Skip to main content
PMC home page
Genes logoLink to Genes
. 2022 Aug 17;13(8):1468. doi: 10.3390/genes13081468

Interspecific and Intraspecific Hybrid Rootstocks to Improve Horticultural Traits and Soil-Borne Disease Resistance in Tomato

Mean Vanlay 1, Song Samnang 1, Hee-Jong Jung 1, Phillip Choe 2, Kwon Kyoo Kang 3,*, Ill-Sup Nou 1,*
Editor: Bin Yu
PMCID: PMC9408122  PMID: 36011379

Abstract

Tomato rootstocks are important to increase yield and control soil-borne pathogens, increasing vigor for a longer crop cycle and tolerance to biotic and abiotic stress. This study, conducted in the greenhouse of Sunchon National University during the period from 2019 to 2022, aimed to identify local soil-borne-disease resistant interspecific and intraspecific tomato hybrid rootstocks. The 71 interspecific hybrids (S. lycopersicum × S. habrochaites) showed that the germination vigor (GV) was less than Maxifort, except for several combinations. The germination rate (GP) of cross-species hybrids showed a different pattern according to the hybrid combinations, of which three combinations showed less than 30%. The horticultural traits, such as GV and GP, of the intraspecies hybrid (S. l × S. l) combination were significantly improved compared to that of Maxifort. In 71 combinations (S. l × S. h) and 25 combinations (S. l × S. l), MAS was used to evaluate the resistance of eight genes related to soil-borne pathogens, four genes related to vector-mediated pathogens, and three genes related to air-borne pathogens. The results showed that the new hybrid combination had improved resistance over the commercial-stock Maxifort. Therefore, interspecies and intraspecies hybrid techniques for breeding commercial rootstocks can be utilized as a way to improve horticultural properties and resistance to soil-borne diseases in tomato.

Keywords: tomato rootstocks, S. lycopersicum, S. habrochaites, interspecific hybrids, intraspecific hybrids, horticultural trait, gene/loci, commercial rootstock

1. Introduction

Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum, Solanaceae; 2n = 2x = 24, 25, 26) are an important vegetable crop grown worldwide from temperate to tropical and subtropical regions and are particularly valued for their nutritional qualities [1,2,3]. World production of fresh tomatoes for 2020 was about 182 million tons, planted on 4.76 million hectares in 168 countries [4]. Tomatoes are supposed to have originated in western South America and were domesticated in Central America. The tomato plant has a number of distinguishing properties, including fleshy fruit, a sympodial stalk, and compound leaves, which are not seen in other model plants (such as rice and Arabidopsis) [5]. The wild tomato Solanum habrochaites S. Knapp et D.M. Spooner (formerly Lycopersicon hirsutum Dunal) is the most resilient and has the showiest floral displays of all the wild tomato species. This species can be found on the western slopes of the Andes at heights ranging from 400 to 4000 m, from central Ecuador to central Peru [6]. Peralta et al. [7] found that the cultivated tomato is closely related to 13 wild Solanum species, all of which can be crossed with tomatoes with varying degrees of difficulty. All wild tomatoes are diploid (2n = 24), may be crossed with cultivated tomatoes and serve as a breeding source for desirable qualities such as enhanced production yield, fruit quality, disease, and abiotic stress resistance. Wild tomato species are very useful in evolutionary research [8,9]. The current effort on the tomato-genome-sequencing project has yielded significant data for tomato research [5]. This wild species could be a source of unique tomato-breeding genes [10]. Implementing techniques to maintain wild germplasm is necessary for making the best use of genetic resources in current and future breeding. Plant breeding aims to increase the probability of developing and identifying superior genotypes that will result in successful new cultivars. “In other words, they will have all of the desirable characteristics/traits that are required for usage in a manufacturing system” [11]. The breeding process necessitates: (i) the identification of variable germplasm; (ii) hybridization to combine genetic materials from various sources into a single entity; (iii) the selection of superior genotypes with a favorable combination of characteristics; and (iv) the multiplication of stable cultivars prior to the commercial release of a new cultivar. The cultivated Solanaceae parent is usually used as the female and the wild species is the pollen donor in breeding programs, and the cross’s success is determined by the percentage of fruit set, the number of seeds per fruit, and the percentage of the germination of the F1 seed [12,13,14]. In the Solanaceae, using a hybrid with at least one parent that preserves a high complement of wild-species DNA is common, and the most extensively used commercial hybrid rootstock for tomatoes are Solanum lycopersicum L. (tomato) and Solanum habrochaites S. Knapp and D.M. Spooner (wild species). The tomato was one of the first crops for which molecular markers were proposed as an indirect breeding-selection criterion [15,16,17]. Using molecular markers, the success of creating interspecific hybrids may be simply determined [18]. Crosses between cultivated tomatoes and their wild relatives result in plants with higher growth, which is regarded as vigor, and combines numerous features (e.g., disease or pest resistance, salt tolerance, cold tolerance) [19,20,21,22,23]. In recent years, a slew of new tomato rootstocks has hit the market. However, only a handful are frequently employed in practice because of their superior performance or the market availability of seeds [24,25]. Seedling emergence, uniformity of growth, and stem diameter are all affected by the quality of rootstock seed [26,27]. More than 200 diseases caused by a pathogenic fungus, bacteria, viruses, or nematodes can affect tomatoes [28]. Plant diseases are responsible for up to 26% of yield loss in worldwide agriculture, and crop failure can occur at any moment [29]. Genetic factors, maternal environment, and fruit harvest time all have an impact on seed yield and quality [30]. The consistent germination of wild species and hybrids (cultivated tomato x wild) was tested, and there was a lot of diversity [31]. Wild species and hybrids (cultivated tomato x wild) have a wide range of germination rates, ranging from 8% to 86% [31]. According to Tikoo et al. [32], S. l or interspecific hybrids (S. l × S. h) are commonly utilized as tomato rootstock in Solanaceous vegetables. The specific objectives of this study were: (1) To develop S. l and S. h lines with a high germination rate, excellent germination energy, high seed harvesting, strong plant vigor and deep roots. (2) To develop lines with multiple resistance (e.g., Verticillium wilt, Fusarium wilt, Bacteria wilt, and Fusarium crown and root rot). (3) To develop new varieties of tomato rootstocks that have multiple resistant to soil-borne disease, high germination, strong vigor and biotic and abiotic stress tolerance.

2. Materials and Methods

This research was conducted in the greenhouse at Sunchon farm practice of Sunchon National University, South Korea. The experiment was carried out for 3 years from 2019 to 2022.

2.1. Plant Materials

2.1.1. Tomato Selfing

A total of 43 different tomato cultivars were used for this study: JTS01 to JTS43 imported from Japan (Taki seed company Tokyo, Japan), JTS14, JTS15, JTS41, JTS42 and JTS43, collected from South Korea (Nongwoo Bio company, Anseong, Korea), and the wild tomato species seeds obtained were 44 different tomato accessions self-compatible from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) germplasm. All seeds were sown in 50-cell (cell volume of 39 mm × 45 mm) trays containing cocopit soil mix in the greenhouse and all plants were grown in the greenhouse at Sunchon farm practice. The pollen falls within the flower to pollinate itself by natural (wind) and using a handle vibrator.

2.1.2. Tomato Crossing and Production of F1 Hybrids

Specific crosses were conducted using 17 inbred parental lines as female parents (S. l), 5 accessions of wild species as male parents (S. h), and 2 inbred lines as male parents (S. l) The selection of these parents was based on growth traits such as high germination, vigor, many fruit sets, high seed products and diseases resistance, especially soil-borne diseases, and tolerance to abiotic stresses. All crosses were performed by hand pollination. The female plants (S. l) were emasculated before the flower opened (removing stamens, petals and sepals), typically a day before the anthesis (evening time). Pollen was collected from the male parent (S. h). A handle vibrator was used to collect pollen on the tip (volume 1.5 mL) and apply pollen to the stigma surface (morning time). All the crosses were made in the morning between 09:00 to 11:30 a.m. local time. After pollination, all flowers were tagged with labels that included names and dates. Harvesting of tomato fruit was carried out daily until the end of the season. The fruit set rate was determined as the total number of fruits divided by the total number of pollinated flowers on each plant. Seed yield was determined as the total seed obtained divided by the total fruit harvested from each plant. The F1 hybrids were transplanted on both sides of the bed (width: 1.2 m; row space: 0.8 m). The in-row distance between plants was 30 cm. Each experimental unit (EU) consisted of 2 plants. All cultural practices (fertilization, irrigation, weeding, and disease and insect control) were performed as recommended for commercial greenhouse tomato production.

2.1.3. Evaluated Traits and Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS)

The germination percentage (GP) was counted at the time germination was completed (100 seeds per line were sown in then-rolled towel papers) [33]. The germination vigor was measured by counting the number of seedlings emerging daily (7–14 days) from the day of planting the seeds in a medium till the time germination was complete (one hundred seeds were sown in 105-cell trays containing cocopit soil mix). Germination Index (GI) or Germination Vigor (GV) was computed by using the following formula: GV = n/d (n: number of seedlings emerging on the day, d: the day after sowing) [33]. The GV rating was scored for each line/hybrid combination based on a 1 to 9 scale (note, 1 = very weak, 2 = very weak to weak, 3 = weak, 4 = weak to medium, 5 = medium, 6 = medium to strong, 7 = strong, 8 = strong to very strong, 9 = very strong) following Juss and Shaw et al. [34]. Plant growth measurements, internode length (IL) F1 (from the base to the leaf 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th), total root length (TRL) (from the root collar to the end of the root by meters), root fresh mass (RFM) (after washing for 3 h with scales), were measured 60 days after transplanting (DAT). The seedling length (SL) and the plant height (PH) (from the base to the end of the stem in meters), seedling stem diameter (SSD), and plant stem diameter (PSD) (from cotyledon to 1st leaf, the leaf 9th to 10th internode from the base by digimatic caliper) were measured twice, 30 days after sowing (DAS) and 60 days after transplanting (DAT). The method of root collection was to dig from the ground by spraying water gradually because all tomato plants were planted on the ground directly. The yield was measured by the average number of seeds per fruit (ANSF) for each plant (harvesting of tomato fruit was carried out daily until the end of the season for S. h, but S. l was collected only 2 or 3 times for good fruit (big size, no blossom-end rot, no cracked fruits and disease). The methods of marker-assisted selection (MAS) were performed based on HRM curve method and judged with resistance or susceptibility instead of trait values [35]. Then, the experiment evaluated resistance with a marker such as: Fusarium wilt; I2 [36], Fusarium wilt; I3 [37], Verticillium wilt; Ve2 [38], Fusarium crown and root rot; J3 [39], Corky root rot; py1 [40], Root-Knot nematode; Mi23 [41], Bacterial wilt; Bw6 and Bw12 [42], Tomato Spotted wilt virus; TSWV or Sw5 [43], Tomato mosaic virus; ToMV or Tm2a (Unpublicized data), Tomato yellow leaf curl virus; TYLCV or Ty1 [44], Tomato yellow leaf curl virus; TYLCV or Ty2 [45], Late blight; Ph3 [46], Gray leaf spot; Sm-565 [47] and Leaf mold; Cf9 [48].

2.2. DNA Extraction

For extraction of genomic DNA, young leaves (1 g) of 172 tomato cultivars, wild species, and F1 hybrids were collected and genomic DNA was isolated by CTAB method [49]. PCR was performed in a total volume of 10 µL containing 2 µL of genomic DNA, 0.5 µL of forward and 0.5 µL of reverse primers (10 pmol), 5 µL of Prime Taq Premix and 2 µL of distilled water. The reaction condition was as follows: samples were primarily denatured at 95 °C for 5 min; followed by 30 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 60 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 30 s and final elongation at 72 °C for 5 min in a GenAmp PCR system 9700 (Applied Biosystems, Seoul, Korea). The amplicon was run on a 1.2% agarose gel. PCR conditions for Ty2 and cf9 were: initial denaturation at 95 °C for 5 min followed by denaturation at 95 °C for 30 s, annealing at 60 °C for 30 s, elongation at 72 °C for 30 min repeated for up to 30 cycles and final elongation at 72 °C for 5 min. Finally, the reaction mixture was cooled down to 4 °C and the amplicon was loaded on 1.2% agarose gel concentration.

2.3. HRM Analysis

The PCR reactions were carried out in a total volume 10 µL containing 1.5 µL of genomic DNA, 1 µL of each primer, 5 µL of HS Prime LP Premix (GENETBIO, Daejeon, Korea), 0.1 µL of forward and 0.5 µL of reverse primers (10 pmol), 0.5 µL probe (10 pmol), 0.3 µL SYTO 9 fluorescent dye and 2.6 µL of distilled water. The HRM condition for I2 and I3, Ve2, J3, py1, Mi23, Bw6 and Bw12, Sw5, Tm2a, Ty1, Ph3 and sm-565 was: an initial preincubation at 95 °C for 5 min followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 10 s, annealing at 64 °C and 56 °C (−1 °C) for 15 s under touchdown command, and 72 °C for 15 s. HRM data were recorded by four readings per 1 °C at the final step after 60 s at 95 °C, 60 s at 40 °C, and 1 s at 97 °C. HRM curve analysis was conducted using LightCycler 96 software (Roche, Mannheim, Germany) at 75% discrimination for both delta Tm and curve shape with a 0.2 positive/negative threshold level.

3. Results

3.1. Horticultural Traits and Marker Selection of S. lycopersicum

A total of 101 lines were developed from 43 cultivars. The selection was based on growth traits such as germination percentage (GP), germination vigor (GV), a high number of fruit sets, high seed products, and disease resistance, especially to soil-borne diseases. In the experiments, the hypocotyl length and epicotyl length of S. l were longer than S. h (Figure 1). Most of the study lines had indeterminate (ID) growth types in 70 lines (69.30%), with only 31 lines (30.70%) being determinate (D) (Table 1, Figure 2). The average number of seeds per fruit (ANSF) was detailed; these were more than 19.5 seeds/fruit on 64 lines (63.37%), and less than 19.5 seeds/fruit on 37 lines (36.63%) (Table 1). The maximum ANSF was recorded by JTS32-2 (75 seeds/fruit) and the minimum ANSF was recorded by JTS15-1 (2 seeds/fruit) (Table 1). The final germination percentage (GP) of the seeds, which were germinated without any pretreatment (control), ranged considerably (from 31% to 99%), depending on the cultivar. The GP was less than 50% for 6 lines (5.94%), between 50% to 85% for 39 lines (38.61%), and more than 85% for 56 lines (55.45%) (Table 1). The following germination vigor (GV) values were found: 1 = very weak were 6 lines (5.94%), 3 = weak were 10 lines (9.90%), 5 = medium were 27 lines (26.74%), 7 = strong were 29 lines (28.71%), and 9 = very strong were 29 lines (28.71%), as shown in Table 1. The seedling length (SL) and the seedling stem diameter (SSD) were measured at 30 DAS. The SL was described as: longer than 17.50 cm were 61 lines (61.40%), and shorter than 17.50 cm was 40 lines (39.60%) (Table 1). The maximum of SL was recorded by JTS21-1 (26 cm) and the minimum of SL was recorded by JTS06-4 (12 cm) (Table 1). The seedling stem diameter (SSD) was as follows: bigger than 3.99 mm were 61 lines (61.40%), and smaller than 3.99 mm were 40 lines (39.60%) at 30 DAS (Table 1). There were three types of plant stem diameter (PSD) and plant height (PH): small/short, medium, big/high at 60 DAT. The PSD was described as: smaller than 15 mm were 30 lines (29.70%), between 15 mm to 18 mm were 49 lines (48.51%), and bigger than 18 mm were 22 lines (21.79%) (Table 1). The PH was as follows: shorter than 150 cm were 37 lines (36.63%), between 150 to 180 cm were 33 lines (32.67%), and bigger than 180 cm were 31 lines (30.70%) (Table 1, Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The hypocotyl length and epicotyl length of S. l and S. h at 30 DAS. A: JTS01-3, B: JTS21-1, C: SN-14, D: SN-41.

Table 1.

List of horticultural traits and gene/loci of Solanum lycopersicum.

No Line Horticultural Traits Gene/Loci
Name Germination SL PH SSD PSD ANSF Plant Type Soil-Borne Pathogens Vector-Borne Air-Borne
(cm) (cm) (mm) (mm)
GP (%) GV 30 (DAS) 60 (DAT) 30 (DAS) 60 (DAT) ea ID/D I3 Ve2 J3 Py1 Mi23 Bw6 Bw12 Sw5 Tm2a Ty1 Ty2 Ph3 Sm-565 Cf9
(F) (F) (F) (F) (N) (B) (B) (V) (V) (V) (V) (F) (F) (F)
1 JTS01-3 57 5 14 148 4.3 14.75 22 D S S R S R R R S R S S S R S
2 JTS05-2 92 5 13 141 4.76 14.94 21 ID S R S S R S R S R S S S R R
3 JTS07-2 80 7 21 289 4.35 20.14 54 ID S S R S R R R S R S S R S S
4 JTS09-4 99 9 21 172 4.77 16.84 25 ID S R R R R R R S R S S R S S
5 JTS11-4 97 7 22 149 4.22 14.82 38 D S S R R R R R S R S S S S S
6 JTS16-3 93 5 14 137 3.98 14.92 36 D S S S S R S R S R S S S S S
7 JTS35-3 94 9 17 168 4.44 16.92 29 ID S S R S S R R S R S S S R S
8 JTS37-3 72 3 18 178 4.09 17.35 5 ID S R R R R R R S R S S S S S
9 JTS21-3 85 5 24 135 4.19 14.05 36 D R R R S R R R S R S S S R S
10 JTS25-4 74 3 22 142 4.21 13.81 44 D R S R R R R R S R S S S R S
11 JTS25-5 86 7 13 179 3.96 16.83 29 ID R S H R R S R S R S S S R S
12 JTS26-3 93 9 17 135 5.01 14.73 33 D S S R R R R R S R S S S R S
13 JTS27-2 31 3 19 139 3.98 13.98 25 D S S R R R R R S R S S S R S
14 JTS28-4 79 5 18 253 4.05 19.05 31 ID S R R R S R R S R S S S R S
15 JTS33-3 85 5 23 275 4.14 18.85 66 ID R R R R R R R S R S S S S R
16 JTS35-4 97 9 24 283 4.27 18.91 33 ID R R R R R R R S R S S S S R
17 JTS37-4 85 5 17 149 4.06 16.85 38 ID S R R R R R R S S S S S S S
18 JTS01-1 35 1 19 142 4.26 14.95 4 D R R R S R R R S R S S S R S
19 JTS01-2 48 1 17 147 4.09 14.72 11 D R R R S R H R S R S S S R S
20 JTS02-1 83 3 18 189 5.45 17.54 25 ID S R R S R R R S R S S S S S
21 JTS02-2 42 1 17 192 5.11 19.21 12 ID S R R S R R R S R S S S S S
22 JTS03-1 70 1 17 164 4.15 16.69 15 D S H R S R R R S R S S S R S
23 JTS03-2 94 5 15 134 3.98 13.57 8 D S R R S R R R S R S S S R S
24 JTS04-1 76 3 16 129 3.75 13.91 40 D H R R S R R R S R S S S R S
25 JTS04-2 57 5 20 132 4.02 13.85 35 D R R R S R R R S R S S S R S
26 JTS05-1 76 5 13 147 3.98 14.9 25 D R R H S R S R S R S S S R S
27 JTS06-1 95 7 18 148 4.27 14.98 25 D S R R S R R R S R S S S R S
28 JTS06-2 98 9 18 128 4.18 13.89 22 D S R R S H H R S R S S S R S
29 JTS06-3 95 9 18 134 4.32 13.28 15 D S R R S R S R S R S S S R S
30 JTS06-4 95 9 12 149 3.9 14.98 14 D H R R S R R R S R S S S R S
31 JTS07-1 67 5 19 154 3.95 15.02 21 ID S R R S R S R S R S S R S S
32 JTS08-1 72 5 15 152 4.31 15.64 26 ID R H R R R R R S R S S S R R
33 JTS08-2 81 5 14 168 4.15 15.89 17 ID R R R R R R R S R S S S R R
34 JTS08-3 90 5 14 158 4.35 16.01 22 ID R R R R R R R S R S S S R R
35 JTS09-1 35 1 15 168 4.71 16.05 6 ID R R R R R R R S R S S R S S
36 JTS09-2 81 3 17 175 4.52 16.85 2 ID R R R R R R R S R S S R S S
37 JTS09-3 43 1 18 198 4.76 19.58 4 ID R R R R R R R S R S S R S S
38 JTS10-1 95 5 17 230 3.97 19.02 17 ID S R R R R R R S R S S R S S
39 JTS10-2 91 7 17 192 4.11 17.85 11 ID S R R R R R R S R S S R S S
40 JTS11-1 62 3 19 178 4.15 18.92 33 D H S R R R R R S R S S S R S
41 JTS11-2 82 3 21 181 4.84 18.08 19 D R S R R R R R S R S S S R S
42 JTS11-3 65 3 20 148 4.4 14.58 13 D R S R R R R R S R S S S R S
43 JTS12-1 98 7 19 145 3.98 13.98 17 ID S R R R R R R S R S S S R S
44 JTS12-2 99 9 18 124 4.61 13.24 15 ID S R R R R R R S R S S S R S
45 JTS13-1 96 9 22 201 4.98 17.89 34 ID R R R R R R R S R S S S S S
46 JTS13-2 99 9 23 258 5.23 19.15 26 ID R R R R R R R S R S S S S S
47 JTS13-3 86 7 24 178 4.12 15.98 13 ID R R R R R R R S R S S S S S
48 JTS14-1 98 9 21 165 4.01 16.35 30 ID R H R R R R R S R S S S S S
49 JTS14-2 57 5 24 175 3.93 15.21 28 ID R R R R R R R S R S S S S S
50 JTS14-3 98 9 22 221 3.88 19.07 29 ID R R R R R R R S R S S S S S
51 JTS15-1 67 7 23 212 4.11 18.54 2 ID S R R R R R R S R S S S S S
52 JTS16-1 95 7 14 165 3.95 15.89 37 ID S S H S R R R S R S S S R S
53 JTS16-2 98 7 16 175 3.85 17.68 45 ID S R H S R R R S R S S S R S
54 JTS17-1 96 9 16 185 4.15 17.85 13 ID S R S S H R R S S S S S R S
55 JTS17-2 77 7 17 198 3.91 18.95 21 ID S R S S H R R S S S S S R S
56 JTS18-1 90 7 15 162 3.89 17.21 17 ID S S H S R R R S R S S S S S
57 JTS18-2 95 9 14 173 3.79 16.85 37 ID S R H S R R R S R S S S R S
58 JTS19-1 93 9 18 149 4.08 13.86 8 D S S H S R R R S R S S S S S
59 JTS19-2 78 7 17 142 3.97 13.55 15 D S S H S R R R S R S S S S S
60 JTS19-3 91 9 16 135 4.15 12.38 25 D S S H S R R R S R S S S S S
61 JTS20-1 95 7 20 198 3.96 18.25 64 ID S R H S R R R S H S S S S S
62 JTS20-2 89 7 17 215 3.89 18.01 12 ID S R H S R R R S H S S H S S
63 JTS21-1 68 5 26 138 3.85 13.89 18 D R R R S R R R S R S S S R S
64 JTS21-2 72 7 20 141 3.91 12.89 24 D S R R S R S R S R S S S R S
65 JTS23-1 90 9 21 148 3.52 14.25 27 ID S R R S R R R S R S S S S S
66 JTS23-2 92 9 21 169 3.8 16.08 27 ID S R R S R R R S R S S S R S
67 JTS23-3 93 7 20 179 4.01 16.23 12 ID S R R S R H R S R S S S S S
68 JTS24-1 96 9 23 181 4.45 18.25 33 ID S R R S R R R S R S S R S R
69 JTS24-2 99 9 22 175 4.11 18.01 40 ID S R R S R S H S R S S R S R
70 JTS24-3 95 7 20 182 4.09 15.89 25 ID S R R R R R R S R S S H S R
71 JTS25-1 92 7 18 168 4.02 16.65 8 ID R S H R R S R S R S S S R S
72 JTS25-2 95 7 20 181 4.26 17.98 21 ID R R H R R S R S R S S S R S
73 JTS25-3 90 7 19 192 4.82 17.55 14 ID R R R S R S R S R S S S S S
74 JTS26-1 76 5 20 187 4.2 17.35 38 ID S R R S R R R S R S S S S S
75 JTS26-2 94 7 21 205 3.83 16.98 39 ID S R R S R R R S R S S S S S
76 JTS27-1 90 5 18 181 4.08 16.85 5 ID S S S S R R H S R S S S R S
77 JTS28-1 97 9 22 178 4.72 16.91 50 ID S R R S R S R S R S S S R S
78 JTS28-2 95 9 23 189 4.34 18.25 26 ID S R R S R S R S R S S S R S
79 JTS28-3 78 7 21 208 4.31 18.21 10 ID S R R S H R R S R S S S R S
80 JTS29-1 95 9 20 191 3.87 17.02 33 ID S R S S R S R S R S S S R S
81 JTS29-2 85 7 16 195 4.05 16.52 36 ID S R S S R S R S R S S S R S
82 JTS29-3 92 9 18 125 3.91 13.45 25 D S R S S R R R S S S S S R S
83 JTS30-1 86 9 17 138 4.39 13.86 44 D S R S S R S R S S S S S R S
84 JTS30-2 95 9 18 148 4.11 14.78 27 D S R S S R H R S S S S S R S
85 JTS32-1 80 5 19 182 3.92 16.25 14 ID S S R S R R R S R S S S S S
86 JTS32-2 95 5 15 168 3.71 15.85 75 ID S R R S R R R S R S S S R S
87 JTS33-1 91 7 24 186 3.69 16.35 18 ID S S R S R R R S R S S S R S
88 JTS33-2 89 7 25 181 3.89 15.21 28 ID S R R S R R R S R S S S R S
89 JTS34-1 78 7 22 198 3.98 18.21 25 ID S S H S H R R S H S S S R R
90 JTS35-1 98 9 21 178 4.18 15.89 29 ID S R H S R R R S R S S S R S
91 JTS35-2 99 9 24 195 3.49 16.23 25 ID S R S S S S R S S S S S R S
92 JTS36-1 82 7 16 197 3.91 16.25 8 ID S S H S H H R S R S S S R S
93 JTS36-2 90 9 18 215 3.82 15.89 5 ID S S R S R R R S R S S S R S
94 JTS37-1 86 7 19 201 3.92 16.02 50 ID S R R R R R R S S S S S S S
95 JTS37-2 78 5 20 235 3.95 15.89 23 ID S R R R R R R S S S S S S S
96 JTS38-1 93 5 19 208 4.28 15.98 14 ID S R H S R S R S R S S S S S
97 JTS39-1 74 5 15 161 4.02 18.91 28 ID S R S S R S R S S S S S R S
98 JTS39-2 51 3 17 159 4.73 19.05 43 ID S R S S R S S S S S S S R S
99 JTS40-1 84 5 15 158 3.85 17.21 9 D S R H S R H R S H S S S R S
100 JTS40-2 94 5 16 162 3.97 17.05 30 D S R H S R S R S H S S S S S
101 JTS42-1 95 5 14 173 3.82 16.86 20 ID S R R S R S R S R S S S R R
Open in a new tab

I3: Fusarium wilt, Ve2: Verticillium wilt, J3: Fusarium crown and root rot, py1: Corky root rot, Mi23: Root-Knot nematode, Bw6, Bw12: Bacterial wilt, Sw5: TSWV (Tomato Spotted wilt virus), Tm2a: ToMV (Tomato mosaic virus), Ty1, Ty2: TYLCV (Tomato yellow leaf curl virus), Ph3: Late blight, Sm-565: Gray leaf spot, Cf9: Leaf mold. ID: indeterminate, D: determinate, R: resistant, S: susceptible, H: heterozygous, B: bacteria, F: fungus, V: virus, N: nematode. SL: seedling length, PH: plant height, SSD: seedling stem diameter, PSD: plant stem diameter, ANSF: average number of seed per fruit, GP: Germination percentage, GV: germination vigor (note 1 = very weak, 2 = very weak to weak, 3 = weak, 4 = weak to medium, 5 = medium, 6 = medium to strong, 7 = strong, 8 = strong to very strong, 9 = very strong) [34].

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The plant height of S. l at 60 DAT. A: JTS29-3, B JTS18-2, C: JTS20-2. Plant type of S. l. (A): determinate (D), (B,C): indeterminate (ID).

Marker-assisted selection (MAS) was used to identify quality traits and disease resistance. All generations were selected as homozygote/heterozygote based on DNA markers, especially soil-borne pathogens (Table 1).

3.2. Horticultural Traits and Marker Selection of Solanum habrochaites

A total of 42 lines were selected from 44 accessions. The selection was based on growth traits such as germination percentage (GP), germination vigor (GV), many fruit sets, and high seed products. The seedlings of S. h had purple hypocotyls above the soil level, and the length of the hypocotyl was shorter than S. l under the same condition (Figure 1). In the experiments, the S. h were indeterminate (ID). In the experiments, S. h had genes resistant to Fusarium crown and root rot (J3), tomato spotted wilt virus (Sw5/TSWV), tomato yellow leaf curl virus (Ty2/TYLCV), late blight (Ph3), gray leaf spot (Sm-565), and Fusarium wilt (I2); root-knot nematode (Mi23) and leaf mold (Cf9) were not amplified (Table 2). The germination percentage (GP) of S. h was as follows: less than 50% was recorded by SN-15 (2.38%), between 50 to 85% were 14 lines (33.33%), and more than 85% were 27 lines (64.29%), as shown in (Table 2). The germination vigor (GV) of S. h was described; 3 = weak were eight lines (19.05%), 5 = medium were 13 lines (30.95%), 7 = strong were 13 lines (30.95%), and 9 = very strong were eight lines (19.05%) (Table 2). The seedling length (SL) of S. h was measured from the base to the end of the stem at 30 DAS. The SL of S. h was as follows: longer than 10.5 cm were 21 lines (50%), and shorter than 10.5 cm were 21 lines (50%) (Table 2). The maximum SL was recorded by SN-31 (16 cm), and the minimum SL was recorded by SN-10 (7 cm) (Table 2). The seedling stem diameter (SSD) was measured between cotyledon to 1st leaf at 30 DAS. The SSD of S. h was as follows: bigger than 3.01 mm were 22 lines (52.38%), and smaller than 3.01 mm were 20 lines (47.62%) (Table 2). The maximum SSD was recorded by SN-31 (3.66 mm), and the minimum SL was recorded by SN-11 (2.23 mm) (Table 2). In the experiments, the plant height (PH) and the plant stem diameter (PSD) of S. h were non-significantly different, except SN-14 (14.85 mm) at 60 DAT (Table 2). In this research, high fruit setting and many seeds per fruit were target-specific for commercial rootstock. The average number of seeds per fruit (ANSF) of S. h was: less than 14.5 seeds/fruit for 27 lines (64.29%), and more than 14.5 seeds/fruit for 15 lines (35.71%) (Table 2). ANSF values were highest in SN-12 lines (33 seeds/fruit) and lowest in SN-14 and SN-37 lines (6 seeds/fruit) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Lists horticultural traits and Gene/Loci of Solanum habrochaites.

