Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 75, Issue 5, pp 811–823 | Cite as

Use of molecular markers in breeding for soluble solids content in tomato — a re-examination

  • S. D. Tanksley
  • J. Hewitt


Through earlier breeding efforts, portions of the genome of the wild species Lycopersicon chmielewskii have been introgressed into the cultivated tomato (Rick 1974). These introgressed chromosomal segments have been reported to increase soluble solids in fruit of certain tomato varieties (Rick 1974). Recently, two of the introgressed segments have been identified with RFLP markers and tested for effects on soluble solids in a single F2 population (Osborn et al. 1987). Based on results from that experiment, it was determined that one of the detected segments contains gene(s) controlling soluble solids and concluded that tomato varieties could be improved for this character by indirect selection for the linked RFLP marker (Osborn et al. 1987). In this report, we have independently tested the association between RFLP and isozyme markers and genes controlling soluble solids and other characters in the above described material. These experiments differ from the previous ones in that a set of 132 molecular markers (isozymes and DNA clones) of known chromosomal position have been used. Three introgressed chromosomal segments from L. chmielewskii have been identified using these markers. They map to the middle and the end of chromosome 7 (> 40 cM apart) and to the end of chromosome 10. The effects of these segments on soluble solids and other horticultural characters were tested in crosses with three different cultivars over a period of two years. Two of the three segments were found to increase soluble solids, however the effect of one of these was dependent on genetic background. Both segments were found to be associated with deleterious characters including increase in fruit pH, lower yield and small fruit. These results confirm the utility of molecular markers for detecting genes underlying quantitative variation but demonstrate the danger in establishing breeding programs around such linkages until the effects of the quantitative genes have been tested in a variety of genetic backgrounds and for associated effects on other characters of agronomic importance.

Key words

Restriction fragment length polymorphisms Isozymes Tomato Soluble solids Quantitativetraits 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernatzky R, Tanksley SD (1986a) Genetics of actin-related sequences in tomato. Theor Appl Genet 72:314–321Google Scholar
  2. Bernatzky R, Tanksley SD (1986b) Methods for detection of single or low copy sequences in tomato on southern blots. Plant Mol Biol Rep 4:37–41Google Scholar
  3. Bernatzky R, Tanksley SD (1986c) Toward a saturated linkage map in tomato based on isozymes and random cDNA sequences. Genetics 112:887–898Google Scholar
  4. 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 116:113–125Google Scholar
  5. Ellis THN (1986) Restriction fragment length polymorphism markers in relation to quantitative characters. Theor Appl Genet 72:1–2Google Scholar
  6. Falconer DS (1960) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Ronald Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanson WD (1959) Early generation analysis of lengths of heterozygous chromosome segments around a locus held heterozygous with backcrossing or selfing. Genetics 44:833–837Google Scholar
  8. Ibarbia E, Lambeth VN (1969) Inheritance of soluble solids in a large/small-fruited tomato cross. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 96:199–201Google Scholar
  9. Lower RL, Thompson AE (1967) Inheritance of acidity and solids content of small-fruited tomatoes. Proc Am Soc Hortic Sci 91:486–494Google Scholar
  10. Osborn TC, Alexander DC, Fobes JF (1987) Identification of restriction fragment length polymorphisms linked to genes controlling soluble solids content in tomato fruit. Theor Appl Genet 73:350–356Google Scholar
  11. Rick CM (1974) High soluble-solids content in large-fruited tomato lines derived from a wild green-fruited species. Hilgardia 42:493–510Google Scholar
  12. Rick CM, Kesicki E, Fobes JF, Holle M (1976) Genetic and biosystematic studies on two new sibling species of Lycopersicon from interandea Peru. Theor Appl Genet 47:55–68Google Scholar
  13. Soller M, Beckmann JS (1983) Genetic polymorphism in varietal identification and genetic improvement. Theor Appl Genet 67:25–33Google Scholar
  14. Soller M, Brody T (1976) On the power of experimental designs for the detection of linkage between marker loci and quantitative loci in crosses between inbred lines. Theor Appl Genet 47:35–39Google Scholar
  15. Stuber CW, Edwards MD, Wendel JF (1987) Molecular-marker-facilitated investigations of quantitative-trait loci in maize. II. Factors influencing yield and its component traits. Crop Sci 27:639–648Google Scholar
  16. Tanksley SD (1985) Enzyme-coding genes in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Isozyme Bull 18:43–45Google Scholar
  17. Tanksley SD, Iglesias-Olivas J (1984) Inheritance and transfer of multiple-flower character from Capsicum chinense into Capsicum annuum. Euphytica 33:769–777Google Scholar
  18. Tanksley SD, Medina-Filho H, Rick CM (1982) Use of naturally-occurring enzyme variation to detect and map genes controlling quantitative traits in an interspecific backcross of tomato. Heredity 49:11–25Google Scholar
  19. Tanksley SD, Miller J, Paterson A, Bernatzky R (1987) Molecular mapping of plant chromosomes. Stadler Symp (in press)Google Scholar
  20. Zamir D, Tadmor Y (1987) Unequal segregation of nuclear genes in plants. Bot Gaz 147:355–358Google Scholar
  21. Zamir D, Selilaben-Davis T, Rudich J, Juvick JA (1984) Frequency distribution and linkage relationships of 2-tridecanone in interspecific segregating generations of tomato. Euphytica 33:481–488Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. D. Tanksley
    • 1
  • J. Hewitt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Plant Breeding and BiometryCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Vegetable CropsUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations