JBA-06761; No of Pages 20

Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biotechnology Advances
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biotechadv

Research review paper

The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming

Véronique Bergougnoux 1
Department of Molecular Biology, Center of the Region Haná for Biotechnological Research, Palacký University, Šlechtitelů 11, 783 71 Olomouc, Czech Republic

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online xxxx Imported from the Andean region to Europe in the 16th century, today tomato is widespread throughout the
world and represents the most economically important vegetable crop worldwide. Tomato is not only traded
Keywords: in the fresh market but is also used in the processing industry in soups, as paste, concentrate, juice, and ketchup.
Tomato It is an incredible source of important nutrients such as lycopene, β-carotene and vitamin C, which all have
Domestication positive impacts on human health. Its production and consumption is increasing with population growth. In
Breeding
this review, we report how tomato was already domesticated by the ancient Incan and Aztec civilizations, and
Genetic engineering
Biopharming
how it came to Europe, where its breeding history started. The development of genetic, molecular biology and
plant biotechnology have opened the doors towards the modern genetic engineering of tomato. The different
goals of tomato genetic engineering are presented, as well as examples of successfully engineered tomatoes in
terms of resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, and fruit quality. The development of GM tomato for
biopharming is also described.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction to tomato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
1.1. Economic importance of tomato and its botanical description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
1.2. Habitat and diversity of tomato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
1.3. History of domestication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
1.4. The tomato today: a model organism for scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2. Challenges of tomato breeding and genetic bases of important traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.1. Tomato yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.2. Resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.3. Size and shape of fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.4. Ripening and color establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.5. Nutritional value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
2.6. Limits of classical breeding: the new area of genetic engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3. Genetic engineering of tomato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.1. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of tomato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.2. Selection of transgenic plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
3.3. Temporal and/or organ-specific expression: choice of promoter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4. Transgenic tomatoes with enhanced agronomic traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4.1. Resistance to biotic stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4.2. Resistance to abiotic stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4.3. Fruit quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
4.4. Biopharming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

E-mail address: veronique.bergougnoux@upol.cz.

1
Tel.: +420 585 634 740.

0734-9750/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003

Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
2 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

1. Introduction to tomato
1.1. Economic importance of tomato and its botanical description
Today, tomato is not only sold fresh but also processed as paste,
soup, juice, sauce, powder, concentrate or whole. Tomato is one of the
most consumed vegetables in the world, after potatoes and before on-
ions (FAOSTAT, http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html), and probably
the most preferred garden crop. With worldwide production reaching
almost 160 million tons in 2011, tomato is the seventh most important
crop species after maize, rice, wheat, potatoes, soybeans and cassava.
During the last 20 years, tomato production, as well as the area dedicat-
ed to its culture, has doubled (Fig. 1A). Surprisingly, whereas 20 years
ago, Europe and the Americas represented the most important pro-
ducers, today Asia dominates the tomato market with China ranking
first, followed in decreasing order by India, USA, Turkey, Egypt, Iran,
Italy, Brazil, Spain and Uzbekistan (Fig. 1B–C). Interestingly the coun-
tries harboring the highest yield are from northern Europe, where the
climatic conditions are not favorable to the culture of tomato and
where the area dedicated to tomato culture is very small (Table 1). It
is noteworthy that these countries produce most of their tomatoes
under controlled greenhouse conditions. The recent increase in tomato
production responds to the increased consumption of tomatoes during
the same period (Fig. 1A), reaching an average consumption of
20.5 kg/capita/year in 2009. The three countries where tomato is
consumed the most are Libya, Egypt and Greece, with consumption
exceeding 100 kg/capita/year. From a general point of view, it is in
the Mediterranean and Arabian countries that the consumption of
tomatoes is the highest with averages between 40 and 100 kg/capita/
year (Table 2).
From the botanical point of view, tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)
is a fruit berry, and not a vegetable. This misunderstanding was a ques-
tion of debates during the 19th century in USA, with the special case of
Nix vs. Hedden — 149 U.S. 304 (1893). In 1887, Nix contested the de-
cision of the tax collector of the port of New York to recover taxes on
tomatoes imported from the West Indies in the spring of 1886, which
the collector assessed as a vegetable. The court opined: “Botanically
speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers,
squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people,
[…] all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and
which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips,
turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at

Fig. 1. Metrics of tomato production in the world. 1A— Tomato production and the area dedicated to tomato culture worldwide for the period 1990–2011 The frame depicts the increase in
tomato consumption for the same period. 1B— Weight (in %) of the different continents in tomato production, comparison between 1990 and 2010. 1C— Production of the nine leading
producers (source: FAO Statistics; http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html).

Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1
Tomato yield in different countries and comparison with production rank and harvested area.

Country Yield (Hg/Ha) Rank of production Harvested area (Ha)

1 Netherlands 4,788,484 25 1,702

2 Belgium 4,608,333 55 474
3 Norway 4,237,742 117 31
4 United Kingdom 4,157,407 75 216
5 Ireland 4,131,563 116 32
6 Iceland 4,012,500 143 4
7 Denmark 3,550,000 113 40
8 Finland 3,523,070 93 114
9 Sweden 2,821,458 115 48
10 Austria 2,723,730 87 185
19 United States of America 848,833 3 148,730
24 Spain 765,630 9 49,913
35 Brazil 617,947 8 71,473
40 Italy 572,919 7 103,858
45 China 492,714 1 985,903
46 Uzbekistan 445,690 10 58,000
48 Turkey 408,162 4 269,584
55 Egypt 381,521 5 212,446
57 Iran 371,025 6 183,931
92 India 194,520 2 865,000

dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the description in 1940 done by Müller, who identified six tomato spe-
principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.” cies separated into two sections: subgenus eulycopersicon, including
(http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/304/case.html). Lycopersicon esculentum and L. pimpinellifolium; and the subgenus
The tomato belongs to the Solanaceae family, containing more than eriopersicon, regrouping L. peruvianum, L. cheesmaniae, L. hirsutum
3000 species including many plants of economic importance including and L. glandulosum. Rick (1960, 1979) proposed a tomato classifica-
potatoes, eggplants, petunias, tobacco, peppers (Capsicum) and Physalis. tion relying on the ability of the wild species to cross with the culti-
Solanum is the largest genus in the Solanaceae family, encompassing vated tomato. He recognized nine wild tomato species divided into
1250 to 1700 species. Species of the Solanum genus are present on all two main groups according their crossability: the Esculentum and
temperate and tropical continents and are remarkable for their morpho- Peruvianum complexes. All the species of the Esculentum complex
logical and ecological diversity. Solanum is probably the most economi- (L. esculentum, L. pimpinellifolium, L. cheesmaniae, L. pennellii, L. hirsutum,
cally important genus, containing crop species and many other species L. chmielewskii and L. parviflorum) can be hybridized with the cultivated
producing poisonous or medicinal compounds (Weese and Bohs, tomato and represent potential sources of resistance to biotic and
2007). Since its introduction in Europe in the 16th century, it was as- abiotic stresses as well as other desirable characters; the species
sumed that the tomato was closely related to the genus Solanum and from the Peruvianum complex (L. chilense and L. peruvianum) are ex-
was identified as Solanum pomiferum. In 1753, Linnaeus classified for tremely diverse and represent real potential for crop improvement.
the first time tomatoes in the genus Solanum under the specific name The use of these latter species was strongly limited due to their
of S. lycopersicum. Nevertheless, the genus and designation of tomato poor hybridization capacity with the cultivated tomato and the ne-
were for a long time a subject of debate, as reported by several authors cessity to develop special methods such as embryo rescue (Foolad,
(Foolad, 2007; Peralta and Spooner, 2007). The use of molecular data 2007). The actual description of the tomato is more complex than
allowed revision of the phylogenetic classification of the Solanaceae was thought initially and Peralta and Spooner (2001) reported the
and the genus Lycopersicon was re-introduced in the Solanum genus final organization of the Solanum sec. Lycopersicon. Their phyloge-
into the section Lycopersicon. It is interesting to note that 200 years of netic study, based on the sequence of the granule-bound starch syn-
debate were necessary to confirm the description of Linnaeus. The thase (GBSSI) gene, allowed them to ascertain the outgroup
ingroup organization of tomato has also evolved since the first organization within the Solanum subgenus Potatoe. This study support-
ed Solanum juglandifolium and Solanum ochranthum as the closest
outgroup of tomato (Fig. 2) and divided finally the tomato into three
groups: sect. Lycopersicon “subsect. Lycopersicon”, ser. Lycopersicon, ser.
Table 2 Eriopersicon and ser. Neolycopersicon. The final classification of tomato
Food supply quantity (kg/capita/year) in the 15 countries consuming the most tomatoes.
recognizes the cultivated tomato (S. lycopersicum) and its twelve wild rel-
The countries with the highest production are highlighted in pale gray.
atives, the two species S. galapense and S. cheesmaniae being endemic to
Country Food supply quantity (kg/capita/year) Rank of production the Galapagos Islands. The species S. peruvianum was divided into north-
Libya 150.3 54 ern and southern species, and a more precise analysis identified four spe-
Egypt 115.9 5 cies: S. arcanum, S. huaylasense, S. peruvianum and S. corneliomulleri
Greece 105.3 18 (Peralta et al., 2005, 2008). The different wild tomato species, according
Tunisia 94.9 101
Turkey 90.5 13
to their relationships into the Solanum genus, are summarized in
Armenia 87.3 50 Table 3.
Lebanon 75.4 45
Uzbekistan 74.4 106 1.2. Habitat and diversity of tomato
Iran 71.6 6
Italy 60.5 7
Spain 58.9 133 Wild tomato species are native to western South America along the
Cuba 58.7 33 coast and high Andes from central Ecuador, through Peru, to northern
United Arab Emirates 57.8 3 Chile, and in the Galapagos Islands. Consequently tomato wild species
Portugal 57.7 16 grow in a variety of habitats ranging from sea level on the Pacific coast
Turkmenistan 50.2 68
up to 3300 m asl. in the Andean Highlands, and from arid to rainy

Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
4 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. General phylogenetic tree based on the analysis of GBSSI gene sequences from 65 accessions of the 9 tomato species and 14 outgroup taxa. Numbers indicate bootstrap values, and
decay values are indicated between parentheses.
Extracted from Peralta and Spooner (2005).
climates (Table 3). Tomato wild species are often restricted to narrow
and isolated valleys where they adapted to particular climatic and soil
types. It is probable that the Andean geography, the diverse ecological
habitats and the different climates together contributed to wild tomato
diversity. This hypothesis is supported by a very recent study based on
the two closely related wild tomato species S. lycopersicum and S.
pimpinellifolium (Nakazato and Housworth, 2011). This diversity is
expressed through morphological, physiological and sexual characteris-
tics (Peralta and Spooner, 2005; Spooner et al., 2005).
The mating system plays a key role in species diversification and
outcrossing constitutes an important and widespread strategy for main-
taining genetic variability. Genetically controlled self-incompatibility
is a very common mechanism in the plant kingdom. In tomato, the
self-incompatibility is gametophytic and varies from allogamous self-
incompatible, to facultative allogamous, to autogamous and self-
compatible (Table 3). Self-incompatibility is strongly correlated
with the degree of outcrossing, allelic diversity, floral display and de-
gree of stigma exsertion in wild tomatoes (Peralta et al., 2008). Indeed,
an exserted stigma above the anthers will promote outcrossing by buzz
pollination, whereas a recessed stigma below the anthers will promote
self-fertilization (Chen and Tanksley, 2004). By investigating the bases
of self-compatibility/-incompatibility and flower characteristics, Rick
(1982) came to the conclusion that the mating system evolved from
self-incompatible, as the ancestral condition, to self-compatible. Chang-
es from self-incompatibility to self-compatibility are events which are
expected to happen infrequently and independently. This is the case
of S. habrochaites and S. pennellii, for which both self-compatible and
self-incompatible populations have been identified (Rick, 1982). The
self-incompatible populations have a higher degree of diversity, larger
flower parts, and exserted stigma, as opposed to self-compatible popu-
lations characterized by reduced genetic diversity, smaller flower parts
and little or no stigma exsertion. Thus, in tomato, flower stigma exser-
tion and gametophytic incompatibility contribute to greater
outcrossing and genetic diversity.
1.3. History of domestication
Despite the centuries since tomato was introduced to Europe, the
origin of its domestication is still unclear, and two hypotheses are still
being contended: the Peruvian and Mexican hypotheses. How can the
place of domestication of a crop be determined? In an attempt to
solve this question, DeCandolle (1886) used an approach combining
botany, archeology and paleontology, history and philology. Botany
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
consists of observing the natural occurrence of the crop and/or its puta-
tive relative wild species; archeology and paleontology focus on study-
ing fossils from caves, burial sites or other preserved deposits; history
looks for evidence of the crop in the early reports of people; and finally
philology or linguistic evidence is based on the comparison of native
names to prior languages.
DeCandolle expressed for the first time the Peruvian origin of tomato
domestication. His conclusions were based on the fact that: i) no unam-
biguous natural records of tomato were identified out of the Americas
after its European discovery, ii) “mala peruviana” and “pomi del Peru”
were used to refer to the tomato, suggesting its initial domestication
and transport from Peru to Europe, iii) the cultivated tomato was
thought to originate from the wild cherry tomato which was known
to be localized from coastal Peru through Mexico to the southwestern
USA (California), iv) the distribution of the cultivated tomato and its
progenitors arose from Peru by garden escapes, v) the domestication oc-
curred before the discovery of America but not very long before that
(reviewed in Peralta and Spooner, 2007). The Mexican origin of domes-
tication was proposed by Jenkins in 1948. It was mainly justified by the
fact that no evidence of pre-Colombian tomato cultivation in South
America was available, compared to good evidence in Mexico. Following
the philology, Jenkins also argued that the name “tomato” comes from
the Mexican Nahua word “tomatl” which refers to “plants bearing
globous and juicy fruit” (Bauchet and Causse, 2012). However to date,
the origin of the domestication of tomato is unsolved, even though it
has been reported that tomatoes from Europe and North America
share similar isozymes and molecular markers with those from Mexico
and Central America, suggesting that the tomato was introduced to
Europe and North America from these regions (Bauchet and Causse,
2012; Peralta and Spooner, 2007). None of the hypotheses on the origin
of tomato domestication is more conclusive than the other. It might be
that domestication occurred independently in both regions. The most
likely ancestor of cultivated tomatoes is the wild cherry tomato, usually
identified as S. lycopersicum var. cerasiforme because of its wide represen-
tation in Central America. Nevertheless the genetic investigations made
by Nesbitt and Tanksley in 2002 demonstrated that the plants known as
“cerasiforme” are a mixture of wild and cultivated tomatoes, rather
than the direct ancestor of the cultivated tomato. A very recent
study based on the analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms
not only confirms that S. lycopersicum var. cerasiforme is not the an-
cestor of the cultivated tomato but also reinforces the model that a
pre-domestication of the tomato occurred in the Andean region
(Peruvian hypothesis), with the domestication being completed in
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/

Table 3
Comparison of wild tomato species (Solanum L. section Lycopersicon subsection Lycopersicon) adapted from Peralta et al. (2005) and Spooner et al. (2005). SC: self-compatible, SI: self-incompatible, At: autogamous, Al: allogamous.

Species (Solanum name) Lycopersicon equivalent Distribution and habitat Fruit color Reproductive system Importance for breeding purposes

S. cheesmaniae L. cheesmaniae Endemic to the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador; wide variety of Yellow, orange SC, exclusively At Salt tolerance; Lepidoptera and virus resistance
habitat; sea level to 500 m Salt tolerance; Lepidoptera and virus resistance
S. galapagense L. cheesmaniae var. minor Endemic to the Galapagos Islands; mostly occurring on Yellow, orange SC, exclusively At

V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

coastal lava to within 1 m of high tide mark within range of
sea spray, but occasionally inland; sea level to 50 m
S. lycopersicum L. esculentum Known only from cultivation or escapes; world-wide Red SC, facultative Al Moisture-tolerance, resistance to wilt,
in a variety of habitats, many escaped plants have smaller root-rotting, and leaf-spotting fungi
fruits (“cerasiforme”); sea level to 4000 m
S. pimpinellifolium L. pimpinellifolium Central Ecuador to central Chile; dry coastal habitats; Red SC, At, facultative Al Color and fruit quality; resistance to insect,
0-500 m but exceptionally up to 1400 m nematode and disease
S. chilense L. chilense S Peru to N Chile; in hyper-arid rocky plains and coastal Green, purple stripes SC, Al Drought resistance
deserts; sea level to 3250 m
S. chmielewskii L. chmielewskii S Peru to N Bolivia; high dry Andean valleys; 1600-3200 m Green SC, facultative Al High sugar content
S. habrochaites L. hirsutum Central Ecuador to Central Peru, on the western slopes of the Andes; Green SI Cold and frost tolerance; resistance to insects
in a variety of forest types from premontane forest to due to their glandular hairs
dry forests; (40)-200-3300 m
S. pennellii L. pennellii N Peru to N Chile; dry rocky hillsides and sandy areas; sea Green SI Drought resistance; resistance to insects
level to 2300 m
S. neorickii L. parviflorum S Ecuador to S Peru; dry inter-Andean valleys, often found Pale green SC, At
trailing over rocky banks and roadsides; (920)-1950-2600 m
S. peruvianum S. arcanum L. peruvianum N Peru, coastal and inland Andean valleys; lomas, dry valleys Green Typically SI, Al, rare Resistance to virus, bacteria, fungi,
north var. hirsutum and dry rocky slopes; 100 to 2800 m population aphid and nematode
S. huaylasense L. peruvianum N Peru; rocky slopes of the Callejon de Huaylas along the Rio Green SC, At with a trend to reduce
Santa and in the adjacent Rio Fortaleza drainage; variability in Northern races
(940)1700-3000 m
S. peruvianum S. peruvianum L. peruvianum Central Peru to N Chile; coastal lomas formations and Green
south occasionally in coastal deserts, occasionally as a weed at field
edges in coastal river valleys; sea level to 600 m
S. corneliomuelleri L. peruvianum Central to S Peru, W slops of the Andes; landslides and rocky Green
var. glandulosum slopes; (40)200-3300 m

5
6 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Mesoamerica (Mexican hypothesis), followed by its introduction to Table 4

Europe by Spaniards and then spread all over the world (Blanca et al., Non exhaustive list of important pests and diseases of tomato with their causal agents.