No Line Horticultural Traits Gene/Loci
Name Germination SL SSD PSD ANSF Soil-Borne Pathogens Vector-Borne Air-Borne
(Cm) (mm) (mm)
GP (%) GV 30 (DAS) 30 (DAS) 60 (DAT) ea I2 I3 Ve2 J3 Py1 Mi23 Bw6 Bw12 Sw5 Tm2a Ty1 Ty2 Ph3 Sm-565 Cf9
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (N) (B) (B) (V) (V) (V) (V) (F) (F) (F)
1 SN-01 75 3 10 3.46 12.85 7 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
2 SN-02 76 7 10 3.14 12.56 17 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
3 SN-03 96 7 8 2.94 12.33 20 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
4 SN-04 78 3 10 2.74 12.95 15 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
5 SN-05 98 7 9 3.24 12.76 15 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
6 SN-06 99 5 10 3.21 12.91 7 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
7 SN-07 98 5 8 2.63 12.84 20 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
8 SN-08 99 5 9 2.69 12.85 10 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
9 SN-09 90 5 11 2.96 12.87 29 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
10 SN-10 86 3 7 2.29 12.55 8 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
11 SN-11 78 3 9 2.23 12.31 11 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
12 SN-12 85 7 9 2.48 12.34 33 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
13 SN-13 97 9 12 2.91 12.86 24 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
14 SN-14 99 5 10 3.07 14.85 6 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
15 SN-15 43 3 8 2.58 12.51 10 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
16 SN-16 76 5 10 3.07 12.75 9 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
17 SN-17 58 5 10 3.11 12.88 21 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
18 SN-18 52 5 9 2.71 12.45 17 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
19 SN-19 75 3 8 3.05 12.75 30 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
20 SN-20 98 7 10 3.06 12.91 14 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
21 SN-21 90 7 10 2.97 12.89 13 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
22 SN-22 89 7 13 3.61 13.09 11 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
23 SN-23 90 9 13 3.62 13.06 12 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
24 SN-24 99 9 13 3.6 13.05 13 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
25 SN-25 98 9 14 3.13 12.86 16 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
26 SN-26 98 5 13 2.85 12.35 14 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
27 SN-27 91 7 14 2.63 12.54 11 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
28 SN-28 81 5 12 3.04 12.85 14 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
29 SN-29 78 5 14 3.32 12.99 13 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
30 SN-30 95 7 11 2.71 12.86 16 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
31 SN-31 91 7 16 3.66 12.98 13 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
32 SN-32 94 9 13 3.36 13.03 9 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
33 SN-33 81 9 15 3.62 13.02 17 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
34 SN-34 99 7 11 3.15 13.05 11 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
35 SN-35 95 9 13 3.33 13.01 13 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
36 SN-36 99 7 11 2.95 12.78 12 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
37 SN-37 95 9 10 2.78 12.8 6 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
38 SN-38 52 3 10 2.8 12.75 7 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
39 SN-39 75 3 14 3.04 12.84 16 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
40 SN-40 90 5 14 2.98 12.84 11 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
41 SN-41 91 5 13 3.33 12.89 13 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
42 SN-42 98 7 14 2.8 13.02 12 ⁃ S S R S ⁃ S S R S S R R R ⁃
Open in a new tab

I2, I3: Fusarium wilt, Ve2: Verticillium wilt, J3: Fusarium crown and root rot, py1: Corky root rot, Mi23: Root-Knot nematode, Bw6, Bw12: Bacterial wilt, Sw5: TSWV (Tomato Spotted wilt virus), Tm2a: ToMV (Tomato mosaic virus), Ty1, Ty2: TYLCV (Tomato yellow leaf curl virus), Ph3: Late blight, Sm-565: Gray leaf spot, Cf9: Leaf mold. R: resistant, S: susceptible, B: bacteria, F: fungus, V: virus, N: nematode, (⁃) or N/A: not amplified. SL: seedling length, SSD: seedling stem diameter, PSD: plant stem diameter, ASNF: average seed of number per fruit, GP: germination percentage, GV: Germination vigor (note 1 ₌ very weak, 2 ₌ very weak to weak, 3 ₌ weak, 4 ₌ weak to medium, 5 ₌ medium, 6 ₌ medium to strong, 7 ₌ strong, 8 ₌ strong to very strong, 9 ₌ very strong) [34].

3.3. Genetic Control and Horticultural Traits of F1 hybrids

A total of 96 new hybrid seed products, 71 interspecific hybrids (S. l × S. h) and 25 intraspecific hybrids (S. l × S. l) were identified (Table 3, Table 4). During crossing time, the fruit setting and seed yield of interspecific hybrids were determined by the phenotype of female parents. As a result, JTS01-3 produced high fruit setting and high seed product even though it had a small fruit size. In contrast, JTS37-3 had a larger fruit size but less fruit setting, and seed products. In the experiments, we observed that the female parent of D type was better than the female parent of ID-type in hybrid rootstock with respect to horticultural traits, such as germination percentage, germination vigor, and stem girth (Table 4). In experiments, the germination speed and seedling vigor of intraspecific hybrids were better than interspecific hybrids, respectively. The GP was also significantly affected by female-and-male-parent interaction, revealing genetic variation among hybrids for germination response. As a result, the GP of commercial rootstock (Maxifor) was only 85% (Table 4). The GP of intraspecific hybrids was detailed: there were 98% three new hybrid combinations and 100% 23 new hybrid combinations (Table 4). The GP of interspecific hybrids was: more than 85% were 38 new hybrid combinations (37.62%), and lower than 85% were 63 new hybrid combinations (62.38%) (Table 4). In experiments, GV was important for commercial breeding such as rootstock grafting. The evaluation of GV was based on a 1-9 scale. The GV of intraspecific hybrids was described: 7 = strong were five new hybrid combinations (20%), and 9 = very strong, were 20 new hybrid combinations (80%) (Table 4). The GV of F1 in interspecific hybrids was described as follows: 1 = very weak were seven new hybrid combinations (9.86%), 3 = weak were 19 new hybrid combinations (26.76%), 5 = medium were 38 new hybrid combinations (53.52%) and 7 = strong were seven new hybrid combinations (9.86%). Therefore, the Maxifort was at a 7 on the scale and most of the intraspecific hybrids were at a 9 (Table 4, Figure 3). The SSD was measured between cotyledon to 1st leaf at 30 DAS. The SSD of Maxifort was 4.25 mm (Table 4). The SSD of interspecific hybrids was as follows: smaller than (3.99 mm) were three new hybrid combinations (12%), bigger than (4.00 mm) were 22 new hybrid combinations (88%) (Table 4). The SSD of interspecific hybrids was as follows: smaller than (3.99 mm) were 53 new hybrid combinations (74.65%), and bigger than (4.00 mm) were 18 new hybrid combinations (25.35%) (Table 4). The seedling length (SL) was measured from the base to the end of the stem at 30 DAS. The SL of Maxifort was 23 cm (Table 4). The SL of intraspecific hybrids was as follows: shorter than 18.5 cm were 7 new hybrid combinations (28%), and longer than 18.5 cm were 18 new hybrid combinations (72%) (Table 4). The SL of interspecific hybrids was: shorter than 18.5 cm were 46 new hybrid combinations (64.79%), longer than 18.5 cm were 25 new hybrid combinations (35.21%) (Table 4). The PH of Maxifort was 257 cm (Table 4). All the PH of interspecific hybrids were higher than intraspecific hybrids. The PH of intraspecific hybrids was as follows: lower than 199 cm were 20 F1 new combinations (80%), and higher than 199 cm were five new hybrid combinations (20%) (Table 3). The PH of interspecific hybrids was: lower than 249 cm were 13 new hybrid combinations (18.31%), higher than 249 cm were 58 new hybrid combinations (81.69%) (Table 4). The plant stem diameter (PSD) of new hybrid combinations and Maxifort were measured twice (between cotyledon to 1st leaf and the 9th to 10th leaf at 60 DAT). The PSD between cotyledon to 1st leaf of intraspecific hybrids was smaller than 14.30 mm. Interspecific hybrids were as follows: smaller than 15 mm were 43 new hybrid combinations (60.56%), bigger than 15 mm were 28 new hybrid combinations (39.44%), and Maxifort was 15.20 mm (Table 4). The PSD between the 9th and 10th leaf of intraspecific hybrids was described as follows: smaller than 15 mm were eight new hybrid combinations (32%), between 15 to 18 mm were 18 new hybrid combinations (56%), bigger than 18 mm 3 new hybrid combinations (12%); intraspecific hybrids were as follows: smaller than 15 mm was recorded by JTS07-2 × SN-08 (1.41%), between 15 to 18 mm were 55 new hybrid combinations (77.46%), bigger than 18mm were 15 new hybrid combinations (21.13%), and Maxifort was 20.16 mm, as shown in Table 4. Internode length is an important agronomic characteristic affecting plant architecture and crop yield. The IL was measured from the base to the 3rd leaf, 5th leaf, 7th leaf, 9th leaf, and 11th leaf at 60 DAT. In the study, we selected new hybrid combinations that had a short internode length; therefore, as a result, among 71 of the interspecific hybrids, there were 19 new hybrid combinations (JTS01-3 × SN-42), (JTS05-2 × SN-42), (JTS11-4 × SN-42), (JTS28-4 × SN-42), (JTS09-4 × SN-08), (JTS21-3 × SN-08), (JTS21-3 × SN-08), (JTS28-4 × SN-08), (JTS05-2 × SN-20), (JTS16-3 × SN-20), (JTS25-4 × SN-20), (JTS27-2 × SN-20), (JTS28-4 × SN-20), (JTS01-3 × SN-33), (JTS21-3 × SN-33), (JTS25-4 × SN-33), (JTS27-2 × SN-33), (JTS28-4 × SN-33), and (JTS33-3 × SN-33). These internode lengths of 19 new hybrid combinations were similar to Maxifort and other new hybrid combinations of interspecific hybrids were longer than Maxifort (Table 4). The IL of three new intraspecific hybrid combinations (JTS01-3 × JTS33-3, JTS05-2 × JTS33-3, JTS37-3 × JTS35-4) were similar to Maxifort and other new hybrid combinations of intraspecific hybrids were longer than Maxifort (Table 4). The root system of interspecific hybrids was more than intraspecific hybrids (Figure 4). The total root length (TRL) of Maxifort was 75 cm, and the root fresh mass (RFM) was 258.56 g at 60 DAT (Table 4). As a result, all the TRL of intraspecific hybrids were shorter than Maxifort, and the RFM of intraspecific hybrids was lighter than Maxifort, except (JTS35-3 × JTS35-4) was heavier than Maxifort (Table 4). All the RFM of interspecific hybrids were heavier than Maxifort. The TRL of interspecific hybrids was described as follows: 11 new hybrid combinations (15.50%) were shorter than Maxifort and 60 new hybrid combinations (84.50%) were heavier than Maxifort (Table 4).

Table 3.

List of gene/loci of hybrid new combination; interspecific (S. l × S. h), intraspecific (S. l × S. l), and commercial rootstock (Maxifort).

No Name Soil-Borne Pathogens Vector-Borne Air-Borne
I2 I3 Ve2 J3 Py1 Mi23 Bw6 Bw12 Sw5 Tm2a Ty1 Ty2 Ph3 Sm-565 Cf9
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (N) (B) (B) (V) (V) (V) (V) (F) (F) (F)
Interspecific rootstock (S. l × S. h)
1 JTS01-3 × SN-42 S S S R S R H H H H S H H R S
2 JTS05-2 × SN-42 S S S R S R H H H H S H H R S
3 JTS07-2 × SN-42 H S S R S R H H H H S H R H S
4 JTS09-4 × SN-42 H S R R R R H H H H S H R H S
5 JTS11-4 × SN-42 S S S R R R H H H H S H H H S
6 JTS16-3 × SN-42 S S S H S R S H H H S H H H S
7 JTS21-3 × SN-42 H H R R S R H H H H S H H R S
8 JTS25-4 × SN-42 H H S R R R H H H H S H H R S
9 JTS25-5 × SN-42 H H S H R R S H H H S H H R S
10 JTS27-2 × SN-42 H S S R R R H H H H S H H R S
11 JTS28-4 × SN-42 S S R R R S H H H H S H H R S
12 JTS35-4 × SN-42 H H R R R R H H H H S H H H R
13 JTS37-4 × SN-42 H S R R R R H H H S S H H H S
14 JTS01-3 × SN-06 H S S R S R H H H H S H H R S
15 JTS05-2 × SN-06 H H R H S R S H H H S H H R S
16 JTS09-4 × SN-06 H S H R R R H H H H S H R H S
17 JTS11-4 × SN-06 S S S R R R H H H H S H H H S
18 JTS16-3 × SN-06 S S S H S R S H H H S H H H S
19 JTS35-3 × SN-06 H S S R S S H H H H S H H R S
20 JTS37-3 × SN-06 H S R R R R H H H H S H H H S
21 JTS21-3 × SN-06 H H R R S R H H H H S H H R S
22 JTS25-5 × SN-06 H H S H R R S H H H S H H R S
23 JTS26-3 × SN-06 H S S R R R H H H H S H H R S
24 JTS28-4 × SN-06 S S R R R S H H H H S H H R S
25 JTS33-3 × SN-06 H H H R R R H H H H S H H H S
26 JTS35-4 × SN-06 H H H R R R H H H H S H H H R
27 JTS01-3 × SN-08 H S S R S R H H H H S H H R S
28 JTS05-2 × SN-08 H S R H S R S H H H S H H R S
29 JTS07-2 × SN-08 H S S R S R H H H H S H R H S
30 JTS09-4 × SN-08 H S R R R R H H H H S H R H S
31 JTS11-4 × SN-08 H S S R R R H H H H S H H H S
32 JTS16-3 × SN-08 H S S H S R S H H H S H H H S
33 JTS35-3 × SN-08 S S S R S S H H H H S H H R S
34 JTS37-3 × SN-08 H S R R R R H H H H S H H H S
35 JTS21-3 × SN-08 H H R R S R H H H H S H H R S
36 JTS25-4 × SN-08 H S S R R R H H H H S H H R S
37 JTS25-5 × SN-08 H H S R R R S H H H S H H R S
38 JTS26-3 × SN-08 H S S R R R H H H H S H H R S
39 JTS27-2 × SN-08 H S S R R R H H H H S H H R S
40 JTS28-4 × SN-08 H S R R R S H H H H S H H R S
41 JTS33-3 × SN-08 H H R R R R H H H H S H H H R
42 JTS35-4 × SN-08 H H R R R R H H H H S H H H R
43 JTS01-3 × SN-20 S S S R S R H H H H S H H R S
44 JTS05-2 × SN-20 H S R H S R S H H H S H H R S
45 JTS07-2 × SN-20 H S S R S R H H H H S H R H S
46 JTS11-4 × SN-20 S S S R R R H H H H S H H H S
47 JTS16-3 × SN-20 S S S H S R S H H H S H H H S
48 JTS37-3 × SN-20 H S H R R R H H H H S H H H S
49 JTS21-3 × SN-20 H H R R S R H H H H S H H R S
50 JTS25-4 × SN-20 H S S R R R H H H H S H H R S
51 JTS25-5 × SN-20 H S S H R R S H H H S H H R S
52 JTS27-2 × SN-20 H S S R R R H H H H S H H R S
53 JTS28-4 × SN-20 S S H R R S H H H H S H H R S
54 JTS33-3 × SN-20 H H R R R R H H H H S H H H R
55 JTS35-4 × SN-20 H H H R R R H H H H S H H H R
56 JTS37-4 × SN-20 H S H R R R H H H S S H H H S
57 JTS01-3 × SN-33 S S S R S R H H H H S H H R S
58 JTS05-2 × SN-33 H S R H S R S H H H S H H R S
59 JTS07-2 × SN-33 H S S R S R H H H H S H R H S
60 JTS09-4 × SN-33 H S R R R R H H H H S H R H S
61 JTS11-4 × SN-33 H S S R R R H H H H S H H H S
62 JTS35-3 × SN-33 H S S R S S H H H H S H H R S
63 JTS37-3 × SN-33 H S R R R R H H H H S H H H S
64 JTS21-3 × SN-33 H H R R S R H H H H S H H R S
65 JTS25-4 × SN-33 H H S R R R H H H H S H H R S
66 JTS25-5 × SN-33 H S S H R R S H H H S H H R S
67 JTS26-3 × SN-33 H S S R R R H H H H S H H R S
68 JTS27-2 × SN-33 H S S R R R H H H H S H H R S
69 JTS28-4 × SN-33 S S R R R S H H H H S H H R S
70 JTS33-3 × SN-33 H H R R R R H H H H S H H H R
71 JTS37-4 × SN-33 H H R R R R H H H H S H H H R
Interspecific rootstock (S. l × S. l)
72 JTS01-3 × JTS33-3 H H S R H R R R S R S S S H H
73 JTS05-2 × JTS33-3 H H R H H R H R S R S S S H R
74 JTS07-2 × JTS33-3 H H H R H R R R S R S S S S H
75 JTS09-4 × JTS33-3 H H R R R R R R S R S S S S H
76 JTS11-4 × JTS33-3 H H H R R R R R S R S S S S H
77 JTS16-3 × JTS33-3 H H H H H R H R S R S S S S H
78 JTS35-3 × JTS33-3 H H H R H H R R S R S S S H H
79 JTS37-3 × JTS33-3 H H R R R R R R S R S S S S H
80 JTS25-5 × JTS33-3 H R H H R R H R S R S S S H H
81 JTS28-4 × JTS33-3 H H R R R H R R S R S S S H R
82 JTS37-4 × JTS33-3 H H R R R R R R S H S S S S H
83 JTS01-3 × JTS35-4 H H H R H R R R S R S S S H H
84 JTS05-2 × JTS35-4 H H R H H R H R S R S S S H R
85 JTS07-2 × JTS35-4 H H H R H R R R S R S S H S H
86 JTS09-4 × JTS35-4 H H R R R R R R S R S S H S H
87 JTS11-4 × JTS35-4 H H H R R R R R S R S S S S H
88 JTS16-3 × JTS35-4 H H H H H R H R S R S S S S H
89 JTS35-3 × JTS35-4 S H H R H H R R S R S S S H R
90 JTS37-3 × JTS35-4 H H R R R R R R S R S S S S H
91 JTS21-3 x JTS35-4 H R R R H R R R S R S S S H H
92 JTS25-4 × JTS35-4 H R H R R R R R S R S S S H H
93 JTS25-5 × JTS35-4 H R H H R R H R S R S S S H H
94 JTS27-2 × JTS35-4 H H H R R R R R S R S S S H H
95 JTS28-4 × JTS35-4 S H R R R H R R S R S S S H H
96 JTS37-4 × JTS35-4 H H R R R R R R S H S S S S H
97 Maxifort (Control) R S H R S R S S H H S H R S R
Open in a new tab

I2 and I3: Fusarium wilt, Ve2: Verticillium wilt, J3: Fusarium crown and root rot, py1; Corky root rot, Mi23: Root-Knot nematode, Bw6 and Bw12: Bacterial wilt, Sw5: TSWV (Tomato Spotted wilt virus), Tm2a: ToMV (Tomato mosaic virus), Ty1 and Ty2: TYLCV (Tomato yellow leaf curl virus), Ph3: Late blight, Sm-565: Gray leaf spot, Cf9: Leaf mold. R: resistant, S: susceptible, H: heterozygous, B: bacteria, F: fungus, V: virus, N: nematode.

Table 4.

List of horticultural traits of hybrid new combinations and commercial rootstock (Maxifort).

No Name Germination 30 (DAS) 60 (DAT)
SSD SL Plant Stem Diameter PH Internode Length from the Base to the Leaf TRL RFM
(mm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (g)
GP (%) GV Cotyledon to 1st Cotyledon to 1st 9th to 10th 3rd 5th 7th 9th 11th
Interspecific rootstock (S. l × S. h)
1 JTS01-3 × SN-42 87 7 4.97 19 14.31 17.43 295 8 14 22 35 49 93 281.61
2 JTS05-2 × SN-42 88 7 4.56 20 13.98 16.66 298 12 19 28 41 61 89 279.86
3 JTS07-2 × SN-42 87 5 3.82 21 12.99 15.77 290 17 31 50 77 106 72 267.21
4 JTS09-4 × SN-42 97 5 3.91 14 13.75 16.51 275 14 24 38 56 84 85 285.25
5 JTS11-4 × SN-42 97 5 3.51 19 13.4 15.79 280 9 14 22 38 58 82 291.05
6 JTS16-3 × SN-42 87 5 4.38 18 14.48 17.78 270 11 27 42 66 88 92 271.68
7 JTS21-3 × SN-42 97 7 5.21 23 15.04 19.9 310 15 23 38 54 79 101 358.15
8 JTS25-4 × SN-42 90 7 4.08 21 13.41 16.22 294 15 18 29 46 66 99 395.87
9 JTS25-5 × SN-42 97 5 3.86 18 13.91 15.9 290 12 19 31 49 69 74 297.25
10 JTS27-2 × SN-42 77 3 3.91 16 14.53 15.14 255 12 25 43 64 87 88 312.89
11 JTS28-4 × SN-42 37 3 4.02 15 15.56 17.62 280 9 15 25 40 63 89 385.91
12 JTS35-4 × SN-42 77 3 3.87 19 15.56 17.07 285 10 18 30 49 74 89 312.58
13 JTS37-4 × SN-42 37 3 3.68 20 12.18 15.16 290 15 27 44 68 98 73 294.25
14 JTS01-3 × SN-06 93 5 3.98 23 13.36 15.54 295 13 22 38 56 80 97 412.32
15 JTS05-2 × SN-06 99 5 3.87 15 13.47 16.75 265 13 18 28 42 65 74 275.35
16 JTS09-4 × SN-06 99 5 3.72 16 13.73 16.51 260 15 23 39 57 80 91 301.24
17 JTS11-4 × SN-06 97 5 3.94 21 13.37 16.84 305 12 20 33 50 69 84 281.21
18 JTS16-3 × SN-06 93 5 4.16 20 15.08 17.33 295 10 18 30 48 69 85 287.21
19 JTS35-3 × SN-06 97 5 3.86 22 15.11 16.62 280 14 21 34 50 71 91 312.21
20 JTS37-3 × SN-06 80 5 4.34 17 14.03 16.48 270 11 18 33 52 74 73 259.98
21 JTS21-3 × SN-06 93 5 4.51 20 14.06 15.61 316 16 25 44 68 106 85 275.21
22 JTS25-5 × SN-06 93 5 4.35 18 15.12 15.15 270 10 21 35 53 77 91 285.35
23 JTS26-3 × SN-06 99 5 3.97 17 16.4 15.74 275 8 14 23 39 59 91 298.64
24 JTS28-4 × SN-06 70 3 4.08 18 14.6 16.71 280 10 17 28 42 66 97 321.55
25 JTS33-3 × SN-06 20 1 3.91 18 13.4 15.06 265 9 20 38 61 88 101 358.78
26 JTS35-4 × SN-06 60 1 3.89 20 12.4 16.15 260 12 22 40 62 88 85 375.25
27 JTS01-3 × SN-08 90 7 4.48 23 14.82 15.68 310 23 39 58 85 104 98 453.21
28 JTS05-2 × SN-08 93 5 4.37 19 16.19 17.13 250 10 16 28 43 70 78 310.54
29 JTS07-2 × SN-08 93 5 3.86 24 13.14 14.81 295 13 22 37 58 85 81 297.33
30 JTS09-4 × SN-08 80 5 3.59 17 14.95 15.01 275 9 15 25 40 61 103 324.22
31 JTS11-4 × SN-08 73 5 3.49 18 15.71 16.96 310 10 19 35 53 73 91 310.58
32 JTS16-3 × SN-08 60 3 3.75 15 13.69 15.17 265 11 16 26 40 61 78 298.31
33 JTS35-3 × SN-08 87 5 3.76 18 14.48 15.26 270 12 21 33 49 70 102 405.21
34 JTS37-3 × SN-08 87 5 3.68 19 14.01 17.51 250 10 18 30 50 80 94 412.21
35 JTS21-3 × SN-08 83 5 3.86 18 15.1 19.9 305 10 23 37 54 80 103 395.01
36 JTS25-4 × SN-08 97 5 3.75 18 14.9 17.13 275 6 9 15 23 36 69 261.23
37 JTS25-5 × SN-08 53 3 3.59 15 15.02 17.32 275 12 19 32 49 72 98 387.36
38 JTS26-3 × SN-08 43 1 3.21 17 13.02 15.29 245 9 18 30 47 66 86 297.53
39 JTS27-2 × SN-08 97 5 3.84 18 14.3 17.35 260 12 20 32 48 65 92 381.32
40 JTS28-4 × SN-08 88 7 4.12 13 14.5 18.01 270 8 14 19 30 45 110 476.38
41 JTS33-3 × SN-08 23 1 3.51 13 13.6 16.46 270 10 17 30 45 66 91 297.52
42 JTS35-4 × SN-08 23 1 3.29 15 14.8 15.82 280 9 15 28 47 79 79 291.9
43 JTS01-3 × SN-20 77 5 3.83 20 15.01 17.76 330 13 24 41 59 82 68 308.56
44 JTS05-2 × SN-20 87 5 3.51 17 15.3 17.06 240 10 16 28 42 62 89 298.55
45 JTS07-2 × SN-20 73 5 3.2 15 14.7 18.72 335 13 35 52 80 110 95 352.15
46 JTS11-4 × SN-20 97 5 4.01 19 14.01 15.83 310 10 20 33 49 69 72 311.59
47 JTS16-3 × SN-20 90 5 3.84 18 14.45 16.79 300 8 14 24 40 59 81 359.9
48 JTS37-3 × SN-20 80 3 3.52 17 14.3 15.72 310 9 15 29 51 80 78 372.16
49 JTS21-3 × SN-20 67 3 3.87 21 16.3 20.58 325 10 20 35 52 76 70 319.48
50 JTS25-4 × SN-20 70 3 3.24 16 14.01 16.2 290 8 13 21 35 50 73 325.45
51 JTS25-5 × SN-20 50 3 3.12 14 14.5 15.91 315 10 17 29 48 70 85 293.24
52 JTS27-2 × SN-20 57 3 3.54 16 13.7 15.79 300 8 13 21 37 59 98 298.11
53 JTS28-4 × SN-20 47 3 3.21 17 15.05 17.47 285 7 12 20 36 59 81 287.56
54 JTS33-3 × SN-20 73 5 3.29 19 15.3 15.71 290 12 20 32 52 77 105 345.61
55 JTS35-4 × SN-20 40 1 3.76 17 15 15.65 300 12 24 42 65 95 81 301.25
56 JTS37-4 × SN-20 60 3 3.25 15 14.3 15.47 285 11 18 29 44 70 92 342.68
57 JTS01-3 × SN-33 80 5 3.98 20 16.12 18.66 294 11 16 24 38 55 102 475.31
58 JTS05-2 × SN-33 90 3 3.45 18 14.95 15.48 215 13 22 35 53 72 112 489.25
59 JTS07-2 × SN-33 97 5 3.91 18 15.8 18.25 280 11 16 25 39 60 95 375.56
60 JTS09-4 × SN-33 90 5 3.35 15 17.76 18.78 245 11 17 29 45 66 85 365.23
61 JTS11-4 × SN-33 99 5 3.19 18 15.11 19 260 10 16 27 42 63 102 405.85
62 JTS35-3 × SN-33 99 5 3.18 19 15.7 19.21 240 13 17 24 35 48 89 425.31
63 JTS37-3 × SN-33 93 3 3.61 18 15.1 17.39 240 12 19 31 49 73 97 431.25
64 JTS21-3 × SN-33 99 7 4.25 22 15.35 20.7 270 12 18 25 36 50 92 348.53
65 JTS25-4 × SN-33 90 5 3.46 18 14.2 17.47 235 11 16 24 36 57 71 293.18
66 JTS25-5 × SN-33 83 3 4.03 12 15.6 20.69 230 11 16 24 38 56 96 274.4
67 JTS26-3 × SN-33 67 3 3.19 14 15.5 17.84 225 13 24 42 58 79 107 397.21
68 JTS27-2 × SN-33 98 5 4.01 16 17.5 19.83 225 9 15 25 39 57 98 305.98
69 JTS28-4 × SN-33 70 3 3.95 17 17.3 20.49 245 9 16 28 45 67 87 468.49
70 JTS33-3 × SN-33 77 5 3.91 15 16.7 20 245 10 15 24 37 57 90 435.52
71 JTS37-4 × SN-33 27 1 3.01 15 14.3 17.27 240 8 20 39 63 90 83 334.21
Intraspecific rootstock (S. l × S. l)
72 JTS01-3 × JTS33-3 100 9 5.24 19 14.29 17.92 190 10 20 27 35 48 59 144.67
73 JTS05-2 × JTS33-3 100 9 4.21 18 11.6 17.14 156 12 24 31 44 51 51 125.89
74 JTS07-2 × JTS33-3 100 9 4.02 22 10 15.83 200 20 29 37 47 63 61 165.17
75 JTS09-4 × JTS33-3 100 9 4.68 20 12.5 14.37 185 18 26 37 52 68 45 134.89
76 JTS11-4 × JTS33-3 100 9 4.56 21 9.2 14.93 200 22 27 36 48 64 49 150.28
77 JTS16-3 × JTS33-3 100 9 4.58 19 10.2 17.11 165 16 23 31 42 55 67 171.95
78 JTS35-3 × JTS33-3 98 7 5.12 24 13.5 19.9 185 15 21 30 39 56 68 189.21
79 JTS37-3 × JTS33-3 100 9 4.31 21 10.6 15.15 180 14 22 30 38 51 59 189.25
80 JTS25-5 × JTS33-3 100 7 3.98 17 12 14.8 120 16 22 30 39 50 47 123.89
81 JTS28-4 × JTS33-3 100 9 4.21 20 10.4 13.8 160 17 23 32 42 60 73 215.98
82 JTS37-4 × JTS33-3 100 9 4.35 22 10.8 17.6 170 15 24 33 44 59 45 128.96
83 JTS01-3 × JTS35-4 100 9 4.57 24 8.03 11.63 185 16 23 29 39 53 59 121.98
84 JTS05-2 × JTS35-4 100 9 4.67 21 13.07 16.93 150 15 22 30 38 50 63 141.39
85 JTS07-2 × JTS35-4 100 9 4.02 19 10.06 14.07 209 16 23 32 50 66 71 213.08
86 JTS09-4 × JTS35-4 100 9 3.96 17 11.05 15.93 182 16 24 31 41 51 47 128.98
87 JTS11-4 × JTS35-4 100 7 5.31 20 11.86 17.61 196 14 24 33 43 54 68 222.52
88 JTS16-3 × JTS35-4 98 9 4.68 20 8.78 14.69 167 15 20 27 39 54 63 208.61
89 JTS35-3 × JTS35-4 100 7 4.21 19 12.03 19.8 187 18 25 32 42 54 73 268.68
90 JTS37-3 × JTS35-4 100 7 4.29 17 12.01 16.88 177 11 18 21 31 43 69 198.31
91 JTS21-3 × JTS35-4 100 9 4.01 20 11.02 16.21 214 18 27 37 49 67 75 251.91
92 JTS25-4 × JTS35-4 100 9 4.08 18 11.03 17.6 192 19 26 35 44 55 42 153.29
93 JTS25-5 × JTS35-4 100 9 5.01 19 10.05 19.51 161 16 24 33 42 53 72 142.67
94 JTS27-2 ×JTS35-4 100 9 4.81 18 11 16.92 137 16 23 34 44 58 71 198.9
95 JTS28-4 × JTS35-4 98 9 4.25 17 11.06 15.98 186 13 22 30 42 60 63 208.37
96 JTS37-4 × JTS35-4 100 9 3.91 17 8.07 12.67 203 16 25 35 50 61 49 125.28
97 Maxifort (Control) 85 7 4.25 23 15.2 20.16 257 11 17 26 39 57 75 258.56
Open in a new tab

SL: seedling length, PH: plant height, SSD: seedling stem diameter, TRL: total root length, RFM: root fresh mass, DAS: days after sowing, DAT: days after transplanting, GP: germination percentage, GV: germination vigor (note 1 = very weak, 2 = very weak to weak 3 = weak, 4 = weak to medium, 5 = medium, 6 = medium to strong, 7 = strong, 8 = strong to very strong, 9 = very strong) [34].

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

The morphology of tomato seedlings at 30 DAS, (A): interspecific hybrid (64 = JTS21-3 × SN-33), (B): intraspecific hybrid (78 = JTS35-3 × JTS33-3), (C): commercial rootstock (Maxifort).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

The morphology of tomato interspecific-hybrids (S. l × S. h) and intraspecific-hybrids (S. l × S. l) hybrid rootstocks at 60 days after transplanting, 35 = (JTS21-3 × SN-08), 49 = (JTS21-3 × SN-20), 64 = (JTS21-3 × SN-33), 66 = (JTS25-5 × SN-33), 69 = (JTS28-4 × SN-33), 72 = (JTS01-3 × JTS33-3), 78 = (JTS35-3 × JTS33-3), 87 = (JTS11-4 × JTS35-4), 89 = (JTS35-3 × JTS35-4), 93 = (JTS25-5 × JTS35-4), Maxifort (Control).

Hybrid tomato varieties have multiple disease resistances, especially to soil-borne pathogens, such as Maxifort being resistant to Fusarium wilt (I2), Verticillium wilt (Ve2), Fusarium crown and root rot (J3), Root-Knot nematode (Mi23), Tomato Spotted wilt virus (Sw5/TSWV), Tomato mosaic virus (Tm2a/ToMV), and Leaf mold (Cf9). As a result, all new hybrid combinations were more resistant than commercial rootstock Maxifort, except only one new hybrid combination (JTS35-3 × SN-08) had the same resistance as Maxifort but to different diseases (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Eight horticultural traits such as germination percentage (GP), germination vigor (GV), seedling length (SL), plant high (PH), seedling stem diameter (SSD), plant stem diameter (PSD), the average number of seeds per fruit (ANSF), plant type (PT), and marker-assisted selection (MAS) were used in our study for selection of tomato S. l (Table 1). These plant growth characteristics were an important indicator for commercial breeding. The ANSF was affected by fruit setting and fruit phenotype. In addition, tomato seed yield and quality are largely determined by the variety chosen for seed production [50]. According to Patwary et al. [51], the number of seeds per fruit varied from 26.0 to 107.70 in the winter to 4.02 to 49.39 in the summer. Tomato fruit set is best around 17–18 °C at night and 20–25.6 °C during the day [52,53]. Given that the maternal parent decides the quantity of ovules, supplies resources to the new embryo, and develops the seed coat, these findings are not surprising [54]. The germination percentages and the seed germination vigor were influenced by several factors, including the genetic constitution, mother plant environment and nutrition, harvest maturity, seed weight and size, mechanical integrity, degradation and ageing, and infections [55]. Additionally, disease resistance was selected as a single resistance and a combination of multiple resistances by molecular markers. Marker-assisted selection (MAS), which permits the selection of a single resistance gene or a combination of many resistance genes, has been widely and successfully used in tomato breeding projects, particularly for disease resistance [56,57].

Six horticultural traits, germination percentage (GP), germination vigor (GV), seedling length (SL), seedling stem diameter (SSD), plant stem diameter (PSD), average number of seeds per fruit (ANSF), and marker-assisted selection (MAS), were used in our study for the selection of tomato S. h (Table 2). In contrast, Ibrahim et al. [31], reported that seed germination rates are low, seed homogeneity is poor, and seed dormancy is high in wild species. The experiment revealed that seed germination of S. h was strong (Table 2), seed homogeneity was strong, and seed dormancy was low (data not shown). In addition, wild species are valuable sources of disease resistance and agronomic features in breeding efforts [58]. Earlier studies showed that S. h contain disease-resistance genes [59,60,61], pest resistance [62,63,64], cold tolerance, and quality traits [65,66] in some of these genes [67]. Additionally, Peralta et al. [2] found that the species is extremely vigorous, with a big spreading habit and a corolla up to 5 cm. This high vigor may be a major reason for its success in rootstock hybrids. In contrast, Huarachi Morejon et al. [68] reported that seed germination can be predicted by the genetic distance between female and male parents; however, some wide crossings can perform as well as or better than crosses with small-genetic-distance parents. The experiment revealed the seed germination percentage and germination vigor of intraspecific hybrids (S. l × S. l) were better than interspecific hybrids (S. l × S. h) (Table 4). In this study, these two lines (JTS33-3 and JTS35-4) were high GP and strong GV and the five wild lines (SN-42, SN-06, SN-08, SN-20 and SN-33) were high GP and strong GV. However, after crossing these two lines, the result showed that the seed germination of intraspecific hybrids was better than interspecific hybrids (Table 4). Horticultural traits such as plant height (PH), internode length (IL) and stem girth were used in this study at 60 DAT. Furthermore, these traits of interspecific hybrids were non-significantly compared to Maxifort, and these traits were better than intraspecific hybrids (Table 4). Plant height and stem girth are usually strong indicators of plant vitality, which can lead to higher yields. It is important to understand the relationship between plant characteristics, growth parameters, and yield. The height of the tomato plant and the diameter of the fruit have a strong positive correlation [69]. Plant height has also been found to have a substantial positive relationship with leaf metrics such as the number of leaves, leaf area, and leaf area index, as well as the number of branches [70]. The most frequent tomato rootstocks are tomato hybrids (intraspecific hybrids) and interspecific hybrids [25]. Interspecific hybrids are more vigorous and usually produce high-quality rootstocks with a large genetic diversity [71]. The stem diameter of intraspecific hybrids and interspecific hybrids was non-significantly different under the same condition (Table 4). Thus, the shortest stem diameter could be related to inadequate mineral, water, and photosynthetic transport from the earth to the plant [72]. This study indicated that quantifiable morphological differences exist between intraspecific hybrids and interspecific hybrids of root systems (Table 4 and Figure 4). In addition, Oztekin et al. [73] reported that two commercial rootstocks found variations in root density but not in average root diameter when it came to tomato rootstock root systems. Except for total root length, the root system morphology in tomato rootstocks varies by cultivar and is consistent through time. These distinctions could be used to classify cultivars for their suitability for use in certain growing situations, as well as to explain why specific rootstocks produce better growth and productivity [74]. The root system is a critical part of plant growth because it plays important functions in absorbing water and nutrients as well as a mechanical support and a storage organ as a barrier against pathogens [75,76]. S. l × S. h F1 hybrids with multiple resistance to soil-borne diseases are the most frequent commercial rootstocks. However, the genetic potential of Solanum spp. for rootstock development has yet to be completely realized.

In conclusion, tomato rootstock with multiple resistances and tolerances to biotic and abiotic stresses are required in order to justify the extra cost added in the production. At the same time, it is important to obtain high rootstock seed quality based on high germination and vigor. Screening multiple inbred lines crossed with multiple wild relatives can help to achieve these goals. The production of seeds is a complex interaction of genetics and environmental factors.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food Agriculture and Forestry (IPET) through the Technology Commercialization Support Program, supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (grant number 821010-03) and a basic science research program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) supported by the ministry education (2021R1I1A4A01057295), Republic of Korea.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, M.V., S.S. and H.-J.J.; conceptualization and writing-original draft, M.V.; methodology, P.C.; data curation and investigation, M.V. and P.C.; writing-review and editing, K.K.K. and I.-S.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Jenkins J.A. The origin of the cultivated tomato. Econ. Bot. 1948;2:379–392. doi: 10.1007/BF02859492. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Peralta I.E., Spooner D.M., Knapp S. Taxonomy of wild tomatoes and their relatives (Solanum sect. Lycopersicoides, sect. Juglandifolia, sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae) Syst. Bot. Monogr. 2008;84:186. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nicola S., Tibaldi G., Fontana E., Crops A.V., Plants A. Tomato production systems and their application to the tropics. Acta Hortic. 2009;821:27–34. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.821.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.FAOSTAT. [(accessed on 15 November 2020)]. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home.
  • 5.Kimura S., Sinha N. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum): A model fruit-bearing crop. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2008;2008:pdbemo105. doi: 10.1101/pdb.emo105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sifres A., Blanca J., Nuez F. Pattern of genetic variability of Solanum habrochaites in its natural area of distribution. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2010;58:347–360. doi: 10.1007/s10722-010-9578-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Peralta I.E., Spooner D.M. Morphological characterization and relationships of wild tomatoes (Solanum L. Section Lycopersicon) Monogr. Syst. Bot. 2005;104:227. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Spooner D.M., Peralta I.E., Knapp S. Comparison of AFLPs with other markers for phylogenetic inference in wild tomatoes [Solanum L. section Lycopersicon (Mill.) Wettst] Taxon. 2005;54:43–61. doi: 10.2307/25065301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Peralta I.E., Knapp S., Spooner D.M. New species of wild tomatoes (Solanum Section Lycopersicon: Solanaceae) from Northern Peru. Syst. Bot. 2005;30:424–434. doi: 10.1600/0363644054223657. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sacks E.J., Clair D.A.S. Variation among seven genotypes of L. esculentum and 36 accessions of L. hirsutum for interspecific crossability. Euphytica. 1998;101:185–191. doi: 10.1023/A:1018376806570. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brown J., Caligari P. An Introduction to Plant Breeding. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bletsos F.A., Roupakias D.G., Tsaktsira M.L., Scaltsoyjannes A.B., Thanassoulopoulos C.C. Interspecific hybrids between three eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) cultivars and two wild species (Solanum torvum Sw. and Solanum sisymbriifolium Lam.) Plant Breed. 1998;117:159–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.1998.tb01471.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bletsos F., Roupakias D., Tsaktsira M., Scaltsoyjannes A. Production and characterization of interspecific hybrids between three eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) cultivars and Solanum macrocarpon L. Sci. Hortic. 2004;101:11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2003.09.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Devi C.P., Munshi A.D., Behera T.K., Choudhary H., Gurung B.V., Saha P. Cross compatibility in interspecific hybridization of eggplant, Solanum melongena, with its wild relatives. Sci. Hortic. 2015;193:353–358. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.07.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rick C.M., Fobes J.F., Tanksley S.D. Evolution of mating systems in Lycopersicon hirsutum as deduced from genetic variation in electrophoretic and morphological characters. Oesterreichische Bot. Z. 1979;132:279–298. doi: 10.1007/BF00982390. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tanksley S.D., Rick C.M. Isozymic gene linkage map of the tomato: Applications in genetics and breeding. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1980;58:161–170. doi: 10.1007/BF00279708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tanksley S.D. Molecular markers in plant breeding. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 1983;1:3–8. doi: 10.1007/BF02680255. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Reddy D.L., Khandagale K.S., Victorathisayam T., Aswath C., Singh T.H. Genetic purity of interspecific hybrids of Solanum melongena and S. macrocarpon assessed using SSR markers. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2015;21:111–117. doi: 10.1080/19315260.2013.837133. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rick C.M. Tomato. In: Fehr W.R., Hadley H.H., editors. Hybridization of Crop Plants. American Society of Agronomy; Madison, WI, USA: 1980. pp. 669–680. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rick C.M. Association of an allozyme with nematode resistance. Tomato Genet. Coop. Rep. 1974;24:25. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Thomas B.R., Pratt D. Isolation of paraquat-tolerant mutants from tomato cell cultures. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1982;63:169–176. doi: 10.1007/BF00303704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rick C.M., DeVerna J.W., Chetelat R.T., Stevens M.A. Stevens Potential Contributions of Wide Crosses to Improvement of Processing Tomatoes. California University; Davis, CA, USA: 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rick C.M., Chetelat R.T. Utilization of related wild species for tomato improvement; Proceedings of the International Symposium on Solanacea for Fresh Market 412; Malaga, Spain. 28–31 March 1995; pp. 21–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kubota C., McClure M.A., Kokalis-Burelle N., Bausher M.G., Rosskopf E.N. Vegetable grafting: History, use, and current technology status in North America. HortScience. 2008;43:1664–1669. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.43.6.1664. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.King S.R., Davis A.R., Zhang X., Crosby K. Genetics, breeding and selection of rootstocks for Solanaceae and Cucurbitaceae. Sci. Hortic. 2010;127:106–111. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.08.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pet G., Garretsen F. Genetical and environmental factors influencing seed size of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and the effect of seed size on growth and development of tomato plants. Euphytica. 1983;32:711–718. doi: 10.1007/BF00042151. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nieuwhof M., Keizer L.C.P., Zijlstra S., Lindhout P. Genotypic variation for root activity in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) at different root temperatures. J. Genet. Breed. (Italy) 1999;53:271–278. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lukyanenko A.N. Disease resistance in tomato. In: Kalloo G., editor. Genetic Improvement of Tomato. Volume 14. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 1991. pp. 99–119. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Khan M.R., Altaf S., Mohiddin F.A., Khan U., Anwer A. Biological control of plant nematodes with phosphate solubilizing microorganisms. Phosphate Solubilizing Microbes Crop Improv. 2009;1:395–426. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Baskin C.C., Baskin J.M. Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and, Evolution of dormancy and germination. Am. J. Bot. 1999;86:903–905. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ibrahim M., Munira M.K., Kabir M.S., Islam A.K.M.S., Miah M.M.U. Seed germination and graft compatibility of wild Solanum as rootstock of tomato. J. Biol. Sci. 2001;1:701–703. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tikoo S.K. Successful graft culture of tomato in bacterial wilt sick soils. Curr. Sci. 1979;48:259–260. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.International Seed Testing Association International rules for seed testing. Suppl. Seed Sci. Technol. 1996;24:1–335. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Juss P., Shaw P.J. Protocol for Test on Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability. Volume 1. Community Plant Varienty Office (CPVO-TP); 2014. [(accessed on 8 August 2022)]. pp. 286–310. Available online: https://cpvo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/dianella.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Prabhu A.S., Filippi M.C., Silva G.B., Silva Lobo V.L., Morais O.P. Advances in Genetics, Genomics and Control of Rice Blast Disease. Springer; Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 2009. An unprecedented outbreak of rice blast on a newly released cultivar BRS Colosso in Brazil; pp. 257–266. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Simons G., Groenendijk J., Wijbrandi J., Reijans M., Groenen J., Diergaarde P., Van der Lee T., Bleeker M., Onstenk G., de Both M. Dissection of the Fusarium I2 gene cluster in tomato reveals six homologs and one active gene copy. Plant Cell. 1998;10:1055–1068. doi: 10.1105/tpc.10.6.1055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gonzalez-Cendales Y., Do H.T., Lim G.T., McGrath D.J., Catanzariti A.M., Jones D.A. Cleaved Amplified Polymorphic Sequences (CAPS) Markers in Plant Biology. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; New York, NY, USA: 2014. Application of CAPS markers to the mapping and marker-assisted breeding of genes for resistance Fusarium wilt; p. 91. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Acciarri N., Rotino G.L., Tamietti G., Valentino D., Voltattorni S., Sabatini E. Molecular markers for Ve1 and Ve2 Verticillium resistance genes from Italian tomato germplasm. Plant Breed. 2007;126:617–621. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2007.01398.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kim B., Kim N., Kim J.Y., Kim B.S., Jung H.-J., Hwang I., Noua I.-S., Sim S.-C., Park Y. Development of a high-resolution melting marker for selecting Fusarium crown and root rot resistance in tomato. Genome. 2016;59:173–183. doi: 10.1139/gen-2015-0115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Doganlar S., Dodson J., Gabor B., Beck-Bunn T., Crossman C., Tanksley S.D. Molecular mapping of the py-1 gene for resistance to corky root rot (Pyrenochaeta lycopersici) in tomato. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1998;97:784–788. doi: 10.1007/s001220050956. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Seah S., Williamson V.M., Garcia B.E., Mejia L., Salus M.S., Martin C.T., Maxwell D.P. Evaluation of a co-dominant SCAR marker for detection of the Mi-1 locus for resistance to root-knot nematode in tomato germplasm. Tomato Genet. Coop. Rep. 2007;57:37–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Shin I.S., Hsu J.-C., Huang S.-M., Chen J.-R., Wang J.-F., Hanson P., Schafleitner R. Construction of a single nucleotide polymorphism marker-based QTL map and validation of resistance loci to bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum species complex in tomato. Euphytica. 2020;216:1–20. doi: 10.1007/s10681-020-2576-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lee H.J., Kim B., Bae C., Kang W.-H., Kang B.-C., Yeam I., Oh C.-S. Development of a Single-nucleotide Polymorphism Marker for the Sw-5b Gene Conferring Disease Resistance to Tomato spotted wilt virus in Tomato. Korean J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2015;33:730–736. doi: 10.7235/hort.2015.15025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Caro M., Verlaan M.G., Julián O., Finkers R., Wolters A.-M.A., Hutton S.F., Scott J.W., Kormelink R., Visser R.G.F., Díez M.J., et al. Assessing the genetic variation of Ty-1 and Ty-3 alleles conferring resistance to tomato yellow leaf curl virus in a broad tomato germplasm. Mol. Breed. 2015;35:132. doi: 10.1007/s11032-015-0329-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Garcia B.E., Graham E., Jensen K.S., Hanson P., Mejía L., Maxwell D.P. Co-dominant SCAR marker for detection of the begomo virus-resistance Ty-2 locus derived from Solanum habrochaites in tomato germplasm. Tomato Genet. Coop. Rep. 2007;57:21–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zhang C., Liu L., Wang X., Vossen J., Li G., Li T., Zheng Z., Gao J., Guo Y., Visser R.G.F., et al. The Ph-3 gene from Solanum pimpinellifolium encodes CC-NBS-LRR protein conferring resistance to Phytophthora infestans. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2014;127:1353–1364. doi: 10.1007/s00122-014-2303-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Su X., Zhu G., Huang Z., Wang X., Guo Y., Li B., Du Y., Yang W., Gao J. Fine mapping and molecular marker development of the Sm gene conferring resistance to gray leaf spot (Stemphylium spp.) in tomato. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2018;132:871–882. doi: 10.1007/s00122-018-3242-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Truong H.T.H., Choi H., Cho M.C., Lee H.E., Kim J.H. Use of Cf-9 gene-based markers in marker-assisted selection to screen tomato cultivars with resistance to Cladosporium fulvum. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2011;52:204–210. doi: 10.1007/s13580-011-0164-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Murray M.G., Thompson W.F. Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1980;8:4321–4326. doi: 10.1093/nar/8.19.4321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.George R.A.T. Vegetable Seed Production. CABI; Wallingford, UK: 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Patwary M.M.A. Ph.D. Thesis. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University; Gazipur, Bangladesh: 2009. Reproductive Physiology and Heterosis in Heat Tolerant Tomato; pp. 1–190. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Went F.W. Plant growth under controlled conditions. II. Thermo periodicity in growth and fruiting of the tomato. Am. J. Bot. 1944;31:135–150. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1944.tb08011.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Leopold A.C., Scott F.I. Physiological factors in tomato fruit-set. Am. J. Bot. 1952;39:310–317. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1952.tb14278.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Roach D.A., Wulff R.D. Maternal effects in plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1987;18:209–235. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.001233. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Perry D.A. Report of the vigor test committee 1980–1983. Seed Sci. Technol. 1984;12:287–299. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Foolad M.R., Sharma A. Molecular markers as selection tools in tomato breeding; Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tomato Diseases 695; Orlando, FL, USA. 21–24 June 2004; pp. 225–240. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Arens P., Mansilla C., Deinum D., Cavellini L., Moretti A., Rolland S., van der Schoot H., Calvache D., Ponz F., Collonnier C., et al. Development and evaluation of robust molecular markers linked to disease resistance in tomato for distinctness, uniformity and stability testing. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2009;120:655–664. doi: 10.1007/s00122-009-1183-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Scott J.W., Myers J.R., Boches P.S., Nichols C.G., Angell F.F. Genetics, Genomics and Breeding of Tomato. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL, USA: 2013. Classical genetics and traditional breeding; pp. 37–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Foolad M.R., Merk H.L., Ashrafi H. Genetics, Genomics and Breeding of Late Blight and Early Blight Resistance in Tomato. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2008;27:75–107. doi: 10.1080/07352680802147353. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Momotaz A., Scott J.W., Schuster D.J. Searching for silverleaf whitefly and begomo virus resistance genes from Lycopersicon hirsutum accession LA1777; Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tomato Diseases 695; Orlando, FL, USA. 21–24 June 2004; pp. 417–422. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Vidavsky F., Czosnek H. Tomato breeding lines resistant and tolerant to tomato yellow leaf curl virus issued from Lycopersicon hirsutum. Phytopathology. 1998;88:910–914. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.1998.88.9.910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Guo Z., Weston P.A., Snyder J.C. Repellency to two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch, as related to leaf surface chemistry of Lycopersicon hirsutum accessions. J. Chem. Ecol. 1993;19:2965–2979. doi: 10.1007/BF00980596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Leite G., Picanço M., Guedes R.N., Zanuncio J. Role of plant age in the resistance of Lycopersicon hirsutum f. glabratum to the tomato leafminer Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) Sci. Hortic. 2001;89:103–113. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4238(00)00224-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Snyder J.C., Guo Z., Thacker R., Goodman J.P., Pyrek J.S. 2,3-Dihydrofarnesoic acid, a unique terpene from trichomes of Lycopersicon hirsutum, repels spider mites. J. Chem. Ecol. 1993;19:2981–2997. doi: 10.1007/BF00980597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Bernacchi D., Beck-Bunn T., Eshed Y., Lopez J., Petiard V., Uhlig J., Zamir D., Tanksley S. Advanced backcross QTL analysis in tomato. I. Identification of QTLs for traits of agronomic importance from Lycopersicon hirsutum. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1998;97:381–397. doi: 10.1007/s001220050908. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Monforte A.J., Tanksley S.D. Development of a set of near isogenic and backcross recombinant inbred lines containing most of the Lycopersicon hirsutum genome in a L. esculentum genetic background: A tool for gene mapping and gene discovery. Genome. 2000;43:803–813. doi: 10.1139/g00-043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kabelka E., Franchino B., Francis D.M. Two loci from Lycopersicon hirsutum LA407 confer resistance to strains of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis. Phytopathology. 2002;92:504–510. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.2002.92.5.504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Huarachi Morejon N. Ph.D. Thesis. The Ohio State University; Columbus, OH, USA: 2013. Genetic and Environmental Factors Affecting Improvement of Rootstocks for Tomato. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Singh A.K., Solankey S.S., Akhtar S., Kumari P., Chaurasiya J. Correlation and path coefficient analysis in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018;7:4278–4285. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wali A.S., Kabura B.H. Correlation studies in tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum L. Karst) as affected by mulching and cultivar during the heat period in the Semi-Arid Region of Nigeria. Int. Lett. Nat. Sci. 2014;10:1–7. doi: 10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILNS.15.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Djidonou D., Simonne A., Koch K.E., Brecht J.K., Zhao X. Nutritional quality of field-grown tomato fruit as affected by grafting with interspecific hybrid rootstocks. HortScience. 2016;51:1618–1624. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI11275-16. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Ives L., Brathwaite R., Barclay G., Isaac W.A., Bowen-O’Connor C., Bekele I. Graft compatibility of scotch bonnet (Capsicum chinense Jacq) with selected salt-tolerant solanaceous. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. B. 2012;2:81–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Oztekin G.B., Giuffrida F., Tuzel Y., Leonardi C. Is the vigor of grafted tomato plants related to root characteristics? J. Food Agric. Environ. 2009;7:364–368. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Suchoff D., Gunter C.C., Louws F. Comparative analysis of root system morphology in tomato rootstocks. HortTechnology. 2017;27:319–324. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH03654-17. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Petricka J.J., Winter C.M., Benfey P.N. Control of Arabidopsis root development. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2012;63:563–590. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042811-105501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Atkinson J.A., Rasmussen A., Traini R., Voß U., Sturrock C., Mooney S.J., Wells D.M., Bennett M.J. Branching out in roots: Uncovering form, function, and regulation. Plant Physiol. 2014;166:538–550. doi: 10.1104/pp.114.245423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genes are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES