Transformation in Lycopersicon esculentum L. (Tomato)

  • C. Bellini
Part of the Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry book series (AGRICULTURE, volume 22)


Cellular genetic manipulations offer new possibilities for breeding tomato. Until the last few years, the introduction of favorable characteristics such as resistance to pathogens, modification of plant habit, and improvement of fruit quality have been carried out by crossing with wild species (Rick 1978). Nevertheless, because of the unilateral or interspecific incompatibility between tomato and its wild relatives, a vast reserve of genetic resources remains unexploited (Rick 1982). Protoplast fusion can be an alternative method for mixing genomes and the development of plant genetic transformation offers new possibilities. Transformation of tomato cultivars was achieved using Ti or Ri plasmid vectors and stable transformants were selected on medium containing kanamycin (Koorneef et al. 1986; McCormick et al. 1986; Shahin et al. 1986). This could be achieved because of the relative facility to regenerate tomato plants from primary expiants. Direct gene transfer procedures are useful for inserting new genes into the genome, as it is not necessary to clone the gene to be transferred into vectors derived from Agrobacterium. In addition, they offer the possibility of performing transient gene expression assays that facilitate comparisons between the strength of promotors that regulate the expression of structural genes (Ou-Lee et al. 1986; Boston et al. 1987), and permit investigation into the interactions between several genes in the same cell (Ecker and Davis 1986). This approach requires an efficient procedure of protoplast culture and plant regeneration. Regeneration of plants from tomato protoplasts still presents several difficulties and makes the use of direct gene transfer techniques less attractive. Direct gene transfer in tomato was first achieved using a calcium-phosphate DNA transformation procedure or a PEG treatment (Koorneef et al. 1986; Jongsma et al. 1987). Toyoda et al. (1989) adapted the microinjection technique to tomato callus cells, but did not succeed in regenerating transformed plants. More recently, Tsukuda et al. (1989) compared the efficiency of promoters in the transient expression of foreign genes introduced in tomato protoplasts by electroporation.


Lycopersicon Esculentum Donor Plant Mesophyll Protoplast Tomato Cultivar Protoplast Culture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bellini C, Chupeau MC, Guerche P, Vastra G, Chupeau Y (1989a) Transformation of Lycopersicon peruvianum and Lycopersicon esculentum mesophyll protoplasts by electroporation. Plant Sci 65(1):63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellini C, Guerche P, Spielmann A, Goujaud J, Lessaint C, Caboche M (1989b) Genetic analysis of transgenic tobacco plants obtained by liposome-mediated transformation: absence of evidence for the mutagenic effect of inserted sequences in sixty characterised transformants. J Hered 80:361–367.Google Scholar
  3. Bellini C, Chupeau MC, Gervais M, Vastra G, Chupeau Y (1990) Importance of myo-inositol, calcium and ammonium for the viability and division of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) protoplasts. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 23:27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boston RS, Becwar MR, Ryan RD, Larkins BA, Hodges TK (1987) Expression from heterologous promotors in electroporated carrot protoplasts. Plant Physiol 83:742–746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourgin JP, Chupeau Y, Missonier C (1979) Plant regeneration from mesophyll protoplasts of several Nicotiana species. Physiol Plant 45:288–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassells AC, Barlass M (1976) Environmental changes in the cell walls of tomato leaves in relation to cell and protoplast release. Physiol Plant 37:239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassells AC, Barlass M (1978) A method for the isolation of stable mesophyll protoplasts from tomato leaves throughout the year under standard conditions. Physiol Plant 42:236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chupeau MC, Bellini C, Guerche P, Maisonneuve B, Vastra G, Chupeau Y (1989) Transgenic plants of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) through direct gene transformation after electroporation of protoplasts. Bio/Technol 7:503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chupeau Y, Bourgin JP, Missonier C, Dorion N, Morel G (1974) Préparation et culture de protoplastes de divers Nicotiana. CR Acad Sci Paris Ser D 278:1565–1568.Google Scholar
  10. Das R, Bagga S, Sopory SK (1987) Involvement of phosphoinositides, calmoduline and glyoxalase-I in cell proliferation in callus cultures of Amaranthus paniculatus. Plant Sci 53:45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ecker JR, Davis RW (1986) Inhibition of gene expression in plant cells by expression of antisens RNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:5372–5376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ettlinger C, Lehle L (1987) Auxin induces rapid changes in phosphatidylinositol metabolites. Nature 331:176–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fromm ME, Taylor LP, Walbot V (1985) Expression of genes transferred into monocot and dicot plant cells by electroporation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82:5824–2828.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fromm ME, Taylor LP, Walbot W (1986) Stable transformation of maize after gene transfer by electroporation. Nature 319:791–793.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guerche P, Bellini C, Le Moullec JM, Caboche M (1987a) Use of a transient expression assay for the optimization of direct gene transfer into tobacco mesophyll protoplasts by electroporation. Biochimie 69:621–628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guerche P, Charbonnier M, Jouanin L, Tourneur C, Paszkowski J, Pelletier G (1987b) Direct gene transfer by electroporation in Brassica napus. Plant Sci 52:111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haberlach GT, Cohen BA, Reichert NA, Baer MA, Towill LE, Helgeson JP (1985) Isolation, culture and regeneration of protoplasts from potato and several related Solanum species. Plant Sci Lett 39:67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haughn GW, Somerville C (1986) Sulfonylurea-resistant mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol Gen Genet 211:430–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hassanpour-Estahbani A, Demarly Y (1984) Plant regeneration from protoplasts of Solanum pennellii: effect of photoperiod applied to donor plants. J Plant Physio. 121:171–174.Google Scholar
  20. Holmes DS (1982) Rapid purification of bacterial plasmids and coliphage M13 RF without CsCl centrifugation. Anal Biochem 127:428–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jongsma M, Koornneef M, Zabel P, Hille J (1987) Tomato protoplasts DNA transformation: physical linkage and recombination of exogenous DNA sequences. Plant Mol Biol 8:383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koornneef M, Hanart C, Jongsma M, Toma I, Weide R, Zabel P, Hille J (1986) Breeding of a tomato genotype readily accesible to genetic manipulation. Plant Sci 45:201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masson J, Lancelin D, Bellini C, Lecerf M, Guerche P, Pelletier G (1989) Selection of somatic hybrids between diploid clones of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) transformed by direct gene transfer. Theor Appl Genet 78:153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masson J, Lecerf M, Rousselle P, Perennec P, Pelletier G (1987) Plant regeneration from protoplasts of diploid potato derived form crosses of Solanum tuberosum with wild Solanum species. Plant Sciences 53:167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maxon Smith JW, Ritchie DB (1983) A collection of near-isogenic lines of tomato: research tool of the future? Plant Mol Biol Rep 1:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCormick S, Niedermeyer J, Fry J, Barnason A, Horsch R, Fraley R (1986) Leaf disc transformation of cultivated tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Cell Rep 5:81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer Y, Abel WO (1975) Budding and division of tobacco protoplasts in relation to pseudo-wall and wall formation. Planta 125:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muhlbach HP (1980) Different regeneration potentials of mesophyll protoplasts from cultivated and wild species of tomato. Planta 148:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Negrutiu I, Shillito R, Potrykus I, Biasini G, Sala F (1987) Hybrid genes in the analysis of transformation conditions. Plant Mol Biol 8:366–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Niedz RP, Rutter SM, Handley LW, Sink KC (1985) Plant regeneration from leaf protoplasts of six tomato cultivars. Plant Sci 39:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Connel MA, Hanson MR (1985) Somatic hybridisation between Lycopersicon esculentum and Lycopersicon penellii. Theor Appl Genet 70:1–12.Google Scholar
  32. Ou-Lee TM, Turgeon R, Wu R (1986) Expression of a foreign gene linked to either a plant virus or a Drosophila promoter, after electroporation of protoplasts of rice, wheat and sorghum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84:4870–4874.Google Scholar
  33. Paszkowski J, Shillito RD, Saul M, Mandak V, Hohn T, Hohn B, Potrykus I (1984) Direct gene transfer to plants. EMBO J 3:2717–2722.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rick CM (1978) The tomato. Sci Am 239:76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rick CM (1982) The potential of exotic germplasm for the tomato improvement. In: Vasil I, Scowcroft W, Frey K (eds) Plant improvement and somatic cells genetics. Academic Press, London New York, pp 1–28.Google Scholar
  36. Seguin M, Lalonde M (1988) Gene transfer by electroporation in Betulaceae protoplasts: Alnus incana. Plant Cell Rep 7:367–370.Google Scholar
  37. Shahin EA (1985) Totipotency of tomato protoplasts. Theor Appl Genet 69:235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shahin EA, Sukhapinda K, Simpson RB, Spivey R (1986) Transformation of cultivated tomato by a binary vector in Agrobacterium rhizogenes: transgenic plants with normal phenotype harbor binary vector T-DNA, but no Ri-plasmid T-DNA. Theor Appl Genet 72:770–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shillito RD, Saul MW, Paszkowski J, Muller M, Potrykus I (1985) High efficiency of direct gene transfer to plants. Bio/Technol 3 1099–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tabaeizedeh Z, Bunisset-Bergounioux C, Perennes C (1984) Environmental growth conditions of protoplast source plants: effect on subsequent protoplast division in two tomato species. Physiol Vég 22(2): 223–229.Google Scholar
  41. Tan M, Rietveld E, van Marrewijk GA, Kool AJ (1987) Regeneration of leaf mesophyll protoplasts of tomato cultivars (Lycopersicon esculentum): factors important for efficient protoplast culture and plant regeneration. Plant Cell Rep 6:172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tanimoto S, Harada H (1986) Involvement of calcium in adventitious bud initiation in Torenia stem segments. Plant Cell Physiol 27(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  43. Toyoda H, Matsuda Y, Utsumi R, Ouchi S (1989) Intranuclear microinjection for transformation of tomato callus cells. Plant Cell Rep 7:293–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trewavas AJ (1985) Growth substances, calcium and the regulation of cell division. In: Bryant and Francis (eds) The cell division cycle in plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 133–156.Google Scholar
  45. Tsukuda M, Kusano T, Kitayawa Y (1989) Introduction of foreign genes into tomato protoplasts by electroporation. Plant Cell Physiol 30(4): 599–603.Google Scholar
  46. Zapata FJ, Sink KC, Cocking EC (1981) Callus formation from leaf mesophyll protoplasts of three Lycopersicon species: L. esculentum, cv. Walter, L. pimpinellifolum and L. hirsutum, F. glabratum. Plant Sci Lett 23:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Bellini
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Biologie CellulaireI.N.R.A.Versailles CédexFrance

Personalised recommendations