2012). Bacterial diseases

The history of tomato's use (and probable consequent domestica-
Bacterial canker Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis
tion) was reported by George McCue (1952), who did a remarkable bib- Bacterial speck Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato
liographical investigation. It was probably the Spanish conquistador Bacterial spot Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria
Cortes who first introduced the small yellow tomato to Spain after the Bacterial stem rot and Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora
fruit rot
capture in 1521 of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec city known today as Mexico
Syringae leaf spot Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae
City. From Spain, the tomato reached Italy through Naples, which was
Spanish property at that time. The first description of the tomato in Fungal diseases
Europe was found in a herbarium written in 1544 by Petrus Matthiolius. Alternaria stem canker Alternaria alternata f.sp. lycopersici
Due to its botanical closeness with the mandrake, Matthiolius described Black mold rot Alternaria alternata, Stemphylium botryosum, Pleospora
the tomato thusly: “another species [of Mandrake] has been brought to tarda, Stemphylium herbarum, Pleospora herbarum,
Italy in our time, flattened like the melerose and segmented, green at Ulocladium consortiale
Black shoulder Alternaria alternata
first and when ripe of a golden color, which is eaten in the same manner
Early blight Alternaria solani
[as the eggplant – fried in oil with salt and pepper, like mushrooms]”. Fusarium crown and Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. radicis-lycopersici
Tomato was probably used for human consumption very early after its root rot
introduction to Europe as cookbooks referred to its use in gazpacho by Fusarium wilt Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici
the beginning of the 17th century. Nevertheless, due to its resemblance Gray mold Botrytis cinerea, Botryotinia fuckeliana
Late blight Phytophthora infestans
with toxic Solanum, such as mandrake and belladonna, the tomato was Leaf mold Fulvia fulva
long used only for ornamental purposes. Thus, in Italy, the fruit was Powdery mildew Oidiopsis sicula, Leveillula taurica
used solely as decoration and was incorporated into the local cuisine Pythium damping-off Pythium aphanidermatum, Pythium arrhenomanes, Pythium
only late in the 17th or early 18th century. In 1760, Blois reported that and fruit rot debaryanum, Pythium myriotylum, Pythium ultimum
Verticillium wilt Verticillium albo-atrum, Verticillium dahliae
tomato was used in France for its ornamental properties and 18 years
White mold Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Sclerotinia minor
later, he mentioned that the catalog of seeds of the “Maison grainiere
Andrieux Vilmorin”, which still exists to this day, offered seeds of toma- Nematodes, parasitic
to as a vegetable. Following a south/north axis, tomato consumption Root-knot Meloidogyne spp.
expanded to the north. In England, tomato consumption was very Sting Belonolaimus longicaudatus
common by the mid-18th century. From England, tomatoes were Stubby-root Paratrichodorus spp., Trichodorus spp.
“exported” to the Middle East/Asia by John Baker, British consul in
Viral, viroid and mycoplasmalike organisms [MLO] diseases
Aleppo. Tomatoes migrated then to North America due to English
colonization. The real domestication of the tomato as an edible veg- Common mosaic of Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV)
etable started during the 19th century. Thus, in 1820, Sabine refer- tomato
Curly top Curly top virus
enced that four red tomatoes and two yellow were cultivated in Potato virus Y Potato virus Y
Europe; he even gave advice on how to cultivate them in the specific Tomato bushy stunt Tomato bushy stunt virus
conditions of England. In America, Alexander W. Livingston promot- Tomato mosaic Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV)
ed the tomato and was the first to be able to improve the wild toma- Tomato mottle Tomato mottle gemini virus
Tomato spotted wilt Tomato spotted wilt virus
to, developing and stabilizing the plants. This contribution to tomato
Tomato yellow leaf curl Tomato yellow leaf curl virus
development in the USA was so important that in 1937 it was admit- Tomato yellow top Tomato yellow top virus
ted that the majority of the varieties resulted from the ability of Tomato bunchy top Tomato bunchy top viroid
Livington to “evaluate and perpetuate superior material in the Tomato planto macho Tomato planto macho viroid
tomato”. Aster yellows MLO
Tomato big bud MLO
The numerous cultivars available since the end of the 19th century
were produced by open pollination under the auspices of farms or
small collectives. Development of new cultivars happened by spontane-
ous mutation, natural outcrossing or recombination of pre-existing drastic physiological and morphological changes, but this artificial se-
genetic variation (Bauchet and Causse, 2012). Because tomatoes are lection reduced the genetic diversity of cultivated tomato.
mostly autogamous (Table 4), crosses between two different individ-
uals were quite rare and the plants developing from the seeds had a 1.4. The tomato today: a model organism for scientists
parental phenotype. This allowed obtaining and maintaining fixed
populations called “heirlooms” which were unique in their size, color The popularity of the tomato for scientists has increased over the
and shape. The best example of tomato breeding is probably the one years, until it has become a model organism for research programs,
of Alexander Livingston, who wanted to obtain tomato fruits smooth both for applied and theoretical purposes. This is probably due to
in shape, uniform in size and with better flavor. For this purpose, he se- 1) the possibility of growing tomato in different conditions, allowing
lected in his field tomatoes with different traits. He saved the seeds, an understanding of the adaptability of tomato to different abiotic
grew them in fields, selected repeatedly over 5 years, until he obtained stresses (cold, drought, etc.), 2) its relative short life cycle, 3) its photope-
a fleshier and larger fruit (Livingston, 1893, reprint 1998). In 1870, he riod insensitivity, i.e. the ability to flower, and subsequently produce
introduced on the market the cultivar Paragon which is still grown seeds in any condition of day length, 4) its high self-fertility and homozy-
today in the USA. With expansion of tomato's use, the 20th century gosity, characteristics leading to the breeding of heirlooms by the end of
was marked by the development of private seed industries which devel- 19th century, 5) the ease of controlled pollination and hybridization,
oped the principle of the F1 hybrid. Indeed, hybrids combine the 6) the simplicity of its genetics with a relatively small genome (estimated
agronomical traits of the two parents, but because these characters seg- to be approximately 900 Mb for the inbred tomato cultivar “Heinz 1706”,
regate in the progeny, farmers are not able to maintain these hybrids by which was used for the recent sequencing of the tomato genome; The
seed collecting and further field exploitation, forcing them to buy new Tomato Genome Consortium, 2012) and lack of gene duplication, and
seeds each growing season (Bai and Lindhout, 2007). From an evolu- 7) its ability to be propagated asexually by grafting, or to regenerate
tionary point of view, domestication and breeding programs induced whole plants from different parts of the plant.

Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Other plants are already model organisms for scientists, such as
Arabidopsis, maize, rice, or poplar. But first, the tomato is phylogeneti-
cally distant from these plants, and second, it possesses specific mor-
phological traits which are not shared with other model plants. For
example, it has an indeterminate growth habit due to reiterative
switches from vegetative to reproductive phases. A large set of mutants,
spontaneous or induced by chemicals or irradiation, is available, and
represents an important pool of resources for breeders as well as for sci-
entists to isolate and understand the function of genes which regulate
development and growth of tomato (Lozano et al., 2009).
2. Challenges of tomato breeding and genetic bases of important
traits
Domestication is characterized by the modification of a wide range
of morphological and physiological traits of the crop compared to its
wild ancestor. This process is called the “domestication syndrome”
(Hammer 1984 in Doebley et al, 2006). The domestication syndrome
varies from crop to crop but generally focuses on growth habit which
becomes more compact, increased earliness of the crop, reduction/loss
of seed dispersal and dormancy, gigantism and increased morphological
diversity in the consumed part of the crop. In tomato, the breeding ob-
jectives are to produce and distribute new tomato cultivars with im-
proved agronomical traits, depending on which market the cultivar is
dedicated to: the fresh or the processed market. Processing tomatoes
are mainly cultivated in fields, whereas fresh tomatoes are grown either
in fields or in greenhouses with or without temperature control. Breed-
ing objectives have evolved over time with the cultivars released and
modifications of growing systems. Despite the fact that three main ob-
jectives are recurrent (adaptability to the environment, resistance to
pests and diseases and fruit yield and quality), the breeding history
has passed through four phases: breeding for yield in the 1970, for
shelf-life in the 1980, for taste in the 1990 and since then for nutritional
value (Bai and Lindhout, 2007; Bauchet and Causse, 2012; Causse et al.,
2007; Foolad, 2007). The molecular basis of the domestication syn-
drome has been studied for growth habit (self-pruning, plant height
and earliness) and fruit traits (set, size, shape, color, morphology).
This has led to the identification of qualitative genes and quantitative
trait loci (QTLs).
2.1. Tomato yields
Despite its potentially improved agronomical traits, a cultivar which
does not have higher or at least equal yield than the already available
cultivars will not be considered in breeding programs. Yield takes into
account both fruit number and fruit weight. Over time, the improve-
ment of cultural practices (notably the use of fertilizers) has contributed
to the same extent as tomato breeding to increase yield. It is obvious
that tomato yield is not an isolated trait, as it is strongly correlated
with factors influencing the overall growth of the plant. Temperature
is one of these factors influencing plant growth and indirectly yield. By
breeding tomatoes for resistance to high temperatures, Scott was able
to increase yield under hot and humid condition (Scott et al., 1997).
2.2. Resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses
One of the most prominent issues in tomato breeding is resistance to
biotic stresses represented by destructive pests and diseases which can
cause significant economic losses (Bai and Lindhout, 2007). Tomato is
the target of more than 200 pests and diseases. A non-exhaustive list
is given in Table 4. These pests and diseases are controlled via chemical
treatments, which produce several negative effects: development of re-
sistance to the chemicals and the subsequent necessity to develop new
chemicals, and harm to the environment, the farmer and the consumer.
Moreover, their use increases the costs of crop production and is sub-
jected to chemical-use laws. In order to limit the use of chemicals in
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
7
agricultural practices, breeders turned to the wild species. Indeed the
first introgression of interesting agronomical traits from wild species
to the cultivated tomato was reported by Walter (1967). He reported
the development of a cultivated tomato resistant to Cladosporium fulvum,
a fungus responsible for leaf mold, by crosses with S. pimpinellifolium.
2.3. Size and shape of fruit
In order to understand the modification of tomato fruit that occurred
during domestication, it is necessary to review what a tomato fruit is.
The fleshy-fruit corresponds to the ovary of the plant, and is composed
of an epidermis, a thick pericarp and the placental tissues surrounding
the seeds (Fig. 3A). The pericarp is the outer wall of the gynoecium,
which is composed of at least two carpels, determining the number of
locules of the fruit. There are essentially four stages in the development
of the fruit: 1) 2- to 3-weeks of flower development, 2) a period of
intensive mitotic division activity which is initiated by fertilization and
lasts for approximately 2 weeks, 3) a period of cell expansion (up to
20-fold), characterized by intense endoreduplication and the estab-
lishment of highly polyploid cells, and 4) a ripening or maturation
phase which arises after growth stops and is characterized by chemical,
biochemical and structural changes (Fig. 3B; Tanksley, 2004).
The most prominent changes observed during domestication and
breeding of tomato are the intrinsic qualities of the fruit such as size,
shape, color, fruit firmness and shelf-life. If one considers wild tomato
species, the fruits are very small, intended to propagate the species
and not to feed humans. But the modern cultivated tomatoes offer a
large variation in fruit size, ranging from the cherry tomato (less than
20 g) to the beef tomato (up to 500 g). The potential size of the fruit de-
pends on the cell number which is established at the pre-anthesis stage
but the final fruit size depends on the rate and duration of cell enlarge-
ment. Endoreduplication plays a major role in the cell enlargement ob-
served during fruit development (Chevalier et al., 2011). Six QTLs seem
to be responsible for the enlargement of the fruit during domestication.
One of them is fruit weight 2.2 which can increase the size of the fruit by
30%. Its further description indicated that it encodes a negative repres-
sor of cell division, and large fruits are characterized by a higher mitotic
activity during the cell division phase of fruit development (Cong et al.,
2002). Two loci, fasciated and locule-number, are responsible for fruit
size changes via the modification of the number of carpels in the flower.
The fasciated locus has a stronger effect on fruit morphology than the
locule-number locus. Plants bearing the fasciated mutation can develop
more than 15 locules. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that plants develop-
ing fruits whose weight exceeds 500 g are the result of the cumulative
effect of both mutations (Lippman and Tanksley, 2001). The attempt to
identify the gene responsible for this phenotype revealed that the fasciat-
ed gene regulates floral meristem size and is expressed very early during
floral organogenesis. Nevertheless, none of the tomato homologs of
Arabidopsis genes known to regulate this process were identified as re-
sponsible for the fasciated phenotype in tomato (Barrero et al., 2006).
Large choices of fruit shape are also available: round, oblate, pear-,
torpedo- or bell-shaped. Today it is considered that fewer than ten
QTLs are responsible for the majority of the size and shape modifications
associated with the history of cultivated tomato (Tanksley, 2004). Only
few of them are described here. At the beginning of the 20th century,
segregation of a locus conditioning the pear-shape of tomato fruit was
described in the same time as oblate- to oval-shape fruits; 75 more
years were necessary before researchers demonstrated that these two
phenotypes are mediated through the same gene, ovate (Ku et al.,
1999). This gene is expressed during early flower development and
the two first weeks following anthesis. Ovate results in a more or less
pronounced asymmetric elongation, giving rise to a more or less pro-
nounced pear shape. Interestingly, the mutation leads to different mor-
phology depending on the genetic background in which it is expressed,
suggesting that ovate interacts with an unknown locus (Tanksley, 2004;
Van der Knaap and Tanksley, 2001). The ovate gene encodes a nuclear
8 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 3. Schematic representation of development of the flower into a fruit after pollination/fertilization (A) and of the physiological processes occurring during fruit development (B, from
Tanksley, 2004).
protein (Liu et al., 2002). Two other loci are important in the control of
fruit shape: sun and fs8.1. The locus fs8.1 is responsible for the “square”
tomato which is the result of adaptation of the tomato for mechanical
harvest (Grandillo et al., 1996). Like ovate, fs8.1 is expressed during
ovary development. As with the ovate locus, the sun mutation induces
an increase in the length of fruit; but in the case of the sun mutant, the
elongation occurs in both longitudinal directions, conferring a bilateral
symmetry (Van der Knaap and Tanksley, 2001). Moreover, whereas
ovate is expressed early during flower development, sun is expressed
only during the phase of cell division. All together demonstrate that,
although the two mutations confer similar phenotypes, they surely
have different genetic base (Tanksley, 2004).
2.4. Ripening and color establishment
Ripening, or fruit maturation, is the physiological process giving rise
to red, fully developed mature fruit. During ripening, important bio-
chemical reactions occur. Some are beneficial to the fruit, such as acqui-
sition of color, accumulation of sugars and volatile compounds. Others
are detrimental to long storage, such as loosening of the cell wall,
which leads to loss of fruit firmness and reduction of shelf-life. In
the climacteric fruit of tomato, the onset of ripening is preceded by
the increase of respiration and the biosynthesis of ethylene (Lelievre
et al., 1997). Ethylene results from the methionine metabolism
(Yang, 1985). The S-adenosylmethionine is converted via ACC synthase
(ACS) to 1-amino-cyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC), which is sub-
sequently converted to ethylene via ACC oxidase (ACO). In addition to
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
ACC, ACS produces methylthioadenosine, which is used to synthesize
new methionine via a modified cycle, called Yang cycle (Fig. 4). This
alternative methionine pathway ensures that high rates of ethylene
can be maintained even when the pool of methionine is limited
(Alexander and Grierson, 2002; Bapat et al., 2010). Ethylene can be
produced by two distinct systems. The system 1 is responsible for
the low production of ethylene in all tissues, is autoinhibited by ethylene
and functions during normal vegetative development. The system 2,
characterized as autocatalytic, is responsible for an auto-stimulated mas-
sive ethylene production, requires the induction of new ACS and ACO
isoforms, and is specific of climacteric fruits and petal senescence
(Bapat et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2009). The control of ripening can be done
at several points: ethylene synthesis, ethylene perception, ethylene sig-
naling pathway. Several tomato germplasms with altered ripening were
identified and a non-exhaustive list can be found in Moore et al. (2002).
Among them, one can cite: ripening-inhibitor (rin), never-ripe (Nr),
non-ripening (nor), high-pigment 2 (hp-2) or colorless non-ripening
(Cnr). The Nr mutant is an ethylene receptor mutant which results in
non-ripening, ethylene insensitive fruit (Wilkinson et al., 1995). The
analysis of the tomato germplasms revealed that climacteric ripening
represents a combination of ethylene mediated and non-ethylene me-
diated regulation. Indeed the initial evidence of non-ethylene mediated
regulation came from the analysis of the two mutants, rin and nor, that
do not produce autocatalytic ethylene, do not ripen, and more impor-
tantly do not ripen in response to exogenous ethylene. The molecular
characterization identified rin as encoding a transcription factor belong-
ing the MADS-box family whereas nor encodes a transcription factor of
 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 9

Fig. 4. Ethylene biosynthetic pathway and ripening regulated processes. 1: adomet synthetase, 2: kinase, 3: aminotransferase, 4: ACC synthase (ACS), 5: ACC oxydase (ACO).

the NAC domain family (Martel et al., 2011; Vrebalov et al., 2002). If ripens slowly and has an extended shelf-life. Interestingly, the rin muta-
these mutations are homozygous, the process of ripening is inhibited, tion in its form rin/Rin constitutes the basis for most of the tomato hy-
the fruits remain yellow or light orange and can be stored for months brids with slow ripening and long shelf-life (Giovannoni, 2007). In a
at room temperature. When the mutations are heterozygous, the fruit recent study, Martel et al. (2011) demonstrated that RIN interacts

Fig. 5. Carotenoids biosynthetic pathway and tomato mutants. Pictures are from the Tomato Genetic Resource Centre. ABA: abscissic acid; AO, adldehyde oxidase; CrtR-b: carotene-
hydroxylase; Cyc-B: chromoplast specific lycopene synthase; DMAPP: dimethylallyl diphosphate; GPP: genaryl diphosphate; GGPP: geranylgeranyl diphosphate; Ggps: GGPP-
synthase; IPP: isopentenyl diphosphate; Lcy-b: lycopene β-cyclase; Lcy-e: lycopene ε-cyclase; MEP: methylerythritolphosphate; Nxs: neoxanthin synthase; Pds: phytoene desaturase;
Psy: phytoene synthase; Vde1: violaxanthin deepoxidase; VNCED: 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase; Zds: ζ-carotene desaturase; Zep1: zeaxanthin epoxidase.

Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
10 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

with the promoter of genes involved in the major processes observed
during ripening: ethylene biosynthesis, perception and signaling, cell
wall metabolism, and carotenoid.
Color change is the most obvious trait of tomato ripening. The color
of fruit depends on its content of carotenoid pigments, mainly lycopene
and to a lesser extent β-carotene. The first step in carotenoid synthesis
is the condensation of two molecules of GGPP (geranylgeranyl diphos-
phate, synthesized from isopentenyl diphosphate/IPP and dimethylallyl
diphosphate/DMAPP) to produce phytoene by phytoene synthase
(PSY). Phytoene is converted into lycopene via the production of the in-
termediate ζ-carotene; this reaction involves two enzymes: phytoene
desaturase (PDS) and ζ-carotene desaturase (ZDS). The cyclization of
lycopene is an important branching point in the pathway as it can give
rise to β-carotene and xanthophylls on one side, or to δ-carotene/α-
carotene and lutein on the other side. β-carotene is synthesized by a
two-step reaction mediated by lycopene β-cyclase (LCY-B/CRTL-B)
with the production of γ-carotene as intermediate. Lycopene ε-cyclase
(LCY-E/CRTL-E) allows the synthesis of δ-carotene from lycopene. The
production of other compounds results from hydroxylation of the cyclic
carotenes by two carotenoid hydroxylases (CHYs), one specific for β-
rings (BCH type) and the other one catalyzing hydroxylation of both
β- and ε-rings (CYP97 type) (Ruiz-Sola and Rodríguez-Concepción,
2012). The next steps are epoxydation by means of ZEP1 (Fig. 5;
Hirschberg, 2001). In tomato, several mutants affected in color are
available: r (yellow flesh, yellow color of the ripe fruit flesh), sh (sherry,
yellow fruit fresh with reddish tinge), hp-1 (high pigment1, higher content
in chlorophyll, carotenoids and ascorbic acid), tg (tangerine, fruit flesh
and stamens are orange colored), B (beta-carotene, high β-carotene
and lycopene content in ripe fruit), at (apricot, yellow-pinkish color of
the fruit flesh), og (old gold, increased lycopene content), DEL (delta,
reddish-orange mature fruit color). These mutants contributed to the
elucidation of the carotenoid synthesis pathway (Causse et al., 2007)
and their molecular characterization contributed to the identification
of the genes responsible for the mutations/phenotypes. The mutant r
encodes the phytoene synthase, PSY1, the first specific step of the carot-
enoid biosynthesis pathway (Hirschberg, 2001). The orange color of the
mutant tg is due to the accumulation of prolycopene and encodes a
Table 5
Nutritional value of 100 g of red fresh tomato (source: USDA, http://www.usda.gov/wps/
portal/usda/usdahome).
Proximates
Water g 94.52
Energy kcal
Protein g 0.88
Total lipid g 0.2
Fibers g 1.2
Sugars g 2.63
Minerals
Calcium mg
Magnesium mg
Phosphorus mg
Potassium mg
Sodium mg
Fluoride μg
Vitamins
carotenoid isomerase. The Del mutant accumulates high levels of δ-
carotene and encodes a lycopene β-cyclase, like the mutation B, which
is characterized by the accumulation of γ-carotene (Lewinsohn et al.,
2005).
2.5. Nutritional value
If one takes into consideration only proteins/lipids/sugars content to
describe the nutritional value, it appears clearly that tomato does not
have a high nutritional value. Nevertheless, tomatoes represent an im-
portant source of nutrients which are important for human health
such as antioxidants, represented by the content in lycopene, vitamin
A (β-carotene) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) (Table 5). Thus, tomatoes
represent the main source of lycopene, which has antioxidant properties
and is considered to protect against cancer or cardiovascular diseases
(Rao and Agarwal, 2000). The cross between S. lycopersicum cv. Floradade
and the wild relative S. galapense (L. cheesmanii f. minor C.H. Mull), bear-
ing the Beta (B) gene, gave rise to three lines with enhanced fruit β-
carotene content, and consequently higher nutritional value (Stommel,
2001). Tomatoes are also an important and remarkable source of ascorbic
acid. The primary route of ascorbic acid synthesis is the L-galactose
Wheeler–Smirnoff pathway in which ascorbic acid is synthesized from
mannose-6-phosphate via GDP-mannose and GDP-L-galactose. More
pathways have been described notably the alternatice pathway with an
L -galactonic acid intermediate, deriving from cell wall polymers
(Di Matteo et al., 2010; Ioannidi et al., 2009; Stevens et al., 2007).
Compared to the modern cultivated tomato, wild tomato varieties
are rich in ascorbic acid and can contain up to 5 times more ascorbic
acid than the cultivated counterpart (Stevens, 1986). Stevens et al.
(2007) investigated the QTLs and candidate genes affecting fruit
ascorbic acid. The recent work of Di Matteo et al. (2010) demonstrat-
ed that the accumulation of ascorbic acid is achieved by increasing
pectin degradation and may be triggered by ethylene. Some cultivars
with enhanced nutritional value were thus successfully developed,
but reduction of the yield in these new cultivars hindered their com-
mercial success (Causse et al., 2007).
Soluble and total solids are important traits for processing tomatoes
and contribute to the definition of the concentrated tomato product.
Soluble solids represent sugars and organic acids whose ratio, together
with the composition in volatile aroma, characterizes the flavor of the
fruit. The organic acids, alone, determine the pH of the final product. A
pH above 4.5 will allow the development of microorganisms, spoiling
the final product. Increased temperatures and extended processing
time are the only ways to get rid of this problem, but they also increase
the costs linked to processing. Insoluble solids, represented by compo-
nents of the cell wall and proteins, define the firmness of the fruit but
18
also the viscosity of the final products, such as tomato juice, ketchup,
soups and paste. Two other criteria are of high importance for the
breeding of new cultivars for processing tomatoes: growth habit and
ease of harvest. The spontaneous self-pruning (sp) mutation appeared
in 1914, allowing the development of cultivars with bushy growth
habit. In addition, sp induces the concentration of flowers and conse-
10 quently of fruits, and contributes to fruit firmness and resistance to
11
over-ripening. All these characteristics made cultivars bearing this mu-
24
237
tation material of choice for mechanical harvest. The “jointless” muta-
5 tions (j and j2) are characterized by no abscission zone in fruit pedicel,
2.3 enabling harvest without calyx and pedicel, i.e. the fruit free from any
“green” parts.

Vitamin C mg 13.7 2.6. Limits of classical breeding: the new area of genetic engineering
Choline mg 6.7
Vitamin A μg 42
α-Carotene μg 449 In order to obtain new cultivars with improved agronomical traits,
β-Carotene μg 101 three objectives have to be taken into account: environmental condi-
Lycopene μg 2573 tions, mode of culture and mode of harvest. Efficient breeding relies
Lutein + zeaxanthin μg 123 on the availability of genetic diversity and the heritability of the traits
Vitamin K μg 7.9
of interest. Very often, many traits must be simultaneously improved

Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 11

and introduced into the new cultivar and most of them are controlled by Table 6
several genes and/or influenced by the environment. Finally, and impor- Non-exhaustive list of agronomic traits of interest available from wild tomato species
(extracted from Foolad, 2007, for more details see the references therein).
tantly, the organoleptic signature, considered often as a “side” criterion
for selection, is evaluated by sensorial analyses which cannot be devel- Phenotype Germplasm source (Lycopersicum name)
oped on the scale of mass screening (Causse et al., 2007). Traditional Biotic stress
breeding usually starts from a cross between elite lines of adapted culti- Resistance to bacteria L. pimpinellifolium, L. hirsutum, L. pennellii, L. peruvianum
vars, or between an elite line and either wild species or close outgroup Resistance to fungi L. cheesmaniae, L. esculentum, L. pimpinellifolium,
L. chilense, L. hirsutum, L. pennellii, L. parviflorum,
related species (S. juglandifolium and S. ochranthum). It must be noted
L. peruvianum
that the production of a new cultivar from a cross between two cultivars Resistance to virus L. esculentum, L. pimpinellifolium, L. chilense,
takes 5 to 7 years, and the incorporation of new genes from wild rela- L. hirsutum, L. peruvianum
tives takes about 20 years, the complexity of the breeding program in- Resistance to insects L. pimpinellifolium, L. peruvianum
creasing with the complexity between parents (Causse et al., 2007). Abiotic stress
The choice of parental lines is thus crucial and demands good knowl- Cold (low temperature) L. pimpinellifolium, L. hirsutum
edge of the available germplasm. In the case of tomato, more than Drought L. pimpinellifolium, L. pennellii
83,000 accessions are stored in seed banks throughout the world, plac- Salt L. pimpinellifolium, L. pennellii

ing tomato as the number one collected and conserved vegetable spe- Fruit characteristics
cies (Bauchet and Causse, 2012). The main collections are: the Tomato Antioxidant capacity L. pennellii
Genetic Resource Center in California (USA — TGRC, http://tgrc. Ascorbic acid L. pennellii
Citric acid L. pennelli
ucdavis.edu/), the USDA collection (USA — www.ars.usda.gov), the
Color L. pimpinellifolium, L. peruvianum, L. hirsutum,
World Vegetable Center in Taiwan (www.avrdc.org) and other col- L. parviflorum, L. chmielewski, L. pennellii
lections in Europe. In the frame of the European Solanaceae project β-carotene L. cheesmanii, L. hirsutum, L. pennellii, L. parviflorum
(EU-SOL, www.eu-sol.wur.nl), approximately 7000 domesticated Lycopene L. pimpinellifolium, L. parviflorum, L. pennellii
Orange L. pennellii
tomato accessions, alongside representative wild species, were enu-
Yellow L. parviflorum
merated. These collections represent a precious source of information Cracking L. pennellii, L. pimpinellifolium
for subsequent breeding programs. All wild species can be crossed Diameter L. pimpinellifolium
with the cultivated tomato (S. lycopersicum) with more or less high Shape L. pimpinellifolium, L. peruvianum, L. hirsutum,
efficiency if cultivated tomato is used as the female (Bedinger et al., L. parviflorum, L. pennellii
Firmness L. pimpinellifolium, L. peruvianum, L. hirsutum,
2011). When two species are non-crossable, in vitro techniques are re-
L. parviflorum, L. chmielewskii, L. pennellii
quired, such as cell fusion and regeneration from tissue or single cells, or Sugars L. pennellii, L. hirsutum
embryo-rescue (Bai and Lindhout, 2007; Rick, 1974); this is particularly Length L. pimpinellifolium
necessary in the case of crosses with S. peruvianum. Table 6 gives a non- Locule number L. pimpinellifolium
Maturity L. pimpinellifolium, L. peruvianum, L. hirsutum, L. parviflorum
exhaustive list of traits which have a potential for breeding and their
Ripening L. pennellii, L. pimpinellifolium, L. peruvianum, L. cheesmanii
germplasm origin. A few examples of the improvement of cultivated to- Soluble solids L. chmielewskii, L. cheesmanii, L. pennelli,
mato by introgression of “wild” characters can be mentioned here: the L. pimpinellifolium, L. hirsutum
use of L. hirsutum for improving cold tolerance, of L. chilense for drought Viscosity L. pimpinellifolium, L. peruvianum, L. hirsutum,
tolerance, of L. cheesmanii for soluble solids and salt tolerance (Hobson L. parviflorum, L. pennellii
Weight L. pennellii, L. chmielewskii, L. cheesmanii,
and Grierson, 1993), or of L. pennellii for sugar yield (Fridman et al.,
L. pimpinellifolium, L. peruvianum, L. hirsutum
2000; Ikeda et al., 2013) or yield and fitness (Semel et al., 2006). Recent- Yield L. chmielewskii, L. pennelli, L. pimpinellifolium,
ly, in an attempt to increase the endogenous content of flavonoids, L. peruvianum, L. hirsutum, L. parviflorum
compounds with a positive impact on human health, S. pennellii var. Jointless L. cheesmanii
puberulum was crossed with cultivated tomato (Willits et al., 2005). Plant characteristics
The plants accumulated high levels of quercetin in the fruit. Some acces- Branch number L. cheesmanii
sions accumulated lycopene or ascorbic acid at levels twice those of tra- Male sterility L. pimpinellifolium
ditional cultivars. Thus carotene content can be significantly increased Growth habit L. peruvianum, L. pimpinellifolium
Height L. pennelli, L. pimpinellifolium, L. hirsutum, L. cheesmanii
in cultivated tomato by using S. hirsutum in crosses. Analogously, a Self-pruning L. chmielewskii, L. pimpinellifolium
strategy based on S. pimpinellifolium, S. cheesmanii and S. chmielewskii
has increased the sugar content (Stevens, 1986). The method of Gas
chromatography–mass spectrometry was used to characterize the met-
abolic profile of leaves and fruits of wild tomato species in comparison
to cultivated tomato. The method allowed identifying more than 90
metabolites constituting the metabolic signature of each species. This Causse, 2012; Causse et al., 2007). Attempts to understand the plant ge-
is of importance as it can constitute a way of selecting parental lines nome, i.e. how the plant functions and how a gene can make a plant, led
used in crosses (Schauer et al., 2005). in 2003 to the development of the international “Solanaceae Genomics
By 2050, the world population is estimated to reach 9.07 billion, Network” (SOL) project. This consortium encompasses several data-
with 62% of people living in Africa, Southern Eastern Asia. These same bases resulting from gene sequencing, gene expression profiling,
regions are where a huge proportion of the population suffers from metabolites profiling, genome sequencing and annotation. The fully-
hunger (FAO, data collected for the period 2010–2012). Traditional ag- sequenced tomato genome was released in 2012, and its annotation is
riculture and breeding cannot sustain the increasing food demand for still underway (The Tomato Genome Consortium, 2012). All this infor-
several reasons: 1) decreasing arable land giving way to living space, mation allows a better understanding of the plant growth and develop-
2) increasing problem of drought and salt stresses due to environmental ment; today a specific character can be easily introduced in a cultivar of
and climate changes, and 3) slow and laborious “empirical” selection interest by means of plant transformation and regeneration in a shorter
(Ahmad et al., 2012). The development of molecular biology offers time than traditional breeding. Moreover, genetic engineering sur-
breeders a new prospect for genetic improvement based on molecular mounts the barriers intra-/inter-crossability. Indeed, a gene from a
markers and genetic engineering. Molecular markers used in marker- non-related species can be introduced into the crop of interest which
assisted selection (MAS) are not reviewed in this work as they have would not have been possible by classical breeding, due to interspecific
been extensively reported in various recent reviews (Bauchet and incompatibility.

Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
12 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
3. Genetic engineering of tomato
Genetic engineering, i.e. the introduction of a gene or its silencing,
provides the tools for fast and specific improvement of tomato
agronomical traits. Except for the report on chloroplast transformation
using particle bombardment (Ruf et al., 2001), the most widely used
method for transferring genes into tomato is Agrobacterium-mediated
transformation. The FLAVR-SAVR™ tomato variety was the first geneti-
cally engineered crop to be commercialized (Kramer and Redenbaugh,
1994). Despite the fact that this new tomato also contained a bacterial
gene encoding resistance for kanamycin (used for selection), the new
cultivar was introduced on the fresh tomato market on May 21, 1994.
The FLAVR-SAVR™ tomato found an important albeit brief success,
due to the costs linked to engineering and the newly growing negative
consumer concerns about GMO (genetically modified organisms;
Bruening and Lyons, 2000).
3.1. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of tomato
For 30 years now, Agrobacterium has been used for research pur-
poses, and it has also been used to produce genetically engineered
crops for commercial purposes. The Gram negative soil bacterium
Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a phytopathogen responsible for crown
gall disease in a wide range of plants (Alimohammadi and Bagherieh-
Najjar, 2009). The molecular basis of plant cell reprogramming by the
bacterium and the principles of Agrobacterium-mediated transforma-
tion have been already extensively reviewed (Binns and Thomashaw,
1988; Shantha et al., 2012). The traditional protocol for Agrobacterium-
mediated transformation is based on the co-culture of explant, with a
bacterial culture containing the cloning vector and the property of a
plant cell to regenerate a full plantlet. Frary and Van Eck (2005) describe
a standard protocol, based on the initial work of McCormick et al.
(1986) and Fillatti et al. (1987). In brief, after an overnight
preculture step, the cotyledon explants are cocultivated with
Agrobacterium for two days. Afterward the explants are transferred
to a selective regeneration medium containing zeatin. The rooting
is ensured on a separate selective medium.
The first tomato transformation by Agrobacterium was done in 1986
(McCormick et al., 1986) in order to avoid the need to develop a system
of plant regeneration from protoplasts. The leaf disk system was
adapted for tomato transformation. This first Agrobacterium-mediated
transformation of tomato opened the door to the functional characteri-
zation of tomato genes and/or promoters as well as the expression of
heterologous genes. The explants used were as diverse as cotyledons,
hypocotyls, stems and leaves of the tomato (Bird et al., 1988; Davis
and Miller, 1991; McCormick et al., 1986; Ohki et al., 1978). The differ-
ent conditions relative to efficient transformation have been studied
and reported (Park et al., 2003).
The generation of transgenic plants is routinely developed in most
plant molecular biology research laboratories; nevertheless the classical
method of shoot regeneration from leaf disk/cotyledons tissues co-
cultivated with disarmed Agrobacterium is a long and expensive process
which can result in undesirable modifications, such as somaclonal varia-
tion, i.e. modification of the genotype independent from the character in-
troduced. In order to avoid the use of tissue culture, methods called “in
planta” transformation were developed (Yasmeen et al., 2009). The first
“in planta” method developed was the Agrobacterium-mediated floral
dip transformation in Arabidopsis. For this purpose, the plant was grown
until flowering, uprooted, fully immersed in a solution of Agrobacterium
with application of vacuum in order to facilitate the penetration of bacte-
ria into the plant tissue, and then planted back into soil. The plants were
then cultivated until the production of seeds. The transgenic progenies
were identified by cultivation of the seeds on a medium supplemented
with the appropriate selective agent (Bechtold et al., 1993). In an
upgraded version of this protocol, Clough and Bent (1998) suppressed
the phase of uprooting/vacuum/replanting, making this method even
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
simpler. In order to study the regulation of flower initiation and develop-
ment in tomato, Yasmeen et al. (2009) initiated the floral dip transforma-
tion of tomato. They observed that flowers which did not experience
pollination gave a higher percentage of transformation, similar to what
was observed for Arabidopsis. It is supposed that after anthesis the locule
becomes sealed, enabling the proper penetration of the bacteria to the
ovule (Desfeux et al., 2000). Infiltration of tissues for transient gene
expression and localization was developed for several species. The
Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression by leaf infiltration is today
the favorite tool in many gene functional analyses. While tobacco leaf is
the material of choice, the efficiency of the method has been described
not only for other species, such as alfafa, lettuce, tomato, and Arabidopsis
(Wroblewski et al., 2005), but also for rose petals (Scalliet et al., 2006). In
order to shorten the time in functional studies in fruit development,
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation by infiltration of tissues was ap-
plied to tomato fruit (Orzaez et al., 2006). In practice, the Agrobacterium
cultures were injected into the mature green fruits through the fruit stylar
apex, which resulted in complete fruit infiltration. This new method,
called “fruit agroinjection”, was found to be a powerful tool for fast trans-
gene expression in fruits and to facilitate functional studies in that organ.
A few years later, Hasan et al. (2008) reported fruit agroinjection as a tool
to stably transform tomato. The efficiency of transformation was higher
when the fruit was kept on the plant compared to detached fruit, and ma-
ture fruits at the early stage of ripening gave more transformants than
immature, green fruits (Yasmeen et al., 2009).
3.2. Selection of transgenic plants
Because during the process of Agrobacterium-mediated transforma-
tion not all cells of the explant are efficiently transformed, the use of se-
lection is required to avoid long, costly and laborious screening of the
transgenic progeny. Thus a gene encoding an enzyme conferring resis-
tance to antibiotics or herbicides is introduced concurrently with the
gene of interest. The presence of such genes within the environment
or in the food supply might provoke unpredictable damage to the eco-
system and to human health. The possibility of transmission of the
marker gene through pollen is the major environmental concern
(Tuteja et al., 2012). In the last decade, methodologies have been devel-
oped to eliminate marker genes from the process of genetic engineer-
ing. Several possibilities were considered. The first one consisted of
avoiding the use of the marker gene in transgenic plants. This was ap-
plied in several crops, but the efficiency of transformation rarely
reached 5% (Bai et al., 2009; De Vetten et al., 2003; Jia et al., 2006). A sec-
ond method is co-transformation, which is a simple and highly effective
method. In this case, the gene of interest and the marker gene are pres-
ent on two different vectors. The first generation of the progeny will
bear the two genes in its genome. Because they are not introduced in
the genome at the same loci, they will segregate during sexual repro-
duction. The marker gene will be eliminated from the genome by fur-
ther selecting transgenic lines bearing only the gene of interest
(Komari et al, 1996). Transposon-based marker excision is a third strat-
egy which has also been used to remove marker genes from the gene of
interest. This strategy is based on the maize Ac/Ds transposable element
(Upadhyaya et al., 2010). Finally, marker gene removal can be achieved
by a strategy based on the recombination which takes place between
two homologous DNA molecules. Three systems were developed
based on recombination to eliminate the marker gene: the Cre/lox site
specific recombination system (Dale and Ow, 1991), the FLP/FRT recom-
bination system from Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Lyznik et al., 1996) and
the R/RS recombination system from Zygosaccharomyces rouxii (Sugita
et al., 2000). Because all these strategies have been described and re-
ported in detail by several reviewers, they are not explained here
(Darbani et al., 2007; Puchta, 2003; Upadhyaya et al., 2010).
In tomato, the first report of generation of marker-free transgenic
plants came from Goldsbrough et al. (1993). By using the maize Ac/Ds
transposable element, they were able to obtain NPTII- or GUS-free
 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
plants from transgenic plants which originally contained one of these
genes in their genome. To our knowledge, Zhang and coworkers obtain-
ed the first genetically engineered marker-free tomato with improved
tolerance to drought, cold and oxidative stresses. These authors obtain-
ed transgenic tomatoes by overexpression of the Arabidopsis Ipk2 gene,
in which the marker of selection was removed by the Cre/loxP DNA re-
combination system (Zhang et al., 2009).
3.3. Temporal and/or organ-specific expression: choice of promoter
The Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S (CaMV35S) promoter was, and still
is, routinely used to trigger gene expression in both dicots and mono-
cots. Despite the fact that it is assumed to be a constitutive promoter
(Odell et al., 1985), some studies report that it is not expressed in all
cell and tissue types (reviewed in Sunilkumar et al., 2002). A study
using GFP fusion as the reporter of promoter activity in cotton demon-
strated that genes driven by CaMV35S promoter are expressed in all
cells and tissues albeit at different levels (Sunilkumar et al., 2002). The
discrepancy between the study of Sunilkumar et al. (2002) and older
studies is probably due to the GFP reporter assay used which is more
sensitive than classical histological methods using GUS staining. Due
to its viral origin, there are some limitations in its use for genetic engi-
neering of crops. First, despite the lack of scientific support, some fear
its risk to human health; second, the plant can recognize the sequence
of foreign origin and inactivate it (Potenza et al., 2004). Thus other pro-
moters, of plant origin, were developed to drive constitutive expression.
These promoters are derived from actin and ubiquitin genes and induce
strong expression of the gene of interest. One can cite here the promoter
of the Arabidopsis Act2 gene, rice actin 1, maize ubiquitin 1 or Ubi.U4 from
Nicotiana sylvestris (reviewed in Potenza et al., 2004). Constitutive ex-
pression can be problematic. Indeed, the gene of interest will be
expressed in all tissues, independently from growth and development,
leading to often undesirable pleiotropic effects which do not reflect
the in planta function of the gene. Thus, new promoters driving the ex-
pression of the gene of interest in a specific manner were developed.
Fruit and flowers are the main targets for genetic engineering of fruit
crops but they are the last to develop, rending their manipulation diffi-
cult. Several “toolkits” have been obtained in order to specifically ad-
dress gene expression in fruit (Fernandez et al., 2009). Ethylene is part
of the process leading to fruit ripening. The E8 gene of tomato encodes
a polypeptide belonging to the family of dioxigenases and participates
in the regulation of ethylene production during ripening. The promoter
analysis of E8 led to the identification of different regions responsible for
both fruit-specific expression and ethylene-regulated expression
(Deikman et al., 1992). This promoter has been successfully used in to-
mato genetic engineering (Sun et al., 2012). Another promoter used to
specifically drive the expression of a gene of interest in the fruit during
ripening is the promoter of the polygalacturonase (PG) gene, encoding
the major cell-wall degrading enzyme (Lau et al., 2009).
When considering genetic engineering for stress tolerance, it is im-
portant to develop tools which will respond to a specific stimulus. In-
deed, the mechanisms of resistance represent a certain energetic cost
for the plant that remobilizes its metabolism to face the stress. Modern
genetic engineering has a duty to develop plants whose mechanisms of
resistance will be stimulated only if and when the plant will be exposed
to stress. By studying the molecular basis of plant stress responses, re-
searchers have been able to identify genes specifically regulated by
stress and use their promoters as tools for bioengineering. As it will be
detailed later, plants respond to stress by producing and accumulating
molecules of low molecular weight, such as glycinebetaine. In higher
plants, glycinebetaine is synthesized in the chloroplast from betaine in
a two-step reaction. The first reaction is catalyzed by a ferredoxin-
dependent choline mono-oxygenase (CMO) and produces betaine alde-
hyde as an intermediate. Betaine aldehyde is further transformed into
betaine by the NAD+-dependent betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase
(BADH) (Su et al., 2006). BADH gene expression is stimulated by several
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
13
stresses, such as salt, drought, cold and ABA treatment. Analysis of
the promoter sequence of BADH led to the identification of a region
(P5: − 300 to + 62 bp) which triggers salt-induced gene expression.
In order to validate that the P5 region of the BADH gene could be used
as a new promoter to drive gene expression specifically in response to
saline stress, Wang et al. (2013) transformed tomato plants with the
BADH gene, as reporter gene, under the control of the P5 promoter to
drive salt-inducible expression. The authors could observe that BADH
expression and accumulation of betaine was correlated with the con-
centration of salt applied. Consequently, the salt-inducible P5 promoter
appears to be an essential tool for further genetic engineering in regard
to salt stress tolerance.
4. Transgenic tomatoes with enhanced agronomic traits
The development and spread of genetically engineered crops en-
counters negative opinions of consumers and institutions, mainly in
Europe. Thus, the World Health Organization (WHO) has reported
three main concerns to the use of genetically engineered crops: genera-
tion of allergenic foods, incorporation of modified food genes into the
human body and the transfer of this information to other wild species.
Despite these barriers, the development of transgenic crops is expanding
all over the world; indeed the surface dedicated to the cultivation of ge-
netically engineered crops has greatly expanded, with 125 million ha in
2008 vs. 1.7 million ha 12 years ago (Ahmad et al., 2012). The leading
countries are without contest the USA with 69.5 million ha dedicated to
genetically engineered crops (maize, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugarbeets,
alfalfa, papayas and squash), followed by Brazil, Argentina, India and
Canada (10–40 million ha). Today, China is probably the only country
growing transgenic tomatoes (source: www.isaaa.org, 2012). Indeed, cul-
ture of transgenic tomatoes in the USA, which represented 200000 ha in
1998, has been suspended since 2002. The objectives of tomato improve-
ment by genetic engineering focus on: fruit quality, resistance to pests
and diseases, overcoming adverse environments (cold, drought, salinity)
and production of therapeutics. In the scientific literature since 2000,
more than 60 records report on genetic engineering of tomato. Because
it is not possible to describe all of them in the present review, Table 7
gives a non-exhaustive list of successful genetic engineering of tomato;
some of them are discussed in more detail below.
4.1. Resistance to biotic stresses
Economic losses due to pests and diseases are significant all around
the world. Up to now, pesticides are widely used to control the develop-
ment of pests and diseases, but several problems have appeared due to
this cultural practice: development of resistance to the chemicals, ap-
pearance of new diseases, health disorders of farmers, and detrimental
effects on the environment. Genetic engineering offers a great opportu-
nity to limit the use of such chemicals. To respond to pathogen attack,
plants have evolved a variety of active and passive defense mechanisms:
hypersensitive programmed cell death, expression of defense-related
genes, reinforcement of cell walls, biosynthesis of phytoallexins or phe-
nolic compounds, production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), and ini-
tiation of systemic acquired resistance (Li and Steffens, 2002). These
responses are induced upon attack by bacteria, fungi, virus or insects.
Moreover, three hormones, salicylic acid (SA), ad jasmonic acid
(JA) and ethylene, were described to play key roles in the establish-
ment of susceptibility/resistance. It is commonly accepted that SA
and JA/ethylene have an antagonistic role, with SA being involved
in resistance to biotrophic pathogens and JA/ethylene being involved
in resistance to necrotrophic pathogens (Kunkel and Brooks, 2002).
Studies of the molecular basis of resistance have allowed researchers
to identify genes whose manipulation by overexpression could lead
to improved resistance to pathogens. On the other hand, the analysis
of plants with a high susceptibility to pathogens has led to the
14 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Table 7
Non-exhaustive list of successful tomato engineering. Reference can be found in Di Matteo et al. (2011). References in bold are discussed in the text.
Trait Inserted target
Fruit Parthenocarpy Arf8, IAA9, iaaM
quality Firmness PG (antisense), Rab11GTPase, TBG4, PME,
ACCO, EXP1A, PLD (antisense), β-galactosidase
Size fw2.2
Flavor Thaumatin, gdhA, GES, LIS, LeCCD1, LeACCDC1A,
LeACCDC2
Soluble solids Lin5, PME
content
Carotenoid content Dxs, CrtB, CrtI, CrtY, PSY-1, CRY-2, CYC-B, LCY-B, LCY-B,
CHY-B, DET-1, COP1LIKE, CUL4, FIBRILLIN, Spermidine synthase,
PG
Flavonoid content CHI, CHS, CHI, F3H, FLS, MYB12, STS, CHR, FNS-II, Del, Ros1
Ascorbic acid content GaLDH, GME, GCHA and/or ADCS
Nutritional value Crt1, Samdc
Abiotic stresses aroA, HAL2, HAL1, BADH, AtNHX1, ectoine, GlyI and GlyII,
ACC deaminase, TPS1, APX, Osmotin, CBF1, SAMDC, cAXP
Biotic stresses Vst1 and Vst2, Cry1Ac, Cry1Ab, Ep5c,
Nucleoprotein gene, CP, p35, PI-II and PCI, Ep5C, PPO
Pharmaceutics and other TB1-HBS, CtrB, Spike, miraculin
compounds
identification of genes which are involved in this process, and poten-
tial targets of genetic engineering by gene silencing.
One of the most rapid responses is the production of superoxide (O2)
and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), characterizing the oxidative burst
shortly after pathogen recognition. Because H2O2 is highly toxic for
the cell, plants have developed mechanisms of detoxification mediated
by peroxidases. The Ep5c gene, encoding a secreted peroxidase, was
found to accumulate to significant levels in tomato plants susceptible
to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato, leading to the hypothesis that it is
required for disease susceptibility toward this pathogen. Whereas the
inhibition of Ep5C protein accumulation by RNA antisense strategy led
to obtaining transgenic plants resistant to P. syringae pv. tomato, the
mechanisms downstream of Ep5C are still unclear (Coego et al., 2005).
The production of quinones which results from the oxidation of phenols
by the action of polyphenol oxidases (PPO) is also part of the processes
leading to pathogens resistance. Indeed, the active quinones have a di-
rect antibiotic and cytotoxic effect on pathogens. Transgenic tomato
plants constitutively overexpressing the potato PPO gene were charac-
terized by increased PPO activity, leading to a higher rate of phenolic
compound oxidation. These plants were found to be more resistant to
P. syringae pv. tomato. Indeed in these transgenic plants, bacterial
growth was strongly inhibited (100-fold reduction of bacterial popula-
tion in infected leaves compared to the non-transgenic plants) and the
number of lesions was also significantly reduced (Li and Steffens, 2002).
The mitochondrial alternative oxidases (AOXs) are components of
the alternative respiratory pathway of plants. They can be induced by
wounding, ethylene, ROS or salicylic acid. The LeAOX gene, encoding a
tomato AOX, was isolated and overexpressed by Agrobacterium-
mediated transformation in tomato. Multiplication of Tomato spotted
wilt virus (TSWV) was significantly limited in the transgenic tomato
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
Reference
Ficcadenti et al. (1999), Goetz et al. (2007), Wang et al. (2005a)
Behboodian et al. (2012), Brummell et al. (1999),
Langley et al. (1994), Lu et al. (2001); Pinhero et al. (2003),
Smith et al. (1990), Tieman and Handa (1994), Watson et al. (1994),
Xiong et al. (2005)
Frary et al. (2000)
Bartoszewski et al., 2003; Davidovich-Rikanati et al. (2007),
Kisaka and Kida (2003), Lewinsohn et al. (2001);
Simkin et al. (2004), Tieman et al. (2006)
Tieman et al. (1992), Zanor et al. (2009)
Davuluri et al. (2005), Dharmapuri et al. (2002),
Enfissi et al. (2005), Fraser et al. (2002), Fray et al. (1995),
Giliberto et al. (2005), Liu et al. (2004), Neily et al. (2011),
Römer et al. (2000), Ronen et al. (2000), Rosati et al. (2000),
Simkin et al. (2007), Wang et al. (2008), Watson et al. (1994),
Wurbs et al. (2007)
Adato et al. (2009), Butelli et al. (2008), Colliver et al. (2002),
Muir et al. (2001), Schijlen et al. (2006)
de la Garza et al. (2004, 2007), Garcia et al. (2009), Gilbert et al.
(2009), Zhang et al. (2011)
Mehta et al. (2002), Römer et al. (2000)
Álvarez-Viveros et al. (2013), Arillaga et al. (1998), Cheng et al., 2009,
Cortina and Culianez-Macia . (2005), Fillatti et al. (1987), Ghanem et al.
(2011),
Gisbert et al. (2000), Grichko and Glick (2001), Hsieh et al. (2002a,b),
Jia et al. (2002), Moghaieb et al. (2011), Park et al. (2005),
Patade et al. (2013), Wang et al. 2005b,
Wang et al. (2006), Zhang and Blumwald (2001)
Abdeen et al. (2005), Alberto et al. (2005), Coego et al. (2005),
Kumar and Kumar (2004), Li and Steffens (2002), Lin et al. (2004),
Lincoln et al. (2002), Ma et al. (2011), Mandaokar et al. (2000),
Nervo et al. (2003), Raj et al. (2005), Thomzik et al. (1997),
Chen et al. (2009), Hirai et al. (2010), Pogrebnyak et al. (2005),
Shchelkunov et al. (2004), Youm et al. (2008)
compared to what was observed in non-transformed plants (Ma
et al., 2011).
In an incompatible plant-pathogen interaction, the attack by a path-
ogen not only induces the resistance mechanism at the point of infec-
tion, but also induces a systemic acquired resistance (SAR) response in
the tissues which are not infected. The NPR1 gene, encoding a nuclear
protein, is a key regulator of the SA and JA/(ethylene) signals leading
to acquired resistance. One step in genetic engineering for disease resis-
tance would be to stimulate SAR. The Arabidopsis NPR1 gene was intro-
duced into a tomato cultivar possessing resistance to heat-stress and to
tomato mosaic virus (TMV). Characterization of the resulting transgenic
tomato plants revealed that in addition to the innate resistance to
TMV, they were resistant to two diseases conferred by fungi (fusarium
wilt and gray leaf spot) and to two bacterial diseases (bacterial wilt
and bacterial spot) (Lin et al., 2004).
The last example presented in the frame of this review is focused on
resistance to insects. In response to insect attack, plants accumulate an
array of defense proteins, including proteinase inhibitors and secondary
metabolites with harmful activity to the insects. Plant proteinase inhib-
itors accumulate in plants in response to insect wounding and are part
of the JA-mediated resistance response. The plant proteinase inhibitors
inhibit the activity of insect proteases which are secreted in the diges-
tive tract of larvae in order to assimilate amino acids. The type of prote-
ases is specific to the type of insect. Thus, whereas serine proteinases are
mainly represented in lepidopteran larvae, cysteine and aspartic pro-
teinases are specifically found in coleopteran species. Thanks to this
specificity, engineering programs can be initiated to focus on different
groups of tomato pests. In tomato, the leaf-specific expression of two
potato protease inhibitors, belonging to different classes (serine-
proteinase inhibitor and carboxypeptidase inhibitor), conferred
 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
significantly stronger resistance to damages caused by Heliothis obsoleta
and Liriomyza trifolii larvae (Abdeen et al., 2005). In any genetic engi-
neering strategy, it is recommended that genes involved in different
mechanisms of resistance are used to avoid the risk of pathogen-
acquired resistance.
4.2. Resistance to abiotic stresses
Drought, salt, cold and heat stresses share common molecular mech-
anisms: detoxification of ROS, osmoprotection, protection of enzymatic
systems, and water and ion fluxes (Zhu, 2002). In northern countries,
tomatoes are grown in greenhouse conditions where temperature has
to be controlled, increasing the expense of culture. The development
of cultivars more tolerant to cold temperature or chilling is an opportu-
nity to decrease this expense. The study of species from temperate
regions, more tolerant to cold, led to the identification of several genes
regulated by cold and grouped under the name of COR genes
(Tomashow, 1998). All the COR genes have two specific sequences in
the promoter: the C-repeat (CRT) and dehydration responsive element
(DRE)-related motifs which interact with the CRT/DRE binding factor 1
(CBF1; Stockinger et al., 1997). When the Arabidopsis CBF1 gene was in-
troduced into tomato, the transgenic plants harbored higher chilling tol-
erance. This response was associated with a decrease of ROS and
pronounced tolerance to oxidative damages (Hsieh et al., 2002a). Cold
stress also induces osmotic disorders. Thus tolerance to cold induces
the transcription of genes encoding enzymes responsible for the synthe-
sis of osmoprotectants and the antioxidant defense (Goyary, 2009).
Osmotin and osmotin-like proteins were found to accumulate in plants
under a wide range of biotic and abiotic stresses. Patade et al. (2013) re-
ported that transgenic tomato plants accumulating osmotin and proline
during cold treatment had better protection of cell structures and higher
ROS detoxification. As opposed to cold or freezing conditions, the pro-
duction of plants tolerant to high temperature is of primary interest in
regards to global warming and climate changes. The response of plants
to high temperatures is characterized by metabolic changes which aim
to protect the essential structures and functions of cells. The accumula-
tion of polyamines, such as betaine, putrescine, spermidine or spermine,
is one of these mechanisms. Indeed, betaine was found to protect en-
zymes, such as photosystem II of the photosynthetic machinery, against
heat-induced inactivation (Allakhverdiev et al., 1996). S-adenosyl-L-
methionine decarboxylase (SAMDC) is one of the key regulators of poly-
amines synthesis. Tomatoes expressing the SAMDC gene of S. cerevisiae
accumulated substantially higher amounts of spermine and spermidine
and were found to be more tolerant to high temperature. Moreover, the
antioxidant enzymatic activity and protection of lipid membranes
against peroxidation was significantly enhanced in the transgenic
plants, showing that the accumulation of polyamines is a good strategy
for protection against high temperatures (Cheng et al., 2009). As already
mentioned, heat stress, and all abiotic stresses in general, generates the
production of ROS, possessing highly oxidant properties. In order to pro-
tect themselves against ROS-induced damage, plants evolved antioxi-
dant enzymes, such as superoxide dismutase (SOD) and ascorbate
peroxidase (APX). Overexpression of cytosolic APX in tomato allowed
the plant not only to protect itself from damage caused by high temper-
atures, but also to protect itself against damage caused by exposure to
UV-B (Wang et al., 2006).
Today, more than one-fifth of the world's arable land suffers from
salt stress. Salt stress is a major problem in agriculture worldwide, af-
fecting crop growth, development, production, quality and yield. In-
creased salinization of arable land is expected to have devastating
global effects, resulting in loss of 30% of arable land within the next
25 years, and up to 50% by the year 2050 (Wang et al., 2003). Saline
stress is detrimental to plants because it brings water stress and inhibits
key biochemical reactions due to the excess of sodium (Li et al., 2011;
Moghaieb et al., 2011). To withstand saline stress, plants have devel-
oped several strategies: sequestration of solutes, limitation of lipid
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
15
peroxidation and/or production of osmoprotectants. The large, acidic
vacuole of plants serves for sequestration of such deleterious solutes.
A huge variety of ion transporters are localized on the vacuolar mem-
brane, allowing the allocation of different ions and molecules into the
vacuole (Martinoia et al., 2000). In tomato, expression of the Arabidopsis
vacuolar Na+/H+ antiport (AtNHX1), which drives the export of salts
from cytoplasm into the vacuole, resulted in the production of transgen-
ic tomato plants able to grow in the presence of 200 mM NaCl. Interest-
ingly, whereas leaves accumulated huge amount of salt, no changes in
salt concentration were observed in fruit (Zhang and Blumwald,
2001). Another consequence of salt stress is lipid peroxidation with
the production of methylglyoxal, a highly mutagenic and cytotoxic com-
pound. The detoxification of methyglyoxal is triggered by specific en-
zymes, glyoxalase I and II. Recently, the GlyI gene from Brassica juncea
and the GlyII gene from Pennisetum glaucum were simultaneously intro-
duced into tomato. In the transgenic tomatoes expressing both genes,
lipid peroxidation and peroxide production were significantly reduced.
Moreover degradation of chlorophyll due to saline stress was limited in
transgenic tomato plants. Altogether, this led to the conclusion that en-
gineering the glyoxalase detoxification system is a way to enhance tol-
erance to high salt concentration in tomato (Álvarez-Viveros et al.,
2013). Moghaied et al. (2011) demonstrated that improving the
osmoprotective system is also a good strategy to induce salt stress toler-
ance in tomato. Ectoine, a common solute of halophilic bacteria, is a
good example of an osmoprotectant. Ectoine is synthesized from L-
aspartate β-semialdehyde in a three-step reaction catalyzed by
enzymes encoded by the ectB, ectA and ectC genes. When the three
genes were introduced into tomato by Agrobacterium-mediated trans-
formation, the resulting transgenic plants accumulated high amounts
of ectoine in a dose-dependent response, i.e. the higher the concentra-
tion of salt applied, the more the ectoine accumulated. Water uptake
and transport to leaves was higher in transgenic lines, suggesting that
ectoine contributes to establish a proper water status upon stress. As al-
ready mentioned, salt stress negatively influences the overall growth of
the plant, inhibiting leaf growth and inducing premature senescence.
Plant growth and development require proper hormonal status. In
salt-stressed plants, the general hormonal status is modified, and
more specifically the endogenous cytokinin (CK) content is decreased.
Overcoming the salt-induced reduction of CK could be means of engi-
neering tolerance to saline stress. This can be achieved by increasing
CK synthesis via overexpression of genes encoding enzymes for CK bio-
synthesis. The constitutive expression of the IPT gene, encoding the en-
zyme responsible for the first step in CK biosynthesis, led to more than
150-fold increase of the CK content in tobacco and cucumber but had a
deleterious effect inhibiting root growth and inducing water deficit syn-
dromes (Smigocki and Owens, 1989). The role of CK in salt stress toler-
ance in tomato was assessed by two nice experiments (Ghanem et al.,
2011). In the first experiment, overexpression of the IPT gene was driv-
en by a heat shock inducible promoter. Transient root induction of the
IPT gene resulted in a slight decrease in root biomass but when the sa-
line stress was applied, the higher endogenous CK content delayed sto-
matal closure and leaf senescence, and induced a 2-fold increase in
shoot growth. In the second experiment, the same authors grafted
non-transgenic tomato plants onto the root systems of transgenic toma-
to plants (WT/35S::IPT) constitutively expressing the IPT gene. When
the WT/35S::IPT plants were cultivated with moderate salt stress, the
number and size of the fruit produced were significantly enhanced com-
pared to the non-transgenic, non-grafted tomato plants. These last re-
sults, taken together, show how a precise regulation of the hormonal
status can be genetically engineered in order to produce tomato with
enhanced tolerance to salt stress.
Drought or water deficit is an important environmental factor great-
ly affecting agriculture, making the management of water an important
task in agriculture. Genetic engineering for drought tolerance/resistance
is based on the knowledge gained from plants developing in arid and
semi-arid regions. Plants growing in water-limited conditions have
16 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
evolved two mechanisms which can be genetically engineered: 1) delay
of drought stress by developing a deep root system, reducing transpira-
tion or increasing wax layers on the leaf surface, 2) tolerance to drought
by reducing the need for water for efficient growth (Kramer and Boyer,
1995). As previously mentioned, mechanisms conferring tolerance to
one stress can also confer tolerance to another one. This is the case of
the CBF1 gene, which was initially found to improved salt tolerance in
tomato (Hsieh et al., 2002a). The same authors demonstrated that the
ectopic expression of Arabidopsis CBF1 in tomato also confers resistance
to drought stress (Hseih et al., 2002b). In order to withstand drought
stress, plants accumulate solutes into their vacuole, modifying the over-
all osmotic status of the cell favoring water uptake from the soil. This
can be done either by increasing the activity of the vacuolar sodium/
proton antiporter or by increasing the uptake of protons into the vacu-
ole, energizing secondary transporters (Pasapula et al., 2011). Vacuolar
proton uptake is ensured by proton pumps (VP1). Overexpression of the
Arabidopsis vacuolar H+-pyrophosphate (AVP1) in tomato conferred
tolerance to both salt and drought stress. This was marked by greater
import of cations into root vacuoles and higher root biomass (Park
et al., 2005).
4.3. Fruit quality
Tomato cultivars developed by traditional methods soften during
ripening, and require harvesting and transporting while fruits are still
green. Since 1962, it has been clearly defined that ethylene is the hor-
mone driving ripening, as a rise in ethylene occurs before the onset of
ripening (Burg and Burg, 1962) and ethylene production is maintained
throughout ripening. The injection of ethylene allows the fruit to turn
red. The disadvantage of this practice is that the processes which lead
to development of natural flavor are not induced, resulting in a tasteless
fresh tomato (Paduchuri et al., 2010). Inhibition of fruit ripening, and
consequently the extension of shelf-life and storage, by genetic engi-
neering can be obtained by reducing or inhibiting ethylene production.
This is reached by the down-regulation or silencing of genes encoding
proteins involved in the ethylene biosynthesis pathway, such as
aminocyclopropane-1-carboxilic acid (ACC) synthase or AAC oxidase
(Hamilton et al., 1990; Oeller et al., 1991). Another possibility is to stim-
ulate degradation of ethylene precursors by overexpressing genes
encoding proteins responsible for this reaction, such as ACC deaminase
or S-adenosyl methionine hydrolase (Good et al., 1994; Klee et al.,
1991). In tomato, the method of hpRNA-mediated silencing was used
to inhibit expression of the ACO1 gene, encoding for an ACC oxidase.
The lower ethylene content in transgenic tomato plants was associated
with a decrease in pectin methylesterase and polygalacturonase (PG)
activities, and consequently a reduced loss of firmness during ripening.
Nevertheless, the transgenic fruits developed their color later than the
non-transformed fruits (Behboodian et al., 2012). This result confirmed
what has been known for a long time: alteration of the ethylene path-
way affects color development. This is a negative aspect of the selection
and points out the fact that alteration of the ethylene pathway is prob-
ably not the best target of genetic engineering for delayed ripening and/
or firmness. As already mentioned, PG is one of the targets of ethylene.
This enzyme is responsible for the cell wall degradation which occurs
during ripening and leads to fruit softening. In tomato, its expression
was inhibited by the RNA antisense strategy. The resulting transgenic
tomato plants harbored only 1% of residual PG activity and were charac-
terized by firmer fruits. Ethylene production and lycopene accumula-
tion were not modified in these transgenic fruits (Smith et al., 1990).
The color of tomato fruit is due to the presence of β-carotene and
lycopene, which both have been found to have a beneficial effect on
human health. Several attempts to produce a tomato with higher carot-
enoid content have been made. The PSY-1 enzyme catalyzes the first
committed step of the carotenoid biosynthesis pathway by producing
phytoene from GGPP. In order to increase the carotenoid content of
fruit, the Psy-1 gene was constitutively expressed in tomato. When the
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
carotenoid content was significantly increased in the fruit of transgenic
plants, some undesirable effects were observed, notably dwarfism of the
transgenic plant, probably due to the lack of gibberellins. Indeed, both
gibberellins and carotenoids are synthesized from GGPP and the proba-
ble consequence of accumulation of PSY-1 in the transgenic tomato was
stimulation of carotenoid synthesis in detriment to gibberellins biosyn-
thesis (Fray et al., 1995). The use of the PG promoter drove the expres-
sion of Psy-1 specifically in the fruit. While high accumulation of
carotenoid could be measured in the fruit, the overall size of the plant
was not affected (Fraser et al., 2002), highlighting again the advantages
of using organ-specific promoters.
The spontaneous tomato high-pigment mutant is characterized by a
high accumulation of carotenoids and the accumulation of other mole-
cules such as flavonoids, vitamins C and E, thus enhancing the nutrition-
al quality of the fruit (Azari et al., 2010). Surprisingly the corresponding
gene does not encode an enzyme involved in the carotenoid biosynthe-
sis pathway. Molecular characterization of the mutants revealed that
the mutation affects the tomato homolog of Arabidopsis DEETIOLATED
(DET1), a negative regulator of photomorphogenesis (Mustilli et al.,
1999). The suppression of DET1 in tomatoes by RNAi technology result-
ed in significant increases of both carotenoids and flavonoids without
deleterious effects on other parameters (Davuluri et al., 2005). It ap-
pears that modeling the expression of genes which regulated the bio-
synthesis pathway but not directly the genes of the biosynthesis
pathway is more efficient in genetic engineering of the tomato and
should be further considered in modern genetic engineering strategies.
Together with color, the taste and flavor of fruit are very important
criteria for tomato selection today. Taste is determined by an equilibri-
um between sugars (sweet) and organic acids (acid). Because it is im-
portant to maintain low acidity of the fruit for processing tomatoes
(discussed previously), it is not of interest to modify the acid content
of the fruit. Just the opposite, it is probably preferable to modify the
sweetness of the fruit. This can be achieved by increasing the sugar con-
tent, but in a society where people fight obesity, this would not be a
good strategy. The African plant katemfe (Thaumatococcus daniellii
Benth.) produces a sweet-tasting protein called thaumatin (Van der
Wel and Loeve, 1972). In addition to its sweet taste, thaumatin has the
property of intensifying some flavors while attenuating others. The
mechanisms of thaumatin action are still unknown. Thaumatin extract-
ed from fruit or synthesized by microorganism was, and still is, widely
used in the food industry. In order to modify the taste of tomato, the se-
quence encoding thaumatin was introduced by Agrobaterium-mediated
transformation. The transgenic plants produced fruits with enhanced
sweetness (Bartoszewski et al., 2003). This emphasizes the fact that in
order to overcome the lack of taste characteristic of late ripening varie-
ties thaumatin could be introduced into tomato cultivars with rin or nor
background.
The enrichment of tomato flavor can be achieved by synthesizing
molecules which are known to participate in the flavor and aroma sig-
nature of different aromatic plants, such as monoterpenes. Because
monoterpenes, like carotenoids, are synthesized from IPP and DMAPP,
their synthesis can be initiated in tomato fruits by introgression
of the proper gene. Geraniol is the main aromatic compound of
basil (Ocinum basilicum) and confers a characteristic sweet floral
aroma. Thus, Davidovich-Rikanati et al. (2007) expressed the
Ocimum basilicum geraniol synthase gene under the control of the
ripening-specific PG promoter. The flavor signature of the tomato fruit
was modified by the accumulation of geraniol in the fruit and greatly
appreciated by the tasters. The negative point of the new transgenic
lines is that the modification of the flavor/taste was made in detriment
to lycopene accumulation, resulting in a depreciation of the nutritional
value of the fruit.
β-carotene is the precursor of vitamin A, which has a high antioxi-
dant property, making it of interest in human health. As mentioned ear-
lier, the early step of β-carotene synthesis is the production of lycopene
from phytoene by the action of the phytoene desaturase. The carotene
 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
desaturase (Crtl) gene from Erwinia uredovora was introduced into to-
mato in order to increase β-carotene content. Because the production
of phytoene mediated by phytoene synthase is the limiting step of
carotenoid synthesis, no difference in the total amount of carotene
could be measured in transgenic tomato fruits. Instead, the quality of
the carotenoids produced was modified with a three-fold increase of
β-carotene content, representing up to 45% of the total carotenoid con-
tent (Römer et al., 2000).
4.4. Biopharming
In the past few years, a new concept, called biopharming, has been
developing. Biopharming consists of using plants to produce therapeu-
tic molecules which will be further purified or introduced directly into
the human or animal diet. Despite the fact that bacterial fermentation,
yeast systems and mammalian cell cultures are still widely used to pro-
duce molecules important in treating cancers or different human dis-
eases in huge amounts, the costs of development linked to purification
are very significant. Up to now, more than 100 therapeutic and diagnos-
tic recombinant proteins and vaccines have been produced in various
plants, including tobacco, cereals, legumes, fruit and vegetable crops.
Plants have several advantages over the classical modes of production
in term of economy, production scale and safety (Ahmad et al., 2012;
Chen et al., 2009).
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease leading to
neuron destruction. The toxic brain protein responsible for AD, beta-
amyloid (Aβ), has been identified and is accumulated in patients devel-
oping AD. One strategy to prevent and cure AD would be the use of
vaccines directed against Aβ. Attempts to produce and purify Aβ as an
antigen in Escherichia coli or yeast systems have been laborious because
of the toxicity of the protein itself. Thus Youm et al. (2008) initiated the
production of Aβ in tomato fruit. They were able to produce the protein
in a satisfactory amount and to use it in an immunization assay on mice.
Thymosin α1, a booster of the immune system, is widely used in treat-
ment against viral infections (hepatitis B and C) and cancers. Until now
it has been derived from animal thymus or produced chemically; never-
theless, the amount of Tα1 produced is not sufficient faced with in-
creasing demand for the medicine. Using Agrobacterium-mediated
transformation, Tα1 was specifically expressed in the fruit of tomato.
The protein could be easily extracted from the fruit and the yield was
up to 6 μg/g fresh weight. Moreover, the activity of the Tα1 produced
by tomato was higher than that produced by E. coli (Chen et al., 2009). Ex-
amples of tomato genetic engineering for the purposes of biopharming
are becoming more and more numerous, and tomato has already been
used for the production of different vaccines (reviewed in Ahmad et al.,
2012).
Beside its use to produce vaccines and therapeutic molecules, the to-
mato is also used as a bioreactor to produce molecules which are “more
exotic”. This is the case of “miraculin”. Miraculin is the active compound
of the miracle fruit, Synsepalum dulficum. It has the property to change
any sour taste into a sweet and pleasant savor (Kurihara and Beidler,
1968). The production and purification of miraculin in E. coli systems
was not sufficient enough and it is very recently that researchers have
used tomatoes as bioreactors for widerproduction of the compound.
The amount of miraculin in transgenic tomato fruit was up to 90 μg
per g of fresh weight (Hirai et al., 2010).
5. Conclusion
Since its discovery in the 16th century and its first steps into domes-
tication and breeding more than 600 years ago, tomato has become one
of, if not the most important vegetable crop worldwide. Interest in to-
mato is increasing with the population. With current predictions of pop-
ulation increase and climatic changes, it is assumed that traditional
breeding of tomato is not sufficient to satisfy future demand and climat-
ic changes. Development of the plant's molecular biology coupled to its
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
17
genome sequencing and the study of wild relative species, have allowed
researchers to go beyond the limits of classical breeding. The culture of
genetically modified (GM) tomatoes encounters problems in most of
the leading producer countries. Indeed since the arrest of GM tomato
culture in the USA in 2002, only China remains a producer of GM toma-
toes. This is mainly due to the negative opinion of the population that
GM crops are deleterious or, even worse, dangerous for human health
and the environment; this is the consequence of misinformation. As
scientists, our duty is not only to produce crops with engineered
agronomical traits, but also to educate and inform the people around
us. The use of marker-free transgenic plants – i.e. devoid of resistance
of antibiotic or herbicides – should provide a good argument in favor
of the use of such plants. Moreover, we also have to take advantage of
knowledge from wild relative species. Indeed introgression of genetic
information from wild or related species into the cultivated tomato
and limitation of the transfer of alien information would limit the risk
of deleterious effects on the environment and on human or animal
health. Finally, while GM tomatoes are promising, their potential has
rarely been validated in field trials. Such trials, as well as study of impact
on health and the environment, have to be developed and the results
have to be brought to the awareness of society. If we do not invest
part of our time in doing this, why should we continue developing
crops useful to humanity?
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank J. Humplik and P. Galuszka for their
criticism during the preparation of the present manuscript and M.
Sweney for English correction of the text. Finally, the author thanks K.
Janošíková for the design of Fig. 3. This work was supported by the OP
RD&I grant ED0007/01/01 Centre of the Region Haná for Biotechnolog-
ical and Agricultural Research from the Ministry of Education Youth and
Sports, Czech Republic and P501/10/0785 from the National Science
Foundation, Czech Republic.
References
Abdeen A, Virgós A, Olivella E, Villanueva J, Avilés X, Gabarra R, et al. Multiple insect resis-
tance in transgenic tomato plants over-expressing two families of plant proteinase
inhibitors. Plant Mol Biol 2005;57:189–202.
Adato A, Mandel T, Mintz-Oron S, Venger I, Levy D, Yativ M, et al. Fruit-surface flavonoid
accumulation in tomato is controlled by a SlMYB12-regulated transcriptional net-
work. PLoS Genet 2009;5:e1000777.
Ahmad P, Ashraf M, Younis M, Hu X, Kumar A, Akram NA, et al. Role of transgenic plants
in agriculture and biopharming. Biotechnol Adv 2012;30:524–40.
Alberto C, Vicente R, Phillipe E. EstherM., Pablo V. The H2O2 -regulated Ep5C gene en-
codes a peroxidase required for bacterial speck susceptibility in tomato. Plant J
2005;42:283–93.
Alexander L, Grierson D. Ethylene biosynthesis and action in tomato: a model for climac-
teric fruit ripening. J Exp Bot 2002;53:2039–55.
Alimohammadi M, Bagherieh-Najjar MB. Agrobacteirum-mediated transformation of
plants: basic principles and influencing factors. Afr J Biotechnol 2009;8:5142–8.
Allakhverdiev SI, Feyziev YM, Ahmed A, Hayashi H, Aliev JA, Kimlov VV, et al. Stabilization
of oxygen evolution and primary electron transport reactions in photosystem II
against heat stress with glycinebetaine and sucrose. J Photochem Photobiol
1996;34:149–57.
Álvarez-Viveros MF, Inostroza-Blancheteau C, Timmermann T, González M, Arce-Johnson
P. Overexpression of GlyI and GlyII genes in transgenic tomato (Solanum lycopersicum
Mill.) plants confers salt tolerance by decreasing oxidative stress. Mol Biol Rep
2013;40:3281–90.
Arillaga I, Gil-Mascarell R, Gisbert C, Sales E, Montesinos C, Serrano R, et al. Expression of
the yeast HAL2 gene in tomato increases the in vitro salt tolerance of transgenic prog-
enies. Plant Sci 1998;136:219–26.
Azari R, Tadmor Y, Meir A, Reuveni M, Evenor D, Nahon S, et al. Light signalling genes and
their manipulation towards manipulation of phytonutrient content in tomato fruits.
Biotechnol Adv 2010;28:108–18.
Bai Y, Lindhout P. Domestication and breeding of tomatoes: what have we gained and
what can we gain in the future? Ann Bot 2007;100:1085–94.
Bai Y, Guo Z, Wang X, Bai D, Zhang X. Generation of double-virus-resistant marker-free
transgenic potato plants. Prog Nat Sci 2009;19:543–8.
Bapat VA, Trivedi PK, Ghosh A, Sane VA, Ganapathi TR, Nath P. Ripening of fleshy fruit:
molecular insight and the role of ethylene. Biotechnol Adv 2010;28:94–107.
Barrero LS, Cong B, Wu F, Tanksley SD. Developmental characterization of the fasciated
locus and mapping of Arabidopsis candidate genes involved in the control of floral
meristem size and carpel number in tomato. Genome 2006;49:991–1006.
18 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Bartoszewski G, Niedziela A, Szwacka M, Niemirowicz-Szczytt K. Modification of tomato
taste in transgenic plants carrying a thaumatin gene from Thaumatococcus danielli
Benth. Plant Breed 2003;122:347–51.
Bauchet G, Causse M. Genetic diversity in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and its wild rela-
tives. In: Caliskan M, editor. Genetic diversity in plants. InTech978-953-51-0185-7;
2012. p. 133–62.
Bechtold N, Ellis J, Pelletier G. In planta Agrobacterium mediated gene transfer by infiltra-
tion of adult Arabidopsis thaliana plants. C R Acad Sci Paris Life Sci 1993;316:1194–9.
Bedinger PA, Chetelat RT, McClure B, Moyle LC, Rose JKC, Stack SM, et al. Interspecific
reproductive barriers in the tomato clade: opportunities to decipher mechanisms of
reproductive isolation. Sex Plant Reprod 2011;24:171–87.
Behboodian B, Ali ZM, Ismail I, Zainal Z. Postharvest analysis of lowland transgenic tomato
fruits harbouring hpRNAi-ACO1 construct. Sci World J 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1100/2012/439870.
Binns AN, Thomashaw MF. Cell biology of Agrobacterium infection and transformation of
plants. Annu Rev Microbiol 1988;42:575–606.
Bird CR, Smith CJS, Ray JA, Moureau P, Bevan MJ, Birds AS, et al. The tomato polygalacturonase
gene and ripening specific expression in transgenic plants. Plant Mol Biol 1988;11:
651–62.
Blanca J, Cañizares J, Cordera L, Pascual L, Diez MJ, Nuez F. Variation revealed by SNP
genotyping and morphology provides insight into the origin of the tomato. PloS
ONE 2012;7:e48198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.004819.
Bruening G, Lyons JM. The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato. Calif Agric 2000;54:6–7.
Brummell DA, Harpster MH, Civello PM, Palys JM, Bennett AB, Dunsmuir P. Modification
of expansin protein abundance in tomato fruit alters softening and cell wall polymer
metabolism during ripening. Plant Cell 1999;11:2203–16.
Burg SP, Burg EA. Role of ethylene in fruit ripening. Plant Physiol 1962;37:179–89.
Butelli E, Titta L, Giorgio M, Mock HP, Matros A, Peterek S, et al. Enrichment of tomato fruit
with healthpromoting anthocyanins by expression of select transcription factors. Nat
Biotechnol 2008;26:1301–8.
Causse M, Damidaux R, Rousselle P. Traditional and enhanced breeding for quality traits
in tomato. In: Razdan MK, Mattoo AK, editors. Genetic improvement of Solanaceous
crops. TomatoEnfield, NH: Science Publishers; 2007. p. 153–92.
Chen K-Y, Tanksley SD. High-resolution mapping and functional analysis of se2.1: a major
stigma exsertion quantitative trait locus associated with the evolution from allogamy
to autogamy in the genus Lycopersicon. Genetics 2004;168:1563–73.
Chen Y, Wang A, Zhao L, Shen G, Cui L, Tang K. Expression of thymosin α1 concatemer in trans-
genic tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) fruits. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 2009;52:303–12.
Cheng L, Zou Y, Ding S, Zhang J, Yu X, Cao J, et al. Polyamine accumulation in transgenic
tomato enhances the tolerance to high temperature stress. J Integr Plant Biol 2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2009.00816.x.
Chevalier C, Nafati M, Mathieu-Rivet E, Bourdon M, Frangne N, Cheniclet C, et al. Elucidating
the functional role of endoreduplication in tomato fruit development. Ann Bot
2011;107:1159–69.
Clough SJ, Bent AF. Floral dip: a simplified method for Agrobacterium-mediated transfor-
mation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 1998;16:735–43.
Coego A, Ramirez V, Ellul P, Mayda E, Vera P. The H2O2-regulated Ep5C gene encodes a per-
oxidase required for bacterial speck susceptibility in tomato. Plant J 2005;42:283–93.
Colliver S, Bovy A, Collins G, Muir S, Robinson S, de Vos CHR, et al. Improving the nutri-
tional content of tomatoes through reprogramming their flavonoid biosynthetic
pathway. Phytochem Rev 2002;1:113–23.
Cong B, Liu J, Tanksley SD. Natural alleles at a tomato fruit size quantitative trait locus dif-
fer by heterochronic regulatory mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002:13606–11.
Cortina C, Culianez-Macia FA. Tomato abiotic stress enhanced tolerance by trehalose bio-
synthesis. Plant Sci 2005;169:75–82.
Dale EC, Ow DE. Gene transfer with subsequent removal of the selection gene from the
host genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991;88:10558–62.
Darbani B, Eimanifar A, Stewart Jr CN, Camargo WN. Methods to produce marker-free
transgenic plants. Biotechnol J 2007;2:83–90.
Davidovich-Rikanati R, Sitrit Y, Tadmor Y, Iijima Y, Bilenko N, Bar E, et al. Enrichment of
tomato flavour by diversion of the early plastidial terpenoid pathway. Nat Biotechnol
2007;25:899–901.
Davis MR, Miller LD. Temporal competence for transformation of Lycopersicon esculentum
L. Mill. Cotyledons by Agrobacterium tumefaciens: relation to wound healing and
soluble plant factors. J Exp Bot 1991;42:359–64.
Davuluri GR, van Tuinen A, Fraser PD, Manfredonia A, Newman R, Burgess D, et al.
Fruit-specific RNAi-mediated suppression of DET1 enhances carotenoid and flavonoid
content in tomatoes. Nat Biotechnol 2005;23:890–5.
de la Garza RID, Quinlivan R, Klaus EP, Basset SM, Gregory GJ, Hanson AD. Folate
biofortification in tomatoes by engineering the pteridine branch of folate synthesis.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:13720–5.
de la Garza RID, Gregory JF, Hanson AD. Folate biofortification of tomato fruit. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 2007;104:4218–22.
De Vetten N, Wolters AM, Raemakers K, van der Meer I, ter Stege R, Heeres E, et al. A
transformation method for obtaining marker-free plants of a cross-pollinating and
vegetatively propagated crop. Nat Biotechnol 2003;21:439–42.
DeCandolle A. Origin of cultivated plants. [reprint 1959]New York: Hafner Publishing
Company; 1886 [468 pp.].
Deikman J, Kline R, Fischer RL. Organization of ripening and ethylene regulatory regions
in a fruit-specific promoter from tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Plant Physiol
1992;100:2013–7.
Desfeux C, Clough SJ, Bent AF. Female reproductive tissues are the primary target of
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol
2000;123:895–904.
Dharmapuri S, Rosati C, Pallara P, Aquilani R, Bouvier F, Camara B, et al. Metabolic engi-
neering of xanthophyll content in tomato fruits. FEBS Lett 2002;519:30–4.
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
Di Matteo A, Sacco A, Anacleria M, Pezzotti M, Delledonne M, Ferrarini A, et al. The ascorbic
acid content of tomato fruits is associated with the expression of genes involved in pectin
degradation. BMC Plant Biol 2010;10:163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-10-163.
Di Matteo A, Rigano MM, Sacco A, Frusciante L, Barone A. Genetic transformation in toma-
to: novel tools to improve fruit quality and pharmaceutical production. In: Avarez M,
editor. Genetic transformation. InTech; 2011. p. 55–80.
Doebley JF, Gaut B, Smith BD. The molecular genetics of crop domestication. Cell
2006;127:1309–21.
Enfissi EMA, Fraser PD, Lois LM, Boronat A, Schuch W, Bramley PM. Metabolic engineering
of the mevalonate and non-mevalonate isopentenyl diphosphate-forming pathways
for the production of health-promoting isoprenoids. Plant Biotechnol J 2005;3:17–27.
Fernandez AI, Viron N, Alhagdow M, Karimi M, Jones M, Amsellem Z, et al. Flexible tools
for gene expression and silencing in tomato. Plant Physiol 2009;151:1729–40.
Ficcadenti N, Sestili S, Pandolfini T, Cirillo C, Rotino LG, Spena A. Genetic engineering of
parthenocarpic fruit development in tomato. Mol Breed 1999;5:463–70.
Fillatti JJ, Kiser J, Rose R, Comai L. Efficient transfer of a glyphosate tolerance gene into
tomato using a binary Agrobacterium tumefaciens vector. Bio/Technol 1987;5:
726–30.
Foolad MR. Genome mapping and molecular breeding of tomato. Int J Plant Genom 2007.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2007/64358. [Article ID 64358, 52 pages].
Frary A, Van Eck J. Organogenesis from transformed tomato explants. In: Pera L, editor.
Transgenic plants: methods and protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology SeriesHumana
Press; 2005. p. 141–50.
Fraser PD, Romer S, SHipton CA, Pb Mills, Kiano JW, Misawa N, et al. Evaluation of trans-
genic plants expressing an additional phytoene synthase in a fruit-specific manner.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:1092–7.
Fray RG, Wallace A, Fraser PD, Valero D, Hedden P, Bramley PM, et al. Constitutive expres-
sion of a fruit phytoene synthase gene in transgenic tomatoes causes dwarfism by
redirecting metabolits from the gibberllin pathway. Plant J 1995;8:693–701.
Frary A, Nesbitt TC, Grandillo S, van der Knaap E, Cong B, Liu J, et al. fw2.2: A quantitative
trait locus key to the evolution of tomato fruit size. Science 2000;289:85–8.
Fridman E, Carrari F, Liu Y-S, Fernie AR, Zamir D. Zooming in on a quantitative trait for
tomato yield using interspecific introgressions. Science 2000;305:1786–9.
Garcia V, Stevens R, Gil L, Gilbert L, Gest N, Petit J, et al. An integrative genomics approach
for deciphering the complex interactions between ascorbate metabolism and fruit
growth and composition in tomato. C R Biol 2009;332:1007–21.
Ghanem ME, Albacete A, Smigocki AC, Frébort I, Pospíšilová H, Martínez-Andújar C, et al.
Root-synthesized cytokinins improve shoot growth and fruit yield in salinized tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) plants. J Exp Bot 2011;62:125–40.
Gilbert L, Alhagdow M, Nunes-Nesi A, Quemener B, Guillon F, Bouchet B, et al.
GDP-D-mannose 3,5-epimerase (GME) plays a key role at the intersection of ascor-
bate and non-cellulosic cell-wall biosynthesis in tomato. Plant J 2009;60:499–508.
Giliberto L, Perrotta G, Pallara P, Weller JL, Fraser PD, Bramley PM, et al. Manipulation of
the blue light photoreceptor Cryptochrome 2 in tomato affects vegetative develop-
ment, flowering time, and fruit antioxidant content. Plant Physiol 2005;137:199–208.
Giovannoni JJ. Fruit ripening mutants yield insights into ripening control. Curr Opin Plant
Biol 2007;10:283–9.
Gisbert C, Rus AM, Bolarin C, Lopez-Coronado JM, Arrillaga I, Montesinos C, et al. The yeast
HAL1 gene improves salt tolerance of transgenic tomato. Plant Physiol 2000;123:
393–402.
Goetz M, Hooper LC, Johnson SD, Rodrigues JC, Vivian-Smith A, Koltunow AM. Expression
of aberrant forms of AUXIN RESPONSE FACTOR8 stimulates parthenocarpy in
Arabidopsis and tomato. Plant Physiol 2007;145:351–66.
Goldsbrough AP, Lastrella CN, Yoder JI. Transposition mediated re-positioning and subse-
quent elimination of marker genes from transgenic tomato. Nat Biotechnol 1993;11:
1286–92.
Good X, Kellogg JA, Wagonner W, Langhoff D, Matsumura W, Bestwick RK. Reduced
ethylene synthesis by transgenic tomato expressing S-adenosylmethionine hydro-
lase. Plant Mol Biol 1994;26:781–90.
Goyary D. Transgenic crops, and their scope for abiotic stress environment of high
altitude: biochemical and physiological perspectives. DRDO Sci Spectr 2009:195–201.
Grandillo S, Ku H-M, Tanksley SD. Characterization of fs8.1, a major QTL influencing fruit
shape in tomato. Mol Breed 1996;2:251–60.
Grichko VP, Glick BR. Flooding tolerance of transgenic tomato plants expressing the bac-
terial enzyme ACC deaminase controlled by the 35S, rolD or PRB-1b promoter. Plant
Physiol Biochem 2001;39:19–25.
Hamilton AJ, Lycett GW, Grierson D. Antisense gene that inhibits synthesis of the hor-
mone ethylene in transgenic plants. Nature 1990;6281:284–7.
Hasan M, Khan AJ, Khan S, Shah AH, Khan AR, Mirza B. Transformation of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum L.) with Arabidopsis early flowering gene APATALI
(API) through Agrobacterium infiltration of ripened fruits. Pak J Bot 2008;40:
161–73.
Hirai T, Fukukawa G, Kakuta H, Fukuda N, Ezura H. Production of recombinant miraculin
using transgenic tomatoes in a closed cultivation system. J Agric Food Chem 2010;58:
6096–101.
Hirschberg J. Carotenoid biosynthesis in flowering plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 2001;4:
210–8.
Hobson GE, Grierson D. Tomato. In: Taylor J, Tucker G, editors. Biochemistry of fruit
ripeningSeymour G, Ced3; 1993. p. 405–42.
Hseih TH, Lee JT, Charng YY, Chan MT. Tomato plants ectopically expressing Arabidopsis
CBF1 show enhanced resistance to water deficit stress. Plant Physiol 2002b;130:
618–26.
Hsieh TH, Lee JT, Yang PT, Chiu LH, Charng YY, Wang YC, et al. Heterology expression of
the Arabidopsis C-repeat/dehydration response element binding factor 1 gene con-
fers elevated tolerance to chilling and oxidative stresses in transgenic tomato. Plant
Physiol 2002a;129:1086–94.
 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Ikeda H, Hiraga M, Shirasawa K, Nishiyama M, Kanahama K, Kanayama Y. Analysis of a tomato
introgression line, IL8-3, with increased Brix content. Sci Hortic 2013;153:103–8.
Ioannidi E, Kalamaki MS, Engineer C, Pateraki I, Alexandrou D, Mellidou I, et al. Expression
profiling of ascorbic acid-related genes during tomato fruit development and ripening
and in response to stress conditions. J Exp Bot 2009;60:663–78.
Jia GX, Zhu ZQ, Chang FQ, Li YX. Transformation of tomato with the BADH gene from
Atriplex improves salt tolerance. Plant Cell Rep 2002;21:141–56.
Jia H, Pang Y, Chen X, Fang R. Removal of the selectable marker gene from transgenic to-
bacco plants by expression of Cre recombinase from a Tobacco Mosaic Virus vector
through agroinfection. Transgenic Res 2006;15:375–84.
Kisaka H, Kida T. Transgenic tomato plant carrying a gene for NADP-dependent glutamate
dehydrogenase (gdh A) from Aspergillus nidulans. Plant Sci 2003;164:35–42.
Klee HJ, Hayford MB, Kretzmer KA, Barry GF, Kishore GM. Control of ethylene synthesis by
expression of a bacterial enzyme ins transgenic tomato plants. Plant Cell 1991;3:
1187–93.
Komari T, Hiei Y, Saito Y, Murai N, Kumashiro T. Vectors carrying two separate T-DNAs for
co-transformation of higher plants mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens and
segregation of transformants free from selection markers. Plant J 1996;10:165–74.
Kramer P, Boyer J. Water relations of plants and soils. San Diego: Academic Press; 1995.
Kramer MG, Redenbaugh K. Commercialization of a tomato with an antisense
polygalacturonase gene: the FLAVR SAVR™ tomato story. Euphytica 1994;79:293–7.
Ku H-M, Doganlar S, Chen K-Y, Tanksley SD. The genetic basis of pear-shaped tomato
fruit. Theor Appl Genet 1999;9:844–50.
Kumar H, Kumar V. Tomato expressing Cry1A (b) insecticidal protein from Bacillus
thurigiensis protected against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) damage in the laboratory, green house and field. Crop
Prot 2004;23:135–9.
Kunkel BN, Brooks DM. Cross-talk between signalling pathways in pathogen defense. Curr
Opin Plant Biol 2002;5:325–31.
Kurihara K, Beidler LM. Taste-modifying protein from miracle fruit. Science 1968;161:
1241–3.
Langley KR, Martin A, Stenning R, Murray AJ, Hobson GE, Schuch WW, et al. Mechanical
and optical assessment of the ripening of tomato fruit with reduced
polygalacturonase activity. J Sci Food Agric 1994;66:547–54.
Lau JM, Cooper NG, Robinson DL, Korban SS. Sequence and in silico characterization of the
tomato polygalacturonase (PG) promoter and terminator regions. Plant Mol Biol Rep
2009;27:250–6.
Lelievre JM, Latche A, Jones B, Bouzayen M, Pech JC. Ethylene and fruit ripening. Physiol
Plant 1997;101:727–39.
Lewinsohn E, Schalechet F, Wilkinson J, Matsui K, Tadmor Y, Nam KH, et al. Enhanced
levels of the aroma and flavor compound S-Linalool by metabolic engineering of
the terpenoid pathway in tomato fruits. Plant Physiol 2001;127:1256–65.
Lewinsohn E, Sitrit Y, Bar E, Azulay Y, Ibdah M, Meir A, et al. Not just colors — carotenoid
degradation as a link between pigmentation and aroma in tomato and watermelon
fruit. Trends Food Sci Technol 2005;16:407–15.
Li L, Steffens JC. Overexpression of polyphenol oxidase in transgenic tomato plants results
in enhanced bacterial disease resistance. Planta 2002;215:239–47.
Li D, Zhang Y, Hu X, Shen X, Ma L, Su Z, et al. Transcriptional profiling of Medicago
truncatula under salt stress identified a novel CBF transcription factor MtCBF4 that
plays an important role in abiotic stress responses. BMC Plant Biol 2011;11:109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-11-109.
Lin WC, Lu CF, Wu JW, Cheng ML, Lin YM, Yang NS, et al. Transgenic tomato plants
expressing the Arabidopsis NPR1 gene display enhanced resistance to a spectrum
of fungal and bacterial diseases. Transgenic Res 2004;13:567–81.
Lin Z, Zhong S, Grierson D. Recent advances in ethylene research. J Exp Bot 2009;12:
3311–36.
Lincoln JE, Richael C, Overduin B, Smith K, Bostock R, Gilchrist DG. Expression of the
antiapoptotic baculovirus p35 gene in tomato blocks programmed cell death and pro-
vides broad-spectrum resistance to disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:15217–21.
Lippman Z, Tanksley SD. Dissecting the genetic pathway to extreme fruit size in tomato
using a cross between the small-fruited wild species L. pimpinellifolium and L.
esculentum var. Giant Heirloom. Genetics 2001:413–22.
Liu J, Eck J, Cong B, Tanksley SD. A new class of regulatory genes underlying the cause of
pear-shaped tomato fruit. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:13302–6.
Liu Y, Roof S, Ye Z, Barry C, van Tuinen A, Vrebalov J, et al. Manipulation of light signal
transduction as a means of modifying fruit nutritional quality in tomato. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:9897–902.
Livingston AW. Livingston and the tomato. Ohio State University Press; 1893 [reprint
1998].
Lozano R, Gimenez E, Cara B, Capel J, Angosto T. Genetic analysis of reproductive develop-
ment of tomato. Int J Dev Biol 2009;53:1635–48.
Lu C, Zainal Z, Tucker GA, Lycett GW. Developmental abnormalities and reduced fruit soft-
ening in tomato plants expressing an antisense Rab11 GTPase gene. Plant Cell
2001;13:1819–33.
Lyznik LA, Rao KV, Hodges TK. FLP-mediated recombination of FRT sites in maize genome.
Nucleic Acids Res 1996;24:3784–9.
Ma H, Song C, Borth W, Sether D, Melzer M, Hu J. Modified expression of alternative ox-
idase in transgenic tomato and petunia affects the level of tomato spotted wilt virus
resistance. BMC Biotechnol 2011;11:96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-11-96.
Mandaokar AD, Goyal RK, Shukla A, Bisaria S, Bhalla R, Reddy VS, et al. Transgenic tomato
plants resistant to fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner). Crop Prot 2000;19:
307–12.
Martel C, Vrebalov J, Tafelmeyer P, Giovannoni JJ. The tomato MADS-box transcription
factor RIPENING INHIBITOR interacts with promoters involved in numerous ripening
processes in a COLORLESS NONRIPENING-dependent manner. Plant Physiol
2011;157:1568–79.
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
19
Martinoia E, Massonneau A, Frangne N. Transport processes of solutes across the vacuolar
membrane of higher plants. Plant Cell Physiol 2000;41:1175–86.
McCormick S, Niedermeyer J, Fry B, Barnason A, Horch R, Farler R. Leaf disk transforma-
tion of cultivated tomato (L. esculentum) using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Cell
Rep 1986;5:81–4.
McCue GA. The history of the use of the tomato: an annotated bibliography. Ann Mo Bot
Gard 1952;39:289–348.
Mehta RA, Cassol T, Li N, Ali N, Handa AK, Mattoo AK. Engineered polyamine accumula-
tion in tomato enhances phytonutrient content, juice quality, and vine life. Nature
Biotechnol 2002;20:613–8.
Moghaieb REA, Nakamura A, Saneoka H, Fujita K. Evaluation of salt tolerance in
ectoine-transgenic tomato plants (Lycopersicum esculentum) in terms of photosyn-
thesis, osmotic adjustment and carbon partitioning. GM Crops 2011;2:58–65.
Moore S, Vrebalov J, Payton P, Giovannoni J. Use of genomics tools to isolate key ripening
genes and analyse fruit maturation in tomato. J Exp Bot 2002;53:2023–30.
Muir SR, Collins GJ, Robinson S, Hughes SG, Bovy AG, de Vos CH, et al. Overexpression of
petunia chalcone isomerase in tomato results in fruit containing dramatically in-
creased levels of flavonols. Nat Biotechnol 2001;19:470–4.
Müller CH. A revision of the genus Lycopersicon. United States Department of Agriculture,
Miscellaneous Publication, 382; 19401–28.
Mustilli AC, Fenzi F, Ciliento R, Alfano F, Bowler C. Phenotype of the tomato high pigment-2
mutant is caused by a mutation in the tomato homolog of DEETIOLATED1. Plant Cell
1999;11:145–57.
Nakazato T, Housworth EA. Spatial genetics of wild tomato species reveals roles of the
Andean geography on demographic history. Am J Bot 2011;98:88–98.
Neily MH, Matsukura C, Maucourt M, Bernillon S, Deborde C, Moing A, et al. Enhanced poly-
amine accumulation alters carotenoid metabolism at the transcriptional level in tomato
fruit over-expressing spermidine synthase. J Plant Physiol 2011;168:242–52.
Nervo G, Cirillo C, Accotto GP, Vaira AM. Characterisation of two tomato lines highly resis-
tant to tomato spotted wilt virus following transformation with the viral nucleopro-
tein gene. J Plant Pathol 2003;85:139–44.
Nesbitt TC, Tanksley SD. Comparative sequencing in the genus Lycopersicon: implication
for the evolution of fruit size in the domestication of the cultivated tomatoes. Genetics
2002;162:365–79.
Odell JT, Nagy F, Chua NH. Identification of DNA sequences required for activity of the
cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter. Nature 1985;312:810–2.
Oeller PW, Min-Wong L, Taylor LP, Pike DA, Theologis A. Reversible inhibition of tomato
fruit senescence by antisense RNA. Science 1991;5030:437–9.
Ohki S, Bigot C, Mousseau J. Analysis of shoot-forming capacity in vitro in two lines
of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and their hybrids. Plant Cell Physiol
1978;19:27–42.
Orzaez D, Mirabel S, Wieland WH, Granell A. Agroinjection of tomato fruits. A tool for
rapid functional analysis of transgenes directly in fruit. Plant Physiol 2006;140:3–11.
Paduchuri P, Gohokar S, Thamke B, Subhas M. Transgenic tomatoes — a review. Int J Adv
Biotechnol Res 2010;1:69–72.
Park SH, Morris JL, Park JE, Kendal DH, Smith RH. Efficient and genotype independent
Agrobacterium mediated transformation of tomato. J Plant Physiol 2003;160:1253–7.
Park S, Li J, Pittman JK, Berkowitz GA, Yang H, Undurraga S, et al. Up-regulation of a
H+-pyrophosphatase (H+-PPase) as a strategy to engineer drought-resistant crop
plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:18830–5.
Pasapula V, Shen G, Kuppu S, Paez-Valencia J, Mendoza M, Hou P, et al. Expression of an
Arabidopsis vacuolar H+-pyrophosphatase gene (AVP1) in cotton improves drought-
and salt tolerance and increases fibre yield in the field conditions. Plant Biotechnol J
2011;9:88–99.
Patade VY, Khatri D, Kumari M, Grover A, Gupta SM, Ahmed Z. Cold tolerance in Osmotin
transgenic tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is associated with modulation
in transcript abundance of stress responsive genes. Springer Plus 2013;2:17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-117. [Hsieh et al., 2002].
Peralta IE, Spooner DM. Granule-bound starch synthase (GBSSI) gene phylogeny of wild
tomatoes (Solanum L. section Lycopersicon [Mill.] Wettst. subsection Lycopersicon).
Am J Bot 2001;88:1888–902.
Peralta IE, Spooner DM. Morphological characterization and relationships of wild toma-
toes (Solanum L. Section Lycopersicon). Monogr Syst Bot 2005;104:227–57.
Peralta IE, Spooner DM. History, origin and early cultivation of tomato (Solanaceae). In:
Razdan MK, Matto AK, editors. Genetic improvement of solanaceous crops, vol. 2.
Tomato, Enfield, NH: Science Publishers; 2007. p. 1–27.
Peralta IE, Knapp S, Spooner DM. New species of wild tomatoes (Solanum section
Lycopersicon: Solanaceae) from Northern Peru. Syst Bot 2005;30:424–34.
Peralta IE, Spooner DM, Knapp S. Taxonomy of wild tomatoes and their relatives (Solanum
sect. Lycopersicoides, sect. Juglandifolia, sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Syst Bot
Monogr 2008;84. [186 pp.].
Pinhero RG, Almquist KC, Novotna Z, Paliyath G. Developmental regulation of phospholi-
pase D in tomato fruits. Plant Physiol Biochem 2003;41:223–40.
Pogrebnyak N, Golovkin M, Andrianov V, Spitsin S, Smirnov Y, Egolf R, et al. Severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS) S protein production in plants: development of recom-
binant vaccine. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:9062–667.
Potenza C, Aleman L, Sengupta-Gopalan C. Targeting transgene expression in research,
agricultural, and environmental applications: promoters used in plants transforma-
tion. In Vivo Cell Dev Biol Plant 2004;40:1–22.
Puchta H. Marker-free transgenic plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 2003;74:
123–34.
Raj SK, Rachana S, Pandey SK, Singh BP. Agrobacterium-mediated tomato transformation
and regeneration of transgenic plants expressing tomato leaf curl virus coat protein
gene for resistance against TLCV infection. Curr Sci 2005;33:1674–9.
Rao AV, Agarwal S. Role of antioxidant lycopene in cancer and heart disease. J Am Coll
Nutr 2000;19:563–9.
20 V. Bergougnoux / Biotechnology Advances xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Rick CM. Hybridization between Lycopersicon esculentum and Solanum pennillii: phyloge-
netic and cytogenetic significance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1960;46:78–82.
Rick CM. Potential genetic resources in tomato species: clues from observations in native
habitats. In: Srb AM, editor. Genes, enzymes and populations. Basis Life SciencesUS:
Springer; 1974. p. 255–69.
Rick CM. Biosystematic studies in Lycopersicon and closely related species of Solanum. In:
Hawkes JG, Lester RN, Skelding AD, editors. The biology and taxonomy of Solanaceae.
Linnean Society Symposium SeriesNew York, New York, USA: Academic Press; 1979.
p. 667–77.
Rick CM. Genetic relationships between self-incompatibility and floral traits in the tomato
species. Biol Zent Bl 1982;101:185–98.
Römer S, Fraser PD, Kiano JW, Shipton CA, Misawa N, Schuch W, et al. Elevation of the pro-
vitamin A content of transgenic tomato plants. Nat Biotechnol 2000;18:666–9.
Ronen G, Carmel-Goren L, Zamir D, Hirschberg J. An alternative pathway to ß-carotene
formation in plant chromoplasts discovered by map-based cloning of beta and
old-gold color mutations in tomato. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000;97:11102–7.
Rosati C, Aquilani R, Dharmapuri S, Pallara P, Marusic C, Tavazza R, et al. Metabolic engi-
neering of ß-carotene and lycopene content in tomato fruit. Plant J 2000;24:413–20.
Ruf S, Hermann M, Berger IJ, Carrer H, Bock R. Stable genetic transformation of tomato
plastids and expression of a foreign protein in fruit. Nat Biotechnol 2001;19:870–5.
Ruiz-Sola MA, Rodríguez-Concepción M. Carotenoid biosynthesis in Arabidopsis: a color-
ful pathway. The Arabidopsis book; 2012e0158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1199/tab.0158.
Scalliet G, Lionnet C, LeBechec M, Dutron L, Magnard JL, Baudino S, et al. Role of
petal-specific orcinol O-methyltransferases in the evolution of rose scent. Plant Phys-
iol 2006;140:18–29.
Schauer N, Zamir D, Fernie AR. Metabolic profiling of leaves and fruit of wild species toma-
toes: a survey of the Solanum lycopersicum complex. J Exp Bot 2005;56:297–307.
Schijlen E, de Vos CHR, Jonker H, van den Broeck H, Molthoff J, van Tunen A, et al. Pathway
engineering for healthy phytochemicals leading to the production of novel flavonoids
in tomato fruit. Plant Biotechnol J 2006;4:433–44.
Scott JW, Bryan HH, Ramos LJ. High temperature fruit setting ability of large-fruited,
jointless pedicel tomato hybrids with various combinations of heat-tolerance. Proc
Fla State Hortic Soc 1997;110:281–4.
Semel Y, Nissenbaum J, Menda N, Zinder M, Krieger U, Issman N, et al. Overdominant
quantitative trait loci for yield and fitness in tomato. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2006;103:12981–6.
Shantha SL, Padma, Bhat SG, Kumar S, Ragavendra Rao B. Genetic manipulation of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum) using WGA gene through Agrobacterium mediated trans-
formation. J Sci Eng Technol 2012;8:36–43.
Shchelkunov SN, Saliaev RK, Ryzhova TS, Pozdniakov SG, Nesterov AE, Rekoslavskaia NI,
et al. Designing of a candidate edible vaccine against hepatitis B and HIV on the
basis of a transgenic tomato. Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk 2004;11:50–5.
Simkin AJ, Schwartz SH, Auldridge M, Taylor MG, Klee HJ. The tomato carotenoid cleavage
dioxygenase 1 genes contribute to the formation of the flavor volatiles b-ionone,
pseudoionone, and geranylacetone. Plant J 2004;40:882–92.
Simkin AJ, Gaffé J, Alcaraz JP, Carde JP, Bramley PM, Fraser PD, et al. Fibrillin influence on
plastid ultrastructure and pigment content in tomato fruit. Phytochemistry 2007;68:
1545–56.
Smigocki AC, Owens LD. Cytokinin-to-auxin ratios and morphology of shoots and tissues
transformed by a chimeric isopentenyl transferase gene. Plant Physiol 1989;91:808–11.
Smith CJS, Wtason CF, Morris PC, Bird CR, Seymour GB, Gray JE, et al. Inheritance and
effect on ripening of antisense polygalacturonase genes in transgenic tomatoes.
Plant Mol Biol 1990;14:369–79.
Spooner DM, Peralta IE, Knapp S. Comparison of AFLPs with other markers for phyloge-
netic inference in wild tomatoes [Solanum L. section Lycopersicon (Mill.) Wettst.].
Taxon 2005;54:43–61.
Stevens MA. Inheritance of tomato fruit quality components. Plant Breed Rev 1986;4:
273–311.
Stevens R, Buret M, Duffé P, Garchery C, Baldet P, Rothan C, et al. Candidate genes and
quantitative trait loci affecting fruit ascorbic acid content in three tomato popula-
tions. Plant Physiol 2007;143:1943–53.
Stockinger EJ, Gilmour SJ, Thomashow MF. Arabidopsis thaliana CBF1 encodes an AP2
domain-containing transcriptional activator that binds to the C-repeat/DRE, a
cis-acting DNA regulatory element that stimulates transcription in response to low
temperature and water deficit. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997;94:1035–40.
Stommel JR. USDA 97 L63, 97 L66, and 97 L97: tomato breeding lines with high fruit
beta-carotene content. Hortic Sci 2001;36:387–8.
Su J, Hirji R, Zhang L, He C, Selvaraj G, Wu R. Evaluation of the stress-inducible production
of choline oxidase in transgenic rice as a strategy for producing the stress-protectant
glycine betaine. J Exp Bot 2006;57:1129–35.
Sugita K, Kasahara T, Matsunaga E, Ebinuma H. A transformation vector for the production
of marker-free transgenic plants containing a single copy transgene at high frequen-
cy. Plant J 2000;5:461–9.
Sun L, Yuan B, Zhang M, Wang L, Cui M, Wang Q, et al. Fruit-specific RNAi-mediated sup-
pression of SlNCED1 increases both lycopene and b-carotene contents in tomato
fruits. J Exp Bot 2012;63:3097–108.
Sunilkumar G, Mohr L, Lopata-Finch E, Emani C, Rathore KS. Developmental and
tissue-specific expression of CaMV 35S promoter in cotton as revealed by GFP.
Plant Mol Biol 2002;50:463–74.
Tanksley SD. The genetic, developmental and molecular bases of fruit size and shape
variation in tomato. Plant Cell 2004;16:S181–9.
The Tomato Genome Consortium. The tomato genome sequence provides insights into
fleshy fruit evolution. Nature 2012;485:635–41.
Please cite this article as: Bergougnoux V, The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming, Biotechnol Adv (2013), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
Thomzik JE, Stenzel K, Stocker R, Schreier PH, Hain R, Stahl DJ. Synthesis of a grapevine
phytoalexin in transgenic tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) conditions resis-
tance against Phytophthora infestans. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 1997;51:265–78.
Tieman DM, Harriman RW, Ramamohan G, Handa AK. An antisense pectin
methylesterase gene alters pectin chemistry and soluble solids in tomato fruit.
Plant Cell 1992;4:667–79.
Tieman DM, Handa AK. Reduction in pectin methyltransferase activity modifies tissue in-
tegrity and cation levels in ripening tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruits.
Plant Physiol 1994;106:429–36.
Tieman DM, Zeigler M, Schmelz EA, Taylor MG, Bliss P, Kirst M, Klee HJ. Identification of
loci affecting flavour volatile emissions in tomato fruits. J Exp Bot 2006;57:887–96.
Tomashow MF. Role of cold-responsive genes in plant freezing tolerance. Plant Physiol
1998;118:1–7.
Tuteja N, Verma S, Sahoo RK, Raveendar S, Reddy IBL. Recent advances in development of
marker-free transgenic plants: regulation and biosafety concern. J Biosci 2012;37:
167–97.
Upadhyaya CP, Nookaraju A, Gururani MA, Upadhyaya DC, Kim D-H, Chun S-C, et al. An
update on the progress towards the development of marker-free transgenic plants.
Bot Stud 2010;51:277–92.
Van der Knaap E, Tanksley SD. Identification and characterization of a novel locus control-
ling early fruit development in tomato. Theor Appl Genet 2001;103:353–8.
Van der Wel H, Loeve K. Isolation and characterization of thaumatin I and thaumatin II the
sweet tasting proteins from Thaumatococcus daniellii Benth. Eur J Biochem 1972;31:
221–5.
Vrebalov J, Ruesinsky D, Padmanabahn W, White R, Medrano D, Drake R, et al. A
MADS-box gene necessary for fruit ripening at the tomato ripening-inhibitor (rin)
locus. Science 2002;296:343–6.
Walter JM. Heredity resistance to disease in tomato. Annu Rev Phytopathol 1967;5:131–60.
Wang W, Vinocur B, Altman A. Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temper-
atures: towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Planta 2003;218:1–14.
Wang Y, Michael W, Richard M, Richard C, Cui M, Robert W. Overexpression of cystolic
ascorbate peroxidase in tomato confers tolerance to chilling and salt stress. J Am
Soc Hortic Sci 2005a;130:167–8.
Wang H, Jones B, Li Z, Frasse P, Delalande C, Regad F, et al. The tomato Aux/IAA transcrip-
tion factor IAA9 is involved in fruit development and leaf morphogenesis. Plant Cell
2005b;17:2676–92.
Wang Y, Wisniewski M, Meilan R, Cui M, Fuchigami L. Transgenic tomato (Lycopersicum
esculentum) overexpressing cAPX exhibits enhanced tolerance to UV-B and heat
stress. J Appl Hortic 2006;8:87–90.
Wang JY, Lai LD, Tong SM, Li QL. Constitutive and salt-inducible expression of SIBADH
gene in transgenic tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Micro-Tom) enhances salt
tolerance. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2013;8:262–7.
Wang S, Liu J, Feng Y, Niu X, Giovannoni J, Liu Y. Altered plastid levels and potential for
improved fruit nutrient content by downregulation of the tomato DDB1-interacting
protein CUL4. Plant J 2008;55:89–103.
Watson CF, Zheng L, Della Penna D. Reduction of tomato polygalacturonase b subunit ex-
pression affects pectin solubilization and degradation during fruit ripening. Plant Cell
1994;6:1623–34.
Weese TL, Bohs L. A three-gene phylogeny of the genus Solanum (Solanaceae). Syst Bot
2007;32:445–63.
Wilkinson J, Lanahan M, Yen H, Giovannoni JJ, Klee HJ. An ethylene-inducible component
of signal transduction encoded by Never-ripe. Science 1995;270:1807–9.
Willits MG, Kramer CM, Prata RTN, DeLuca V, Potter BG, Steffens JC, et al. Utilization of the
genetic resources of wild species to create a nontransgenic high flavonoid tomato.
J Agric Food Chem 2005;53:1231–6.
Wurbs D, Ruf S, Bock B. Contained metabolic engineering in tomatoes by expression of ca-
rotenoid biosynthesis genes from the plastid genome. Plant J 2007;49:276–88.
Wroblewski T, Tomczak A, Michelmore R. Optimization of Agrobacterium-mediated tran-
sient assays of gene expression in lettuce, tomato and Arabidopsis. Plant Biotechnol J
2005;3:259–73.
Xiong AS, Yao QH, Fan HQ, Peng RH. Double – antisense ACC oxidase and ACC synthase fu-
sion gene introduced into tomato by Agrobacterium-mediated transform analysis the
ethylene production of transgenic plants. Shi Yan Sheng WU Xue Bao 2005;36:428–34.
Yang SF. Biosynthesis and action of ethylene. Hortscience 1985;20:41–5.
Yasmeen A, Mirza B, Inayatullah S, Safdar N, Jamil M, Ali S, et al. In planta transformation
of tomato. Plant Mol Biol Rep 2009;27:20–8.
Youm JW, Jeon JH, Kim H, Kim YH, Ko K, Joung H, et al. Transgenic tomatoes expressing
human beta-amyloid for use as a vaccine against Alzheimer's disease. Biotechnol
Lett 2008;30:1839–45.
Zanor MI, Osorio S, Nunes-Nesi A, Carrari F, Lohse M, Usadel B, et al. RNA interference
of LIN5 in tomato confirms its role in controlling Brix content, uncovers the influence
of sugars on the levels of fruit hormones, and demonstrates the importance of sucrose
cleavage for normal fruit development and fertility. Plant Physiol 2009;150:1204–18.
Zhang H, Blumwald E. Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage
but not in fruit. Nat Biotechnol 2001;19:765–8.
Zhang Y, Liu H, Li B, Zhang J-T, Li Y, Zhang H. Generation of selectable marker-free trans-
genic tomato resistant to drought, cold and oxidative stress using the Cre/loxP DNA
excision system. Transgenic Res 2009;18:607–19.
Zhang C, Liu J, Zhang Y, Cai X, Gong P, Zhang J, et al. Overexpression of SlGMEs leads to
ascorbate accumulation with enhanced oxidative stress, cold, and salt tolerance in to-
mato. Plant Cell Rep 2011;30:389–98.
Zhu JK. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2002;53:
247–53.