| Literature DB >> 24817272 |
Waheed Arshad1, Ihsan-ul- Haq2, Mohammad Tahir Waheed1, Kirankumar S Mysore3, Bushra Mirza1.
Abstract
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is the second most important cultivated crop next to potato, worldwide. Tomato serves as an important source of antioxidants in human diet. Alternaria solani and Fusarium oxysporum cause early blight and vascular wilt of tomato, respectively, resulting in severe crop losses. The foremost objective of the present study was to generate transgenic tomato plants with rolB gene and evaluate its effect on plant morphology, nutritional contents, yield and resistance against fungal infection. Tomato cv. Rio Grande was transformed via Agrobacterium tumefaciens harbouring rolB gene of Agrobacterium rhizogenes. rolB. Biochemical analyses showed considerable improvement in nutritional quality of transgenic tomato fruits as indicated by 62% increase in lycopene content, 225% in ascorbic acid content, 58% in total phenolics and 26% in free radical scavenging activity. Furthermore, rolB gene significantly improved the defence response of leaves of transgenic plants against two pathogenic fungal strains A. solani and F. oxysporum. Contrarily, transformed plants exhibited altered morphology and reduced fruit yield. In conclusion, rolB gene from A. rhizogenes can be used to generate transgenic tomato with increased nutritional contents of fruits as well as improved foliar tolerance against fungal pathogens.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24817272 PMCID: PMC4016209 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096979
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Molecular analysis of rolB transformed plants.
(A) T-DNA region of (a) pLBR30 with rolB gene (b) p35SGUSint with GUS gene. LB: Left border; 35S P: CaMV35S promoter; 35S T: CaMV35S terminator; NOS P: Nopaline synthase promoter; NOS T: Nopaline synthase terminator; NPTII: Neomycin phosphotransferase II gene; GUS: β-glucuronidase gene; int: intron; RB: Right border (B) PCR amplification of rolB gene in rolB and GUS gene in GUS transformed tomato plants cv. Rio Grande. Lanes 1 to 6 = rolB transformed lines RB I to RB VI; Ma = DNA Marker (100 bp); Mb = DNA Marker (1 kb); P = Plasmid DNA (+ve control); C = Untransformed WT control (-ve control) (C) Southern blot hybridization of rolB transformed tomato plants. Lanes 1–6 = rolB transformed lines RB I to RB VI; C = Untransformed WT control
Figure 2Morphological analysis of rolB transgenic tomato plants cv. Rio Grande.
(a) mature plants (b) leaves (c) roots (d) tomato fruit (whole and TS).
Figure 3Biochemical analysis of rolB transformed tomato plants.
(A) Determination of Lycopene content (B) Ascorbic acid content (C) Total phenolic content and (D) Antioxidant activity along with their relative increase in fruits of rolB transgenic lines of tomato. RB = rolB transformed; GUS = GUS transformed control; WT = Wild-type (untransformed control). Data represents mean of three replicates. Any two values with same alphabet did not differ significantly at 5% probability level using LSD test.
Analysis of variance for electrolyte leakage.
| Source | Degree of freedom | Sum of squares | Mean Square | F- Value | Probability |
| Replication | 2 | 17.560 | 8.780 | 772636.3084 | 0.0000 |
| Factor A (Time) | 19 | 9726.731 | 511.933 | 45049844.6417 | 0.0000 |
| Factor B (Samples) | 10 | 43877.352 | 4387.735 | 386118309.4630 | 0.0000 |
| AB | 190 | 3255.279 | 17.133 | 1507698.7921 | 0.0000 |
| Error | 438 | 0.005 | 0.00014 | ||
| Total | 659 | 56876.927 |
Coefficient of variation (CV) = 0.2%.
Figure 4Disease response of rolB transformed tomato leaves.
(A) Effect of rolB on disease response of leaves of transgenic tomato plants in ion leakage experiment (B) Detached leaf assay of rolB expressing tomato plants (1) Leaves of rolB transformed plants infected with Alternaria solani (2) Control leaves infected with A. solani (3) Leaves of rolB transformed infected with Fusarium oxysporum (4) Control leaves infected with F. oxysporum.
Disease response of leaves from rolB gene transformed plants against two fungal pathogens on the basis of detached leaf assay.
| Tomato lines |
|
| |||||
| DI | DS | Host Response | DI (%) | DS (%) | Host Response | ||
|
| RB I | 16.68 | 6.25 | R | 12.50 | 7.25 | R |
| RB II | 20.85 | 7.25 | R | 20.83 | 8.25 | R | |
| RB III | 25.00 | 13.75 | MR | 27.67 | 18.75 | MR | |
| RB IV | 25.00 | 16.75 | MR | 12.50 | 6.25 | R | |
| RB V | 20.85 | 6.50 | R | 4.17 | 2.50 | R | |
| RB VI | 20.85 | 9.50 | R | 8.33 | 4.00 | R | |
| RB VII | 12.50 | 3.75 | R | 12.50 | 7.25 | R | |
| RB VIII | 8.34 | 2.75 | R | 8.33 | 6.00 | R | |
| RB IX | 4.17 | 1.75 | R | 16.67 | 13.75 | MR | |
|
|
| 79.17 | 63.75 | S | 83.33 | 52.50 | S |
| WT | 91.67 | 67.88 | S | 95.83 | 59.75 | S | |
Each value is an average of three replicates of 24 leaflets each (8 leaflets ×3 plants).
* DI% represents the disease incidence percentage.
DS% represents the disease severity percentage.
Host response representing the level of resistance or susceptibility against a pathogen.
R = Resistant (1–10% DS), MR = Moderately resistant (11–25% DS), S = Susceptible (51–75% DS).