Genetic and physiological analysis of tomato fruit weight and composition: Influence of carbon availability on QTL detection

Journal of Experimental Botany

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 923-937

  Prudent, Marion ^a,b   Causse, Mathilde ^a   Génard, Michel ^b   Tripodi, Pasquale ^c   Grandillo, Silvana ^c   Bertin, Nadia ^b  

^a Researches Center of Avignon   (France)

^b Domaine Saint Paul   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

Author keywords

Carbon allocation; Fruit load; Genetic variability; Genotypexenvironment interaction; Physiological processes; QTL; Quality; Solanum chmielewskii; Solanum lycopersicum; Sugar content

Indexed keywords

CARBON;

ARTICLE; BIOMASS; CHEMISTRY; CHROMOSOME MAP; FRUIT; GENETIC MARKER; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; METABOLISM; PHYSIOLOGY; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; TOMATO;

BIOMASS; CARBON; CHROMOSOME MAPPING; FRUIT; GENETIC MARKERS; GENOTYPE; LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE;

LYCOPERSICON; LYCOPERSICON CHMIELEWSKII; LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM; SOLANUM;

EID: 62349117491     PISSN: 00220957     EISSN: 14602431     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ern338     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Bai YL, Lindhout P. 2007. Domestication and breeding of tomatoes: what have we gained and what can we gain in the future? Annals of Botany 100, 1085-1094.
2. Baldet P, Hernould M, Laporte F, Mounet F, Just D, Mouras A, Chevalier C, Rothan C. 2006. The expression of cell proliferationrelated genes in early developing flowers is affected by a fruit load reduction in tomato plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 57, 961-970.
3. Becker M, Kerstiens G, Schönherr J. 1986. Water permeability of plant cuticles: permeance, diffusion and partition coefficients. Trees: Structure and Function 1, 54-60.
4. Bernacchi D, Beck-Bunn T, Eshed Y, Lopez J, Petiard V, Uhlig J, Zamir D, Tanksley SD. 1998. Advanced backcross QTL analysis in tomato. I. Identification of QTLs for traits of agronomic importance from Lycopersicon hirsutum. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 97, 381-397.
5. Bertin N. 2005. Analysis of the tomato fruit growth response to temperature and plant fruit load in relation to cell division, cell expansion and DNA endoreduplication. Annals of Botany 95, 439-447.
6. Bertin N, Gautier H, Roche C. 2002. Number of cells in tomato fruit depending on fruit position and source-sink balance during plant development. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 36, 105-112.
7. Bohner J, 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. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 7, 141-155.
8. Causse M, Damidaux R, Rousselle P. 2006. Traditional and enhanced breeding for quality traits in tomato. In: Razdan MK, Mattoo AK, eds. Genetic improvement of Solanaceous crops, Vol. II. Enfield (USA): Science Publishers, 153-192.
9. Chen FQ, Foolad MR, Hyman J, St. Clair DA, Beelaman RB. 1999. Mapping of QTLs for lycopene and other fruit traits in a Lycopersicon esculentumxL. pimpinellifolium cross and comparison of QTLs across tomato species. Molecular Breeding 5, 283-299.
10. Christensen J. 1973. Cracking in cherries. VI. Cracking susceptibility in relation to the growth rythm of the fruit. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 23, 52-54.
11. Cong B, Barrero LS, Tanksley SD. 2008. Regulatory change in YABBY-like transcription factor led to evolution of extreme fruit size during tomato domestication. Nature Genetics 40, 800-804.
12. Doebley JF, Gaut BS, Smith BD. 2006. The molecular genetics of crop domestication. Cell 127, 1309-1321.
13. Dunnett CW. 1980. Pairwise multiple comparisons in the homogeneous variance, unequal sample size case. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75, 789-795.
14. Eshed Y, Zamir D. 1995. An introgression line population of Lycopersicon pennellii in the cultivated tomato enables the identification and fine mapping of yield-associated QTL. Genetics 141, 1147-1162.
15. Foolad MR. 2007. Genome mapping and molecular breeding of tomato. International Journal of Plant Genomics 1-52.
16. Frary A, Xu YM, Liu JP, Mitchell S, Tedeschi E, Tanksley S. 2005. Development of a set of PCR-based anchor markers encompassing the tomato genome and evaluation of their usefulness for genetics and breeding experiments. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 111, 291-312.
17. Fridman E, Carrari F, Liu Y-S, Fernie AR, Zamir D. 2004. Zooming in on a quantitative trait for tomato yield using interspecific introgressions. Science 305, 1786-1789.
18. Fulton TM, Beck-Bunn T, Emmatty D, Eshed Y, Lopez J, Petiard V, Uhlig J, Zamir D, Tanksley SD. 1997. QTL analysis of an advanced backcross of Lycopersicon peruvianum to the cultivated tomato and comparisons with QTLs found in other wild species. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 95, 881-894.
19. Fulton TM, Chungwongse J, Tanksley SD. 1995. Microprep protocol for extraction of DNA from tomato and other herbaceous plants. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 13, 207-209.
20. Fulton TM, Grandillo S, Beck-Bunn T, Fridman E, Frampton A, Lopez J, Petiard V, Uhlig J, Zamir D, Tanksley SD. 2000. Advanced backcross QTL analysis of a Lycopersicon esculentumx Lycopersicon parviflorum cross. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 100, 1025-1042.
21. Gautier H, Guichard S, Tchamitchian M. 2001. Modulation of competition between fruits and leaves by flower pruning and water fogging, and consequences on tomato leaf and fuit growth. Annals of Botany 88, 645-652.
22. Gebhardt C, Walkemeier B, Henselewski H, Barakat A, Delseny M, Stüber K. 2003. Comparative mapping between potato (Solanum tuberosum) and Arabidopsis thaliana reveals structurally conserved domains and ancient duplications in the potato genome. The Plant Journal 34, 529-541.
23. Gibert C, Lescourret F, Genard M, Vercambre G, Perez Pastor A. 2005. Modelling the effect of fruit growth on surface conductance to water vapour diffusion. Annals of Botany 95, 673-683.
24. Gillaspy G, Ben-David H, Gruissem W. 1993. Fruits: a developmental perspective. The Plant Cell 5, 1439-1451.
25. Goldenberg JB, von der Pahlen A. 1966. Genetic and phenotypic correlation between weight and dry matter content of tomato fruits and their heritabilities. Boletin Genetico Argentina 2, 1-15.
26. Gomez L, Bancel D, Rubio E, Vercambre G. 2007. The microplate reader: an efficient tool for the separate enzymatic analysis of sugars in plant tissues: validation of a micro-method. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87, 1893-1905.
27. Gomez L, Rubio E, Auge M. 2002. A new procedure for extraction and measurement of soluble sugars in ligneous plants. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 82, 360-369.
28. Grandillo S, Ku HM, Tanksley SD. 1999. Identifying the loci responsible for natural variation in fruit size and shape in tomato. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 99, 978-987.
29. Heuvelink E. 1997. Effect of fruit load on dry matter partitioning in tomato. Scientia Horticulturae 69, 51-59.
30. Higashi K, Hosoya K, Ezura H. 1999. Histological analysis of fruit development between two melon (Cucumis melo L. reticulatus) genotypes setting a different size of fruit. Journal of Experimental Botany 50, 1593-1597.
31. Ho LC. 1996. Tomato. In: Zamski E, Schaffer A, eds. Photoassimilate distribution in plants and crops source-sink relationship. New-York: Dekker, 709-728.
32. Holland JB. 2006. Estimating genotypic correlations and their standard errors using multivariate restricted maximum likelihood estimation with SAS Proc MIXED. Crop Science 46, 642-654.
33. Hovav R, Chehanovsky N, Moy M, Jetter R, Schaffer AA. 2007. The identification of a gene (Cwp1), silenced during Solanum evolution, which causes cuticle microfissuring and dehydration when expressed in tomato fruit. The Plant Journal 52, 627-639.
34. Ibarbia EA, Lambeth VN. 1971. Tomato fruit size and quality interrelationships. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 96, 199-201.
35. Joubes J, Phan TH, Just D, Rothan C, Bergounioux C, Raymond P, Chevalier C. 1999. Molecular and biochemical characterization of the involvement of cyclin-dependent kinase A during the early development of tomato fruit. Plant Physiology 121, 857-869.
36. Jullien A, Munier-Jolain NG, Malezieux E, Chillet M, Ney B. 2001. Effect of pulp cell number and assimilate availability on dry matter accumulation rate in a banana fruit [Musa sp. AAA group 'Grande Naine' (Cavendish subgroup)]. Annals of Botany 88, 321-330.
37. Kerstiens G. 1996. Cuticular water permeability and its physiological significance. Journal of Experimental Botany 47, 1813-1832.
38. Kubo T, Hohjo I, Hiratsuka S. 2001. Sucrose accumulation and its related enzyme activities in the juice sacs of satsuma mandarin fruit from trees with different crop loads. Scientia Horticulturae 91, 215-225.
39. Lecomte L, Saliba-Colombani V, Gautier A, Gomez-Jimenez MC, Duffe P, Buret M, Causse M. 2004. Fine mapping of QTLs of chromosome 2 affecting the fruit architecture and composition of tomato. Molecular Breeding 13, 1-14.
40. Link H. 2000. Significance of flower and fruit thinning on fruit quality. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 31, 17-26.
41. Matus-Cadiz MA, Hucl P, Perron CE, Tyler RT. 2003. Genotype3 environment interaction for grain color in hard white spring wheat. Crop Science 43, 219-226.
42. Monforte AJ, Tanksley SD. 2000. Development of a set of near isogenic and backcross recombinant inbred lines containing most of the Lycopersicon hirsutum genome in a L. esculentum genetic background: a tool for gene mapping and gene discovery. Genome 43, 803-813.
43. Morandi B, Grappadelli LC, Rieger M, Lo Bianco R. 2008. Carbohydrate availability affects growth and metabolism in peach fruit. Physiologia Plantarum 133, 229-241.
44. Nitsch J. 1970. Hormonal factors in growth and development. London, New York: Academic Press.
45. Paran I, Goldman I, Tanksley SD, Zamir D. 1995. Recombinant inbred lines for genetic mapping in tomato. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 90, 542-548.
46. Quilot B, Kervella J, Génard M, Lescourret F. 2005. Analysing the genetic control of peach fruit quality through an ecophysiological model combined with a QTL approach. Journal of Experimental Botany 56, 3083-3092.
47. Rick CM. 1974. High soluble-solids content in large fruited tomato lines derived from a wild green-fruited species. Hilgardia 42, 493-510.
48. Robert N. 1997. Structuring genotype3environment interaction for quality traits in bread wheat, in two multi-location series of trials. Euphytica 97, 53-66.
49. Rylski I. 1979. Fruit set and development of seeded and seedless tomato fruits under diverse regimes of temperature and pollination. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 104, 835-838.
50. Saliba-Colombani V, Causse M, Langlois D, Philouze J, Buret M. 2001. Genetic analysis of organoleptic quality in fresh market tomato. 1. Mapping QTLs for physical and chemical traits. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 102, 259-272.
51. Schönherr J. 1976. Water permeability of isolated cuticular membranes: the effect of cuticular waxes on diffusion of water. Planta 131, 159-164.
52. Snape JW, Foulkes MJ, Simmonds J, Leverington M, Fish LJ, Wang Y, Ciavarrella M. 2007. Dissecting gene3environmental effects on wheat yields via QTL and physiological analysis. Euphytica 154, 401-408.
53. Tanksley SD. 2004. The genetic, developmental and molecular bases of fruit size and shape variation in tomato. The Plant Cell 16, 181-189.
54. Tsukaya H. 2006. Mechanism of leaf-shape determination. Annual Review of Plant Biology 57, 477-496.
55. Vaast P, Bertrand B, Perriot JJ, Guyot B, Genard M. 2006. Fruit thinning and shade improve bean characteristics and beverage quality of coffee (Coffea arabica L.) under optimal conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86, 197-204.
56. Van der Knaap E, Tanksley S. 2003. The making of a bell peppershaped tomato fruit: identification of loci controlling fruit morphology in Yellow Stuffer tomato. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 107, 139-147.
57. 7 lines. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 114, 1001-1017.
58. Williams RM, O'Brien L, Eagles HA, Solah VA, Jayasena V. 2008. The influences of genotype, environment, and genotypexenvironment interaction on wheat quality. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 59, 95-111.
59. Wu BH, Génard M, Kervella J, Li SH, Laurent R. 2003. Relationship between skin speckle, soluble solids content and transpiration rate in nectarines. European Journal of Horticultural Science 68, 83-85.
60. Wu FN, Mueller LA, Crouzillat D, Petiard V, Tanksley SD. 2006. Combining bioinformatics and phylogenetics to identify large sets of single-copy orthologous genes (COSII) for comparative, evolutionary and systematic studies: a test case in the euasterid plant clade. Genetics 174, 1407-1420.
61. Yousef GG, Juvik JA. 2001. Evaluation of breeding utility of a chromosomal segment from Lycopersicon chmielewskii that enhances cultivated tomato soluble solids. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 103, 1022-1027.
62. Zhou LL, Christopher DA, Paull RE. 2000. Defoliation and fruit removal effects on papaya fruit production, sugar accumulation, and sucrose metabolism. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 125, 644-652.