Fine mapping of QTLs of chromosome 2 affecting the fruit architecture and composition of tomato

Molecular Breeding

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-14

  Lecomte, L ^a   Saliba Colombani, V ^a   Gautier, A ^a   Gomez Jimenez, M C ^a   Duffe P ^a   Buret, M ^b   Causse, M ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

^b UMR A 408 INRA University of Avignon   (France)

Author keywords

Fine mapping; Fruit quality; Lycopersicon esculentum; Near isogenic line (NIL); Quantitative trait locus (QTL)

Indexed keywords

FRUITS; GENES; PLANTS (BOTANY); QUALITY CONTROL;

FINE MAPPING; FRUIT QUALITY; FRUIT SIZE; FRUIT WEIGHT; LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM; NEAR ISOGENIC LINES; NEAR-ISOGENIC LINE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; SOLUBLE SOLID CONTENT;

MAPPING;

EMBRYOPHYTA; LYCOPERSICON; LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM;

EID: 1242265517     PISSN: 13803743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:MOLB.0000012325.77844.0c     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Alpert K.B., Grandillo S. and Tanksley S.D. 1995. fw2.2:a major QTL controlling fruit weight is common to both red-and green-fruited tomato species. Theor. Appl. Genet. 91: 994-1000.
2. Basten C.J., Weir B.S. and Zeng Z.B. 1997. QTL Cartographer. A reference manual and tutorial for QTL mapping. In: Department of Statistics (Eds.), North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA.
3. Bernacchi D., Beck-Bunn T., Eshed Y., Lopez J., Petiard V., Uhlig J., Zamir D. and Tanksley S.D. 1998. Advanced backcross QTL analysis in tomato. I. Identification of QTLs for traits of agronomic importance from Lycopersicon hirsutum. Theor. Appl. Genet. 97: 381-397.
4. Bohner J. and Bangerth F. 1988. Effects of fruit-set sequence and defoliation on cell number, cell size and hormone levels of tomato fruits (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) within a truss. Plant Growth Reg. 7: 141-155.
5. Bucheli P., Voirol E., de la Torre R., Lopez J., Rytz A., Tanksley S.D. and Pétiard V. 1999. Definition of Nonvolatile Markers for Flavor of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as Tools in Selection and Breeding. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47: 659-664.
6. Causse M., Saliba-Colombani V., Lecomte L., Duffé P., Rousselle P. and Buret M. 2002. QTL analysis of fruit quality in fresh market tomato: a few chromosome regions control the variation of sensory and instrumental traits. J. Exp. Bot. 53: 2089-2098.
7. Causse M., Saliba-Colombani V., Lesschaeve I. and Buret M. 2001. Genetic analysis of organoleptic quality in fresh market tomato. 2. Mapping QTLs for sensory attributes. Theor. Appl. Genet. 102: 273-283.
8. Charcosset A., Causse M., Moreau L. and Gallais A. 1995. Investigation into the effect of genetic background on QTL expression using three connected maize recombinant inbred lines (RIL) populations. In: 9th meeting of the EUCARPIA section 'Biometrics in Plant Breeding', pp. 83-89.
9. Chen F.Q., Foolad M.R., Hyman J., St. Clair D.A. and Beelaman R.B. 1999. Mapping of QTLs for lycopene and other fruit traits in a Lycopersicon esculentum x L. pimpinellifolium cross and comparison of QTLs across tomato species. Mol. Breed. 5: 283-299.
10. Darvasi A., Weinreb A., Minke V., Weller J.I. and Soller M. 1993. Detecting marker-QTL linkage and estimating QTL gene effect and map location using a saturated genetic map. Genetics 134: 943-951.
11. Davies J.N. and Hobson G.E. 1981. The constituents of tomato fruit - The influence of environment, nutrition and genotype. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 15: 205-280.
12. Eshed Y. and Zamir D. 1996. Less-than-additive epistatic interactions of quantitative trait loci in tomato. Genetics 143: 1807-1817.
13. Frary A., Nesbitt T.C., Frary A., Grandillo S., van der Knaap E., Cong B., Liu J., Meller J., Elber R., Alpert K.B. and Tanksley S.D. 2000. fw2.2: a quantitative trait locus key to the evolution of tomato fruit size. Science 289: 85-88.
14. Fridman E., Pleban T. and Zamir D. 2000. A recombination hotspot delimits a wild-species quantitative trait loci for tomato sugar content to 484 bp within an invertase gene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 4718-4723.
15. Fulton T.M., Beck-Bunn T., Emmatty D., Eshed Y., Lopez J., Petiard V., Uhlig J., Zamir D. and Tanksley S.D. 1997. QTL analysis of an advanced backcross of Lycopersicon peruvianum to the cultivated tomato and comparisons with QTLs found in other wild species. Theor. Appl. Genet. 95: 881-894.
16. Fulton T.M., Bucheli P., Voirol E., Lopez J., Pétiard V. and Tanksley S.D. 2002. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) affecting sugars, organic acids and other biochemical properties possibly contributing to flavor, identified in four advanced backcross populations of tomato. Euphytica 163: 163-177.
17. Fulton T.M., Chunwongse J. and Tanksley S.D. 1995. Microprep protocol for extraction of DNA from tomato and other herbaceous plants. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 13: 207-209.
18. Ganal M.W., Czihal R., Hannappel U., Kloos D.-U., Polley A. and Ling H.-Q. 1998. Sequencing of cDNA Clones from the Genetic Map of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Genome Res. 8: 842-847.
19. Goldman I., Paran I. and Zamir D. 1995. Quantitative trait locus analysis of a recombinant inbred line population derived from a Lycopersicon esculentum x Lycopersicon cheesmanii cross. Theor. Appl. Genet. 90: 925-932.
20. Grandillo S., Ku H.M. and Tanksley S.D. 1996. Characterization of fs8.1, a major QTL influencing fruit shape in tomato. Mol. Breed. 2: 251-260.
21. Grandillo S., Ku H.M. and Tanksley S.D. 1999. Identifying the loci responsible for natural variation in fruit size and shape in tomato. Theor. Appl. Genet. 99: 978-987.
22. Grandillo S. and Tanksley S.D. 1996. QTL analysis of horticultural traits differentiating the cultivated tomato from the closely related species Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium. Theor. Appl. Genet. 92: 935-951.
23. Hobson G.E., Gough C. and Townley C. 1990. Measuring consumer reaction to the flavour of fresh tomatoes. Acta Hortic 259: 107-116.
24. Jones R.A. and Scott S.J. 1983. Improvement of tomato flavor by genetically increasing sugar and acid contents. Euphytica 32: 845-855.
25. Kosambi D.D. 1944. The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Ann Eugen 12: 172-175.
26. Lander E.S., Green P., Abrahamson J., Barlox A., Daly M.J., Lincoln S.E. and Newburg L. 1987. MAPMAKER: an interactive computer package for constructing primary genetic linkage maps of experimental and natural populations. Genomics 1: 174-181.
27. Lincoln S.E., Daly M.J. and Lander E.S. 1992. Constructing genetic maps with MAPMAKER/EXP version 3.0. (1992).
28. Lippman Z. and Tanksley S.D. 2001. Dissecting the genetic pathway to extreme fruit size in tomato using a cross between the small-fruited wild species Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium and L. esculentum var. Giant Heirloom. Genetics 158: 413-422.
29. MacArthur J.W. 1934. Fruit size effects of qualitative genes in the tomato. Am. Nat. 58: 73-74.
30. Monforte A.J. and Tanksley S.D. 2000. Fine mapping of a quantitative trait locus (QTL) from Lycopersicon hirsutum chromosome 1 affecting fruit characteristics and agronomic traits: breaking linkage among QTLs affecting different traits and dissection of heterosis for yield. Theor. Appl. Genet. 100: 471-479.
31. Nesbitt T.C. and Tanksley S.D. 2002. Comparative sequencing in the genus Lycopersicon: implications for the evolution of fruit size in the domestication of cultivated tomatoes. Genetics 162: 365-379.
32. Paran I., Goldman I., Tanksley S.D. and Zamir D. 1995. Recombinant inbred lines for genetic mapping in tomato. Theor. Appl. Genet. 90: 542-548.
33. Paterson A.H., de Verna J.W., Lanini B. and Tanksley S.D. 1990. Fine mapping of quantitative trait loci using selected overlapping recombinant chromosomes, in an interspecies cross of tomato. Genetics 124: 735-742.
34. Paterson A.H., Lander E.S., Hewitt J.D., Peterson S., Lincoln S.E. and Tanksley S.D. 1988. Resolution of quantitative traits into Mendelian factors by using a complete linkage map of restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Nature 335: 721-726.
35. Petro-Turza M. 1987. Flavor of tomato and tomato products. Food Rev. Int. 2: 309-351.
36. Rick C.M. 1974. High soluble-solids content in large-fruited tomato lines derived from a wild green-fruited species. Hilgardia 42: 493-510.
37. Rozen S. and Skaletsky H.J. 1998. Primer3. Code available at http://www-genome.wi.mit.edu/genome_software/other/primer3. html.
38. Saliba-Colombani V., Causse M., Gervais L.and Philouze J. 2000. Efficiency of AFLP, RAPD and RFLP markers for the construction of an intraspecific map of the tomato genome. Genome 43: 29-40.
39. Saliba-Colombani V., Causse M., Langlois D., Philouze J. and Buret M. 2001. Genetic analysis of organoleptic quality in fresh market tomato. 1. Mapping QTLs for physical and chemical traits. Theor. Appl. Genet. 102: 259-272.
40. SAS Institute 1988. SAS users guide: statistics. In: SAS Institute (Eds.), Cary, North Carolina, USA.
41. Sawhney V.K. and Greyson R.I. 1972. Fruit-size increase in tomato following application of gibberellic acid. J. Am. Soc. Hortic Sci. 97: 589-590.
42. SCAR Agro-Food Tomato Working Group 1991. Measurement of the quality of tomatoes: recommendations of an EEC working group. In: Eccher Zerbini P., Gorini F., Polesello A. (Eds.), I.V.T.P.A., Milano.
43. Splus 1993. Splus guide to statistical and mathematical analyses. In: Mathsoft (ed.), Seattle, Washington, USA.
44. Stevens M.A. 1986. Inheritance of tomato fruit quality components. Plant Breed. Rev. 4: 273-311.
45. Stevens M.A., Kadre A.A. and Albright M. 1979. Potential for increasing tomato flavor via sugar and acid contents. J. Am. Soc. Hortic Sci. 104: 40-42.
46. Takahashi Y., Shomura A., Sasaki T. and Yano M. 2001. Hd6, a rice quantitative trait locus involved in photoperiod sensitivity, encodes the α-subunit of protein CK2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 7922-7927.
47. Tanksley S.D., Ganal M.W., Prince J.P., de Vicente M.C., Bonierbale M.W., Broun P., Fulton T.M., Giovannoni J.J., Grandillo S., Martin G.B., Messeguer R., Miller J.C., Miller L., Paterson A.H., Pineda O., Röder M.S., Wing R.A., Wu W. and Young N.D. 1992. High density molecular linkage maps of the tomato and potato genomes. Genetics 132: 1141-1160.
48. Tuinstra M.R., Ejeta G. and Goldsbrough P.B. 1997. Heterogeneous inbred family (HIF) analysis: a method for developing near-isogenic lines that differ at quantitative trait loci. Theor. Appl. Genet. 95: 1005-1011.
49. Wood M. 1992. Solid future for tomatoes. Agric. Res. 40: 4-5.
50. Yano M., Harushima Y., Nagamura Y., Kurata N., Minobe Y. and Sasaki T. 1997. Identification of quantitative trait loci controlling heading date in rice using a high-density linkage map. Theor. Appl. Genet. 95: 1025-1032.
51. Yano M., Katayose Y., Ashikari M., Yamanouchi U., Monna L., Fuse T., Baba T., Yamamoto K., Umehara Y., Nagamura Y. and Sasaki T. 2000. Hd1, a major photoperiod sensitivity quantitative trait locus in rice, is closely related to the Arabidopsis flowering time gene CONSTANS. Plant Cell. 12: 2473-2484.
52. Yeager A.F. 1973. Studies on the inheritance and development of fruit size and shape in the tomato. J Agric Res 55: 141-152.
53. Yousef G.G., Juvik J.A. 2001. Evaluation of breeding utility of a chromosomal segment from Lycopersicon chmielewskii that enhances cultivated tomato soluble solids. Theor. Appl. Genet. 103: 1022-1027.
54. Zeng Z.B. 1993. Theoretical basis for separation of multiple linked gene effects in mapping quantitative trait loci. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90: 10972-10976.
55. Zeng Z.B. 1994. Precision mapping of quantitative trait loci. Genetics 136: 1457-1468.