Gynogenesis in Agricultural Crops: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Plant Sciences
Contributor:
Ivan Maryn Marin-Montes

Gynogenesis is a viable methodology with promising results in recalcitrant species for the generation of doubled haploids, which uses unpollinated female gametophytes. This technique has been successful in loquat (Eriobotrya japonica (Thumb) Lindl.), citrus (Citrus grandis (L.) Osbeck), spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.), cucurbits, red beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and Gentiana ssp. crops, where it is feasible to apply this technique in breeding.

  • Gynogenesis
  • Agricultural Crops
  • Irradiated pollen
  • Wide Hybridization
  • In vivo haploid inducers

1. Gynogenesis in Agricultural Crops

Haploid regeneration by means of unpollinated female gametophytes is one of the most commonly used alternatives in species where androgenesis has not been effective; this method is called haploid gynogenesis or haploid parthenogenesis. The term gynogenic haploid regeneration is used for all haploid induction methods in which a female gametophyte is used as the origin of the haploid cells, regardless of whether it is a pseudofertilization process or not; therefore, there are four variants: (a) in vitro culture of unfertilized ovaries or ovules [1], (b) pollination with pollen irradiated with cobalt-60 (60Co) [2][3], (c) wide hybridization [2] and (d) in vivo haploid inducers [3][4].

1.1. In Vitro Culture of Ovaries or Ovules

In the case of self-pollinated species, in vitro culture of unfertilized female gametes is achieved by culturing flower buds prior to anthesis, while in male-sterile or self-incompatible plants it is performed at any stage of ovule development, since they show a favorable response to gynogenic induction [5]. This technique is successfully employed in species of the genus Allium, where it is the main technique to derive DHs [6]. For example, Panahandeh et al. [7] achieved a gynogenic induction range of 5 to 12% by culturing unpollinated flower buds of Allium hirtifolium Boiss., which allowed callus formation with a success rate of 20%, of which the efficiency of obtaining haploid plants was 70 to 77%. This technique is also viable in both wild and improved species of the genus Gentiana L. spp. [8][9][10]. Although the results obtained were promising in both species mentioned, the authors agree that it is necessary to continue with the establishment of efficient protocols because the average response in obtaining haploid plants does not exceed 5% (Table 2).
Table 2. Examples of protocols used for successful haploid induction mediated in vitro culture of unfertilized ovaries or ovules.
Species Common Name Pathway Ploidy Level Determination Haploid Induction Rate Reference
Beta vulgaris L. Red beet Unfertilized ovule culture Flow cytometry and chromosome counting 25% Zayachkovskaya et al. [11]
Gentiana spp. Gentians Unfertilized ovule culture Flow cytometry and molecular marker analysis 32.5% Takamura et al. [8]
Allium hirtifolium Boiss Persian shallot Unfertilized ovary Squash root 0–77% Panahandeh et al. [7]
Gentiana triflora Gentians Unfertilized ovules Flow cytometry and Feulgen staining 23.5–56% Doi et al. [10]
Solanum lycopersicum L. Tomato Non-fertilized ovary culture - 0% Bal et al. [12]

1.2. Irradiated Pollen

Irradiated pollen allows the development of haploid embryos by fertilizing an ovule with mature pollen whose genetic material is inactive, i.e., it is capable of inducing cell divisions in the ovule and the normal development of the embryo [2]. There are many favorable examples involving the use of irradiated pollen in different vegetable and fruit species in which androgenesis was not an option (Table 3).
Table 3. Examples of successful haploid induction methods by induced parthenogenesis by irradiated pollen in recalcitrant species.
Species Common Name Pathway Ploidy Level Determination Haploid Induction Rate Reference
Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. Loquat γ–irradiated pollen Flow cytometry 0.007–0.008% Blasco et al. [13]
Citrus grandis (L.) Osbeck Pummelo γ–irradiated pollen Flow cytometry 1%s Wang et al. [14]
Spinacia oleracea L. Spinach γ-irradiated pollen Flow cytometry - Keleş et al. [15]
Cucumis melo L. Melon γ-irradiated pollen Flow cytometry 14–33% Lotfi et al. [16]
Cucumis melo L. Melon γ-irradiated pollen Chromosome counting 23.65% Nasertorabi et al. [17]
Citrus reticulata Mandarin γ-irradiated pollen Flow cytometry 2.58–8.33% Jedidi et al. [18]
Thus, Hooghvorst et al. [3] and Kurtar et al. [19] reported that in cucurbits, a family containing crops of high economic value such as pumpkin, melon and cucumber, pollination with γ-ray-irradiated pollen is the most efficient method to induce haploidy because it has not been possible to take advantage of androgenesis in these crops. In Cucumis melo L., pollen irradiated with 250 Gys of 137Cs was more effective compared to in vitro culture of unpollinated ovules [16]. Likewise, Nasertorabi et al. [17] obtained 48 Cucumis melo L. plants induced from embryos obtained with pollen irradiated with 550 Gys of 60Co, of which 94% were haploid.
In citrus, this technique has proven to be very useful to obtain haploid plants with high value for breeding. For example, Wang et al. [14] were able to induce haploid plants in Citrus grandis L. Osbeck by irradiating pollen with γ-rays with doses lower than 500 Gys and in vitro culture of immature embryos. Likewise, Jedidi et al. [18], by irradiating pollen at 250 Gys with γ-rays, obtained seven seedlings that were used to generate homozygous lines in Citrus reticulata Blanco.

1.3. Wide Hybridization

The third variant of gynogenesis consists of interspecific crosses, through which it is possible to induce the formation of haploid embryos due to the fertilization of an ovule with pollen from a distant species, allowing double fertilization. However, cell divisions in the zygote eliminate the chromosomes of the male parent [2][20]. Thus, Santra et al. [21] published an efficient protocol to obtain completely homozygous lines in only two years by wide hybridization to obtain DHs from wheat pollinated with maize pollen.
Although wide hybridization is most commonly used in cereals, in recent years its application in leafy vegetables has been shown to have acceptable results in the induction of haploid plants (Table 4). For example, Piosik et al. [22] carried out distant hybridization of Lactuca sativa L. with Helianthus annus L. and Helianthus tuberosus L., with which they established an effective methodology to induce haploidy in lettuce. In addition, Wei et al. [23] obtained haploid offspring by embryo rescue and subsequent duplication of chromosomal material with colchicine using a commercial variety of Brassica oleracea var. alboglabra as the male parent and a variety of Brassica rapa var. parachinensis as the female parent. Similarly, haploid plants were obtained by crossing Brassica rapa × Brassica oleracea and in vitro culture of immature embryos [24].
Table 4. Summary of haploid induction methodologies by wide hybridization.
Species Common Name Pathway Ploidy Level Determination Haploid Induction Rate Reference
Triticum aestivum L. Wheat Wheat × maize crossing - - Wiśniewska et al. [25]
Lactuca sativa L. Lettuce Cross-pollination with Helianthus annus L. Flow cytometry and chromosome counting 15% Piosik et al. [22]
Lactuca sativa L. Lettuce Cross-pollination with Helianthus tuberosus L. Flow cytometry and chromosome counting 16% Piosik et al. [22]
Solanum lycopersicum L. Tomato Cross-pollination with S. sisymbriifolium Lam. Chromosome counting 0% Bal et al. [26]
Solanum lycopersicum L. Tomato Cross-pollination with S. sisymbriifolium Lam. Flow cytometry and chromosome counting ~10% cells haploids Chambonnet [27]

1.4. In Vivo Haploid Induction

In the past decade, methodologies applied to induce in vivo haploidy to accelerate the production of double haploid lines have been developed for several target crops [3][28]. These methodologies take advantage of the specific gene expressions that regulate the formation of maternal haploids (Table 5). In maize, the generation of in vivo haploid inducer lines of maternal haploidy via the expression of the genes MATL [29], NLD [30] and ZmPLA1 has been possible [31]. In wheat, the genetic edition of the gen MTL permitted to observe that the alleles mtl-AD, mtl-BD and mtl-ABD were effective to generate inducer lines from self-pollinated and cross-pollinated progenies; its rate of success ranged between 7.8% and 15.6% [32]. However, these genes do not work in dicot species [33]. On the other hand, the haploid induction from aneuploidy is possible via CRISPR/Cas9 mutation of the CENH3 gene in both monocot and dicot crops [3][28]. These two methodologies are very promising and are used in cereals because they have been more efficient than the in vitro methods.
Table 5. Summary of haploid induction reports via in vivo haploid inducers.
Species Common Name Pathway Ploidy Level Determination Haploid Induction Rate Reference
Zea mays L. Maize Inducer inbred lines Morphological markers 2.5–15.7% Qu et al. [34]
Zea mays L. Maize BHI Bulk Embryo coloration (R1-nj) 11.2–16.8% Trampe et al. [35]
Zea mays L. Maize Frame-shift mutation in MATRILINEAL (MTL) Flow cytometry 6.7% Kelliher et al. [29]
Zea mays L. Maize Eliminate native CENH3- gene Flow cytometry 0.05–0.31% Kelliher et al. [4]
Zea mays L. Maize Inducer lines (NOT LIKE DAD) Morphological markers 0–3.59% Gilles et al. [30]
Triticum aestivum L. Wheat Edited the MTL alleles using CRISPR/Cas9 Chromosome counting 0–15.6% Tang et al. [32]
Arabidopsis thaliana Arabidopsis Edited the DMP genes using CRISPR/Cas9 Flow cytometry 0–4.41% Zhong et al. [33]
Brassica napus L. Oilseed rape Knocked out of BnaDMP using CRISPR/Cas9 Flow cytometry 1.5 +-0.63% Li et al. [36]
Brassica napus L. Oilseed rape DMP CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis Flow cytometry 0–4.44% Zhong et al. [37]
Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco DMP CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis Flow cytometry 0–1.63% Zhong et al. [37]
Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco DMP CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis Flow cytometry and cytological observation 1.52–1.75% Zhang et al. [38]
Medicago truncatula Gaertn Barrel medic DMP CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis Flow cytometry 0.29–0.82% Wang et al. [39]
Solanum lycopersicum L. Tomato DMP CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis Flow cytometry 0.5–3.7% Zhong et al. [40]
Solanum lycopersicum L. Tomato Edition of the CENH3 gen with GFP-tailswap disruption Flow cytometry 0.2–2.3% Op Den Camp et al. [41]
In contrast, the conservation of the DMP genes in dicot species opens up the possibility to apply this haploidy induction system [33]. From this starting point, protocols for some horticultural crops have been developed. In Brassica napus L., bnaDMP mutation could induce amphihaploidy [36][37]. In Nicotiana tabacum L., it was reported that the simultaneous MtDMP1, MtDMP2 and MtDMP3 mutations can trigger maternal haploidy at rates from 1.52% to 1.75% [38]. In contrast, the inactivation of the MtDMP8 and MtDMP9 alleles in Medicago truncatula Gaertn would facilitate in vivo maternal haploid induction at a rate from 0.29% to 0.82% in mutant progeny [39]. Despite these results, the use of DMP genes is not very frequent because there are not transformation systems (CRISPR/Cas9) or TILLING populations in major crops [3][37].

2. Gynogenesis in Tomato

Due to the few successful results obtained by androgenesis for haploidy induction and the formation of doubled haploids in tomato, some research groups have sought alternatives to achieve this goal. The options employed are variants of gynogenesis: wide hybridization, unfertilized ovule culture and irradiated pollen [42]; and haploid inducers/CRISPR/Cas9 [40]; however, it is not yet fully known what these could mean for the breeding of this crop.

2.1. Wide Hybridization

Wild species phylogenetically related to tomato are commonly used for crop improvement to incorporate alleles of interest into crop breeding programs, most notably S. pimpinellifolium [43], S. arcanum Peralta [44], S. sitiens I. M. Johnst [45], S. pinnelli L. [46], S. chilense (Dunal) Reiche [47], S. neorickii D. M. Spooner, G. J. Anderson & R. K. Jansen [48], S. habrochaites S. Knapp & D. M. Spooner [49] and S. sisymbriifolium Lam. [50].
The general use of wide crosses in this species is not only performed to induce haploidy, as some studies have attempted to apply them to generate DHs (Table 4). For example, S. sisybriifolium pollen was used unsuccessfully to induce haploids [26]. In contrast, S. sisybriifolium pollen allowed obtaining haploid and di-haploid genotypes of maternal origin.
Even though only ~10% of embryos were rescued and only two plants were generated, the results suggest that it may be a viable alternative; however, the author suggests that the procedure needs to be modified to improve results [27].

2.2. Unfertilized Ovule Culture

Few attempts have been made to obtain haploid tomato plants by in vitro culture of unfertilized ovules (Table 2). In tomato, this objective was not possible despite the fact that ovules have a variable response to different culture media [12]. Moreover, Zhao et al. [51] designed a very efficient in vitro protocol with which they isolated, from a single ovary in tomato, between 100 and 150 ovules with which they were able to induce gynogenic callus; despite this, they were unsuccessful in regenerating haploid plants.

2.3. Irradiated Pollen

Regarding the use of irradiated pollen in tomato, the work carried out is limited, although the results are promising (Table 3). Thus, Nishiyama et al. [52] reported that S. pimpinellifolium pollen maintains its germination capacity and that it is possible to generate fruits with some seeds with doses of 2000 to 7000 Gys of X-rays. In addition, Nishiyama et al. [53], when applying between 100 and 1100 Gys in increments of 100 Grays with X and γ radiation to S. pimpinellifolium pollen, found that it has the same effect on germination and fruit set, with a pollen germination capacity of less than 50% with doses higher than 300 Gys. These studies suggest the possibility of obtaining tomato fruits and seeds from irradiated pollen, although the doses used did not allow inactivating the genetic material of the microspore and inducing haploid parthenogenesis. However, the success of this technique obtained in other crops allows us to assume that it is essential to determine the median lethal dose (LD50), which could vary according to the genotype and species [1][54].
For this methodology to be used in tomato breeding programs for haploidy induction, the optimum dose for the inactivation of genetic material in pollen must be determined. In recent years, Akbudak et al. [55] irradiated pollen from different tomato hybrids with doses of 100, 200, 300 and 400 Gys of γ-rays without obtaining fruit in any treatment although radiation doses higher than 200 Gys correspond to LD50. Likewise, Bal et al. [42] mentioned their own unpublished work on haploidy induction in this crop using irradiated pollen, where 1000 Gys caused the loss of viability and germination capacity of the pollen; however, with 800 Gys, fruits were generated, which were aborted in the early stages of development.

2.4. In Vivo Haploid Inducers

In tomato, the use of CRISPR/Cas9 has been applied to achieve objectives such as introgression breeding [56], plant architecture, fruit development and ripening [57], herbicide-resistance [58], leaf development [59] and ToBRFV-resistant tomato [60]. This suggests that it is possible to generate protocols to use the DMP and CENH3 genes that regulate the gynogenesis to facilitate the generation of maternal haploid inducer males, as reported in maize [29][30][31] and wheat [32]. Thus, Zhong et al. [40] obtained sldmp tomato mutants using CRISPR/Cas9, with a rate of 1.9% for haploidy induction. Likewise, KEYGENE N. V. (Wageningen, Netherlands) has a patent for a methodology to generate haploids via GFP-tailswap disruption that by editing the CENH3 gene produces 0.5–2.3% of haploids [41]. These achievements produced by genetic edition show the potential of the in vivo haploid inducers to obtain DH lines in tomato and other recalcitrant crops.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/plants11121595

References

  1. Dong, Y.Q.; Zhao, W.X.; Li, X.H.; Liu, X.C.; Gao, N.N.; Huang, J.H.; Wang, W.Y.; Xu, X.L.; Tang, Z.H. Androgenesis, gynogenesis, and parthenogenesis haploids in cucurbit species. Plant Cell Rep. 2016, 35, 1991–2019.
  2. Forster, B.P.; Heberle-Bors, E.; Kasha, K.J.; Touraev, A. The resurgence of haploids in higher plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2007, 12, 368–375.
  3. Hooghvorst, I.; Nogués, S. Opportunities and challenges in doubled haploids and haploid inducer-mediated genome-editing systems in cucurbits. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1441.
  4. Kelliher, T.; Starr, D.; Wang, W.; McCuiston, J.; Zhong, H.; Nuccio, M.L.; Martin, B. Maternal haploids are preferentially induced by CENH3-tailswap transgenic complementation in maize. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 414.
  5. Asif, M. Progress and Opportunities of Doubled Haploid Production; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2013; p. 75. ISBN 978-3-319-00732-8.
  6. Khan, P.S.S.V.; Vijayalakshmi, G.; Raja, M.M.; Naik, M.L.; Germanà, M.A.; Terry, R.G. Doubled haploid production in onion (Allium cepa L.): From gynogenesis to chromosome doubling. Plant Cell Tiss. Organ Cult. 2020, 142, 1–22.
  7. Panahandeh, J.; Farhadi, N. Haploid induction via in vitro gynogenesis in Persian shallot (Allium hirtifolium). J. Hortic. Res. 2019, 27, 91–98.
  8. Takamura, Y.; Takahashi, R.; Hikage, T.; Hatakeyama, K.; Takahata, Y. Production of haploids and doubled haploids from unfertilized ovule culture of various wild species of gentians (Gentiana spp.). Plant Cell Tiss. Organ Cult. 2021, 146, 505–514.
  9. Doi, H.; Takahata, Y. Haploid and doubled haploid plant production in gentian (Gentiana spp.). In The Gentianaceae: Biotechnology and Applications; Rybczyński, J., Davey, M., Mikuła, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2015; Volume 2, pp. 187–197. ISBN 9783642541018.
  10. Doi, H.; Yokoi, S.; Hikage, T.; Nishihara, M.; Tsutsumi, K.-I.; Takahata, Y. Gynogenesis in gentians (Gentiana triflora, G. scabra): Production of haploids and doubled haploids. Plant Cell Rep. 2011, 30, 1099–1106.
  11. Zayachkovskaya, T.; Domblides, E.; Zayachkovsky, V.; Kan, L.; Domblides, A.; Soldatenko, A. Production of gynogenic plants of red beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in unpollinated ovule culture in vitro. Plants 2021, 10, 2703.
  12. Bal, U.; Abak, K. Attempts of haploidy induction in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) via gynogenesis II: In vitro non-fertilized ovary culture. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2003, 6, 750–755.
  13. Blasco, M.; Badenes, M.L.; Del Mar Naval, M. Induced parthenogenesis by gamma-irradiated pollen in loquat for haploid production. Breed. Sci. 2016, 66, 606–612.
  14. Wang, S.M.; Lan, H.; Jia, H.H.; Xie, K.D.; Wu, X.M.; Chen, C.L.; Guo, W.W. Induction of parthenogenetic haploid plants using gamma irradiated pollens in ″Hirado Buntan″ pummelo (Citrus grandis Osbeck). Sci. Hortic. 2016, 207, 233–239.
  15. Keleş, D.; Özcan, C.; Pınar, H.; Ata, A.; Denli, N.; Yücel, N.; Taşkın, H.; Büyükalaca, S. First report of obtaining haploid plants using tissue culture techniques in spinach. HortScience 2016, 51, 742–749.
  16. Lotfi, M.; Alan, A.R.; Henning, M.J.; Jahn, M.M.; Earle, E.D. Production of haploid and doubled haploid plants of melon (Cucumis melo L.) for use in breeding for multiple virus resistance. Plant Cell Rep. 2003, 21, 1121–1128.
  17. Nasertorabi, M.; Madadkhah, E.; Moghbeli, E.; Grouh, M.S.H.; Soleimani, A. Production of haploid lines from parthenogenetic Iranian melon plants obtained of irradiated pollen (Cucumis melo L.). Int. Res. J. Appl. Basic Sci. 2012, 3, 1585–1589.
  18. Jedidi, E.; Kamiri, M.; Poullet, T.; Ollitrault, P.; Froelicher, Y. Efficient haploid production on ′Wilking′ mandarin by induced gynogenesis. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1065, 495–500.
  19. Kurtar, E.S.; Seymen, M.; Kal, Ü. An overview of doubled haploid plant production in Cucurbita species. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi 2020, 30, 510–520.
  20. Niu, Z.; Jiang, A.; Abu Hammad, W.; Oladzadabbasabadi, A.; Xu, S.S.; Mergoum, M.; Elias, E.M. Review of doubled haploid production in durum and common wheat through wheat × maize hybridization. Plant Breed. 2014, 133, 313–320.
  21. Santra, M.; Wang, H.; Seifert, S.; Haley, S. Doubled haploid laboratory protocol for wheat using wheat–maize wide hybridization. In Wheat Biotechnology; Methods in Molecular Biology; Bhalla, P., Singh, M., Eds.; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 234–249. ISBN 978-1-4939-7337-8.
  22. Piosik, Ł.; Zenkteler, E.; Zenkteler, M. Development of haploid embryos and plants of Lactuca sativa induced by distant pollination with Helianthus annuus and H. tuberosus. Euphytica 2016, 208, 439–451.
  23. Wei, Y.; Zhu, M.; Qiao, H.; Li, F.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, H.; Sun, R. Characterization of interspecific hybrids between flowering Chinese cabbage and broccoli. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 240, 552–557.
  24. Wei, Y.; Li, F.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, H.; Qiao, H.; Sun, R. Characterization of interspecific hybrids between Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa) and red cabbage (Brassica oleracea). Sci. Hortic. 2019, 250, 33–37.
  25. Wiśniewska, H.; Majka, M.; Kwiatek, M.; Gawłowska, M.; Surma, M.; Adamski, T.; Kaczmarek, Z.; Drzazga, T.; Lugowska, B.; Korbas, M.; et al. Production of wheat-doubled haploids resistant to eyespot supported by marker-assisted selection. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 11–17.
  26. Bal, U.; Abak, K. Attempts of haploidy induction in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) via gynogenesis I: Pollination with Solanum sisymbriifolium Lam. Pollen. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2003, 6, 745–749.
  27. Chambonnet, D. In situ induction of haploid gynogenesis in tomato. Rep. Tom. Gen. Coop. 2012, 62, 5–22.
  28. Uliana Trentin, H.; Frei, U.K.; Lübberstedt, T. Breeding maize maternal haploid inducers. Plants 2020, 9, 614.
  29. Kelliher, T.; Starr, D.; Richbourg, L.; Chintamanani, S.; Delzer, B.; Nuccio, M.L.; Green, L.; Chen, Z.; McCuiston, J.; Wang, W.; et al. MATRILINEAL, a sperm-specific phospholipase, triggers maize haploid induction. Nature 2017, 542, 105–109.
  30. Gilles, L.M.; Khaled, A.; Laffaire, J.-B.; Chaignon, S.; Gendrot, G.; Laplaige, J.; Bergès, H.; Beydon, G.; Bayle, V.; Barret, P.; et al. Loss of pollen-specific phospholipase NOT LIKE DAD triggers gynogenesis in maize. Eur. Mol. Biol. Organ. 2017, 36, 707–717.
  31. Jiang, C.; Sun, J.; Li, R.; Yan, S.; Chen, W.; Guo, L.; Qin, G.; Wang, P.; Luo, C.; Huang, W.; et al. A reactive oxygen species burst causes haploid induction in maize. Mol. Plant. 2022, 15, 943–955.
  32. Tang, H.; Zhang, S.; Yu, M.; Wang, K.; Yu, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Chang, Y.; Lin, Z.; Du, L.; Fu, D.; et al. Effects of TaMTL-Edited mutations on grain phenotype and storage component composition in wheat. Agriculture 2022, 12, 587.
  33. Zhong, Y.; Chen, B.; Li, M.; Wang, D.; Jiao, Y.; Qi, X.; Wang, M.; Liu, Z.; Chen, C.; Wang, Y.; et al. A DMP-triggered in vivo maternal haploid induction system in the dicotyledonous Arabidopsis. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 466–472.
  34. Qu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, J.; Li, H. Improving the sorting efficiency of maize haploid kernels using an NMR-based method with oil content double thresholds. Plant Methods 2021, 17, 2.
  35. Trampe, B.; Batîru, G.; Pereira da Silva, A.; Frei, U.K.; Lübberstedt, T. QTL mapping for haploid inducibility using genotyping by sequencing in maize. Plants 2022, 11, 878.
  36. Li, Y.; Li, D.; Xiao, Q.; Wang, H.; Wen, J.; Tu, J.; Shen, J.; Fu, T.; Yi, B. An in planta haploid induction system in Brassica napus. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2022, 64, 1140–1144.
  37. Zhong, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, B.; Liu, J.; Wang, D.; Li, M.; Qi, X.; Liu, C.; Boutilier, K.; Chen, S. Establishment of a dmp based maternal haploid induction system for polyploid Brassica napus and Nicotiana tabacum. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2022, 64, 1281–1294.
  38. Zhang, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Jia, M.; Cao, L.; Yu, J.; Zhao, D. Haploid induction in allotetraploid tobacco using DMPs mutation. Planta 2022, 255, 98.
  39. Wang, N.; Xia, X.; Jiang, T.; Li, L.; Zhang, P.; Niu, L.; Cheng, H.; Wang, K.; Lin, H. In planta haploid induction by genome editing of DMP in the model legume Medicago truncatula. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2022, 20, 22–24.
  40. Zhong, Y.; Chen, B.; Wang, D.; Zhu, X.; Li, M.; Zhang, J.; Chen, M.; Wang, M.; Riksen, T.; Liu, J.; et al. In vivo maternal haploid induction in tomato. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2022, 20, 250–252.
  41. Op Den Camp, R.H.M.; Van Dijk, P.L.; Gallard, A. Method for the Production of Haploid and Subsequent Doubled Haploid plants. Patent WO 2017/200386 A1 2017. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017058022A1/en (accessed on 29 May 2022).
  42. Bal, U.; Abak, K. Haploidy in tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.): A critical review. Euphytica 2007, 158, 1–9.
  43. Di Giacomo, M.; Luciani, M.D.; Cambiaso, V.; Zorzoli, R.; Rubén, R.G.; Pereira da Costa, J.H. Tomato near isogenic lines to unravel the genetic diversity of S. pimpinellifolium LA0722 for fruit quality and shelf life breeding. Euphytica 2020, 216, 126.
  44. Awais Ghani, M.; Mehran Abbas, M.; Amjad, M.; Ziaf, K.; Ali, B.; Shaheen, T.; Saeed Awan, F.; Nawaz Khan, A. Production and characterization of tomato derived from interspecific hybridisation between cultivated tomato and its wild relatives. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 95, 506–520.
  45. Chetelat, R.T.; Qin, X.; Tan, M.; Burkart-Waco, D.; Moritama, Y.; Huo, X.; Wills, T.; Pertuzé, R. Introgression lines of Solanum sitiens, a wild nightshade of the Atacama Desert, in the genome of cultivated tomato. Plant J. 2019, 100, 836–850.
  46. Ali, A.A.M.; Romdhane, W.B.; Tarroum, M.; Al-Dakhil, M.; Al-Doss, A.; Alsadon, A.A.; Hassairi, A. Analysis of salinity tolerance in tomato introgression lines based on morpho-physiological and molecular traits. Plants 2021, 10, 2594.
  47. Prasanna, H.C.; Sinha, D.P.; Rai, G.K.; Krishna, R.; Kashyap, S.P.; Singh, N.K.; Singh, M.; Malathi, V.G. Pyramiding Ty-2 and Ty-3 genes for resistance to monopartite and bipartite tomato leaf curl viruses of India. Plant Pathol. 2015, 64, 256–264.
  48. Baek, Y.S.; Covey, P.A.; Petersen, J.J.; Chetelat, R.T.; McClure, B.; Bedinger, P.A. Testing the SI × SC rule: Pollen–pistil interactions in interspecific crosses between members of the tomato clade (Solanum section Lycopersicon, Solanaceae). Am. J. Bot. 2015, 102, 302–311.
  49. Marin-Montes, I.M.; Lobato-Ortiz, R.; Carrillo-Castañeda, G.; Rodríguez-Pérez, J.E.; García-Zavala, J.J.; Hernández-Rodríguez, M.; Velasco-García, A.M. Genetic parameters of an interspecific cross between S. lycopersicum L. and S. habrochaites Knapp & Spooner. Rev. Chap. Ser. Hortic. 2020, 26, 111–123.
  50. Piosik, Ł.; Ruta-Piosik, M.; Zenkteler, M.; Zenkteler, E. Development of interspecific hybrids between Solanum lycopersicum L. and S. sisymbriifolium Lam. via embryo calli. Euphytica 2019, 215, 31.
  51. Zhao, H.; Wang, X.; Du, Y.; Zhu, D.; Guo, Y.; Gao, J.F.; Snyder, J. Haploid induction via in vitro gynogenesis in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J. Int. Agric. 2014, 13, 2122–2131.
  52. Nishiyama, I.; Tsukuda, S. Radiobiological studies in plant, I. Effects of X-rays upon pollen germination and fertility. Jpn. J. Genet. 1959, 34, 363–370.
  53. Nishiyama, I.; Tsukuda, S. Effects of X- and gamma-irradiations on pollen fertility of Lycopersicum pimpinellifolium. Jpn. J. Genet. 1961, 36, 423–427.
  54. Kundu, M.; Dubey, A. Effect of gamma ray irradiated pollen technique on seed development pattern in Citrus. Indian J. Genet. Plant Breed. 2020, 80, 450–458.
  55. Akbudak, N.; Seniz, V. In vitro and in vivo behavior of gamma irradiated tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) pollen. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2009, 37, 361–367.
  56. Choun-Sea, L.; Chen-Tran, H.; Yu-Hsuan, Y.; Po-Xing, Z.; Fu-Hui, W.; Qiao-Wei, C.; Yu-Lin, W.; Ting-Li, W.; Steven, L.; Jin-Jun, Y.; et al. DNA-free CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing of wild tetraploid tomato Solanum peruvianum using protoplast regeneration. Plant Physiol. 2022, 188, 1917–1930.
  57. Xuhu, G.; Jianguo, Z.; Zhiwen, C.; Jun, Q.; Yongfang, Z.; Hong, S.; Zhongli, H. CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of SlCMT4 causes changes in plant architecture and reproductive organ in tomato. Hortic. Res. 2022, 9, uhac081.
  58. Yang, S.H.; Kim, E.; Park, H.; Koo, Y. Selection of the high efficient sgRNA for CRISPR-Cas9 to edit herbicide related genes, PDS, ALS, and EPSPS in tomato. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2022, 65, 13.
  59. Tang, Y.; Li, H.; Liu, C.; He, Y.; Wang, H.; Zhao, T.; Xu, X.; Li, J.; Yang, H.; Jiang, J. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of the SlSRM1-like gene leads to abnormal leaf development in tomatoes. BMC Plant Biol. 2022, 22, 13.
  60. Masayuki, I.; Tetsuya, Y.; Momoko, M.; Yusuke, K.; Akihito, K.; Kazuhiro, I. Tomato brown rugose fruit virus resistance generated by quadruple knockout of homologs of TOBAMOVIRUS MULTIPLICATION1 in tomato. Plant Physiol. 2022, 189, 679–689.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback