Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2024 Apr 5;14:8015. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-58903-0

Functional characterization of plant specific Indeterminate Domain (IDD) transcription factors in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)

Sujeevan Rajendran 1,#, Yu Mi Kang 2,#, In Been Yang 1, Hye Bhin Eo 1, Kyung Lyung Baek 1, Seonghoe Jang 3, Assaf Eybishitz 4, Ho Cheol Kim 1, Byeong Il Je 2, Soon Ju Park 5, Chul Min Kim 1,✉
PMCID: PMC10997639  PMID: 38580719

Abstract

Plant-specific transcription factors (TFs) are responsible for regulating the genes involved in the development of plant-specific organs and response systems for adaptation to terrestrial environments. This includes the development of efficient water transport systems, efficient reproductive organs, and the ability to withstand the effects of terrestrial factors, such as UV radiation, temperature fluctuations, and soil-related stress factors, and evolutionary advantages over land predators. In rice and Arabidopsis, INDETERMINATE DOMAIN (IDD) TFs are plant-specific TFs with crucial functions, such as development, reproduction, and stress response. However, in tomatoes, IDD TFs remain uncharacterized. Here, we examined the presence, distribution, structure, characteristics, and expression patterns of SlIDDs. Database searches, multiple alignments, and motif alignments suggested that 24 TFs were related to Arabidopsis IDDs. 18 IDDs had two characteristic C2H2 domains and two C2HC domains in their coding regions. Expression analyses suggest that some IDDs exhibit multi-stress responsive properties and can respond to specific stress conditions, while others can respond to multiple stress conditions in shoots and roots, either in a tissue-specific or universal manner. Moreover, co-expression database analyses suggested potential interaction partners within IDD family and other proteins. This study functionally characterized SlIDDs, which can be studied using molecular and bioinformatics methods for crop improvement.

Keywords: Tomato, Transcription factor, Indeterminate Domain, Development, Stress response

Subject terms: Plant development, Plant molecular biology, Plant stress responses

Introduction

In the past five decades, the global population has increased by four billion and is predicted to increase rapidly from the current eight billion individuals1. The reduction of arable land and the water crisis in agriculture will be a great challenge in the future2. Climate change projections indicate that intense rains will cause floods and long droughts, reducing cultivation periods in the future3. Increase in global population, reduction in arable land, and reduction in cultivation periods will exponentially increase the need for intensive farming methods and new crop varieties. Currently, widespread plant breeding methods are likely to limit yield limitation in the near future. Therefore, plant breeders are obliged to discover new tools and principles to increase crop yield.

Owing to their sessile nature, plants have evolved to withstand and counteract biotic and abiotic stress4,5. Stress signals from unfavorable conditions, such as temperature, waterlogging, drought, oxidative stress, proton stress, heavy metals, salinity, light, viruses, bacteria, fungi, and insects are perceived by receptor complexes, and the perceived signals are transduced to TFs to activate stress response genes6,7. TFs interact with the cis-regulatory elements of a target gene and modulate its expression of their target genes8. Changes in cis-regulatory elements result in alterations in target gene expression, which can alter cellular activities9–12. TFs sequences specifically bind to transcription factor binding motifs (TFBMs) to activate or repress downstream genes with a DNA-binding domain13,14. TFs also contain oligomerization, transcription, and nuclear localization domain15. Changes in the domain architecture of TFs can be a driving force in plant evolution and changes in the expression can result in morphological variations16,17. Plant-specific TFs regulate genes related to the development of plant-specific organs and response systems for adaptation to terrestrial environments18. These include the development of efficient water transport systems, efficient reproductive organs, the ability to withstand the effects of terrestrial factors such as UV radiation, temperature fluctuations, soil-related stress factors, and evolutionary advantages over land predators19–21. INDETERMINATE DOMAIN (IDD) TFs are plant-specific TFs with crucial functions in rice and Arabidopsis, including development, reproduction and stress response22–28.

Among the vast array of TFs, IDD, a class of C2H2 zinc-finger TFs, is specific to plants22,25,29,30. The N-terminus of the IDD contains two C2H2 DNA-binding domains and 2C2HC protein-binding domains. The C-terminus also contains protein interaction domain24,25,29. In Arabidopsis, 12 of 18 identified IDD TFs have been characterized for their roles. IDDs in Arabidopsis are involved in various cellular and developmental functions such as seed germination, tissue patterning, responses to external cues, and abiotic stress. Some IDDs can produce transcript variants, depending on the conditions (see review)22.

Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) are one of the most cultivated crops in the fresh and processed market. Owing to its relatively small genome size and chromosomal architecture, the tomato is also an excellent model plant for studying Solanaceae species31,32. Tomatoes also bear berry fruits, which can be used as models for studying fruit development and metabolite analysis33–35. Studies on the abiotic and biotic responses in tomatoes have been widely conducted. To understand the IDD family genes in tomato (SlIDDs), this study was conducted to identify and explore the basic information of SlIDDs and to understand their expression dynamics under developmental stages and stress conditions in tomato.

Results

Identification and phylogenetic analysis of SlIDD family genes in tomato

To identify candidate SlIDD family genes, a BLAST search was conducted using Gramene (https://www.gramene.org) and Plaza (https://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/plaza) databases. Overall, 25, 24, and 20 genes were identified by search results in tomato, rice, and Arabidopsis respectively. Arabidopsis and rice have 16 and 15 IDD genes, respectively. The evolutionary relationships among IDD family genes were determined using phylogenetic analysis. Phylogenetic analysis suggested that IDD genes may have structural differences between monocots and dicots (Fig. 1a). Four subgroups of IDD-like genes have been identified in tomato plants. Here, 16 Arabidopsis and 15 rice IDD genes were clustered with 19 tomato IDD-like genes. Among these clades, rice Ehd2 showed the lowest homology with other IDD genes. 12 genes clustered with the AtSTOP1 group and seven genes showed distant homology with IDD genes (Fig. 1b).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic analyses of IDD family genes in major plant species. (a) Unrooted phylogenetic tree of IDD family genes in ten major plant species. Red branches indicate monocots and green indicate dicots. (b) Phylogenetic tree of IDD family genes in rice, Arabidopsis, and maize. Tomato sequences are indicated in bold letters [branch values (MYA)].

Structure and distribution of SlIDD genes

Multiple sequence alignments showed conserved C2H2 and C2HC motifs among SlIDD genes (Fig. 2a, Fig. S1). However, Solyc03g098070 does not possess the first C2H2 motif. Solyc05g054030 possesses a C2HR motif in the second zinc finger domain with a less reactive arginine stead of Histidine36 (Fig. 2a). seven ortholog groups were found within tomato IDD-like genes. Block 6 and block 7 contained four and three orthologs respectively (Fig. 2b and Table S1). Among them Solyc01g005060, Solyc04g080130, Solyc04g008500, Solyc05g054030, Solyc07g053570, Solyc08g063040 and Solyc09g065670 did not show orthologs. Synteny between Arabidopsis, rice and tomato revealed that the rice IDD family showed the least synteny when compared with Arabidopsis and tomato (Fig. S2). Sequences with two complete C2H2 complete C2HC domains were considered as true IDD TFs. After confirming the number of IDD genes in tomatoes, the distribution of IDD genes were determined (Fig. 2c, Table S2). Twelve IDDs showed synteny, indicating duplication events in all chromosomes. Dispersed duplications were accounted for the majority (80%) of IDD like genes and other genes were duplicated by segmental duplication events (Table S3). Solyc03g098070, which lacks the first C2H2 motif, exhibited synteny with Solyc06g072360. 18 confirmed IDD genes were distributed among 11 chromosomes, excluding chromosome 12. Motif analysis revealed structural variations among IDD-like genes. Among the 25 sequences, 18 IDD TFs had four prominent motifs corresponding to two C2H2 and two C2HC domains in the C-terminus. Other IDD-like genes lacked one or more zinc-finger domains (Fig. 2d and Fig. S3). Ka/Ks analysis revealed that all IDD genes evolved under high selection pressure (Table S4). In addition to the primary isoforms of IDD TFs, our analyses revealed that multiple IDDs have splice variants. IDD1, IDD2, IDD12 and IDD13 showed two isoforms. Surprisingly, IDD4 and IDD11 had three and five isoforms, respectively, indicating complex post-transcriptional regulatory mechanisms present in IDD TFs (Table S5).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Comparison, confirmation, and distribution of tomato IDD sequences. (a) Multiple alignment of IDD-like genes in tomato. (green; cystine motifs, Blue; histidine motifs, Red; histidine–cystine motifs. Red bold R indicates the arginine in the C2HR motif). (b) The synteny analysis of the SlIDD family in tomato. The genes linked by red lines represent homologs. (c) Distribution of 18 IDD TFs in tomato chromosomes (Black lines indicate synteny). (d) Phylogenetic relationship and gene structure of 18 confirmed IDD genes (left) and protein motifs in corresponding sequences (right).

3D structure of SlIDD TFs

Following the identification of SlIDD TFs, 3D structures were predicted using AlphaFold2.0 (https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk) to verify the structural similarity of the confirmed TFs using BLAST with UniProt (https://www.uniprot.org) accession numbers (Table S6). The 3D structures showed prominent zinc finger domains in the C terminus regions of the primary isoforms. However, Solyc03g098070 had only three zinc finger domains, which confirmed the results from motif analysis and multiple alignments, and Solyc08g063040 showed an incomplete 4th C2HC domain, even though the alignments and motifs were intact (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

3D models of tomato IDD TFs predicted by AlphaFold2.0. Light blue chains show zinc finger domains. 2D images were taken for visibility of zinc finger domains (see Table S6 for AlphaFold2.0 accession numbers to access 3D models).

Cis-regulatory element analysis of SlIDD promoters

The promoter sequences of 18 SlIDD genes (3000 bp) were scanned for cis-regulatory elements using Arabidopsis DAP motifs with a cut-off p-value of 1 × 10−4. A total of 518 binding elements were present in all 18 promoter sequences, and VRN1, REM19, and DOF4.7 binding elements were relatively more enriched (14.65%) than other promoters (Fig. 4a, b and Table S7). Most of the enriched elements showed functions related to environmental signal response and development (Fig. 4c).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Cis-regulatory element analysis of SlIDD family genes. (a) Promoter binding sites of tomato IDD TFs. (b) Enriched promoter binding elements in tomato IDD TFs (50% of enriched elements). (c) GO term analysis for enriched promoter elements.

Interaction networks of SlIDDs

Coexpression network analysis revealed complex interactions between SlIDDs and STOP-like TFs. Unlike tissue expression patterns, co-expression networks suggested possible differences in temporal expression patterns and provided clues to gene regulation networks in different tissues (Fig. 5). SlIDD4 showed close association with SlIDD2 similar to the tissue-specific expressions. However, SlIDD12 did not interact with other SlIDDs, including SlIDD15, SlIDD16, SlIDD17, and SlIDD18. SlIDD3 showed multiple interactions with the other SlIDDs. SlIDD10 interacted with SlIDD2, SlIDD7, and SlIDD11; however, the tissue-specific expression patterns were distant from those of SlIDD11. SlIDD13 and SlIDD14 interacted with SlIDD2 but showed similar expression patterns in tissues. Compared to other interactions, there are less data on SlIDDs, therefore, databases have shown that SlIDDs are co-expressed with TFIIIA and SlkdsA.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Coexpression networks for SlIDDs. (a) Coexpression network between SlIDDs, SlIDD-like1, and STOP1-like TFs. (b) Interaction network of SlIDD6, SlIDD7, SlIDD15, and SlIDD8 with other proteins.

Expression of IDD TFs under abiotic stresses

Cis-regulatory analysis suggests that the binding elements in the promoters are highly responsive to environmental signals. Moreover, SlIDD1, SlIDD8, SlIDD9, and SlIDD16 show increased expression under various abiotic stress conditions37,38. To confirm whether other SlIDDs were also responsive to abiotic stress, 3-week-old plants grown under greenhouse nursery conditions were subjected to salt, pH, and flood stress, which represent the basic stress conditions that can occur under greenhouse conditions (see Materials and Methods). Expression analysis was conducted to determine the expression level of each SlIDD TFs.

Expression of SlIDD TFs under salt stress

Salt stress can affect plants by restricting water and nutrient uptake, resulting in reduced root biomass and reduced productivity39. Nutrient imbalance owing to NaCl-induced conductivity stress reduces fruit quality under greenhouse conditions40. To determine the expression patterns of SlIDD TFs, 3-week-old tomato seedlings were treated with 200 mM NaCl and sampled at 2- and 24 h intervals.

Expression analysis revealed that the levels of multiple SlIDDs were upregulated in the roots under salt stress conditions (Fig. 6a). SlIDD12 and SlIDD14 showed over 100- and 30-fold increases in expression, respectively, whereas SlIDD3, SlIDD4, and SlIDD9 showed only significant increases in expression. Other SlIDDs such as SlIDD1 and SlIDD2 showed significantly reduced expression. SlIDD4 and SlIDD13 were upregulated after 24 h of treatment, whereas SlIDD6 showed increased expression only after 2 h. However, in the shoots, SlIDD12 and SlIDD14 did not show a significant increase in expression, whereas SlIDD15 and SlSlIDD18 showed a dramatic increase in expression. Significant increases in expression were observed in SlIDD13 and SlIDD17 in 2 h. SlIDD1, SlIDD7, SlIDD12, SlIDD16, SlIDD2, SlIDD4, and SlIDD-like1 showed significantly higher levels in 24 h. SlIDD3 and SlIDD9 showed a significant reduction in expression under salt stress conditions (Fig. 6b and Table S8).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Expression patterns of screened zinc finger TFs under salt stress. (a) Clustergram for IDD expression levels under NaCl induced salt stress in 3-week-old tomato seedlings (Scales represented as relative values). (b) Expression levels of high responsive SlIDDs under salt stress. (**P < 0.01; *P < 0.05).

Expression of SlIDD TFs under pH stress

Low pH is an occasional problem in greenhouse vegetable production, as it can affect the quality and quantity of produce by affecting soluble ions in the media41,42. SlSTOP1 is an essential TF that is closely related to SlIDD TFs and crucial for proton stress tolerance43,44. To examine the expression of SlIDD TFs, plants were subjected to low pH conditions (pH = 4.2) in 3-week-old plants.

The expression of SlIDD12 was up-regulated in the roots by over 50-fold. SlIDD8 also showed a significant increase in the roots (Fig. 7). In contrast, SlIDDlike-1, SlIDD13, SlIDD15, SlIDD16, and SlIDD17 showed significant reductions in expression levels in the roots. However, in the shoots, SlIDD6 showed a 40-fold increase in expression after 24 h. Notably, SlIDD15 and SlIDD17 showed significant increases in the shoots, but not in the roots. SlIDD8 expression was significantly higher in both tissues at both time points (Fig. 7b and Table S9).

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Expression patterns of screened zinc finger TFs under proton Stress. (a) Clustergram for IDD expression levels under pH stress in 3-week-old tomato seedlings (Scales represented as relative values). (b) Expression levels of high responsive SlIDDs under pH stress. (**P < 0.01; *P < 0.05).

Expression of SlIDD TFs under flooding stress

Flooding stress is a major problem for field-cultivated tomatoes because of the intensive rainfall patterns that induce climate change45. Waterlogging reduces oxygen availability to the submerged plant parts, which subsequently leads to cell death and, eventually severe yield losses46,47. Because IDD TFs are plant-specific, they can potentially respond to flood stress. To determine the response of IDD TFs to flood stress, 3-week-old tomato seedlings were submerged in water up to the crown, and RNA was extracted from the roots and shoots at 2 h and 24 h intervals.

Unlike salt and pH stress, less severe reaction of SlIDD TFs were observed in the roots (Fig. 8a and Table S9). Among strongly responded seven genes to flood, SlIDD12 showed an 80-fold increase in expression. Moreover, SlIDD3, SlIDD6, SlIDD9 and SlIDD18 showed significantly increased expression (Fig. 8b). In contrast, SlIDD2 was downregulated in roots and upregulated in shoots at 24 h time points. In the shoots, all genes except SlIDD7, SlIDD13, and SlIDD14 showed increased expression levels. In particular, SlIDD18 showed more than tenfold and 28-fold increase at the 2 h and 24 h intervals, respectively. SlIDD11 and SlIDD15 also exhibited dramatic increases in the shoots under flood stress (Table S10).

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Expression patterns of screened zinc finger TFs under flood stress. (a) Clustergram for IDD expression levels under flood stress in 3-week-old tomato seedlings (Scales represented as relative values). (b) Expression levels of high responsive SlIDDs under flood stress. (**P < 0.01; *P < 0.05).

Discussion

Functional analysis of SlIDDs

The present study systematically analyzed IDD TFs belonging to tomatoes, as IDDs in Arabidopsis, rice, and maize have already been examined for their existence and properties22–25,27,48–51. Currently, there are 16, 15, and 22 IDD TFs identified in Arabidopsis, rice, and maize, respectively. Consistent with our results for 18 IDDs in tomatoes, the IDD family genes might have played crucial roles in a species-specific manner. IDD TFs are also plant-specific and can participate in multiple plant-specific functions such as vascular development, photosynthesis, light signaling, flowering etc52. Moreover, plant-specific TFs are also involved in shaping the phenotypic and physiological factors of plants for the adaptation of plants to land-based environments, where the plants need to withstand biotic and abiotic stress conditions53. Functional characterization can shed light on the IDD TFs role in plants. Moreover, some plant-specific TFs show differences in the number of monocot and dicot species54,55. Phylogenetic analysis of IDD TFs from the model plant Arabidopsis and major model crops such as tomato and rice suggested that IDD transcription factors other than higher conservation of their functional motifs in monocots and dicots and structural elements are potentially specialized within each of these two lineages.

Phylogenetic analysis revealed closely related IDD groups in rice, tomato, and Arabidopsis. SlIDD1 showed close relationships with AtIDD1, AtIDD2, OsIDD1, SlIDD17, and SlIDD18 (Fig. 1b). AtIDD1 is involved in gibberellin signaling by forming activator and repressor complexes upstream of gibberellin biosynthesis genes56. Notably, AtIDD1 is a direct target of PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR 3-LIKE5 (PIL5), which inhibits seed germination in dark conditions by regulating abscisic acid (ABA) and Gibberellic acid (GA)57. AtIDD2 (GAF1) also shows light-responsive properties where AtIDD2 acts as a transcriptional activator and repressor of GA20OX under different light conditions and regulates flowering and plant size56. OsIDD1 along with OsIDD6 potentially have redundant functions in floral transition58. OsIDD1 also regulates the expression of JA-related genes related to herbivore resistance59. SlIDD1 expression was significantly down-regulated in salt-stressed roots and increased in salt-stressed shoots after 24 h. Under acidic conditions, SlIDD1 expression was reduced within a short time and recovered after 24 h. Under flooding conditions, the shoots showed significantly higher expression levels, suggesting a pivotal role in the transition under stress conditions (Figs. 6, 7, 8). SlIDD17 is significantly responsive to salt and acidic stress. Previous studies have shown increased expression of SlIDD17 under heat stress and during fruit development60,61.

SlIDD2 is closely related to AtIDD7, AtIDD11, OsIDD2, OsIDD11, SlIDD10 and SlIDD11 (Fig. 1b). AtIDD7 shows higher activity during phosphorus starvation and flowering62,63. In rice, OsIDD2 negatively regulates the transcription of genes involved in lignin biosynthesis64. OsIDD11 hypothesized to have drought tolerance via stomatal control65. In the current study, under stress conditions, SlIDD2 transcripts were significantly downregulated in the roots and increased in the leaves. SlIDD2 is down-regulated in the base margin tissue of tf-2 leaf patterning-deficient mutants66. When treated with auxin and ethylene, SlIDD2 showed increased and decreased activity in fruits, respectively, and reduced expression in LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES(LOB) TF and SlLOB1 RNAi lines, with reduced softening and increased shelf life67,68. In Arabidopsis, AtIDD7 shows differential expression under phosphorus starvation69, early flower development63, and low temperature70. However, the precise function of AtIDD7 is currently unknown22. AtIDD11 shares structural homology with and is potentially involved in leaf patterning22,71. SlIDD10 showed higher expression levels in maturing fruits and the root exodermis in previous studies60,61,72. Interestingly, SlIDD11 showed a sudden dramatic increase in expression in shoots under all stress conditions, suggesting a role similar to OsIDD11. GWAS studies suggest that SlIDD11 is associated with isothermality and shows allele specificity in exotic land races73,74. Notably, SlIDD11 produced five isoforms that may be expressed under specific stress conditions to respond specifically (Table S5).

SlIDD3 grouped along with AtIDD12 and SlIDD15. SlIDD3 showed higher expression patterns in the exodermis and the cortex72. SlIDD15 shows a gradual reduction from young to mature fruits60. Under stress, SlIDD15 showed higher levels of expression in roots, especially under salt stress. SlIDD3 also showed varying expression patterns in the roots and shoots under stress. AtIDD12s function is currently unknown, but it shows higher activity in seeds75.

SlIDD4, AtIDD5, and AtIDD6 grouped in phylogenetic analysis (Fig. 1b). The Arabidopsis homolog AtIDD5/RAVEN interacts with DELLA28 and promotes anisotropic growth by positively regulating STARCH SYNTHASE 4 (SS4)50 possibly regulating root tissue patterning through asymmetric cell division76. AtIDD6 is also involved in the tissue patterning of roots during development77. However, in tomatoes, stress treatments showed a significant response to salt and acid stress in roots and to flood stress in shoots, suggesting a role in root patterning under both developmental stages and stress tolerance in both roots and shoots (Figs. 6, 7, 8). Notably, SlIDD4 produces four isoforms (Table S5).

Even though SlIDD5 contains a C2HR motif instead of a C2H2 motif, evidence suggests that the replacement of Histidine by Arginine might not have any major effect on transcriptional activity (Fig. 2). However, C2HR motifs have been shown to interact with other proteins36. SlIDD5/OBV was highly expressed in the leaves and vegetative phases of the meristems. Heterobaric leaves contains Bundle sheath extensions in the leaves which provide mechanical strength. SlIDD5 mutants failed to produce bundle sheath extension cells (homobaric leaves)78. Increased chlorophyll content has been observed in obv mutants, such as M82 and CRISPR/Cas9 mutants of Micro-Tom, where the absence of BSE allowed chloroplast development in leaf veins and reduced water conductivity79,80. Moreover, OBV also regulates the leaf insertion angle, leaf margin serration, and fruit shape, and has been shown to work together with auxin signaling80. SlIDD5 binds to the promoter FUL2 which then regulates fruit shape81. Arabidopsis AtIDD14, AtIDD15, and AtIDD16 show structural homology with SlIDD5 and have similar functions in leaf shape, flower development, plant architecture, and gravitrophic responses by regulating auxin biosynthesis and transport factors23. Surprisingly, OsIDD14/LPA1 also shows similar functions in plant architecture and has been extensively studied. LPA1 determines rice tiller angle and shoot gravitropism by affecting the sedimentation rate of amyloplasts and binds to the promoter region of PIN182,83. LPA1 also exhibits water conservation properties by reducing the rate of transpiration from rice leaves84. However, data for OsIDD12 and OsIDD13 were unavailable.

AtIDD9, AtIDD10, AtIDD13, SlIDD6, SlIDD7, SlIDD13, and SlIDD14 grouped together in the phylogenetic analysis (Fig. 1b). Reduced pH also caused a higher accumulation of SlIDD6 in shoots (Fig. 6) and showed heat-induced expression in tomato leaves85. SlIDD7 expression patterns were similar to those of SlIDD10. Under Salt stress conditions, roots showed reduced expression and shoots showed increased expression. SlIDD7 expression increases in leaves and stems under heat stress61 and is negatively correlated with CYC-B in developing fruits, indicating its possible role in the regulation of lycopene accumulation in developing fruits60. Both SlIDD13 and SlIDD14 regulate stem thickness and leaf shape, and mutants are tolerant to necrotrophic infection51. Under salt stress, the roots showed higher levels of IDD14 transcripts. IDD13 also showed a significant increase in the shoots of the salt-stressed tomato seedlings (Fig. 8).

SlIDD8 showed homology with OsIDD8, AtIDD3, and AtIDD8 which showed increased expression under salt and heat stress (Fig. 1b)86. AtIDD3 and AtIDD8 are involved in root development. Moreover, AtIDD8 regulates floral transition and sugar metabolism22.

SlIDD9 is highly expressed in roots and developing fruits, and shows increased expression under abiotic stress conditions87. Arabidopsis AtSTOP1 shows close homology with SlIDD9 and is involved in proton toxicity and aluminum tolerance by activating the malate transporter AtALMT188,89. AtSTOP1 also modulates the response to drought and salt levels by regulating root growth and guard cell movement90. SlIDD-like1 showed close homology with OsLPA1. Even though SlIDD-like1 does not contain the first C2H2 domain, it shares close homology with SlIDD12 and SlIDD5. SlIDD-like1/Se3.1 controls stigma extortion or insertion with Style3.1 which determines the rate of self-pollination91,92. Under stressful conditions, SlIDD-like1 showed less severe changes in expression.

SlIDD16/SlZF-31 mutants showed reduced salt and drought tolerance38. SlIDD16 showed reduced expression in RIN mutants, suggesting its potential role in fruit ripening93,94. The rice orthologs SlIDD16, OsIDD11 are involved in drought tolerance by regulating stomatal movement and starch composition in rice65,95. OsIDD2 regulates the secondary cell wall (SCW) formation by directly binding to SCW biosynthesis genes48. OsIDD2 is responsible for plant height, leaf strength, and resistance to fungal infection64,96.

In the interaction analysis, more clues and the possible applicability of SlIDDs were revealed. SlIDD6 and SlIDD7 SlIDD15 showed co-expressed with TFIIIA during viral infection. Arabidopsis thaliana experiments have hypothesized that TFIIIA acts as a bridge between the viroid template and DNA polymerase II during viroid-derived RNA replication97,98. SlIDD8 closely interacts with SlkdsA, a Kdo-8-P synthase associated with cell division99.

Stress experiments revealed that SlIDD10, SlIDD5, SlIDD7, SlIDD13, and SlIDD16 showed less dramatic changes in expression, suggesting that these TFs are highly involved in development51,61,91. However, SlIDD16 mutants are tolerant to salt and drought stress, suggesting SlIDD16 is stress specific38. In contrast, SlIDD3, SlIDD8, SlIDD9, and SlIDD12 showed multi-stress responses, suggesting that these TFs should be further studied for their effects on tomato survival and productivity.

Future perspectives for IDDs for breeding climate-resilient and high-producing crops

The evolution of plants from aquatic to terrestrial habitats is noteworthy. Unlike in aquatic environments, land plants have to increase their survivability by specializing in organs to compartmentalize functions, such as developing effective root systems and vascular systems for water transport, increasing photosynthetic ability and survival adaptations, such as distinguishing beneficial organisms from pathogens and predators, and adapting to dry terrain100. Plant-specific transcription factors drive adaptation through genome and gene duplication events and specialize in downstream fuctions19,21,101,102.

Climate change threatens crop productivity due to changes in agro-climatic conditions, and current breeding programs are exploring possibilities to develop climate-resilient cultivars for better productivity103–106. A better alternative for escaping climate catastrophes without breeding for climate resilience is to cultivate crops in protected environments, such as greenhouses. However, due to the fact that the cultivated crops are highly adapted to pre-climate change era, breeding programs should focus on the evolution of terrestrial plants to identify evolutionarily significant candidate genes for plant breeding.

Evolutionary analyses of SlIDD TFs indicated that these genes were selected under high selection pressure and all genes were crucial for survival. In particular, IDDs are plant-specific and are involved in functions such as herbivore resistance and starvation responses from germination to fruit ripening. Our current data and those of previous studies show that these SlIDDs are potential candidates for improving the productivity of protected house cultivation and land cultivation60,61,88,89,107. In the case of land cultivation, IDDs respond to abiotic stresses, such as drought, salt, flooding, pH changes, and starvation, along with the development of roots. Other IDDs, such as SlIDD2 showed leaf-patterning roles, and SlIDD5 showed chlorophyll content, which can be used to increase photosynthetic capacity and productivity. Under changing climates, indoor farming can reduce exposure to harsh climates, which can reduce the energy spent on defense mechanisms108,109. However, it is possible to reduce the stress response to eliminate pests and stress in well-protected houses, which renders the stress response elements in plants insignificant110–112. Stress response-related genes can be down-regulated to force plants to focus on productivity by diverting energy allocations112,113. Finally, the marketability of produce is a crucial factor in increasing the net returns from tomato cultivation114–116. SlIDDs such as SlIDD5 and SlIDD16 showed functions related to fruit shape and ripening, which can be further studied to improve fruit shape and shelf life, and increase market value and post-harvest quality. Plants produce isoforms to diversify their roles by alternative splicing (AS), from a single coding region to multiple protein derivatives for specialized roles117. This mechanism allows the plants to eliminate the necessity to harbor additional genetic information in the genome and increase the transcriptome plasticity and proteome complexity118. With this mechanism, plants are able to respond against a large array of environmental stresses and cellular damages119–123. The isoforms of SlIDDs can be further dissected based on their specific roles in growth and development, where a single SlIDD responded to various stress conditions in our study (Figs. 6, 7, 8). Studying the role of isoforms can provide insights into the isolation of stress responses and developmental elements from a single TF.

Conclusions

Amid climate change manifesting in real time, food security must be ensured in every corner of the world. Agro climatic factors may also change with the increase in average global temperature and humans may have to modify crops to ensure cultivation in limited resources and possibly indoors under artificial conditions124,125. The current analysis identified 18 IDDs (SlIDDs) in tomatoes. Functionally, only a few SlIDD have been characterized based on molecular evidence. Current study revealed the multi-role potentials of the the SlIDD TFs in tomato growth, development and plasticity. Notably, SlIDD1, SlIDD3, SlIDD4, SlIDD6 to 9, SlIDD11, SlIDD16 and SlIDD17 showed potential roles in abiotic stress responses where SlIDDs 4 and 11 showed three and five isoforms respectively. Which indicates the functionally diverse role of these TFs. Moreover, previous studies showed SlIDD13 and SlIDD14 are involved in abiotic stress response50,97. On the other hand, SlIDDs 2 to 5, SlIDD10, SlIDD15, SlIDD17 showed potential roles in growth, organ pattering51,61,91. These results indicate that the SlIDDs are capable of regulating overall plant development, plasticity and physiology in a well-coordinated manner. Based on the results presented here, the functions of SlIDDs may be applied well beyond stress tolerance, productivity, and quality of tomato production, where some mutants of SlIDDs show crucial agroeconomic traits that can aid in breeding climate-resilient, high-producing tomato cultivars with the aid of the tomato PAN genome. Based on current expression patterns and ortholog functions, embryo lethality is possible. However, other techniques, such as promoter engineering8,11,12 or RNAi126–129 can be employed to study the molecular functions of SlIDDs. Natural disasters and temperature fluctuations have increasingly challenged the future of agriculture. TFs that play a major role in land adaptation can be repurposed to adapt to the current climate crisis, and SlIDDs can be pivotal for this purpose.

Methods

Database search and BLAST

A BLAST search was conducted using three different databases for tomatoes (Solgenomics network; https://solgenomics.net/, Plaza 5.0; https://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/plaza/ and Gramene; https://www.gramene.org. Arabidopsis and Rice sequences were verified using TAIR10 (https://www.arabidopsis.org/) and RAP-DB (https://rapdb.dna.affrc.go.jp/) respectively. Default parameters were used as the conditions for BLAST searches.

Multiple alignment and phylogenetic tree construction

Multiple protein sequence alignments were performed using ClustalW and visualized using the ALIGNMENTVIEWER (https://github.com/sanderlab/alignmentviewer) software. A phylogenetic tree was constructed using MEGA (version 11.0; Penn State University, PA, USA) and the maximum likelihood tree method (bootstrap 1000 replicates). Sequences for the multiple alignments and phylogenetic tree and accession numbers of OsIDDs and AtIDDs are available in Table S12–S14. The iTOL web tool was used to construct the evolutionary tree (https://itol.embl.de).

Chromosomal location, synteny analysis, motif visualization, and 3D structure visualization

The locations of candidate genes were acquired from the Solgenomics network (https://solgenomics.net/), and positions were visualized using MG2C v2.1 (http://mg2c.iask.in/mg2c_v2.1/). Synteny analysis and Ka/Ks values were calculated using TBtools130. Gene duplications were assessed by using R package “Doubletrouble” (https://github.com/almeidasilvaf/doubletrouble)131. The MEME suite was used to identify and visualize conserved motifs among candidate genes (https://meme-suite.org/meme/tools/meme). Motifs were searched among the given sequences, and the remainder were set to default. The 3D structure was identified using a UniProt (https://www.uniprot.org) database search and visualized using Afphafold2.0 (https://www.uniprot.org/database?query=(name:AlphaFoldDB)&direct).

Cis-regulatory motif analysis and Coexpression network construction

Promoter sequences of 3 Kb of each SlIDD gene were used to scan and identify cis-regulatory elements using FIMO (https://meme-suite.org/meme/tools/fimo) against Arabidopsis promoter matrices (http://bar.utoronto.ca/~nprovart/ArabidopsisDAPv1.meme) based on previous reports11,66,132,133. The cutoff values for the p- and q-values were 1.99E-14 and 1.63E-09 respectively. TB tools were used to visualize the architectural positions of the major promoter elements130. A coexpression network was constructed using the TomExpress database134. STRING (https://string-db.org) was used to identify interaction partners of SlIDDs.

Plant materials and growth conditions

All experiments were conducted using Solanum lycopersicum cv. M82 seeds kindly provided for the experiments by Prof. Soon Ju Park from Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Korea. The plants were grown under long-day conditions and controlled temperatures in a greenhouse at Wonkwang University, Iksan, South Korea. Plants were grown under natural and supplemental light from a natrium, and halogen lamps were applied in the early morning and late evening. The light/dark cycle was 16 h/8 h/day. Plants were supplied with nutrients in the irrigation water one month after transplanting, following the manufacturer’s guidelines (S-feed, 1 kg/10 a/day; https://www.farmhannong.com/kor/product/product_ct01/view.do?seq=4392 (accessed on 08 November 2023).

Abiotic stress treatment

Stress treatments were applied using potting media to ensure regular greenhouse growth. Salt stress was induced by saturating the potting medium with tap water mixed with 200 mM NaCl at an adjusted pH of 6.8. Proton stress was induced by saturating the plants with tap water at pH 4.2. Flood stress was induced by submerging plant roots in potting media in water at a pH of 6.8. All stress treatments were performed under greenhouse conditions. Control plants were saturated with water at pH 6.8. Shoot and root samples were collected at 2 and 24 h after treatment.

RNA extraction and quantitative real time PCR for stress-responsive SlIDDs

To extract RNA from shoots and roots, 3 weeks old control and treated plants were harvested at 2 pm in a greenhouse. Total RNA was extracted using the AccuPrep® Universal RNA extraction kit (Bioneer, Daejeon, Korea) and treated with RNase-free DNase to remove DNA fragments (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). One microgram of total RNA was used to synthesize cDNA with AccuPower® RT PreMix (Bioneer, Daejeon, Korea). qRT-PCR was performed using a T100TM Thermocycler system (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Primer information is provided in Table S11. Reactions (10 µL final volume) were prepared using 5 µL of LaboPass™ SYBR Green Q master kit (Cosmogenetech, Dajeon, Korea). Next, 0.5 pmol of a primer pair, and 0.5 µL of cDNA template. Four biological samples and two technical replicates were used for quantification. Ubiquitin was used as a reference. gene expression analysis was performed with the 2^ − ΔΔCt method using Bio-Rad CFX Maestro software v.4.0 (Bio-Rad). The baseline and threshold levels were set according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All experiments were conducted in greenhouses situated at Wonkwang University using wild-type plants. Ethical guidelines provided by the ethics committee were followed when conducting the experiments.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figure S1. (688KB, pdf)
Supplementary Figure S2. (666.9KB, pdf)
Supplementary Figure S3. (154.8KB, pdf)
Supplementary Tables. (3MB, xlsx)

Acknowledgements

We thank all members of the Plant Molecular Breeding Laboratory at Wonkwang University and Plant Development and Genetics lab at Gyeongsang National University for their valuable suggestions and assistance.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, S.R., S.J.P., C.M.K.; Investigation, S.R., C.M.K.; Methodology, S.R., C.M.K.; Resources, A.E., S.J., H.C.K., C.M.K.; Data Collection, S.R., Y.M.K., I.B.Y., H.B.E., K.L.B.; Data analysis, S.R., Supervision A.E., S.J., H.C.K., B.I.J., C.M.K.; Validation A.E., S.J., H.C.K., B.I.J., C.M.K.; writing—review and editing S.R., S.J., A.E., H.C.K., S.J.P., C.M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the New Breeding Technologies Development Program (Project No. RS-2024-00322297) of the Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. This work was supported in part by a grant from the World Vegetable Center Korea Office (WKO #10000379) and by long-term strategic donors to the World Vegetable Center: Taiwan, UK, aid from the UK government, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Germany, Thailand, Philippines, Korea, and Japan.

Data availability

All data related to the expression analyses are available in the GEO repository under accession number GSE248090 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE248090). Sequences related to the bioinformatics analyses are included in the Supplementary Tables.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Sujeevan Rajendran and Yu Mi Kang.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-58903-0.

References

  • 1.United Nations. World Population Prospects 2019. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects 2019. (2019).
  • 2.Smith RJ, Stwalley III, Robert M. 2018 ASABE Annual International Meeting. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers; 2018. A Scoping Review of Urban Agriculture: Trends, Current Issues, and Future Research. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Roudier P, et al. Projections of future floods and hydrological droughts in Europe under a +2 °C global warming. Clim. Change. 2016;135:341–355. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1570-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bhadouria R, et al. Climate Change and Agricultural Ecosystems: Current Challenges and Adaptation. Elsevier; 2019. Agriculture in the era of climate change: Consequences and effects; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dodds PN, Rathjen JP. Plant immunity: Towards an integrated view of plant–pathogen interactions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010;11:539–548. doi: 10.1038/nrg2812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shanker A, Venkateswarlu B. Abiotic Stress Response in Plants: Physiological, Biochemical and Genetic Perspectives. BoD--Books on Demand; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Seo E, Choi D. Functional studies of transcription factors involved in plant defenses in the genomics era. Brief. Funct. Genom. 2015;14:260–267. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elv011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Guilfoyle TJ. Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods. Springer; 1997. The structure of plant gene promoters; pp. 15–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Grotewold E, et al. Engineering secondary metabolism in maize cells by ectopic expression of transcription factors. Plant Cell. 1998;10:721–740. doi: 10.1105/tpc.10.5.721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kater MM, et al. Multiple AGAMOUS homologs from cucumber and petunia differ in their ability to induce reproductive organ fate. Plant Cell. 1998;10:171–182. doi: 10.1105/tpc.10.2.171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang X, et al. Dissecting cis-regulatory control of quantitative trait variation in a plant stem cell circuit. Nat. Plants. 2021;7:419–427. doi: 10.1038/s41477-021-00898-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rodríguez-Leal D, Lemmon ZH, Man J, Bartlett ME, Lippman ZB. Engineering quantitative trait variation for crop improvement by genome editing. Cell. 2017;171:470–480.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Badis G, et al. Diversity and complexity in DNA recognition by transcription factors. Science. 2009;324:1720–1723. doi: 10.1126/science.1162327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Franco-Zorrilla JM, et al. DNA-binding specificities of plant transcription factors and their potential to define target genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2014;111:2367–2372. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316278111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Liu L, White MJ, MacRae TH. Transcription factors and their genes in higher plants. Functional domains, evolution and regulation. Eur. J. Biochem. 1999;262:247–257. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.1999.00349.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chen K, Rajewsky N. The evolution of gene regulation by transcription factors and microRNAs. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007;8:93–103. doi: 10.1038/nrg1990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gangappa SN, Botto JF. The BBX family of plant transcription factors. Trends Plant Sci. 2014;19:460–470. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kumar S, Srivastava R, Koh J. Utilization of zeolites as CO2 capturing agents: Advances and future perspectives. J. CO2 Util. 2020;41:101251. doi: 10.1016/j.jcou.2020.101251. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yamasaki K, Kigawa T, Seki M, Shinozaki K, Yokoyama S. DNA-binding domains of plant-specific transcription factors: Structure, function, and evolution. Trends Plant Sci. 2013;18:267–276. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Agarwal P, Reddy MP, Chikara J. WRKY: Its structure, evolutionary relationship, DNA-binding selectivity, role in stress tolerance and development of plants. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2011;38:3883–3896. doi: 10.1007/s11033-010-0504-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yamasaki K, et al. Structures and evolutionary origins of plant-specific transcription factor DNA-binding domains. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2008;46:394–401. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2007.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Coelho CP, Huang P, Lee DY, Brutnell TP. Making roots, shoots, and seeds: IDD gene family diversification in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2018;23:66–78. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cui D, et al. The Arabidopsis IDD14, IDD15, and IDD16 cooperatively regulate lateral organ morphogenesis and gravitropism by promoting auxin biosynthesis and transport. PLoS Genet. 2013 doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Feng X, et al. Comprehensive analysis of the INDETERMINATE DOMAIN (IDD) gene family and their response to abiotic stress in Zea mays. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023;24:6185. doi: 10.3390/ijms24076185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kumar M, Le DT, Hwang S, Seo PJ, Kim HU. Role of the INDETERMINATE DOMAIN genes in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019;20:2286. doi: 10.3390/ijms20092286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.He Y, Li L, Jiang D. Understanding the regulatory mechanisms of rice tiller angle, then and now. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2016;39:640–647. doi: 10.1007/s11105-021-01279-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Seo PJ, Ryu J, Kang SK, Park CM. Modulation of sugar metabolism by an INDETERMINATE DOMAIN transcription factor contributes to photoperiodic flowering in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2011;65:418–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04432.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yoshida H, et al. DELLA protein functions as a transcriptional activator through the DNA binding of the INDETERMINATE DOMAIN family proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2014;111:7861–7866. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1321669111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Colasanti J, et al. The maize INDETERMINATE1 flowering time regulator defines a highly conserved zinc finger protein family in higher plants. BMC Genom. 2006;7:1–17. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-7-158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hirano Y, et al. Structure of the SHR-SCR heterodimer bound to the BIRD/IDD transcriptional factor JKD. Nat. Plants. 2017;3:1–10. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2017.10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tanksley SD. The genetic, developmental, and molecular bases of fruit size and shape variation in tomato. Plant Cell. 2004;16:181–189. doi: 10.1105/tpc.018119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Rick CM, Yoder JI. Classical and molecular genetics of tomato: Highlights and perspectives. Annu. Rev. Genet. 1988;22:281–300. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.22.120188.001433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yin YG, et al. Salinity induces carbohydrate accumulation and sugar-regulated starch biosynthetic genes in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. ‘Micro-Tom’) fruits in an ABA-and osmotic stress-independent manner. J. Exp. Bot. 2010;61:563–574. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erp333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mochida K, Shinozaki K. Genomics and bioinformatics resources for crop improvement. Plant Cell Physiol. 2010;51:497–523. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcq027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Carrari F, et al. Integrated analysis of metabolite and transcript levels reveals the metabolic shifts that underlie tomato fruit development and highlight regulatory aspects of metabolic network behavior. Plant Physiol. 2006;142:1380–1396. doi: 10.1104/pp.106.088534. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nielsen AL, et al. Nizp1, a novel multitype zinc finger protein that interacts with the NSD1 histone lysine methyltransferase through a unique C2HR motif. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2004;24:5184–5196. doi: 10.1128/MCB.24.12.5184-5196.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sato S, et al. The tomato genome sequence provides insights into fleshy fruit evolution. Nature. 2012;485:635–641. doi: 10.1038/nature11119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pei T, et al. Silencing of the SlZF-31 gene decreases the salt stress tolerance and drought tolerance of tomato. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2021;146:191–201. doi: 10.1007/s11240-021-02048-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Shiyab SM, et al. Growth, nutrient acquisition, and physiological responses of hydroponic grown tomato to sodium chloride salt induced stress. J. Plant Nutr. 2013;36:665–676. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2012.754037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dorais M, Papadopoulos AP, Gosselin A. Influence of electric conductivity management on greenhouse tomato yield and fruit quality. Agronomie. 2001;21:367–383. doi: 10.1051/agro:2001130. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wang HF, Takematsu N, Ambe S. Effects of soil acidity on the uptake of trace elements in soybean and tomato plants. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 2000;52:803–811. doi: 10.1016/S0969-8043(99)00153-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Han J, et al. Acidification and salinization of soils with different initial pH under greenhouse vegetable cultivation. J. Soils Sediments. 2014;14:1683–1692. doi: 10.1007/s11368-014-0922-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zhang L, et al. A zinc finger protein SlSZP1 protects SlSTOP1 from SlRAE1-mediated degradation to modulate aluminum resistance. New Phytol. 2022;236:165–181. doi: 10.1111/nph.18336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Li X, Tian Y. STOP1 and STOP1-like proteins, key transcription factors to cope with acid soil syndrome. Front. Plant Sci. 2023;14:1–13. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1200139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tareq MZ, et al. Waterlogging stress adversely affects growth and development of Tomato. Asian J. Crop Sci. 2020;2:44–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ide R, Ichiki A, Suzuki T, Jitsuyama Y. Analysis of yield reduction factors in processing tomatoes under waterlogging conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2022;295:110840. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110840. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lin HH, Lin KH, Syu JY, Tang SY, Lo HF. Physiological and proteomic analysis in two wild tomato lines under waterlogging and high temperature stress. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol. 2016;25:87–96. doi: 10.1007/s13562-015-0314-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Huang P, et al. OsIDD2, a zinc finger and INDETERMINATE DOMAIN protein, regulates secondary cell wall formation. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2018;60:130–143. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ogasawara H, Kaimi R, Colasanti J, Kozaki A. Activity of transcription factor JACKDAW is essential for SHR/SCR-dependent activation of SCARECROW and MAGPIE and is modulated by reciprocal interactions with MAGPIE, SCARECROW and SHORT ROOT. Plant Mol. Biol. 2011;77:489–499. doi: 10.1007/s11103-011-9826-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ingkasuwan P, et al. Inferring transcriptional gene regulation network of starch metabolism in Arabidopsis thaliana leaves using graphical Gaussian model. BMC Syst. Biol. 2012 doi: 10.1186/1752-0509-6-100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Farran A. Characterizing the role of the BIRD proteins in Solanum lycopersicum L. 10.25781/KAUST-7Y540 (2022).
  • 52.Le Hir R, Catherine B. The plant-specific Dof transcription factors family : New players involved in vascular system development and functioning in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2013 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Moreno JE. Molecular mechanisms involved in functional macroevolution of plant transcription factors. New Phytol. 2021;230:1345–1353. doi: 10.1111/nph.17161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Qu L, Zhu Y. Transcription factor families in Arabidopsis : Major progress and outstanding issues for future research Commentary. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2006 doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2006.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gutterson N, Reuber TL. Regulation of disease resistance pathways by AP2/ERF transcription factors. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2004;7:465–471. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2004.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Fukazawa J, et al. DELLAs function as coactivators of GAI-ASSOCIATED FACTOR1 in regulation of gibberellin homeostasis and signaling in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2014;26:2920–2938. doi: 10.1105/tpc.114.125690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Oh E, et al. Genome-wide analysis of genes targeted by PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR 3-LIKE5 during seed germination in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2009;21:403–419. doi: 10.1105/tpc.108.064691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Deng L, et al. Suppressor of rid1 (SID1) shares common targets with RID1 on florigen genes to initiate floral transition in rice. PLoS Genet. 2017;13:e1006642. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Liu Q, et al. Cooperative herbivory between two important pests of rice. Nat. Commun. 2021;12:1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27021-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zhanayeva A. Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of Wild Tomato Species during Fruit Development. doi:10.7275/9543889 (2017).
  • 61.Hu X, et al. Genome-wide identification of C2H2 zinc-finger genes and their expression patterns under heat stress in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) PeerJ. 2019;7:e7929. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Thibaud M, et al. Dissection of local and systemic transcriptional responses to phosphate starvation in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2010 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04375.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Wellmer F, Alves-Ferreira M, Dubois A, Riechmann JL, Meyerowitz EM. Genome-wide analysis of gene expression during early Arabidopsis flower development. PLoS Genet. 2006;2:1012–1024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Lu Y, et al. SLENDER RICE1 and Oryza sativa INDETERMINATE DOMAIN2 regulating OsmiR396 are involved in stem elongation1. Plant Physiol. 2020;182:2213–2227. doi: 10.1104/pp.19.01008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Huang XY, et al. A previously unknown zinc finger protein, DST, regulates drought and salt tolerance in rice via stomatal aperture control. Genes Dev. 2009;23:1805–1817. doi: 10.1101/gad.1812409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Martinez CC, Li S, Woodhouse MR, Sugimoto K, Sinha NR. Spatial transcriptional signatures define margin morphogenesis along the proximal–distal and medio-lateral axes in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) leaves. Plant Cell. 2021;33:44–65. doi: 10.1093/plcell/koaa012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Shi Y, et al. A tomato LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES transcription factor, SlLOB1, predominantly regulates cell wall and softening components of ripening. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2021;118:1–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2102486118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Li J, et al. Global transcriptome profiling analysis of ethylene-auxin interaction during tomato fruit ripening. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2017;130:28–38. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2017.03.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Thibaud MC, et al. Dissection of local and systemic transcriptional responses to phosphate starvation in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2010;64:775–789. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04375.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Lee C Transcriptional regulation of cold acclimation in Arabidopsis thaliana. (2012).
  • 71.Reinhart BJ, et al. Establishing a framework for the ad/abaxial regulatory network of Arabidopsis: Ascertaining targets of class III HOMEODOMAIN LEUCINE ZIPPER and KANADI regulation. Plant Cell. 2013;25:3228–3249. doi: 10.1105/tpc.113.111518. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Manzano C, et al. Regulation and function of a polarly localized lignin barrier in the exodermis. BioRxiv. 2022;5:e1000492. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.O’Donnell MS, Ignizio DA. Bioclimatic predictors for supporting ecological applications in the conterminous United States. US. Geol. Surv. Data Ser. 2012 doi: 10.3133/ds691. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Rodriguez M, et al. Gwas based on rna-seq snps and high-throughput phenotyping combined with climatic data highlights the reservoir of valuable genetic diversity in regional tomato landraces. Genes. 2020;11:1–25. doi: 10.3390/genes11111387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Knoch D, et al. Genetic dissection of metabolite variation in Arabidopsis seeds : Evidence for mQTL hotspots and a master regulatory locus of seed metabolism. J. Exp. Bot. 2017;68:1655–1667. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erx049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Zhu R, et al. Redox-responsive transcription factor 1 (rrft1) is involved in extracellular atp-regulated arabidopsis thaliana seedling growth. Plant Cell Physiol. 2020;61:685–698. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcaa014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Moreno-Risueno MA, et al. Transcriptional control of tissue formation throughout root development. Science. 2015;350:426–430. doi: 10.1126/science.aad1171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Brier J, Lia Dwi Jayanti. Cloning and Functional Characterization of the OBSCURAVENOSA Gene in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). vol. 21. Universidade Federal de Viçosa. (2020).
  • 79.Lu J, et al. OBV (obscure vein), a C2H2 zinc finger transcription factor, positively regulates chloroplast development and bundle sheath extension formation in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) leaf veins. Hortic. Res. 2021;8:230. doi: 10.1038/s41438-021-00659-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Moreira JDR, et al. Auxin-driven ecophysiological diversification of leaves in domesticated tomato. Plant Physiol. 2022;190:113–126. doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiac251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Song J, et al. Variation in the fruit development gene POINTED TIP regulates protuberance of tomato fruit tip. Nat. Commun. 2022;13:5940. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33648-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Wu X, Tang D, Li M, Wang K, Cheng Z. Loose plant architecture1, an INDETERMINATE DOMAIN protein involved in SHOOT GRAVITROPISM, regulates plant architecture in rice. Plant Physiol. 2013;161:317–329. doi: 10.1104/pp.112.208496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Sun Q, et al. Overexpression of loose plant architecture 1 increases planting density and resistance to sheath blight disease via activation of PIN-FORMED 1a in rice. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019;17:855–857. doi: 10.1111/pbi.13072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Priatama RA, et al. Narrow lpa1 metaxylems enhance drought tolerance and optimize water use for grain filling in dwarf rice. Front. Plant Sci. 2022;13:894545. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.894545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Zhou Z, et al. Exogenous Rosmarinic acid application enhances thermotolerance in tomatoes. Plants. 2022;11:9. doi: 10.3390/plants11091172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Lopez-Delacalle M, et al. Synchronization of proline, ascorbate and oxidative stress pathways under the combination of salinity and heat in tomato plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2021;183:104351. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2020.104351. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Gonzalo MJ, et al. Identification of tomato accessions as source of new genes for improving heat tolerance: From controlled experiments to field. BMC Plant Biol. 2021;21:1–28. doi: 10.1186/s12870-021-03104-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Mora-Macías J, et al. Malate-dependent Fe accumulation is a critical checkpoint in the root developmental response to low phosphate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2017;114:E3563–E3572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1701952114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Iuchi S, et al. Zinc finger protein STOP1 is critical for proton tolerance in Arabidopsis and coregulates a key gene in aluminum tolerance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2007;104:9900–9905. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0700117104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Sadhukhan A, et al. Sensitive to proton rhizotoxicity1 regulates salt and drought tolerance of Arabidopsis thaliana through transcriptional regulation of CIPK23. Plant Cell Physiol. 2019;60:2113–2126. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcz120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Shang L, et al. A mutation in a C2H2-type zinc finger transcription factor contributed to the transition toward self-pollination in cultivated tomato. Plant Cell. 2021;33:3293–3308. doi: 10.1093/plcell/koab201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Ye J, et al. Genome-wide association study reveals the genetic architecture of 27 agronomic traits in tomato. Plant Physiol. 2021;186:2078–2092. doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiab230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Li S, et al. The RIN-MC fusion of MADs-box transcription factors has transcriptional activity and modulates expression of many ripening genes. Plant Physiol. 2018;176:891–909. doi: 10.1104/pp.17.01449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Fujisawa M, Nakano T, Shima Y, Ito Y. A large-scale identification of direct targets of the tomato MADS box transcription factor RIPENING INHIBITOR reveals the regulation of fruit ripening. Plants. 2013 doi: 10.1105/tpc.112.108118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Panahabadi R, Ahmadikhah A, Farrokhi N. Genetic dissection of monosaccharides contents in rice whole grain using genome-wide association study. Plant Genome. 2023;16:e20292. doi: 10.1002/tpg2.20292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Mgonja EM, Mgonja EM. Molecular Analysis of Host Resistance and Pathogenicity of Rice Blast in East Africa. The Ohio State University; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Dissanayaka Mudiyanselage SD, Qu J, Tian N, Jiang J, Wang Y. Potato spindle tuber viroid RNA-templated transcription: Factors and regulation. Viruses. 2018;10:1–11. doi: 10.3390/v10090503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Więsyk A, Iwanicka-Nowicka R, Fogtman A, Zagórski-Ostoja W, Góra-Sochacka A. Time-course microarray analysis reveals differences between transcriptional changes in tomato leaves triggered by mild and severe variants of potato spindle tuber viroid. Viruses. 2018;10:257. doi: 10.3390/v10050257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Delmas F, et al. The gene expression and enzyme activity of plant 3-deoxy-D-manno-2-octulosonic acid-8-phosphate synthase are preferentially associated with cell division in a cell cycle-dependent manner. Plant Physiol. 2003;133:348–360. doi: 10.1104/pp.103.026872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Kapoor B, et al. How plants conquered land: Evolution of terrestrial adaptation. J. Evol. Biol. 2023;36:5–14. doi: 10.1111/jeb.14062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Chen J, Glémin S, Lascoux M. Genetic diversity and the efficacy of purifying selection across plant and animal species. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2017;34:1417–1428. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Zou X, Sun H. DOF transcription factors: Specific regulators of plant biological processes. Front. Plant Sci. 2023;14:1–13. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1044918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Causse M, et al. Genomic Designing for Climate-Smart Tomato. Genom. Des. Clim. Smart Veg. Crops. 2020 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-97415-6_2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Subedi U, Ozga JA, Chen G, Foroud NA, Singer SD. CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing for the improvement of oilseed crop productivity. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2020;39:195–221. doi: 10.1080/07352689.2020.1782568. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Munaweera TIK, Jayawardana NU, Rajaratnam R, Dissanayake N. Modern plant biotechnology as a strategy in addressing climate change and attaining food security. Agric. Food Secur. 2022;11:1–28. doi: 10.1186/s40066-022-00369-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Snowdon RJ, Wittkop B, Chen TW, Stahl A. Crop adaptation to climate change as a consequence of long-term breeding. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s00122-020-03729-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Huang X, et al. A previously unknown zinc finger protein, DST, regulates drought and salt tolerance in rice via stomatal aperture control. Genes Dev. 2009 doi: 10.1101/gad.1812409.mulation. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Stein EW. The transformative environmental effects large-scale indoor farming may have on air, water, and soil. Air Soil Water Res. 2021 doi: 10.1177/1178622121995819. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Sims J, Wettmarshausen V, Echols E. Campus Research and Observational Writings. (2017).
  • 110.Cerro C. Future of dwelling: Indoor plants and produce. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2022;260:493–502. doi: 10.2495/SC220401. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Altieri MA, Nicholls CI, Henao A, Lana MA. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015;35:869–890. doi: 10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Harun AN, Ahmad R, Mohamed N. Plant growth optimization using variable intensity and far red LED treatment in indoor farming. 2015 Int. Conf. Smart Sens. Appl. 2015 doi: 10.1109/ICSSA.2015.7322517. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Waters ER. Molecular adaptation and the origin of land plants. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2003;29:456–463. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2003.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Achoja FO, Okoh RN. Post-harvest properties of tomato and effect on its marketing efficiency. Türk Tarım Ve Doğa Bilim. Dergisi Turkish J. Agric. Nat. Sci. 2014;1:52–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Kasampalis D, Tsouvaltzis P, Siomos A. Tomato fruit quality in relation to growing season, harvest period, ripening stage and postharvest storage. Emirates J. Food Agric. 2021;33:130–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Aloui H, Ghazouani Z, Khwaldia K. Bioactive coatings enriched with cuticle components from tomato wastes for cherry tomatoes preservation. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2021;12:6155–6163. doi: 10.1007/s12649-021-01438-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Tognacca RS, et al. Alternative splicing in plants: Current knowledge and future directions for assessing the biological relevance of splice variants. J. Exp. Bot. 2023;74:2251–2272. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erac431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Muhammad S, Xu X, Zhou W, Wu L. Alternative splicing: An efficient regulatory approach towards plant developmental plasticity. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. RNA. 2023;14:1–26. doi: 10.1002/wrna.1758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Ganie SA, Reddy ASN. Stress-induced changes in alternative splicing landscape in rice: Functional significance of splice isoforms in stress tolerance. Biology. 2021 doi: 10.3390/biology10040309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Kim S, Kim TH. Alternative splicing for improving abiotic stress tolerance and agronomic traits in crop plants. J. Plant Biol. 2020;63:409–420. doi: 10.1007/s12374-020-09282-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Yang X, et al. ABA mediates plant development and abiotic stress via alternative splicing. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 doi: 10.3390/ijms23073796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Nimeth BA, Riegler S, Kalyna M. Alternative splicing and DNA damage response in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2020;11:1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Rosenkranz RRE, Ullrich S, Löchli K, Simm S, Fragkostefanakis S. Relevance and regulation of alternative splicing in plant heat stress response: Current understanding and future directions. Front. Plant Sci. 2022;13:1–16. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.911277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Benke K, Tomkins B. Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy. 2017 doi: 10.1080/15487733.2017.1394054. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Kwon CT, et al. Rapid customization of Solanaceae fruit crops for urban agriculture. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020;38:182–188. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0361-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Li A, Chen G, Wang Y, Liang H, Hu Z. Silencing of the MADS-box gene SLMADS83 enhances adventitious root formation in tomato plants. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2020;39:941–953. doi: 10.1007/s00344-019-10035-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Meng X, et al. SlSTE1 promotes abscisic acid-dependent salt stress-responsive pathways via improving ion homeostasis and reactive oxygen species scavenging in tomato. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2020;62:1942–1966. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Wang R, et al. Re-evaluation of transcription factor function in tomato fruit development and ripening with CRISPR/Cas9-mutagenesis. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-38170-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Zhang N, Shi J, Zhao H, Jiang J. Activation of small heat shock protein (SlHSP17.7) gene by cell wall invertase inhibitor (SlCIF1) gene involved in sugar metabolism in tomato. Gene. 2018;679:90–99. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2018.08.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Chen C, et al. TBtools: An integrative toolkit developed for interactive analyses of big biological data. Mol. Plant. 2020;13:1194–1202. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2020.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Almeida-Silva F, Van de Peer Y. Doubletrouble: Identification and Classification of Duplicated Genes. https://github.com/almeidasilvaf/doubletrouble (2022).
  • 132.Chen L, et al. Use of high resolution spatiotemporal gene expression data to uncover novel tissue-specific promoters in tomato. Agric. 2021;11:1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Guo M, et al. A single-nucleotide polymorphism in WRKY33 promoter is associated with the cold sensitivity in cultivated tomato. New Phytol. 2022;236:989–1005. doi: 10.1111/nph.18403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Zouine M, et al. TomExpress, a unified tomato RNA-Seq platform for visualization of expression data, clustering and correlation networks. Plant J. 2017;92:727–735. doi: 10.1111/tpj.13711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Figure S1. (688KB, pdf)
Supplementary Figure S2. (666.9KB, pdf)
Supplementary Figure S3. (154.8KB, pdf)
Supplementary Tables. (3MB, xlsx)

Data Availability Statement

All data related to the expression analyses are available in the GEO repository under accession number GSE248090 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE248090). Sequences related to the bioinformatics analyses are included in the Supplementary Tables.

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES