Research Article

Split Viewer

J Plant Biotechnol 2020; 47(2): 172-178

Published online June 30, 2020

https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

© The Korean Society of Plant Biotechnology

The use of SlAdh2 promoter as a novel fruit-specific promoter in transgenic tomato

Mi-Young Chung ·Aung Htay Naing ·Julia Vrebalov ·Ashokraj Shanmugam·Do-Jin Lee ·In Hwan Park · Chang Kil Kim·James Giovannon

Department of Agricultural Education, Suncheon National University, Suncheon, South Korea
Department of Horticulture, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Department of Horticulture, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, South Korea
Department of Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea
US Department of Agriculture/Agriculture Research Service, Robert W. Holley Centre for Agriculture and Health, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Correspondence to : e-mail: ckkim@knu.ac.kr, jjg33@cornell.edu

Received: 15 June 2020; Revised: 17 June 2020; Accepted: 17 June 2020

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Fruit-specific promoters play an important role in the improvement of traits, such as fruit quality through genetic engineering. In tomato, the development of fruit- specific promoters was previously reported, but less attention has been paid to the promoters involved in the fruit development stage. In this study, we characterized the gene expression patterns of tomato alcohol dehydrogenase 2 (SlAdh2) in various tissues of wild-type tomato (cv. Ailsa Craig). Our findings revealed that SlAdh2 expression levels were higher in the developing fruit than in the leaves, stems, and flowers. The ProSlAdh2 region, which is expressed at different stages of fruit development, was isolated from tomato genomic DNA. Following this, it was fused with a β-glucuronidase reporter gene (GUS) and introduced into wild-type tomato using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation to evaluate promoter activity in the various tissues of transgenic tomato. The ProSlAdh2:GUS promoter exhibited strong activity in the fruit and weak activity in the stems, but displayed undetectable activity in the leaves and flowers. Interestingly, the promoter was active from the appearance of the green fruit (1 cm in size) to the well-ripened stage in transgenic tomatoes, indicating its suitability for transgene expression during fruit development and ripening. Thus, our findings suggest that ProSlAdh2 may serve as a potential fruit-specific promoter for genetic-based improvement of tomato fruit quality.

Keywords Fruit quality, Genetic transformation, Gene expression, GUS activity, Promoter analysis, Tomato

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is one of the most commonly eaten fruits in the world due to its attractive color, flavor, and versatility; it is also a rich source of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants that are associated with resistance to disease (Clinton et al. 1996; Levy et al. 1995). To meet consumer demand, many researchers have attempted to improve the quality of tomato fruit using genetic engineering (Butelli et al. 2008; Dharmapuri et al. 2002; Le et al. 2006; Mollet et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2008). In particular, the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (CaMV 35S) has been widely used as a constitutive promoter for the expression of foreign genes in tomato (de Jong et al. 1994; Dutt et al. 2014; Hiwasa-Tanase et al. 2012; Speirs et al. 1998). However, the expression of the CaMV 35S promoter is influenced by the physiological and developmental stages of tomato, and it not always appropriately expressed in transgenic tomato depending on the species (de Jong et al. 1994; Dutt et al. 2014). Thus, it is important to select specific promoters according to the specific tissue in which the foreign gene is to be expressed. In tomato, the ethylene response genes E8 and E4 have been used as fruit-specific promoters (Coupe and Deikman 1997; Deikman et al. 1998; Xu et al. 1996), but their expression has been observed only in the late fruit ripening stage. Indeed, fruit-specific promoters that are expressed throughout the entire fruit development and ripening process have yet to be reported.

Alcohol dehydrogenases (Adh) play an important role in the production of aroma volatiles in tomato fruit (Speirs et al. 1998; Speirs et al. 2002). Of the genes encoding Adh enzymes, SlAdh2 is specifically expressed in fruit tissue in a developmentally regulated manner (Longhurst et al. 1994; Manríquez et al. 2006; Speirs et al. 2002), and its over- expression has been reported to enhance the flavor of transgenic tomato fruit by increasing the alcohol and Z-3-hexenol levels (Speirs et al. 1998). Therefore, the possible use of SlAdh2 promoter as a fruit-specific promoter in studying of fruit quality using genetic engineering is worthy of research attention. In this respect, the β-glucuronidase gene (GUS) reporter system is a reliable method for the functional analysis of promoters with respect to gene expression in transgenic plants (Atkinson et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2005).

In this study, we cloned the promoter region of the SlAdh2 gene and conducted promoter analysis using the GUS expression system. This study revealed that SlAdh2 is regulated at the transcriptional level throughout the entire fruit development process (i.e., during the immature, mature, and late stages), and thus SlAdh2 promoter has the potential to be useful as a novel fruit-specific promoter for the improvement of traits related to fruit quality in tomato via genetic transformation.

Plant material

Wild Tomato cv. Ailsa Craig (Solanum lycopersicum) were grown in greenhouses equipped with heating and cooling systems, with supplementary lighting for a total of 16 h days (27°C) and 8 h nights (19°C) and supplied with slow release fertilizer. The leaves, stems, flowers, and fruits were collected at different developmental stages as samples for RNA isolation and gel-blot analysis. The fruit were collected at nine stages of maturity: 1-cm-sized fruit, early-immature green (EIM; 10 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit), late-immature green (LIM; 20 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit), mature green (MG; 25 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit), breaker (B; 28 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit), and 3 days, 7 days, 10 days, and 15 days after the appearance of the breaker stage. In addition, the early and fully flowering stages were collected. Three biological samples were collected for each stage. The samples were collected and frozen immediately in liquid nitrogen, followed by storage at -80°C until further analysis.

RNA isolation and gel-blot analysis

To analyze the expression patterns of SlAdh2, total RNA was isolated from the three biological samples of the various tissues using TRI ReagentTM solution (Ambion, USA) (Naing et al. 2017), and the RNA was quantified using a spectrophotometer. Approximately 20~30 µg of total RNA was resolved on 1% (w/v) agarose gel with 7.5% (v/v) formaldehyde and blotted onto a Hybond N membrane (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ, USA). The membranes were then transferred and baked at 80°C for 2 h, followed by pre-hybridization for 3 h using the membrane supplier’s protocol and hybridization at 65°C with 32P–labeled random primed DNA probes for 16 h. The filters were washed in 2 X SSC, 0.1% SDS and then 1 X SSC, 0.1% SDS at 65°C. Signal intensity was visualized using autoradiography with Kodak X-OMAT-AR film and two intensifying screens at -80°C (Chung et al. 2010).

ProSlAdh2 sequence identification

SlAdh2 (CP023762.1) was identified from the Sol Genomics database and cross-checked with the NCBI database. The promoter region was retrieved 5’ upstream of the identified SlAdh2, and the promoter sequence was characterized using PlantCARE software.

Construction and transformation of the ProSlAdh2::GUS fusion

To construct the promoter/GUS reporter system, the ProSlAdh2 was obtained from the wild tomato cv. Ailsa Craig genomic DNA with PCR using the forward primer; ProSlAdh2 tttgtcgac ATTACAAATATGTACACTATAAT (underlined sequence: appended salI site for cloning) and the reverse primer; ProSlAdh2 ttcccggg CTTCTTGATTTTTTTTTAG TGAT (underlined sequence: appended smaI site for cloning). The PCR conditions were as follows: pre-denaturation for 5 min at 94°C, amplification for 30 cycles at 94°C for 1 min, annealing for 1min at 58°C and extension for 2 min at 72°C, with a final extension at 72°C for 10 min using Pfu Ultra DNA polymerase (Stratagene, now Agilent, http://www.genomics.agilent.com).

The PCR DNA product was combined with pBI101-GUS plasmid using the sal I and smaI restriction enzymes (Fig. 1). Recombinant plasmids were introduced into Agrobacterium tumefaciens LBA4404, and transformation was conducted using the wild-type (WT) tomato cv. Ailsa Craig according to the Boyce Thompson Institution transformation protocol (Van Eck et al. 2006). Successful transformants were selected by rooting them in Murashige and Skoog basal medium (MS) containing 100 mg/L of kanamycin sulfate, followed by PCR detection using specific primers. Approximately 25 transformants that were PCR-positive were observed and the number of copies inserted into the T0 lines was further confirmed using Southern blot analysis, following the method described by Yang et al. (2005). Of these, some T0 lines exhibiting a single copy were selected for the generation of homozygous T2 lines. The selected T0 lines were self- pollinated to generate T1 lines, and the continuous self- pollination of T1 lines was employed to generate homozygous T2 lines; the T1 and T2 lines were selected by culturing them in MS basal media containing kanamycin sulfate and using specific primers (data not shown). Finally, the T2 lines were further confirmed using southern blot analysis and the lines (ProSlAdh2 #2, #21, and #24) were used for GUS analysis.

Fig. 1. Construction of the ProSlAdh2::GUS fusion using pBI101 vector. RB, right border; LB, left border; Nos-pro, nopaline synthase promoter; NPT-II, neomycin phosphotransferase; Nos-ter, nopaline synthase terminator

Histochemical detection of GUS

To measure GUS activity using histochemical analysis, the tomato tissues were stained with a buffer containing 0.5 mM X-Gluc (Melford Laboratories, Chelsworth, UK) and incubated in the dark at 37°C for 1~16 h. The tissues were infiltrated with fixatives and staining solutions under reduced pressure for 2~5 min. Longitudinal sections and cross-sections of the tissues were fixed in 0.3% formaldehyde in 50 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.0) and 1 mM EDTA for 30 min and washed 4~5 times with 50 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.0) prior to staining in a buffer consisting of 100 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.0), 1 mM EDTA, 0.05% Triton X-100, 0.1 mM K3[Fe(CN)6], and 0.1 mM K4[Fe(CN)6]. Prior to imaging, thin sections were submerged O/N in a 2:1:1 mixture of chloral hydrate, lactic acid, and phenol (CLP). Images were taken under tungsten light with Fuji RTP727 film using a Leica WildM10 stereomicroscope (Blume and Grierson 1997).

Expression of SlAdh2 in wild-type tomato cv. Ailsa Craig

The importance of Adh enzymes in the formation of flavor volatiles has been identified in tomato (Longhurst et al. 1994; Tanksley 1979), and the gene encoding this enzyme (SlAdh2) has been reported to be regulated during the fruit development and ripening stages (Speirs et al. 1998). In the present study, we investigated the expression patterns of SlAdh2 in various organs (leave, stems, flowers, and fruit at various stages of maturity) in WT tomato cv. Ailsa Craig using Northern blot analysis. The results shown in Figure 2 reveal that SlAdh2 was not expressed in the leaves and in the two stages of flowering (early and fully flowering), while it was detected in the stems.

Its expression was higher in the fruit during the development stages (1-cm green to MG) than in the stems, with maximum expression observed at the EIM stage. In the later stages (B to B15), the expression of the gene was transcriptionally higher than in the initial stages, with the highest expression levels reached 7 and 10 days after the breaker stage (Fig. 2). This high expression of SlAdh2 during the fruit development and ripening stages in tomato is supported by the findings of Speirs et al. (1998). The higher expression of the gene during fruit ripening, especially after the breaker stage, is likely due to the higher Adh activity, which is positively regulated during fruit ripening (Speirs et al. 2002).

Fig. 2. Analysis of SlAdh2 gene-expression patterns in wild-type tomato in relation to the developmental stage. L, leaf; S, stem; EF, early flower; FF, full-blooming flower; 1cm, 1-cm fruit; EIM, 10 days after the appearance of 1-cm fruit; LIM, 23 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit; MG, mature green; B, breaker; B3, 3 days after the breaker stage; B7, 7 days after the breaker stage; B10, 10 days after the breaker stage ; B15, 15 days after the breaker stage. 18S RNA bands were used as standards.

ProSlAdh2 sequence identification and characterization

SlAdh2 have been characterized for tissue-specific expression during different developmental stages, as indicated above. To confirm its potential use as a promoter, we first identified and verified SlAdh2 using the Sol Genomics and NCBI databases (https://solgenomics.net/) and then retrieved the promoter region 5’ upstream (2078-bp sequence length; Fig. 3). The SlAdh2 gene and promoter sequence were subsequently characterized using PlantCARE software.

Fig. 3. The DNA sequence and cis-acting element of the fruit-specific ProSlAdh2 region. Nucleotides are numbered on the left side, with ATG at position +1

Construction and transformation of the ProSlAdh2::GUSand the histochemical detection of GUS

The ProSlAdh2::GUS fusion was identified based on the 5’ upstream region of SlAdh2 with the restriction enzymes SalI and smaI at 5’ and 3’ respectively in the genomic DNA. The ProSlAdh2::GUS fusion was transferred into WT tomato leaf segments using Agrobacterium-mediated gene transformation. The transformants expressing the promoter were identified using a gene-specific primer (data not shown). For promoter analysis, T0 lines with a single copy of ProSlAdh2 were selected to generate homozygous T2 lines, and some of these T2 lines were further confirmed using southern blot analysis (Fig. 4) and the T2 lines (ProSlAdh2#2, ProSlAdh2#21, and ProSlAdh2#24) and WT specimens were then selected.

Fig. 4. The number of copies of ProSlAdh2::GUS in T2 transgenic tomato plants confirmed using Southern blot analysis

Stems, leaves (young and old), flowers (sepals and petals), and fruits (maturity stages 1 to 9) were collected from WT and from the selected lines (SlAdh2#2, SlAdh2#21 and SlAdh2#24). The activity of ProSlAdh2::GUS in the collected samples was analyzed using histochemical assays. The assays revealed no promoter activity in any of the leaf or flower stages in any of the T2 lines (SlAdh2#2, SlAdh2#21, and SlAdh2#24) or the WT (Fig. 5), whereas activity was observed in both stem sections (longitudinal and cross-sections) of the T2 lines but not the WT (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5. GUS activity assays for the leaves and flowers of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS
Fig. 6. GUS activity assays for the stem sections of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS

Line #21 exhibited stronger activity in both stem sections than the other selected lines. Promoter activity was also observed in the fruits of the T2 lines, though this activity varied with the developmental stages. Low ProSlAdh2::GUS activity was detected in the 1-cm fruits of the T2 lines, with a gradual increase starting from 10 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruits up to the breaker stage in all three lines (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. GUS activity assays for the fruit development stage of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS

After the breaker stage, strong promoter activity was still observed in the three lines, particularly from 7 days to 15 days after the breaker stage (Fig. 8). Our assay results suggest the upregulation of SlAdh2 in the later stages of fruit development in all lines. These results support the vital role of Adh in the production of flavor volatiles in fruit because a positive correlation between Adh levels and the flavor of tomato fruit has been reported (Speirs et al. 1998; Speirs et al. 2002). Taken together, our results indicate that SlAdh2 is useful as a fruit-specific promoter for the improvement in the quality of tomato fruit and that the overexpression of SlAdh2 using genetic engineering could help to enhance the flavor of tomato fruit.

Fig. 8. GUS activity assays for the fruit ripening stage of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS

We analyzed the expression patterns of SlAdh2 in various WT tomato tissues and found higher expression levels during the fruit development and ripening stages than in the other tissues (i.e., the leaves, stems, and flowers). Similarly, increases in the activity of the ProSlAdh2::GUS were detected during fruit development, particularly in the later stages. In addition, because the selected SlAdh2 promoter region contains various important conserved promotor sequences, it can be used as a dynamic tool for the analysis of developmental stages and fruit ripening. Moreover, metabolic genetic engineering of SlAdh2 gene could help to enhance the flavor of tomato fruit.

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2018R1A2B6001781)

  1. Atkinson RG, Bolitho KM, Wright M a., et al. (1998) Apple ACC-oxidase and polygalacturonase: Ripening-specific gene expression and promoter analysis in transgenic tomato. Plant Mol Biol 38:449-460. doi: 10.1023/A:1006065926397
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Blume B, Grierson D (1997) Expression of ACC oxidase promoterGUS fusions in tomato and Nicotiana plumbaginifolia regulated by developmental and environmental stimuli. Plant J 12:731-746. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1997.12040731.x
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Butelli E, Titta L, Giorgio M, Mock HP, Matros A, Peterek S, Schijlen EG, Hall RD
  4. Chung M-Y, Vrebalov J, Alba R, et al (2010) A tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) APETALA2/ERF gene, SlAP2a, is a negative regulator of fruit ripening. Plant J 64:936-947. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04384.x
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Clinton SK, Emenhiser C, Schwartz SJ, Bostwick DG, Williams AW, Moore BJ, Coupe SA, Deikman J (1997) Characterization of a DNA-binding protein that interacts with 50 flanking regions of two fruitripening genes. Plant J 11:1207-1218
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. de Jong J, Mertens MMJ, Rademaker W (1994) Stable expression of the GUS reporter gene in chrysanthemum depends on binary plasmid T-DNA. Plant Cell Rep 14:59-64. doi: 10.1007/BF00233300
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Deikman J, Xu R, Kneissl ML, Ciardi JA, Kim KN, Pelah D (1998) Separation of cis elements responsive to ethylene, fruit development, and ripening in the 50 -flanking region of the ripeningrelated E8 gene. Plant Mol Biol 37:1001-1011
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Dharmapuri S, Rosati C, Pallara P, Aquilani R, Bouvier F, Camara B, Giuliano G (2002) Metabolic engineering of xanthophyll content in tomato fruits. FEBS Lett 22:30-34
    CrossRef
  9. Dutt M, Dhekney S a, Soriano L, et al (2014) Temporal and spatial control of gene expression in horticultural crops. Hortic Res 1:14047. doi: 10.1038/hortres.2014.47
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  10. Fu X, Shi P, Shen Q, et al. (2015) T-shaped trichome-specific expression of monoterpene synthase ADH2 using promoter-β-GUS fusion in transgenic Artemisia annua L. Biotechnol Appl Biochem doi: 10.1002/bab.1440
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Hiwasa-Tanase K, Kuroda H, Hirai T, et al (2012) Novel promoters that induce specific transgene expression during the green to ripening stages of tomato fruit development. Plant Cell Rep 31:1415-1424. doi: 10.1007/s00299-012-1257-5
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Le LQ, Lorenz Y, Scheurer S, Fo¨tisch K, Enrique E, Bartra J, Biemelt S, Vieths S, Sonnewald U (2006) Design of tomato fruits with reduced allergenicity by dsRNAi-mediated inhibition of ns-LTP (Lyc e 3) expression. Plant Biotechnol J 4:231-242
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Levy J, Bosin E, Feldman B, Giat Y, Miinster A, Danilenko M, Sharoni Y (1995) Lycopene is a more potent inhibitor of human cancer cell proliferation than either alpha-carotene or betacarotene. Nutr Cancer 24: 257-266
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Longhurst T, Lee E, Hinde R, et al (1994) Structure of the tomato Adh2 gene and Adh2 pseudogenes, and a study of Adh2 gene expression in fruit. Plant Mol Biol 26:1073-1084. doi: 10.1007/BF00040690
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Manríquez D, El-Sharkawy I, Flores FB, et al (2006) Two highly divergent alcohol dehydrogenases of melon exhibit fruit ripeningspecific expression and distinct biochemical characteristics. Plant Mol Biol 61:675-685. doi: 10.1007/s11103-006-0040-9
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Mollet B, Niederberger P, Pe´tiard V (2008) Novel tomato flavours introduced by plastidial terpenoid pathway engineering. Trends Biotechnol 26:4-6
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Naing AH, Park KI, Ai TN, Chung MY, Han JS, Kang YW, Lim KB, Kim CK (2017) Overexpression of snapdragon Delila (Del) gene in tobacco enhances anthocyanin accumulation and abiotic stress tolerance. BMC Plant Biol 17(1):65
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Speirs J, Correll R, Cain P (2002) Relationship between ADH activity, ripeness and softness in six tomato cultivars. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam) 93:137-142. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4238(01)00316-8
    CrossRef
  19. Speirs J, Lee E, Holt K, et al (1998) Genetic Manipulation of Alcohol Dehydrogenase Levels in Ripening Tomato Fruit Affects the Balance of Some Flavor Aldehydes and Alcohols1. Plant Physiol 117:1047-1058. doi: 10.1104/pp.117.3.1047
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Tanksley SD (1979) Linkage, chromosomal association, and expression of Adh-1 and Pgm-2 in tomato. Biochem Genet 17:1159-67
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Van Eck J, Kirk DD, Walmsley AM (2006) Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Methods Mol Biol 343: 459-473
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Wang NN, Shin MC, Li N (2005) The GUS reporter-aided analysis of the promoter activities of Arabidopsis ACC synthase genes AtACS4, AtACS5, and AtACS7 induced by hormones and stresses. J Exp Bot 56:909-920. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eri083
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Wang S, Liu J, Feng Y, Niu X, Giovannoni J, Liu Y (2008) Altered plastid levels and potential for improved fruit nutrient content by downregulation of the tomato DDB1-interacting protein CUL4. Plant J 55:89-103
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Xu R, Goldman S, Coupe S, Deikman J (1996) Ethylene control of E4 transcription during tomato fruit ripening involves two cooperative cis elements. Plant Mol Biol 31:1117-1127
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Yang L, Pan A, Jia J, Ding J, Chen J, Huang C, Zhang C, Zhang D (2005) Validation of a tomato specific gene, LAT52, used as an endogenous reference gene in qualitative and real-time quantitative PCR detection of transgenic tomatoes. J Agric Food Chem 53:183-190
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

Research Article

J Plant Biotechnol 2020; 47(2): 172-178

Published online June 30, 2020 https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

Copyright © The Korean Society of Plant Biotechnology.

The use of SlAdh2 promoter as a novel fruit-specific promoter in transgenic tomato

Mi-Young Chung ·Aung Htay Naing ·Julia Vrebalov ·Ashokraj Shanmugam·Do-Jin Lee ·In Hwan Park · Chang Kil Kim·James Giovannon

Department of Agricultural Education, Suncheon National University, Suncheon, South Korea
Department of Horticulture, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Department of Horticulture, Sunchon National University, Suncheon, South Korea
Department of Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea
US Department of Agriculture/Agriculture Research Service, Robert W. Holley Centre for Agriculture and Health, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Correspondence to:e-mail: ckkim@knu.ac.kr, jjg33@cornell.edu

Received: 15 June 2020; Revised: 17 June 2020; Accepted: 17 June 2020

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Fruit-specific promoters play an important role in the improvement of traits, such as fruit quality through genetic engineering. In tomato, the development of fruit- specific promoters was previously reported, but less attention has been paid to the promoters involved in the fruit development stage. In this study, we characterized the gene expression patterns of tomato alcohol dehydrogenase 2 (SlAdh2) in various tissues of wild-type tomato (cv. Ailsa Craig). Our findings revealed that SlAdh2 expression levels were higher in the developing fruit than in the leaves, stems, and flowers. The ProSlAdh2 region, which is expressed at different stages of fruit development, was isolated from tomato genomic DNA. Following this, it was fused with a β-glucuronidase reporter gene (GUS) and introduced into wild-type tomato using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation to evaluate promoter activity in the various tissues of transgenic tomato. The ProSlAdh2:GUS promoter exhibited strong activity in the fruit and weak activity in the stems, but displayed undetectable activity in the leaves and flowers. Interestingly, the promoter was active from the appearance of the green fruit (1 cm in size) to the well-ripened stage in transgenic tomatoes, indicating its suitability for transgene expression during fruit development and ripening. Thus, our findings suggest that ProSlAdh2 may serve as a potential fruit-specific promoter for genetic-based improvement of tomato fruit quality.

Keywords: Fruit quality, Genetic transformation, Gene expression, GUS activity, Promoter analysis, Tomato

Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is one of the most commonly eaten fruits in the world due to its attractive color, flavor, and versatility; it is also a rich source of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants that are associated with resistance to disease (Clinton et al. 1996; Levy et al. 1995). To meet consumer demand, many researchers have attempted to improve the quality of tomato fruit using genetic engineering (Butelli et al. 2008; Dharmapuri et al. 2002; Le et al. 2006; Mollet et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2008). In particular, the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (CaMV 35S) has been widely used as a constitutive promoter for the expression of foreign genes in tomato (de Jong et al. 1994; Dutt et al. 2014; Hiwasa-Tanase et al. 2012; Speirs et al. 1998). However, the expression of the CaMV 35S promoter is influenced by the physiological and developmental stages of tomato, and it not always appropriately expressed in transgenic tomato depending on the species (de Jong et al. 1994; Dutt et al. 2014). Thus, it is important to select specific promoters according to the specific tissue in which the foreign gene is to be expressed. In tomato, the ethylene response genes E8 and E4 have been used as fruit-specific promoters (Coupe and Deikman 1997; Deikman et al. 1998; Xu et al. 1996), but their expression has been observed only in the late fruit ripening stage. Indeed, fruit-specific promoters that are expressed throughout the entire fruit development and ripening process have yet to be reported.

Alcohol dehydrogenases (Adh) play an important role in the production of aroma volatiles in tomato fruit (Speirs et al. 1998; Speirs et al. 2002). Of the genes encoding Adh enzymes, SlAdh2 is specifically expressed in fruit tissue in a developmentally regulated manner (Longhurst et al. 1994; Manríquez et al. 2006; Speirs et al. 2002), and its over- expression has been reported to enhance the flavor of transgenic tomato fruit by increasing the alcohol and Z-3-hexenol levels (Speirs et al. 1998). Therefore, the possible use of SlAdh2 promoter as a fruit-specific promoter in studying of fruit quality using genetic engineering is worthy of research attention. In this respect, the β-glucuronidase gene (GUS) reporter system is a reliable method for the functional analysis of promoters with respect to gene expression in transgenic plants (Atkinson et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2005).

In this study, we cloned the promoter region of the SlAdh2 gene and conducted promoter analysis using the GUS expression system. This study revealed that SlAdh2 is regulated at the transcriptional level throughout the entire fruit development process (i.e., during the immature, mature, and late stages), and thus SlAdh2 promoter has the potential to be useful as a novel fruit-specific promoter for the improvement of traits related to fruit quality in tomato via genetic transformation.

Materials and Methods

Plant material

Wild Tomato cv. Ailsa Craig (Solanum lycopersicum) were grown in greenhouses equipped with heating and cooling systems, with supplementary lighting for a total of 16 h days (27°C) and 8 h nights (19°C) and supplied with slow release fertilizer. The leaves, stems, flowers, and fruits were collected at different developmental stages as samples for RNA isolation and gel-blot analysis. The fruit were collected at nine stages of maturity: 1-cm-sized fruit, early-immature green (EIM; 10 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit), late-immature green (LIM; 20 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit), mature green (MG; 25 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit), breaker (B; 28 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit), and 3 days, 7 days, 10 days, and 15 days after the appearance of the breaker stage. In addition, the early and fully flowering stages were collected. Three biological samples were collected for each stage. The samples were collected and frozen immediately in liquid nitrogen, followed by storage at -80°C until further analysis.

RNA isolation and gel-blot analysis

To analyze the expression patterns of SlAdh2, total RNA was isolated from the three biological samples of the various tissues using TRI ReagentTM solution (Ambion, USA) (Naing et al. 2017), and the RNA was quantified using a spectrophotometer. Approximately 20~30 µg of total RNA was resolved on 1% (w/v) agarose gel with 7.5% (v/v) formaldehyde and blotted onto a Hybond N membrane (Amersham Biosciences, Piscataway, NJ, USA). The membranes were then transferred and baked at 80°C for 2 h, followed by pre-hybridization for 3 h using the membrane supplier’s protocol and hybridization at 65°C with 32P–labeled random primed DNA probes for 16 h. The filters were washed in 2 X SSC, 0.1% SDS and then 1 X SSC, 0.1% SDS at 65°C. Signal intensity was visualized using autoradiography with Kodak X-OMAT-AR film and two intensifying screens at -80°C (Chung et al. 2010).

ProSlAdh2 sequence identification

SlAdh2 (CP023762.1) was identified from the Sol Genomics database and cross-checked with the NCBI database. The promoter region was retrieved 5’ upstream of the identified SlAdh2, and the promoter sequence was characterized using PlantCARE software.

Construction and transformation of the ProSlAdh2::GUS fusion

To construct the promoter/GUS reporter system, the ProSlAdh2 was obtained from the wild tomato cv. Ailsa Craig genomic DNA with PCR using the forward primer; ProSlAdh2 tttgtcgac ATTACAAATATGTACACTATAAT (underlined sequence: appended salI site for cloning) and the reverse primer; ProSlAdh2 ttcccggg CTTCTTGATTTTTTTTTAG TGAT (underlined sequence: appended smaI site for cloning). The PCR conditions were as follows: pre-denaturation for 5 min at 94°C, amplification for 30 cycles at 94°C for 1 min, annealing for 1min at 58°C and extension for 2 min at 72°C, with a final extension at 72°C for 10 min using Pfu Ultra DNA polymerase (Stratagene, now Agilent, http://www.genomics.agilent.com).

The PCR DNA product was combined with pBI101-GUS plasmid using the sal I and smaI restriction enzymes (Fig. 1). Recombinant plasmids were introduced into Agrobacterium tumefaciens LBA4404, and transformation was conducted using the wild-type (WT) tomato cv. Ailsa Craig according to the Boyce Thompson Institution transformation protocol (Van Eck et al. 2006). Successful transformants were selected by rooting them in Murashige and Skoog basal medium (MS) containing 100 mg/L of kanamycin sulfate, followed by PCR detection using specific primers. Approximately 25 transformants that were PCR-positive were observed and the number of copies inserted into the T0 lines was further confirmed using Southern blot analysis, following the method described by Yang et al. (2005). Of these, some T0 lines exhibiting a single copy were selected for the generation of homozygous T2 lines. The selected T0 lines were self- pollinated to generate T1 lines, and the continuous self- pollination of T1 lines was employed to generate homozygous T2 lines; the T1 and T2 lines were selected by culturing them in MS basal media containing kanamycin sulfate and using specific primers (data not shown). Finally, the T2 lines were further confirmed using southern blot analysis and the lines (ProSlAdh2 #2, #21, and #24) were used for GUS analysis.

Figure 1. Construction of the ProSlAdh2::GUS fusion using pBI101 vector. RB, right border; LB, left border; Nos-pro, nopaline synthase promoter; NPT-II, neomycin phosphotransferase; Nos-ter, nopaline synthase terminator

Histochemical detection of GUS

To measure GUS activity using histochemical analysis, the tomato tissues were stained with a buffer containing 0.5 mM X-Gluc (Melford Laboratories, Chelsworth, UK) and incubated in the dark at 37°C for 1~16 h. The tissues were infiltrated with fixatives and staining solutions under reduced pressure for 2~5 min. Longitudinal sections and cross-sections of the tissues were fixed in 0.3% formaldehyde in 50 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.0) and 1 mM EDTA for 30 min and washed 4~5 times with 50 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.0) prior to staining in a buffer consisting of 100 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.0), 1 mM EDTA, 0.05% Triton X-100, 0.1 mM K3[Fe(CN)6], and 0.1 mM K4[Fe(CN)6]. Prior to imaging, thin sections were submerged O/N in a 2:1:1 mixture of chloral hydrate, lactic acid, and phenol (CLP). Images were taken under tungsten light with Fuji RTP727 film using a Leica WildM10 stereomicroscope (Blume and Grierson 1997).

Results and Discussion

Expression of SlAdh2 in wild-type tomato cv. Ailsa Craig

The importance of Adh enzymes in the formation of flavor volatiles has been identified in tomato (Longhurst et al. 1994; Tanksley 1979), and the gene encoding this enzyme (SlAdh2) has been reported to be regulated during the fruit development and ripening stages (Speirs et al. 1998). In the present study, we investigated the expression patterns of SlAdh2 in various organs (leave, stems, flowers, and fruit at various stages of maturity) in WT tomato cv. Ailsa Craig using Northern blot analysis. The results shown in Figure 2 reveal that SlAdh2 was not expressed in the leaves and in the two stages of flowering (early and fully flowering), while it was detected in the stems.

Its expression was higher in the fruit during the development stages (1-cm green to MG) than in the stems, with maximum expression observed at the EIM stage. In the later stages (B to B15), the expression of the gene was transcriptionally higher than in the initial stages, with the highest expression levels reached 7 and 10 days after the breaker stage (Fig. 2). This high expression of SlAdh2 during the fruit development and ripening stages in tomato is supported by the findings of Speirs et al. (1998). The higher expression of the gene during fruit ripening, especially after the breaker stage, is likely due to the higher Adh activity, which is positively regulated during fruit ripening (Speirs et al. 2002).

Figure 2. Analysis of SlAdh2 gene-expression patterns in wild-type tomato in relation to the developmental stage. L, leaf; S, stem; EF, early flower; FF, full-blooming flower; 1cm, 1-cm fruit; EIM, 10 days after the appearance of 1-cm fruit; LIM, 23 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit; MG, mature green; B, breaker; B3, 3 days after the breaker stage; B7, 7 days after the breaker stage; B10, 10 days after the breaker stage ; B15, 15 days after the breaker stage. 18S RNA bands were used as standards.

ProSlAdh2 sequence identification and characterization

SlAdh2 have been characterized for tissue-specific expression during different developmental stages, as indicated above. To confirm its potential use as a promoter, we first identified and verified SlAdh2 using the Sol Genomics and NCBI databases (https://solgenomics.net/) and then retrieved the promoter region 5’ upstream (2078-bp sequence length; Fig. 3). The SlAdh2 gene and promoter sequence were subsequently characterized using PlantCARE software.

Figure 3. The DNA sequence and cis-acting element of the fruit-specific ProSlAdh2 region. Nucleotides are numbered on the left side, with ATG at position +1

Construction and transformation of the ProSlAdh2::GUSand the histochemical detection of GUS

The ProSlAdh2::GUS fusion was identified based on the 5’ upstream region of SlAdh2 with the restriction enzymes SalI and smaI at 5’ and 3’ respectively in the genomic DNA. The ProSlAdh2::GUS fusion was transferred into WT tomato leaf segments using Agrobacterium-mediated gene transformation. The transformants expressing the promoter were identified using a gene-specific primer (data not shown). For promoter analysis, T0 lines with a single copy of ProSlAdh2 were selected to generate homozygous T2 lines, and some of these T2 lines were further confirmed using southern blot analysis (Fig. 4) and the T2 lines (ProSlAdh2#2, ProSlAdh2#21, and ProSlAdh2#24) and WT specimens were then selected.

Figure 4. The number of copies of ProSlAdh2::GUS in T2 transgenic tomato plants confirmed using Southern blot analysis

Stems, leaves (young and old), flowers (sepals and petals), and fruits (maturity stages 1 to 9) were collected from WT and from the selected lines (SlAdh2#2, SlAdh2#21 and SlAdh2#24). The activity of ProSlAdh2::GUS in the collected samples was analyzed using histochemical assays. The assays revealed no promoter activity in any of the leaf or flower stages in any of the T2 lines (SlAdh2#2, SlAdh2#21, and SlAdh2#24) or the WT (Fig. 5), whereas activity was observed in both stem sections (longitudinal and cross-sections) of the T2 lines but not the WT (Fig. 6).

Figure 5. GUS activity assays for the leaves and flowers of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS
Figure 6. GUS activity assays for the stem sections of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS

Line #21 exhibited stronger activity in both stem sections than the other selected lines. Promoter activity was also observed in the fruits of the T2 lines, though this activity varied with the developmental stages. Low ProSlAdh2::GUS activity was detected in the 1-cm fruits of the T2 lines, with a gradual increase starting from 10 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruits up to the breaker stage in all three lines (Fig. 7).

Figure 7. GUS activity assays for the fruit development stage of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS

After the breaker stage, strong promoter activity was still observed in the three lines, particularly from 7 days to 15 days after the breaker stage (Fig. 8). Our assay results suggest the upregulation of SlAdh2 in the later stages of fruit development in all lines. These results support the vital role of Adh in the production of flavor volatiles in fruit because a positive correlation between Adh levels and the flavor of tomato fruit has been reported (Speirs et al. 1998; Speirs et al. 2002). Taken together, our results indicate that SlAdh2 is useful as a fruit-specific promoter for the improvement in the quality of tomato fruit and that the overexpression of SlAdh2 using genetic engineering could help to enhance the flavor of tomato fruit.

Figure 8. GUS activity assays for the fruit ripening stage of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS

Conclusion

We analyzed the expression patterns of SlAdh2 in various WT tomato tissues and found higher expression levels during the fruit development and ripening stages than in the other tissues (i.e., the leaves, stems, and flowers). Similarly, increases in the activity of the ProSlAdh2::GUS were detected during fruit development, particularly in the later stages. In addition, because the selected SlAdh2 promoter region contains various important conserved promotor sequences, it can be used as a dynamic tool for the analysis of developmental stages and fruit ripening. Moreover, metabolic genetic engineering of SlAdh2 gene could help to enhance the flavor of tomato fruit.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2018R1A2B6001781)

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Construction of the ProSlAdh2::GUS fusion using pBI101 vector. RB, right border; LB, left border; Nos-pro, nopaline synthase promoter; NPT-II, neomycin phosphotransferase; Nos-ter, nopaline synthase terminator
Journal of Plant Biotechnology 2020; 47: 172-178https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Analysis of SlAdh2 gene-expression patterns in wild-type tomato in relation to the developmental stage. L, leaf; S, stem; EF, early flower; FF, full-blooming flower; 1cm, 1-cm fruit; EIM, 10 days after the appearance of 1-cm fruit; LIM, 23 days after the appearance of the 1-cm fruit; MG, mature green; B, breaker; B3, 3 days after the breaker stage; B7, 7 days after the breaker stage; B10, 10 days after the breaker stage ; B15, 15 days after the breaker stage. 18S RNA bands were used as standards.
Journal of Plant Biotechnology 2020; 47: 172-178https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

Fig 3.

Figure 3.The DNA sequence and cis-acting element of the fruit-specific ProSlAdh2 region. Nucleotides are numbered on the left side, with ATG at position +1
Journal of Plant Biotechnology 2020; 47: 172-178https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

Fig 4.

Figure 4.The number of copies of ProSlAdh2::GUS in T2 transgenic tomato plants confirmed using Southern blot analysis
Journal of Plant Biotechnology 2020; 47: 172-178https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

Fig 5.

Figure 5.GUS activity assays for the leaves and flowers of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS
Journal of Plant Biotechnology 2020; 47: 172-178https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

Fig 6.

Figure 6.GUS activity assays for the stem sections of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS
Journal of Plant Biotechnology 2020; 47: 172-178https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

Fig 7.

Figure 7.GUS activity assays for the fruit development stage of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS
Journal of Plant Biotechnology 2020; 47: 172-178https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

Fig 8.

Figure 8.GUS activity assays for the fruit ripening stage of transgenic tomato expressing ProSlAdh2::GUS
Journal of Plant Biotechnology 2020; 47: 172-178https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2020.47.2.172

References

  1. Atkinson RG, Bolitho KM, Wright M a., et al. (1998) Apple ACC-oxidase and polygalacturonase: Ripening-specific gene expression and promoter analysis in transgenic tomato. Plant Mol Biol 38:449-460. doi: 10.1023/A:1006065926397
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Blume B, Grierson D (1997) Expression of ACC oxidase promoterGUS fusions in tomato and Nicotiana plumbaginifolia regulated by developmental and environmental stimuli. Plant J 12:731-746. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1997.12040731.x
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Butelli E, Titta L, Giorgio M, Mock HP, Matros A, Peterek S, Schijlen EG, Hall RD
  4. Chung M-Y, Vrebalov J, Alba R, et al (2010) A tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) APETALA2/ERF gene, SlAP2a, is a negative regulator of fruit ripening. Plant J 64:936-947. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04384.x
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Clinton SK, Emenhiser C, Schwartz SJ, Bostwick DG, Williams AW, Moore BJ, Coupe SA, Deikman J (1997) Characterization of a DNA-binding protein that interacts with 50 flanking regions of two fruitripening genes. Plant J 11:1207-1218
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. de Jong J, Mertens MMJ, Rademaker W (1994) Stable expression of the GUS reporter gene in chrysanthemum depends on binary plasmid T-DNA. Plant Cell Rep 14:59-64. doi: 10.1007/BF00233300
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Deikman J, Xu R, Kneissl ML, Ciardi JA, Kim KN, Pelah D (1998) Separation of cis elements responsive to ethylene, fruit development, and ripening in the 50 -flanking region of the ripeningrelated E8 gene. Plant Mol Biol 37:1001-1011
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Dharmapuri S, Rosati C, Pallara P, Aquilani R, Bouvier F, Camara B, Giuliano G (2002) Metabolic engineering of xanthophyll content in tomato fruits. FEBS Lett 22:30-34
    CrossRef
  9. Dutt M, Dhekney S a, Soriano L, et al (2014) Temporal and spatial control of gene expression in horticultural crops. Hortic Res 1:14047. doi: 10.1038/hortres.2014.47
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  10. Fu X, Shi P, Shen Q, et al. (2015) T-shaped trichome-specific expression of monoterpene synthase ADH2 using promoter-β-GUS fusion in transgenic Artemisia annua L. Biotechnol Appl Biochem doi: 10.1002/bab.1440
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Hiwasa-Tanase K, Kuroda H, Hirai T, et al (2012) Novel promoters that induce specific transgene expression during the green to ripening stages of tomato fruit development. Plant Cell Rep 31:1415-1424. doi: 10.1007/s00299-012-1257-5
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Le LQ, Lorenz Y, Scheurer S, Fo¨tisch K, Enrique E, Bartra J, Biemelt S, Vieths S, Sonnewald U (2006) Design of tomato fruits with reduced allergenicity by dsRNAi-mediated inhibition of ns-LTP (Lyc e 3) expression. Plant Biotechnol J 4:231-242
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Levy J, Bosin E, Feldman B, Giat Y, Miinster A, Danilenko M, Sharoni Y (1995) Lycopene is a more potent inhibitor of human cancer cell proliferation than either alpha-carotene or betacarotene. Nutr Cancer 24: 257-266
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Longhurst T, Lee E, Hinde R, et al (1994) Structure of the tomato Adh2 gene and Adh2 pseudogenes, and a study of Adh2 gene expression in fruit. Plant Mol Biol 26:1073-1084. doi: 10.1007/BF00040690
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Manríquez D, El-Sharkawy I, Flores FB, et al (2006) Two highly divergent alcohol dehydrogenases of melon exhibit fruit ripeningspecific expression and distinct biochemical characteristics. Plant Mol Biol 61:675-685. doi: 10.1007/s11103-006-0040-9
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Mollet B, Niederberger P, Pe´tiard V (2008) Novel tomato flavours introduced by plastidial terpenoid pathway engineering. Trends Biotechnol 26:4-6
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Naing AH, Park KI, Ai TN, Chung MY, Han JS, Kang YW, Lim KB, Kim CK (2017) Overexpression of snapdragon Delila (Del) gene in tobacco enhances anthocyanin accumulation and abiotic stress tolerance. BMC Plant Biol 17(1):65
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Speirs J, Correll R, Cain P (2002) Relationship between ADH activity, ripeness and softness in six tomato cultivars. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam) 93:137-142. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4238(01)00316-8
    CrossRef
  19. Speirs J, Lee E, Holt K, et al (1998) Genetic Manipulation of Alcohol Dehydrogenase Levels in Ripening Tomato Fruit Affects the Balance of Some Flavor Aldehydes and Alcohols1. Plant Physiol 117:1047-1058. doi: 10.1104/pp.117.3.1047
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Tanksley SD (1979) Linkage, chromosomal association, and expression of Adh-1 and Pgm-2 in tomato. Biochem Genet 17:1159-67
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Van Eck J, Kirk DD, Walmsley AM (2006) Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Methods Mol Biol 343: 459-473
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Wang NN, Shin MC, Li N (2005) The GUS reporter-aided analysis of the promoter activities of Arabidopsis ACC synthase genes AtACS4, AtACS5, and AtACS7 induced by hormones and stresses. J Exp Bot 56:909-920. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eri083
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Wang S, Liu J, Feng Y, Niu X, Giovannoni J, Liu Y (2008) Altered plastid levels and potential for improved fruit nutrient content by downregulation of the tomato DDB1-interacting protein CUL4. Plant J 55:89-103
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Xu R, Goldman S, Coupe S, Deikman J (1996) Ethylene control of E4 transcription during tomato fruit ripening involves two cooperative cis elements. Plant Mol Biol 31:1117-1127
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Yang L, Pan A, Jia J, Ding J, Chen J, Huang C, Zhang C, Zhang D (2005) Validation of a tomato specific gene, LAT52, used as an endogenous reference gene in qualitative and real-time quantitative PCR detection of transgenic tomatoes. J Agric Food Chem 53:183-190
    Pubmed CrossRef
JPB
Vol 51. 2024

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on

  • line

Related articles in JPB

Journal of

Plant Biotechnology

pISSN 1229-2818
eISSN 2384-1397
qr-code Download