Tomato Transformation — the Nuclear and Chloroplast Genomes
Once thought to be poisonous, tomato has become the second most commonly grown vegetable crop in the world behind potato. Traditional plant breeding has resulted in great progress in increasing yield, disease and pest resistance, environmental stress resistance and quality and processing attributes. However, tomato plant breeding programmes still strive to generate a better product. To assist in this goal, some plant breeding programmes have been expanded to include biotechnological techniques. Tomato has long been recognized as an excellent genetic model for molecular biology studies (1). This has resulted in a flood of information including markers and genetic maps, identification of individual chromosomes, promoter isolation, chloroplast and nucleus genome sequences and identification of genes and their function. In turn, this information has made tomato biotechnology more precise and arguably more meaningful.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Fobes JF (1980). The tomato as a model system for the molecular biologist. In :PMB Newsletter. pp. 64–68.Google Scholar
- 7.Roekel JSC, Damm B, Melchers LS and Hoekema A (1993). Factors influencing transtormation frequency of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Plant Cell Reports, 12: 644–647.Google Scholar
- 8.Frary A and Earle ED (1996). An examination of factors affecting the efficiency of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of tomato. Plant Cell Reports, 16: 235–240.Google Scholar
- 11.Hsieh TH, Lee JT, Yang PT, Chiu LH, Charng YY, Wang YC and Chan MT (2002). Heterology expression of the Arabidopsis C-repeat/dehydration response element binding factor 1 gene confers elevated tolerance to chilling and oxidative stresses in transgenic tomato. Plant Physiology, 129: 1086–1094.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Lincoln JE, Richael C, Overduin B, Smith K, Bostock R and Gilchrist DG (2002). Expression of the antiapoptotic baculovirus p35 gene in tomato blocks programmed cell death and provides broad-spectrum resistance to disease. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99: 15217–15221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Daniell H (2003). Medical molecular farming: expression of antibodies, biopharmaceuticals and edible vaccines via the chloroplast genome. In: Vasil IK (ed.), Plant Biotechnology 2002 and Beyond. Proceedings of the 10th IAPTC&B Congress, June 23–28, 2002, Orlando, USA. Kluwer Academic Publishers: The Netherlands, pp. 371–376.Google Scholar
- 36.Daniell H, Dhingra A and San-Milan AF (2001). Chloroplast transgenic approach for the production of biopharmaceuticals and resolution of basic questions on gene expression. In: 12th International Congress on Photosynthesis. Brisbane, Australia: CSIRO.Google Scholar
- 43.Kota M, Daniell H, Varma S, Garczynski SF, Gould F and Moar WJ (1999). Overexpression of the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry2Aa2 protein in chloroplasts confers resistance to plants against susceptible and Bt-resistant insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 96: 1840–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Sambrook J, Fritsch EF and Maniatis T (1989). Molecular Cloning — A Laboratory Manual. 2nd edn., Nolan C (ed.). Plainview, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, USA.Google Scholar
- 48.Bruyns A-M, De Neve M, De Jaeger G, De Wilde C, Rouzé P and Depicker A (1998). Quantification of Heterologous Protein Levels in Transgenic Plants by ELISA. In: Cunningham C, Porter AJR (eds.), Recombinant Proteins from Plants. Humana Press: Totowa, New Jersey, USA, pp. 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar