.1 b & 7.4 a \\ Crunchy & *** & 5.2 b & 5.0 b & 5.0 b & 6.4 a \\ Juiciness & *** & 5.9 a & 4.6 c & 2.7 d & 6.3 a \\ Pulp quantity & *** & 5.5 c & 5.8 bc & 6.0 ab & 6.3 a \\ Peel quantity & ** & 2.9 a & 2.8 ab & 2.9 a & 2.7 b \\ Seed and juice quantity & *** & 3.2 a & 2.2 c & 1.9 d & 2.6 b \\ Saliva solubility & *** & 5.3 a & 5.8 b & 3.4 d & 4.5 c \\ Residual skin quantity & *** & 2.1 c & 1.9 d & 2.9 b & 4.0 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\ddagger}\) NS = not significant at \(p>0.05\); ***, significant at \(p<0.01\) and \(0.001\), respectively. \({}^{\ddagger}\) Values (mean of 3 replications) followed by the same letter, within the same row, were not significantly different (\(p>0.05\)), according to [PERSON]’s least significant difference test.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive sensory analysis in pear cherry tomato as affected by cultivar. attribute, Katalina showed again the highest value (8.0), with Sweet star showing the lowest one (4.9). For better of understanding of the relationships between the cultivars of cherry tomatoes (pear and round), principal component analysis (PCAs) was done, using descriptive sensory attributes (Figure 1). PCA explained above 68.08% of the data variability. Three groups were the most relevant associations:  
* [PERSON] and Seychelles were linked with descriptors such as sweet, fruity, and homogeneity. * [PERSON] was linked with descriptors such as hardness, crunchy, saliva solubility, and juiciness. * Karelya was linked with descriptors such as herbaceous and sour.