Combining ecophysiological modelling and quantitative trait locus analysis to identify key elementary processes underlying tomato fruit sugar concentration

Journal of Experimental Botany

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 907-919

  Prudent, Marion ^a,b   Lecomte, Alain ^a   Bouchet, Jean Paul ^b   Bertin, Nadia ^a   Causse, Mathilde ^b   Génard, Michel ^a  

^a Domaine Saint Paul   (France)

^b Researches Center of Avignon   (France)

Author keywords

Assimilate supply; dilution; fruit load; fruit quality; genetic variation; metabolism; model; Solanum chmielewskii; Solanum lycopersicum; sugar and starch accumulation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM; FRUIT; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; METABOLISM; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; TOMATO;

CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM; FRUIT; GENOTYPE; LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM; MODELS, GENETIC; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI;

LYCOPERSICON; LYCOPERSICON CHMIELEWSKII; LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM; SOLANUM;

EID: 79251488142     PISSN: 00220957     EISSN: 14602431     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erq318     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang JH, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ. 1997. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Research 25, 3389-3402.
2. Baldet P, Devaux C, Chevalier C, Brouquisse R, Just D, Raymond P. 2002. Contrasted responses to carbohydrate limitation in tomato fruit at two stages of development. Plant, Cell and Environment 25, 1639-1649.
3. Baldet P, Hernould M, Laporte F, Mounet F, Just D, Mouras A, Chevalier C, Rothan C. 2006. The expression of cell proliferation-related genes in early developing flowers is affected by a fruit load reduction in tomato plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 57, 961-970.
4. Balibrea ME, Martinez-Andujar C, Cuartero J, Bolarin MC, Perez-Alfocea F. 2006. The high fruit soluble sugar content in wild Lycopersicon species and their hybrids with cultivars depends on sucrose import during ripening rather than on sucrose metabolism. Functional Plant Biology 33, 279-288.
5. Bermudez L, Urias U, Milstein D, Kamenetzky L, Asis R, Fernie AR, Van Sluys MA, Carrari F, Rossi M. 2008. A candidate gene survey of quantitative trait loci affecting chemical composition in tomato fruit. Journal of Experimental Botany 59, 2875-2890.
6. 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.
7. Bertin N, Gé nard M, Fishman S. 2003. A model for an early stage of tomato fruit development: cell multiplication and cessation of the cell proliferative activity. Annals of Botany 92, 65-72.
8. Bertin N, Lecomte A, Brunel B, Fishman S, Gé nard M. 2007. A model describing cell polyploidization in tissues of growing fruit as related to cessation of cell proliferation. Journal of Experimental Botany 58, 1903-1913.
9. Bucheli P, Voirol E, De la Torre R, Lopez J, Rytz A, Tanksley S, Pé tiard V. 1999. Definition of nonvolatile markers for flavor of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as tools in selection and breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 47, 659-664.
10. Bussiè res P. 2002. Water import in the young tomato fruit limited by pedicel resistance and calyx transpiration. Functional Plant Biology 29, 631-641.
11. Carrari F, Baxter C, Usadel B, et al. 2006. Integrated analysis of metabolite and transcript levels reveals the metabolic shifts that underlie tomato fruit development and highlight regulatory aspects of metabolic network behavior. Plant Physiology 142, 1380-1396.
12. Causse M, Duffe P, Gomez MC, et al. 2004. A genetic map of candidate genes and QTLs involved in tomato fruit size and composition. Journal of Experimental Botany 55, 1671-1685.
13. Causse M, Saliba-Colombani V, Lecomte L, Duffe P, Rousselle P, Buret M. 2002. QTL analysis of fruit quality in fresh market tomato: a few chromosome regions control the variation of sensory and instrumental traits. Journal of Experimental Botany 53, 2089-2098.
14. Chaib J, Lecomte L, Buret M, Causse M. 2006. Stability over genetic backgrounds, generations and years of quantitative trait locus (QTLs) for organoleptic quality in tomato. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 112, 934-944.
15. Chen GP, Wilson ID, Kim SH, Grierson D. 2001. Inhibiting expression of a tomato ripening-associated membrane protein increases organic acids and reduces sugar levels of fruit. Planta 212, 799-807.
16. Dai ZW, Vivin P, Robert P, Milin S, Li SH, Génard M. 2009. Model-based analysis of sugar accumulation in response to source-sink ratio and water supply in grape (Vitis vinifera) berries. Functional Plant Biology 36, 527-540.
17. Davies JN, Cocking EC. 1965. Changes in carbohydrates, proteins and nucleic acids during cellular development in tomato fruit locule tissue. Planta 67, 242-253.
18. Dibley SJ, Gear ML, Yang X, Rosche EG, Offler CE, McCurdy DW, Patrick JW. 2005. Temporal and spatial expression of hexose transporters in developing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) fruit. Functional Plant Biology 32, 777-785.
19. Dinar H, Stevens MA. 1981. The relationship between starch and accumulation of soluble solids content of tomato fruit. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 106, 415-418.
20. Fulton TM, Bucheli P, Voirol E, Lopez J, Petiard V, Tanksley SD. 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 127, 163-177.
21. Génard M, Lescourret F, Gomez L, Habib R. 2003. Changes in fruit sugar concentrations in response to assimilate supply, metabolism and dilution: a modeling approach applied to peach fruit (Prunus persica). Tree Physiology 23, 373-385.
22. Génard M, Souty M. 1996. Modeling the peach sugar contents in relation to fruit growth. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 121, 1122-1131. (Pubitemid 27015566)
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Guichard S, Bertin N, Leonardi C, Gary C. 2001. Tomato fruit quality in relation to water and carbon fluxes. Agronomie 21, 385-392.
26. Guichard S, Gary C, Leonardi C, Bertin N. 2005. Analysis of growth and water relations of tomato fruits in relation to air vapor pressure deficit and plant fruit load. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 24, 201-213.
27. Ho LC. 1996a. Tomato. In: Zamski E, Scheffer AA, eds. Photoassimilate distribution in plants and crops: source-sink relationship. New York: Dekker, 709-728.
28. Ho LC. 1996b. The mechanism of assimilate partitioning and carbohydrate compartmentation in fruit in relation to the quality and yield of tomato. Journal of Experimental Botany 47, 1239-1243.
29. Ho L, Hewitt J. 1986. Fruit development. In: Atherton JG, Rudich J, eds. The tomato crop. New York: Chapman and Hall, 201-239.
30. Kandel-Kfir M, Damari-Weissler H, German MA, Gidoni D, Mett A, Belausov E, Petreikov M, Adir N, Granot D. 2006. Two newly identified membrane-associated and plastidic tomato HXKs: characteristics, predicted structure and intracellular localization. Planta 224, 1341-1352.
31. Kobayashi K, Salam MU. 2000. Comparing simulated and measured values using mean squared deviation and its components. Agronomy Journal 92, 345-352.
32. Liu HF, Gé nard M, Guichard S, Bertin N. 2007. Model-assisted analysis of tomato fruit growth in relation to carbon and water fluxes. Journal of Experimental Botany 58, 3567-3580.
33. Mueller LA, Lankhorst RK, Tanksley SD, et al. 2009. A snapshot of the emerging tomato genome sequence. The Plant Genome 2, 78-92.
34. Mueller LA, Solow TH, Taylor N, et al. 2005. The SOL Genomics Network. A comparative resource for Solanaceae biology and beyond. Plant Physiology 138, 1310-1317.
35. Prudent M, Bertin N, Gé nard M, Muños S, Rolland F, Garcia V, Petit J, Baldet P, Rothan C, Causse M. 2010. Genotypedependent response to carbon availability in growing tomato fruit. Plant, Cell and Environment 33, 1186-1204.
36. Prudent M, Causse M, Génard M, Tripodi P, Grandillo S, Bertin N. 2009. Genetic and physiological analysis of tomato fruit weight and composition: influence of carbon availability on QTL detection. Journal of Experimental Botany 60, 923-937.
37. Quarrie SA, Pekic Quarrie S, Radosevic R, Rancic D, Kaminska A, Barnes J, Leverington M, Ceoloni C, Dodig D. 2006. Dissecting a wheat QTL for yield present in a range of environments: from the QTL to candidate genes. Journal of Experimental Botany 57, 2627-2637.
38. Quilot B, Génard M, Kervella J, Lescourret F. 2004. Analysis of genotypic variation in fruit flesh total sugar content via an ecophysiological model applied to peach. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 109, 440-449.
39. 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.
40. Reymond M, Muller B, Leonardi A, Charcosset A, Tardieu F. 2003. Combining quantitative trait loci analysis and an ecophysiological model to analyze the genetic variability of the responses of maize leaf growth to temperature and water deficit. Plant Physiology 131, 664-675.
41. Robinson NL, Hewitt JD, Bennett AB. 1988. Sink metabolism in tomato fruit: I. Developmental changes in carbohydrate metabolizing enzymes. Plant Physiology 87, 727-730.
42. 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. (Pubitemid 32205444)
43. Schaffer AA, Petreikov M. 1997. Sucrose-to-starch metabolism in tomato fruit undergoing transient starch accumulation. Plant Physiology 113, 739-746.
44. Sprinthall RC. 2002. Basic statistical analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Group.
45. Stevens MA, Kader AA, Albright-Holton M, Algazi M. 1977. Genotypic variation for flavor and composition in fresh market tomatoes. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 102, 680-689.
46. Tanksley SD. 2004. The genetic, developmental, and molecular bases of fruit size and shape variation in tomato. The Plant Cell 16, S181-S189.
47. Yin X, Chasalow SD, Stam P, Kropff MJ, Dourleijn CJ, Bos I, Bindraban PS. 2002. Use of component analysis in QTL mapping of complex crop traits: a case study on yield in barley. Plant Breeding 121, 314-319.
48. Yin XY, Kropff MJ, Stam P. 1999. The role of ecophysiological models in QTL analysis: the example of specific leaf area in barley. Heredity 82, 415-421.