Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 85, Issue 2–3, pp 159–164

Isolation and characterization of potato-tomato somatic hybrids using an amylose-free potato mutant as parental genotype

  • E. Jacobsen
  • P. Reinhout
  • J. E. M. Bergervoet
  • J. de Looff
  • P. E. Abidin
  • D. J. Huigen
  • M. S. Ramanna
Originals

Summary

Using different genotypes of tomato and diploid potato, possessing alien selectable markers as well as endogenous markers, very high frequencies of protoplast fusion hybrids were obtained. One endogenous genetic marker, the amylose-free (amf) mutant of potato, was helpful not only for the confirmation of fusion products but also for the study of genetic complementation and the segregation of amylose-free starch in microspores. Cytological analysis of the fusion hybrids indicated that except for one which was hexaploid, all of them had a perfectly balanced chromosome number of allotetraploid constitution (2n = 4x = 48). Despite normal chromosome pairing and a diploid behaviour, the microspores in some of the fusion hybrids segregated for the recessive amf-locus. This anomalous segregation of a recessive character in these hybrids was shown not to be due to chromosome elimination or to the absence of the wild-type tomato Amf gene. Although all fusion hybrids were totally sterile, the hexaploid produced stainable pollen and berries with badly developed seeds. Embryo rescue has so far failed to produce backcross progeny.

Key words

Solanum tuberosum Lycopersicon esculentum Protoplast fusion Amylose-free potato 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cap GB, Roberts PA, Thomason IJ, Murashige T (1991) Embryo culture of Lycopersicon esculentum x L. peruvianum: hybrid genotypes possessing heat-stable resistance to Meloidogyne incognita. J Am Soc Hort Sci 116:1082–1088Google Scholar
  2. Gebhardt C, Ritter E, Debner T, Schahtschabel U, Walkemier B, Uhrig H, Salamini F (1989) RFLP analysis and linkage mapping in Solanum tuberosum. Theor Appl Genet 78:65–75Google Scholar
  3. Gottschalk W, Peters N (1955) Die Chromosomenstruktur als Kriterium für Abstammungsfragen bei Tomate und Kartoffel. Z Pflanzenzüchtg 34:71–84Google Scholar
  4. Hosticka LP, Hanson MR (1984) Induction of plastid mutations in tomatoes by nitrosomethylurea. J Hered 75:242–246Google Scholar
  5. Hovenkamp-Hermelink JHM, de Vries JN, Adamse P, Jacobsen E, Witholt B, Feenstra WJ (1988) Rapid estimation of the amylose/amylopectin ratio in small amounts of tuber and leaf tissue of the potato. Potato Res 31:241–246Google Scholar
  6. Jacobsen E, Hovenkamp-Hermelink JHM, Krijgsheld HT, Nijdam H, Pijnacker LP, Withold B, Feenstra WJ (1989) Phenotypic and genotypic characterisation of an amylose-free starch mutant of potato. Euphytica 44:43–48Google Scholar
  7. Martin FW (1959) Staining and observing pollen tubes in the styles by means of fluorescence. Stain Tech 34:125–128Google Scholar
  8. Mattheij WM, Eijlander R, de Koning JRA, Louwes KM (1992) Interspecific hybridization between the cultivated potato Solanum tuberosum subspecies tuberosum L. and the wild species L. circaeifolium subspecies circaeifolium. Bitter-exhibiting resistance to Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary and Globodera pollida (Stone). Behrens. 1. somatic hybrids. Theor Appl Genet 83:459–466Google Scholar
  9. Melchers G (1978a) Potatoes for combined somatic and sexual breeding methods; plants from protoplasts and fusion of protoplasts of potato and tomato. In: Alfermann AW, Reinhard E (eds) Production of natural compounds by cell culture methods. Proc Int Symp Plant Cell Culture, München, pp 306–311Google Scholar
  10. Melchers G (1978b) Plant hybrids by fusion of protoplasts. Proc Symp Plant Tissue Culture. Science Press, Peking, pp 279–283Google Scholar
  11. Melchers G (1979) Protoplast fusion, mechanism and consequences for potato breeding and production of potatoes + tomatoes. In: Advances in protoplast research. Proc 5th Int Protoplast Symp Szeged, Hungary, pp 283–286Google Scholar
  12. Melchers G (1980) The somatic hybrids between tomatoes and potatoes (Topatoes and Pomatoes). In:Sala F, Parisi B, Cella R, Ciferri O (eds) Plant cell cultures: results and perspectives. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, pp 57–58Google Scholar
  13. Melchers G (1982) The first decennium of somatic hybridization. Proc 5th Int Cong Plant Tissue and Cell Culture, pp 13–16Google Scholar
  14. Melchers G (1984) Topatoes and pomatoes, somatic hybrids between tomatoes and potatoes. In: Röhlic P, Bácsy E (eds) Akademiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 499–513Google Scholar
  15. Melchers G, Sacristán MD, Holder AA (1978) Somatic hybrid plants of potato and tomato regenerated from fused protoplasts. Carlsberg Res Commun 43:203–218Google Scholar
  16. Menczel L, Nagy F, Kiss ZR, Maliga P (1981) Streptomycin-resistant and sensitive somatic hybrids of Nicotiana tabaccum + Nicotiana knightiana: correlation of resistance to N. tabaccum plastids. Theor Appl Genet 59:191–195Google Scholar
  17. Menczel L, Galiba G, Nagy F, Maliga P (1982) Effect of radiation dosage on efficiency of chloroplast transfer by protoplast fusion in Nicotiana. Genetics 100:487–495Google Scholar
  18. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant 15:473–497Google Scholar
  19. Poulson C, Porath D, Sacristán MD, Melchers G (1980) Peptide mapping of the ribulose biphosphate carboxylase small sub-unit from the somatic hybrid of tomato and potato. Carlsberg Res Commun 45:249–267Google Scholar
  20. Ramanna MS, Prakken R (1967) Structure of and homology between pachytene and somatic metaphase chromosomes of the tomato. Genetica 38:115–133Google Scholar
  21. Schiller B, Herrmann RG, Melchers G (1982) Restriction endonuclease analysis of plastid DNA from tomato, potato and some of their somatic hybrids. Mol Gen Genet 186:453–459Google Scholar
  22. Shepard JF, Bidney D, Barsby T, Kemble R (1983) Genetic transfer in plants through intespecific protoplast fusion. Science 219:683–688Google Scholar
  23. Suurs LCJM, Jongedijk E, Tan MMC (1989) Polyacrylamide gradient gel electrophoresis: a routine method for high resolution isozyme electrophoresis of Solanum and Lycopersicon species. Euphytica 40:181–186Google Scholar
  24. Vos-Scheperkeuter GH, de Boer W, Visser RGF, Feenstra WJ, Witholt B (1986) Identification of granule-bound starch synthase in potato tubers. Plant Physiol 82:411–416Google Scholar
  25. Weide R, Koornneef M, Zabel P (1989) A simple non-destructive spraying assay for the detection of an active kanamycinresistance gene in transgenic tomato plants. Theor Appl Genet 78:169–172Google Scholar
  26. Wijbrandi J, van Capelle W, Hanhart CJ, van Loenen, Martinet-Schuringa EP, Koornneef M (1990) Selection and characterization of somatic hybrids between Lycopersicon esculentum and Lycopersicon peruvianum. Plant Sci 70:197–208Google Scholar
  27. Wolters AMA, Schoenmaker HCH, van der Meulen-Muisers JJM, van der Knaap E, Derks FHM, Koornneef M, Zelcer A (1991) Limited DNA elimination from the irradiated potato parent in fusion products of albino Lycopersicon esculentum and Solanum tuberosum. Theor Appl Genet 83:225–232Google Scholar
  28. Yeh B, Peloquin SJ (1965) Pachytene chromosomes of potato (Solanum tuberosum. Group Andigena). Am J Bot 52:1014–1020Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Jacobsen
    • 1
  • P. Reinhout
    • 1
  • J. E. M. Bergervoet
    • 1
  • J. de Looff
    • 1
  • P. E. Abidin
    • 1
  • D. J. Huigen
    • 1
  • M. S. Ramanna
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant BreedingAgricultural UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations