Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 93, Issue 5–6, pp 765–772 | Cite as

Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon species. IV. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection for salt tolerance improvement

  • A. J. Monforte
  • M. J. Asíns
  • E. A. Carbonell


The usefulness of marker-assisted selection (MAS) to develop salt-tolerant breeding lines from a F2 derived from L. esculentum x L. pimpinellifolium has been studied. Interval mapping methodology of quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis was used to locate more precisely previously detected salt tolerance QTLs. A new QTL for total fruit weight under salinity (TW) near TG24 was detected. Most of the detected QTLs [3 for TW, 5 for fruit number, (FN) and 4 for fruit weight (FW)] had low R2 values, except the FW QTL in the TG180-TG48 interval, which explains 36.6% of the total variance. Dominant and overdominant effects were detected at the QTLs for TW, whereas gene effects at the QTLs for FJV and FW ranged from additive to partial dominance. Phenotypic selection of F2 familes and marker-assisted selection of F3 families were carried out. Yield under salinity decreased in the F2 generation. F3 means were similar to those of the F1 as a consequence of phentoypic selection. The most important selection response for every trait was obtained from the F3 to F4 where MAS was applied. While F3 variation was mainly due to the within-family component, in the F4 the FN and FW between-family component was larger than the within-family one, indicating an efficient compartmentalization and fixation of QTLs into the F4 families. Comparison of the yield of these families under control versus saline conditions showed that fruit weight is a key trait to success in tomato salt-tolerance improvement using wild Lycopersicon germplasm. The QTLs we have detected under salinity seem to be also working under control conditions, although the interaction family x treatment was significant for TW, thereby explaining the fact that the selected families responded differently to salinity.

Key words

Salt tolerance Tomato breeding Marker-assisted selection Molecular markers QTL mapping 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asharf M, McNeilly (1990) Improvement of salt tolerance in maize by selection and breeding. Plant Breed 104:101–107Google Scholar
  2. Asíns MJ, Carboneil EA (1988) Detection of linkage between restriction fragment length polymorphism markers and quantitative traits. Theor Appl Genet 76:623–626Google Scholar
  3. Asíns MJ, Bretó MP, Cambra M, Carbonell EA (1993) Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon species. II. Genetic effects and search for associated traits. Theor Appl Genet 86:769–774Google Scholar
  4. Asins MJ, Mestre P, García JE, Dicenta F, Carbonell EA (1994) Genotype x environment interaction in QTL analysis of an intervarietal almond cross by means of genetics markers. Theor Appl Genet 89:358–364Google Scholar
  5. Beckman JS, Soller M (1983) Restriction fragment length polymorphism in genetic improvement methodologies, mapping and cost. Theor Appl Genet 67:35–43Google Scholar
  6. Bosemark NO (1994) Plant breeding in a changing agriculture. In: Martín Sánchez JA, Fibla J, Aldea M (eds) Proc 29th Jornadas Genét Luso-Españolas. Ediciones de la Universidad de Lleida, Lleida, Spain. pp vi3-vi5Google Scholar
  7. Botstein D, White RL, Skolnich M, Davis RW (1980) Construction of a genetic map in man using restriction length polymorphism. Am J Hum Genet 32:314–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bretó MP, Asíns MJ, Carbonell EA (1994) Salt tolerance in Lycopersion species. III. Detection of QTLs by means of molecular markers. Theor Appl Genet 88:395–401Google Scholar
  9. Carbonell EA, Asins MJ (1996) Statistical models for the detection of genes controlling quantitative trait loci expression. In:Jain SM, Sopory SK, Veilleux RE (eds) In vitro haploid production in higher plants, vol. 2. Kluwer Academis Publ, The Netherlands. pp 255–280Google Scholar
  10. Carbonell EA, Gerig TM (1991) A program to detect linkage between genetic markers and nonadditive QTLs. J Hered 82:435Google Scholar
  11. Carbonell EA, Gerig TM, Balansard E, Asíns MJ (1992) Interval mapping in the analysis of non-aditive quantitative trait loci. Biometrics 48:305–315Google Scholar
  12. Carbonell EA, Asins MJ, Baselga M, Balansard E, Gerig TM (1993) Power studies in the estimation of genetic parameters and the localization of quantitative trait loci for backcross and doubled haploid populations. Theor Appl Genet 86:411–416Google Scholar
  13. Cuartero J, Yeo AR, Flowers TJ (1992) Selection of donors for salt-tolerance in tomato using physiological traits. New Phytol 121:63–69Google Scholar
  14. Darvasi A, Soller M (1994) Optimum spacing of genetic markers for determining linkage between marker loci and quantitative trait loci. Theor Appl Genet 89:351–357Google Scholar
  15. Edwards MD, Page NJ (1994) Evaluation of marker-assisted selection through computer simulation. Theor Appl Genet 88:376–382Google Scholar
  16. Edwards MD, Stuber CW, Wendel JF (1987) Molecular-marker-facilitated investigations of quantitative trait loci in maize I. Numbers, genomic distribution and types of gene action. Genetics 166:113–125Google Scholar
  17. Falconer SD (1989) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman and John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hyne V, Kearsey MJ, Pike DJ, Snape JW (1995) QTL analysis: unreliability and bias in estimation procedures. Mol Breed 1:273–282Google Scholar
  19. Jensen RC, van Ooijen JW, Stam P, Lister C, Dean C (1995) Genotype by environment interaction in genetic mapping of multiple quantitative trait loci. Theor Appl Genet 91:33–37Google Scholar
  20. Jones RA (1986) The development of salt-tolerant tomatoes: breeding strategies. Acta Hortic 190:101–114Google Scholar
  21. Kosambi DD (1944) The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Ann Eugen 12:172–175Google Scholar
  22. Lande R (1992) Marker-assisted selection in relation to traditional methods of plant breeding. In: Stalker HT, Murph JP (eds) Plant breeding in the 1990s. CAB Int, Wallingford, UK, pp 437–541Google Scholar
  23. Lande R, Thompson R (1990) Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124:743–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lander ES, Botstein D (1989) Mapping Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. Genetics 121:185–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lander ES, Green P, Abrahanson J, Ballow A, Daley M, Lincoln S, Newburg L (1987) MAPMAKER:an interactive computer program package for constructing primary genetic linkage maps of experimental and natural populations. Genomics 1:174–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lark KG, Orf J, Mansur LM (1994) Epistatic expression of quantitative trait loci (QTL) in soybean (Glycine max L. Mer.) determined by QTL association with RFLP alleles. Theor Appl Genet 88:486–489Google Scholar
  27. Maas EW, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance-current assesment. J Irrig Drai Div Am Soc Civil Eng 103:115–134Google Scholar
  28. Mather K, Jinks JL (1971) Biometrical genetics. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Nyquist WE (1991) Estimation of heritability and prediction of selection response in plant populations. CRC Plant Sci 10:235–322Google Scholar
  30. Paterson AH, Lander ES, Hewitt JD, Peterson S, Lincoln SE, Tanksley SD (1988) Resolution of quantitative traits into Mendelian factors by using a complete linkage map of restiction fragment polymorphisms. Nature 335:721–726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Paterson AH, Damon S, Hewitt JD Zamir D, Rabinowitch HD, Lincoln SE, Lander ES, Tanksley SD (1991) Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits in tomato: comparisions across species, generations and environments. Genetics 127:181–197Google Scholar
  32. Rebaï A, Goffinet B, Mangin B (1994) Aproximative thresholds of interval mapping test for QTL detection. Genetics 138:235–240Google Scholar
  33. Saranga Y, Zamir D, Marani A, Rudich (1991) Breeding tomatoes for salt tolerance:field evaluation of Lycopersicon germplasm for yield and dry-matter production. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 116:1067–1071Google Scholar
  34. Stromberg LD, Dudley JW, Rufener GK (1994) Comparing conventional early generation selection with molecular marker assisted selection in maize. Crop Sci 34:1221–1225Google Scholar
  35. Stuber CW, Lincoln SE, Wolff DW, Helentjaris T, Lander ES (1992) Identification of genetic factors contributing to heterosis in a hybrid from two elite maize inbred lines using molecular makers. Genetics 132:823–839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tanksley SD (1993) Mapping poligenes. Annu Rev Genet 27:205–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Tanksley SD Ganal MW, Prince JP, de Vicente MC, Bonierbale MW, Broun P, Fulton TN, Giovannoni JJ, Grandillo S, Martin GB, Messeguer R, Miller JC, Miller L, Paterson AH, Pineda O Röder MS, RA Winig, Wu W, Young ND (1992) High density molecular linkage maps of the tomato and potato genomes. Genetics 132:1141–1160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. de Vicente MC, Tanksley SD (1993) QTL analysis of transgressive segregation in an interspecific tomato cross. Genetics 134:585–596Google Scholar
  39. Uzunova M, Ecke W, Weissleder K, Röbbelen (1995) Mapping the genome of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) I. Construction of a RFLP linkage map and localization of QTLs for seed glucosinolate content. Theor Appl Genet 90:194–204Google Scholar
  40. Welsh J, McClelland M (1990) Fingerprinting genomes using the PCR arbitrary primers. Nucleic Acids Res 18:7213–7218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams JGK, Kubelik AR, Livak KJ, Rafalski JA, Tingey SV (1990) DNA polymorphism amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res 18:6531–6535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang W, Smith (1992) Computer simulation of marker-assisted selection utilizing linkage disequilibrium. Theor Appl Genet 83:813–820Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Monforte
    • 1
  • M. J. Asíns
    • 1
  • E. A. Carbonell
    • 1
  1. 1.IVIA, Apartado OficialMoncadaSpain

Personalised recommendations