Genetic Diversity and Distinctiveness in Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L

3/14/2015
Genetic diversity and distinctiveness in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) landraces: The Italian case study of A pera Abruzzese
Ad by DealsFactor | Close
Journals
Books
Shopping cart
Sign in
Help
Download PDF
Export
More options...
Other
Search ScienceDirect
Advanced search
export
Article outline
options
Show full outline
Abstract
Keywords
1. Introduction
2. Materials and methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Scientia Horticulturae
Volume 125, Issue 1, 31 May 2010, Pages 5562
Genetic diversity and distinctiveness in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum

L.) landraces: The Italian case study of A pera Abruzzese
Andrea Mazzucatoa,
Figures and tables
Table 1
, Nadia Ficcadentib, Marcello Caionib, Pietro Mosconia, Enrico Piccininib,
Venkata Rami Reddy Sanampudia, Sara Sestilib, Valentino Ferrarib

Show more
doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2010.02.021
Table 2
Get rights and content
Abstract
To assess the intra-population genetic variability and draw criteria for distinctiveness, 25 accessions
belonging to the Italian tomato landrace A pera Abruzzese were analyzed with morphological and
molecular descriptors and compared with the similar landraces Canestrino di Lucca and Cuore di bue di
Albenga. Whereas intra-accession variation for qualitative morphological descriptors was low, interaccession variability was high. Accessions from the Abruzzese landrace could be separated into three
groups according to the fruit shape, i.e. flat, round and obovoid. This variability was studied in detail by
digital analysis of fruit sections using the software programme Tomato Analyzer. Four descriptors were
Table 3
effective in distinguishing the Abruzzese round-fruited types from the Canestrino and Albenga controls.
The molecular analysis, based on 11 polymorphic microsatellite markers, differentiated the Abruzzese
from the Canestrino type, but was not able to separate the former from the Albenga type. Although
morphological and molecular descriptions did not correlate, the data presented provide a basis for
distinguishing those Abruzzese accessions that are unequivocally distinct from similar landraces
cultivated in different regions. In addition to the specific objectives, the research represents a case study
for the description of the variability that is often found within tomato landraces and an approach to identify
(groups of) accessions that are eligible for distinction, protection and commercial exploitation.
Keywords
ADVERTISEMENT
A pera Abruzzese; Distinctiveness; Genetic variation; Landraces; Solanum lycopersicum L.; SSR
1. Introduction
The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) was first introduced into Europe from Central and Southern
America at the beginning of the 16th century and cultivated as an ornamental. In the 17th century the
species gained popularity as an edible product and its cultivation spread rapidly throughout the Old World.
This introduction resulted in a genetic bottleneck, narrowing the genetic diversity of the cultivated
germplasm in Europe ( Rick, 1976). The genetic heritage of the tomato was further eroded by the
development of vintage and modern cultivars, when much of the original diversity within the cultivated S.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304423810000920#
1/15
3/14/2015
lycopersicum was lost ( Williams and St. Clair, 1993).
Despite the significant loss of genetic diversity and in stark contrast to the invariably round-shaped fruit of
its wild relatives, the cultivated tomato displays a large diversity of fruit morphology. It is now accepted that
this morphology is based on the allelic variation of a relatively small number of genes that recombined after
domestication and during the early cultivation of the species (Tanksley, 2004). In Europe, the tomato has
been most successful in the Mediterranean countries, including Spain and Italy (Soressi, 1969 and GarcaMartnez et al., 2006). In these countries, S. lycopersicum found a secondary centre for diversification (
Bailey et al., 1960) which resulted in a wide array of variations including round, obovoid, long, heart,
rectangular and even bell pepper-shaped fruits. This variation has given rise to a range of landraces that
have been cultivated for centuries and many of these are still commonly found at local markets ( Soressi,
1969 and Garca-Martnez et al., 2006).
Among the tomato landraces destined for fresh consumption, the so called salad tomatoes, those with
large isodiametric fruits are widely grown in both Spain and Italy (Garca-Martnez et al., 2006, Acciarri et
al., 2007 and Mazzucato et al., 2008). In many of these types the uneven development of the equatorial
diameter at the blossom or stem end causes the fruit to develop a typical pear (obovoid) or heart shape and
this distinctive feature is reflected in the name given to the particular landrace.
The landrace under study, known as A pera Abruzzese, is widely cultivated in Central Italy in the Northern
part of the Abruzzo region, along the Adriatic sea. This landrace, which has a local niche market where it is
appreciated for its outstanding organoleptic qualities, commonly includes both plants that produce
spherical and obovoid-shaped fruit (Sabatini et al., 2006). Morphologically very similar to the A pera
Abruzzese type are the so called Cuore di bue di Albenga (from Ligury; the name recalls an heart but the
fruit shape is actually obovoid) and the Canestrino di Lucca (from Tuscany) landraces. Whereas the
above mentioned landraces have pear-shaped fruits, the Cuore di bue tomato (different from Cuore di
bue di Albenga) differs because of the wider extension of the stem end diameter compared to the blossom
end, resulting in a characteristic heart shape. This tomato, which appears to have originated in Sicily,
differs from the pear-shaped tomatoes in that its fruit is pink, due to the colorless epidermis (y) mutation.
Finally, another round, multilocular tomato, known as Pomodoro di Sorrento, is cultivated in the Campania
region. Like the Cuore di bue, the Sorrento landrace also expresses the y phenotype giving the fruit a
typical pinkish tone ( Parisi et al., 2008).
Although these typologies are popular in the marketplace for their organoleptic qualities and their
characteristic traditional shapes, the intra-landrace levels of genetic variability as well as their genetic
relationships have been never studied in detail, nor have they ever been described according to clear and
distinctive criteria. In this study, we set out to examine the genetic variability present within the Abruzzese
landrace, with the aim of establishing the extent and nature of intra-landrace variability with special
reference to fruit size and shape. With this information we aim at defining the criteria that will allow us to
distinguish unequivocally Abruzzese accessions from those belonging to other landraces with similar fruit
attributes.
2. Materials and methods

2.1. Plant material and morphological analysis
Twenty-five tomato accessions representative of the A pera Abruzzese landrace (hereafter referred to as
Abruzzese) have been collected from farmers in the Abruzzo and in the nearby Marche region (Table 1).
Two accessions belonging to Canestrino di Lucca (hereafter referred to as Canestrino) and three to
Cuore di bue di Albenga (hereafter referred to as Albenga) were used for comparison. The accession
codes can be explained briefly as follows; the Abruzzese types were given the symbol AB followed by two
letters referring to the category of fruit shape (FL, flat; RD, round; OB, obovoid) and a progressive number.
Canestrino and Albenga types were given the codes CAN and ALB respectively followed by a numeral
(Table 1). The seeds for all the accessions were multiplied at the Research Unit for Horticultural Crops,
Agricultural Research Council, Monsampolo del Tronto (Ascoli Piceno), Italy. A first field trial was
established with the 25 Abruzzese accessions in 2007, in the summer growing season. The accessions
were grown at a density of 2.2 plants m2, according to a randomised block design with three replicates and
12 plants per elementary experimental unit. Plants were grown following standard agronomic practices. At
maturity, the number of commercial fruits, the mean fruit weight and the estimated potential production
were recorded or calculated, after pooling the harvest of the first five trusses.
Table 1.
Geographical origin and main morphological and productive characteristics of the 25 tomato accessions of A pera Abruzzese type
and of the five accessions used as comparison.
Estimated
Accession
Accession
Year of
Fruit
Fruit
production
Landrace
Province
Site
name
code
acquisition
shape
size (g)a
(t ha1)a
A pera
Teramo
Teramo
Gigante
AB-FL1
2001
Flat
261
44.8
b-
f-l
2/15
3/14/2015
Abruzzese
Giraldi
Teramo
Teramo
Gigante
d
AB-FL2
2001
Flat
ndb
ndb
AB-RD1
2002
Round
233
b-
58.1
a-d
Faggi
Teramo
Martinsicuro
Pera
Martinsicuro
Teramo
Morrodoro
Selezione
AB-RD2
2001
Round
298
57.2
a-d
AB-RD3
2002
Round
215
e-
48.0
c-i
41.4
g-l
De Santis
Teramo
Colleranesco
Globoso
dAbruzzo
Teramo
Colleranesco
Spitilli
m
AB-RD4
2001
Round
207
fm
Teramo
Teramo
Pera Santo
AB-RD5
2001
Round
221
d-l
50.9
b-g
Stefano
Teramo
Giulianova
Giulianova
AB-RD6
2001
Round
223
d-i
54.1
b-f
Teramo
Roseto
Belisari
AB-RD7
2003
Round
266
b-
58.5
a-c
46.3
e-l
44.3
f-l
40.2
g-m
Ernesto
Teramo
Teramo
Pera
c
AB-RD8
2001
Round
217
Rotolone
Teramo
Colleranesco
Colleranesco
m
AB-RD9
2001
Round
206
Teramo
Teramo
Roseto
Pera
e-
fm
AB-RD10
2002
Round
209
Obovoidson
fm
Teramo
S. Omero
Sabini Dino
AB-RD11
2003
Round
270
bc
40.2
g-m
Teramo
Villarosa
Pera
AB-RD12
2002
Round
232
c-
41.0
g-m
44.8
f-l
53.7
b-f
Ritrovati
Teramo
Colleranesco
Di Silvestro
h
AB-OB1
2001
Obovoid
203
fm
Teramo
Mosciano
Pera
SAngelo
Mosciano
AB-OB2
2001
Obovoid
212
f-
Teramo
Cologna
Castorani
AB-OB3
2001
Obovoid
366
38.1
i-m
Teramo
Villa Vomano
Pera
AB-OB4
2001
Obovoid
268
bc
52.8
b-f
Cantoro
Pescara
Pescara
Pescara 2
AB-FL3
2001
Flat
348
49.4
b-h
Pescara
Loreto
Pera
AB-FL4
2002
Flat
236
c-
59.8
ab
Aprutino
Ortoplant
Loreto
Loreto
52.5
b-f
Aprutino
Aprutino
Pescara
Pescara
Pescara 1
AB-RD13
2001
Round
244
c-f
41.8
g-l
Chieti
Chieti
Pera Chieti
AB-RD14
2001
Round
255
c-
67.3
40.5
g-m
67.2
55.5
b-e
Pescara
g
AB-FL5
2001
Flat
199
gm
e
Ascoli
Porto
Picenoc
DAscoli
Ascoli
Centobuchi
Picenoc
Canestrino di
Pisad
Pera Sentina
AB-OB5
2001
Obovoid
193
m
Pera
AB-OB6
2000
Obovoid
198
Centobuchi
Pisa
Lucca
Canestrino
Fornoli
Canestrino
gm
CAN1
2006
Obovoid
175
Pisa
Luccad
g-
mn
CAN2
1999
Obovoid
150
30.8
mn
Obovoid
193
g-
47.7
d-i
Lucca
Cuore di bue di
Commercial
Albenga
Albenga
seed
Olter
Commercial
Albenga
seed
Esasem
Commercial
Albenga ISI
seed
ALB1
m
ALB2
Obovoid
178
l-n
36.5
l-n
ALB3
Obovoid
189
h-
38.8
h-m
Means followed by the same lowercase letter in the same column are not significantly different (P 0.05) according to the Duncan multiple range test.
Not determined in 2008.
Marche region.
3/15
3/14/2015
d
Tuscany region.
Table options
A second field trial, including the control accessions, was established in 2008 using the same experimental
design and agronomic practices. On a single plant basis, the following traits were scored or measured:
flowering date (days from sowing to the first open flower), inflorescence type (scored on the 2nd truss; 1,
simple; 2, double; 3, compound), number of flowers per inflorescence (counted on the 2nd truss), style
exertion (scored on the 2nd truss; 1, inserted; 4, very exerted), green shoulder (scored on a representative
mature green fruit; 1, absent; 7, very strong), fruit shape (scored on representative red ripe fruits; 1, flat; 2,
round; 3, obovoid). Mean fruit weight was calculated as the mean of six fruits per plant and the potential
productivity, expressed in t ha1, was estimated on the basis of the individual production and the standard
plant density in open field production of fresh tomatoes.
With the exception of fruit shape that represented a purely categorical variable, differences in mean values
between accessions were estimated through an analysis of variance adopting the General Linear Model
(GLM) using the SAS software (SAS Institute Inc., 2002). Differences in the mean number of fruits per plant
and fruit weight as estimated in two different cultivation years were estimated according to the GLM for
combined experiments (McIntosh, 1983).
2.2. Morphometric analysis of fruit shape

To estimate fruit shape in more detail, the longitudinal sections of the fruits [two fruits per inflorescence
(2nd and 4th inflorescence) and three representative plants per accession and per replicate] were scanned
into digital images and subjected to morphometric analysis by the Tomato Analyzer ver 1.2 Software
(Brewer et al., 2006 and Gonzalo et al., 2009). The following descriptors, measured by the software, were
taken into consideration: fruit section area (ar), fruit maximum width (fdI), fruit maximum height (flI), fruit
shape index I (fsI), fruit shape triangle (tri), fruit shape elliptic (ell), fruit shape circular (cir), proximal angle
macro (pan), distal angle macro (dan), eccentricity (ecc), internal fruit shape index (int), degree of
lobedness (lob) and pericarp thickness (per). All parameters are described in detail by Brewer et al. (2006)
and Gonzalo et al. (2009). For these parameters, differences between accessions and floral trusses and
the respective interactions were estimated through an analysis of variance according to the GLM model
using SAS software ( SAS Institute Inc., 2002). A similar analysis was carried out after grouping the
Abruzzese accessions into three groups according to their fruit shape scores (flat, round and obovoid) and
leaving the accessions of Canestrino and Albenga in two separate groups.
Although some variables, such as fsI and int, showed highly significant Genotype inflorescence
interaction, examination of the data revealed that this significance was due to the behaviour of a few
genotypes for each trait. Therefore, allowance was made for these interactions and, after standardisation,
the arithmetic means over inflorescences were used to perform an Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering
(AHC) procedure with the XLSTAT 7.5.2 Package (http://www.xlstat.com/). Clustering was based on the
Manhattan distance and the average linkage chosen as a fusion criterion.
2.3. Molecular analysis

For the molecular analysis, DNA from control accessions of Cuore di bue (oxheart type), San Marzano
(long type), Spagnoletta and Marmande (flat types) were also included. Seed stocks of the controls were
available in the germplasm collection held by the authors (http://www.unitus.it/tomato/).
DNA was extracted from one plant per accession using the method of Doyle and Doyle (1987) and
analyzed with 14 SSR markers that were selected from previous analyses for being highly polymorphic in
Italian landraces (Mazzucato et al., 2008). The loci scored were LEMDDNa, LE20592, LEACS4A,
LESSRPSPGb, LEEF1Aa (Smulders et al., 1997), TMS42 (Areshchenkova, 2000), TMS52, TMS58,
TMS60, TMS63, EST253712 (Areshchenkova and Ganal, 2002), Tom4748, Tom5960 and Tom236237
(Suliman-Pollatschek et al., 2002). Details of the marker dataset are given in Table 2. PCR reactions and
detection of the amplification products were carried out as described by Mazzucato et al. (2008), with the
difference that the amplification products were separated on 6% (w/v) denaturing polyacrylamide (1:19
bis:acrylamide) gels and visualised by silver staining (Bassam et al., 1991).
Table 2.
Characteristics of the polymorphic SSR markers used in this study.
Allele
No. of alleles in a previous
Locus name
size
First
Chromo-
Annealing
study (Mazzucato et al.,
No. of alleles in the
range
describeda
some
temperature
2008)b
present study
(bp)
A pera
All
Abruzzese
genotypes
accessions
4/15
3/14/2015
LEMDDNa
(1)
55
211
229
LE20592
(1)
11
55
LESSRPSPGb
(1)
ndc
50
LEEF1Aa
(1)
ndc
55
11
184
187
325
328
208
216
TMS42
(2, 3)
11
52
TMS52
(3)
12
5247d
TMS60
(3)
5247d
TMS63
(3)
55
253
258
152
162
244
246
130
156
EST253712
(3)
51
140
142
Tom4748
(4)
48
Tom236237
(4)
52
168
172
157
193
Total
71
43
33
Mean
6.5
3.9
3.0
(1) (Smulders et al., 1997), (2) (Areshchenkova, 2000), (3) (Areshchenkova and Ganal, 2002), (4) (Suliman-Pollatschek et al., 2002).
Refers to 59 S. lycopersicum genotypes of various origin and fruit shape.
Not determined.
Touch-down PCR program with annealing temperature decreasing by 0.5 C per cycle in the first 10 cycles.
Table options
Each individual was genotyped at each locus by scoring the length of the amplified SSR band with
reference to molecular ladders and genotypes of known allelic composition. Three loci (LEACS4A, TMS58
and Tom5960) were monomorphic in the set of genotypes studied and were excluded from subsequent
analyses. Data from the 11 informative loci were converted into binary data and genetic distance (Nei et al.,
1983) matrices and cluster analyses based on the unweighted pair group method (UPGMA) of (Sneath and
Sokal, 1973) were calculated using the TREECON Ver. 1.3b software (Van de Peer and De Wachter,
1993).
The dissimilarity matrices obtained from the fruit section data and from the SSR analysis were compared
by Mantel test using the XLSTAT 7.5.2 software.
3. Results
3.1. Morphological analysis
All the accessions produced plants with indeterminate growth habit (not shown). The ANOVA revealed
significant differences between genotypes for all the other morphological and yield traits; the Abruzzese
accessions showed wide variability for all of them (Fig. 1). Flowering date ranged from 73 to 82 days after
sowing, inflorescence type from simple to compound, number of flowers per inflorescence from 8 to 21,
style exertion from inserted to very exerted; green shoulder from absent to present and very intense (Fig.
1AE). As regards the scoring of fruit shape (Fig. 1F), five Abruzzese accessions were classified as flat
(Fig. 2A), 14 as round (Fig. 2B) and six as obovoid (Fig. 2C). In the Abruzzese collection, fruit weight
ranged from about 190 to 366 g; the estimated productivity from 38 to more than 67 t ha1 (Table 1).
Notably, the accession AB-OB3 scored the highest fruit weight and the lowest estimated productivity at the
same time, thus indicating that these two traits are not positively correlated in the materials we have
studied.
5/15
3/14/2015
Fig. 1.
Number of accessions of the A pera Abruzzese (n = 25, gray bars), Cuore di bue di Albenga (n = 3, white bars) and Canestrino di
Lucca (n = 2, black bars) landraces falling in different classes for seven morphological descriptors (AG) and estimated
productivity (H). Abscissa axes report class limits as days from sowing (A), score [B (1, simple; 2, double; 3, compound), D (1,
inserted; 4, very exerted), E (1, absent; 7, very strong), F (1, flat; 2, round; 3, obovoid)], ordinal number (C), grams (G) and t ha1
(H), whereas ordinate axes report absolute frequencies.
Figure options
Fig. 2.
Representative mature fruits from Abruzzese accessions having fruits scored as (A) flat, (B) round and (C) obovoid-shaped.
Figure options
The control accessions belonging to Canestrino and Albenga landraces showed a typically obovoid fruit
(Fig. 1F). Although here only few accessions have been considered, anecdotal evidence indicate that the
fruit shape in these landraces is more uniform (G.P. Soressi, personal communication). Fruits from the
Canestrino and Albenga accessions were also amongst the smallest in size (Fig. 1G; Table 1) and their
estimated production was low for the Albenga and intermediate for the Canestrino types (Fig. 1H; Table
1).
When data related to the productivity of Abruzzese landraces were compared between the 2007 and 2008
growing seasons, highly significant differences in fruit size and estimated productivity were apparent
between accessions, between years and for the Accession year interaction (data not shown). Only the
fruit size between years was not significantly different, indicating that the environment exerts a significant
influence on fruit setting and fruit size in these genotypes and that this influence can vary for individual
6/15
3/14/2015
accessions.
3.2. Morphometric analysis of fruit shape

To better characterize the variability in fruit shape found in the Abruzzese accessions, fruit sections were
digitally analyzed using the Tomato Analyzer (Brewer et al., 2006). All the variables considered showed
highly significant differences between accessions, with the one exception of dan ( Table 3). Only pan and
per showed differences between inflorescences, that were not highly significant ( Table 3). Around half of
the traits measured showed Accession inflorescence interaction, which was highly significant only for
fsI, ecc and int. However, examination of the mean data revealed that this significance was due to the
behaviour of a few genotypes for each trait. Taken altogether, these data show that the fruit shape is under
rather strict genetic control in this material.
Table 3.
Analysis of variance of fruit shape section descriptors in 30 accessions of tomato landraces (25 A pera abruzzese, three Cuore di
bue di Albenga and two Canestrino di Lucca) considering all the accession separately (ANOVA by Acc) and grouped into five
groups (ANOVA by Type, three fruit type groups in the Abruzzese collection, plus Albenga and Canestrino).
Source of variation ANOVA by Accb
Source of variation ANOVA by Typeb
Acc
Inf
Acc Inf interaction
Type
Inf
Type Inf interaction
***
***
fdI
***
***
Height max
flI
***
***
Fruit shape index I
fsI
***
***
***
Fruit shape triangle
tri
***
***
Fruit shape ellipssoid
ell
***
***
Fruit shape circular
cir
***
***
Proximal angle macro
pan
***
***
Distal angle macro
dan
Eccentricity
ecc
***
**
***
Internal fruit shape index
int
***
***
***
Lobedness degree
lob
***
***
Pericarp thickness
per
***
***
Descriptor namea
Symbol
Area
ar
Width max
All measurements are described in Brewer et al. (2006) and Gonzalo et al. (2009).
***, ** and * indicate differences between mean values statistically significant for P 0.001, 0.01 and 0.05, respectively.
Table options
The same analysis of variance was carried out after grouping the Abruzzese accessions according to the
fruit shape type, as judged in the previous section, into three groups, leaving Canestrino and Albenga as
two separate groups. All the variables showed significant differences between types, with the exception of
dan; in contrast, no highly significant difference was found between inflorescences or for the
Type inflorescence interaction ( Table 3). No variable could unequivocally differentiate all three
Abruzzese typologies from Canestrino and Albenga. However, the variables tri, pan, ecc and int showed
significant differences separating the groups Canestrino, Albenga and Abruzzese obovoid-shaped from
the others ( Fig. 3). In comparison to the latter, the Abruzzese flat and round groups had significantly
higher values for the tri and pan variables and significantly lower values for ecc and int variables ( Fig. 3).
For these four descriptors, the degree of overlapping between Canestrino, Albenga and Abruzzese
obovoid-shaped with the accessions of the other groups was low (data not shown).
Fig. 3.
Mean values of groups of accessions homogeneous for the fruit shape for the fruit section descriptors fruit shape triangle (tri),
proximal angle macro (pan), eccentricity (ecc) and internal fruit shape index (int). Bars represent the mean value of 1418
measurements SEM. Means indicated by the same lowercase letter for the same descriptor are not significantly different for
P 0.05.
Figure options
7/15
3/14/2015
The dissimilarity matrix obtained from the fruit section descriptors was used for a clustering procedure. The
resulting dendrogram displayed two major groups of genotypes, the first including four flat plus one round
type and the second all the other accessions (Fig. 4A). The second cluster could be further divided into
subclusters, of which a lower level one was only composed of round-shaped accessions (Fig. 4A, shaded
box).
Fig. 4.
Grouping of accessions of the A pera Abruzzese and control types according to (A) the morphological and (B) molecular analysis.
The dendrogram in (A) has been generated using the morphometric fruit shape descriptors by the Agglomerative Hierarchical
Clustering method based on Manhattan distances and average linkage fusion criterion. The dendrogram in (B) has been
generated after genotyping for 11 SSR markers and clustering according to the unweighed pair group method (UPGMA) based on
Nei distances. The same nine round-shaped accessions are shaded in gray in the two dendrograms.
Figure options
3.3. Molecular analysis

The 11 informative loci yielded 43 alleles in total, the number of alleles per locus ranging from two to six in
the whole dataset and from one to five considering the Abruzzese accessions only (Table 2). The mean
number of alleles per locus was 3.9 in the whole collection and 3.0 in the Abruzzese collection. All the
accessions were different from each other, but the extent of the genetic distance varied greatly, the values
ranging from a minimum of 0.05 (ALB2 vs ALB3) to a maximum of 0.89 (CAN1 vs AB-RD5, not shown).
The dissimilarity matrix obtained from the SSR data was used for a clustering procedure. The resulting
dendrogram displayed two major groups of genotypes (Fig. 4B). The first included the control varieties
Marmande and Spagnoletta with the accession of Canestrino CAN1. In the second group, San
Marzano and Cuore di bue were separated from all the other accessions of Abruzzese and Albenga
types (Fig. 4B).
The Albenga and Abruzzese types were not distinguishable using the SSR-based grouping, nor could
the Abruzzese types with obovoid-shaped fruits be distinguished from the round and flat types. Some
accessions with the same fruit type were actually clustered together by SSR analysis (e.g. AB-RD11 with
AB-RD12, AB-FL1 with AB-FL3, ALB2 with ALB3, AB-OB1 with AB-OB2 and AB-OB3), but, on the other
side, some accessions with different fruit types also clustered together (Fig. 4B). The nine accessions with
round-shaped fruit type, grouped together by the multivariate analysis of fruit section descriptors, were
rather scattered along the SSR-based dendrogram (Fig. 4B, shaded boxes).
Consistent with these observations, the dissimilarity matrices based on the full range of fruit section
8/15
3/14/2015
descriptors and on the molecular markers were not significantly correlated (P = 0.46, r = 0.03).
4. Discussion
Among vegetable species, the tomato stands out from the crowd in terms of area under cultivation,
consumption and also for the variability offered by traditional types and landraces (Ercolano et al., 2008,
Mazzucato et al., 2008 and Terzopoulos and Bebeli, 2008). Unfortunately in Italy a great number of
landraces have been dropped from the National Register, due to lack of commercial interest from major
seed companies, and relatively few traditional types have been accepted into alternative variety protection
systems. To date, only the San Marzano landrace has received a Protected Designation of Origin
labelling, that guarantees the geographic and genetic origin of the produce (Rao et al., 2006); this landrace
has been the focus of a number of studies to determine the criteria upon which it can be distinguished from
similar selections and hybrids (Loiudice et al., 1995, Rao et al., 2006 and Caramante et al., 2009).
Large tomatoes with diameters of similar length represent a class of very popular table tomatoes,
appreciated for their outstanding organoleptic qualities, few seeds and the traditional shape of the fruit
(round, obovoid or heart). Italy has at least five geographically distinct landraces belonging to this category;
their genetic relationships as well as their distinctiveness have not been investigated thoroughly to date.
4.1. Genetic variability within the A pera Abruzzese landrace

Overall, the morphological and molecular data both showed that the Abruzzese landrace is a structured
population in which substantial diversity is maintained at the subpopulation level. The Abruzzese
accessions were greatly variable for the type of inflorescence, position of the stigma, green shoulder and
gross fruit morphology. According to the fruit shape, Abruzzese accessions could be classified into flat,
round and obovoid, the round being the modal class. The uniformity of qualitative traits and the low extent
of Accession inflorescence interaction for most fruit section characters indicate that the used
descriptors are under fairly strong genetic control and should not be subject to variation during seed
increase of single accessions. This genetic variability, that is often found in regional landraces of tomato
(Andreakis et al., 2004, Garca-Martnez et al., 2006 and Terzopoulos and Bebeli, 2008) and other
vegetable species (Muoz-Falcn et al., 2009), opens the way for selecting superior types within the
studied landrace.
The presence of different morphotypes appears a rather common feature of the tomato Italian cultivated
landraces. A population structured according to different morphotypes has been reported in accessions of
the Sorrento landrace, based on fruit shape, presence and intensity of the green shoulder and intensity of
fruit color (Parisi et al., 2008). A similar situation has also been reported for Corbarino, a small cherry-like
tomato grown in the Campania region in the same area of San Marzano (Andreakis et al., 2004).
Morphological characterization of this landrace revealed four separate groups based on fruit shape: longobovoid, oval, oval-obovoid and round. Although the molecular analysis gave a different pattern for each
accession, it was not possible to unequivocally separate the Corbarino accessions from similar types,
such as Fiaschetto and San Marzano, that probably combined with Corbarino through crossing and
selection (Andreakis et al., 2004). Interestingly, the obovoid shape trait is also found with varying
penetrance in some groups of Corbarino, although this landrace is very different from the Abruzzese
itself.
In addition to the high morphological variability, the Abruzzese landrace also showed a high degree of
molecular diversity; as estimated here, it contained about 50% of the total SSR variability found in a wide
collection of tomato genotypes (Mazzucato et al., 2008). However, the grouping of accessions based on
the morphological and molecular descriptors were not significantly correlated. Poor correspondence
between molecular markers and morphological classifications has frequently been reported in tomato
(Rus-Kortekaas et al., 1994, Noli et al., 1999, Rao et al., 2006, Ercolano et al., 2008 and Mazzucato et al.,
2008). This is accounted for by the fact that the major morphological descriptors, especially those based on
fruit size and shape, are controlled by a limited number of loci (Tanksley, 2004 and Gonzalo and van der
Knaap, 2008) and molecular analyses do not necessarily sample those loci or those regions of the
genome.
4.2. Distinctiveness of the A pera Abruzzese from similar landraces

Cuore di bue tomatoes are easily distinguishable from Abruzzese because of the different fruit shape and
pink color. The latter is also used to distinguish Abruzzese from the Sorrento type. Therefore, this study
focussed on the possibility of distinguishing the Abruzzese from Canestrino and Albenga. The
morphological analysis showed that fruit shape descriptors for these two landraces overlap somewhat
with, at least, some accessions of the Abruzzese type.
The molecular analysis showed that, whereas Canestrino was distinct from Abruzzese, Abruzzese and
Albenga accessions were not distinguishable. Close similarities between some Abruzzese and Albenga
accessions have also been reported after biochemical analysis of seed glutelins (Acciarri et al., 2007). It is
thus likely that Albenga and obovoid-shaped accessions within the Abruzzese landrace are of common
origin. It is possible that Albenga germplasm has been introduced in Abruzzo and, because it came into
9/15
3/14/2015
cultivation together with the round autochthonous accessions, they may have intercrossed and then been
subjected to selection by farmers. Alternatively, the Albenga type could have been derived from
Abruzzese morphotypes with obovoid-shaped fruits. A similar scenario may also be evoked to understand
the appearance of flat types, which may have been derived from crosses of round types with Marmande or
Marmande-like genotypes.
Whatever the origin, there is evidence that each landrace and morphotype was subjected to selection for
genetic adaptation to the physical and agronomic environment, because the Abruzzese entries remained
more productive than the others in their own environment of adaptation. A similar result was reported for
the Sorrento landrace, whose accessions, in their environment, were generally more productive than both
Abruzzese or Albenga types (Parisi et al., 2008).
In Spain, researchers studied the genetic variation in a collection of autochthonous landraces including
nine accessions of De la pera, a landrace that shows morphological similarities to the Abruzzese type.
Although these authors did not perform a morphological characterization of the materials, the use of
molecular analysis was not sufficient to discriminate all the De la pera accessions from the other materials
(Garca-Martnez et al., 2006).
A distinctiveness analysis of the Abruzzese and Albenga types has previously been carried out by
Sabatini et al. (2006) who established that the two types were distinct in the stem end blockiness and, at
the molecular level, by a CAPS marker based on the mutation of the Ovate gene ( Liu et al., 2002) that
could be of help in marker-assisted selection. However, the same authors found a line with the Albengatype Ovate allele in the Abruzzese germplasm ( Sabatini et al., 2006). In the present research, although
analyses of the Ovate locus were not performed, we bring evidence that accessions with the typical
morphology of the Albenga type are rather frequent in the Abruzzese germplasm and probably derived
from intercrossing and subsequent selection between the two main types.
5. Conclusion
Taken altogether, the data indicates that genotypes with obovoid-shaped fruits could not be clearly
distinguished as originating from the tomato germplasm of Ligury or Abruzzo. In contrast, those accessions
representing the group with round-shaped fruit may be distinguishable from similar landraces (Albenga
and Canestrino) and from obovoid and flat-shaped accessions of the same landrace by fruit shape
descriptors that are objectively scorable. Thus the factors that define and distinguish Abruzzese from
other landraces with large fruits with similar diameters (fsI between 0.9 and 1.1), will be those
distinguishing the round-shaped accessions, i.e. values of tri between 0.8 and 1.1, pan between 1.9 and
2.3, ecc between 0.57 and 0.61 and finally int between 0.8 and 1.0. The combination of these limits with the
molecular marker based on the allelic status at the Ovate locus ( Sabatini et al., 2006) can definitely be
employed to identify a group of the landrace accessions, so that they may then be recognized and
labelled as typical produce of the Abruzzo region and finally valued and protected from undesirable
substitutions.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mr. M.E. Picarella and L. Bonifazi for expert technical assistance, Dr. E. van der
Knaap for suggestions on the tomato shape nomenclature, Prof. G.P. Soressi and two anonymous
reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. This study was supported by the Agenzia Regionale pe
r i Servizi di Sviluppo Agricolo (ARSSA) of the Abruzzo region, project Colture Orticole.
References
Acciarri et al., 2007 N. Acciarri, G.L. Rotino, S. Voltattorni, G. Mennella, C. Nigro, D. Cerbino, M.
Baudino, A. Maestrelli, G. Costa, M. Noferini, G. Fiori, D. Valentino, G. Tamietti, E. Sabatini
Recupero, caratterizzazione e valorizzazione di variet locali italiane di pomodoro da mensa
Italus Hort., 14 (2007), pp. 7484
Andreakis et al., 2004 N. Andreakis, L. Monti, R. Rao

DNA fingerprinting and quality traits of Corbarino Cherry-like tomato landraces
J. Agric. Food Chem., 52 (2004), pp. 33663371
Areshchenkova, 2000 Areshchenkova, T., 2000. Isolation, characterization and mapping of

microsatellites from the tomato genome and their application in molecular analysis of centromeric
regions. PhD thesis, University of Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany.
Areshchenkova and Ganal, 2002 T. Areshchenkova, M.W. Ganal

Comparative analysis of polymorphism and chromosomal location of tomato microsatellite
markers isolated from different sources
10/15
3/14/2015
Theor. Appl. Genet., 104 (2002), pp. 229235
Bailey et al., 1960 L.H. Bailey, W.W. Tracy, E.J. Kyle, R.L. Watts
Tomato
L.H. Bailey (Ed.), The Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture, The Macmillan Company, New York (1960), pp.
33533359
Bassam et al., 1991 B.J. Bassam, G. Caetano-Anolles, P.M. Gresshoff

Fast and sensitive silver staining of DNA in polyacrylamide gels
Anal. Biochem., 195 (1991), pp. 8083
Brewer et al., 2006 M.T. Brewer, L. Lang, K. Fujimura, N. Dujmovic, S. Gray, E. van der Knaap
Development of a controlled vocabulary and software application to analyze fruit shape variation
in tomato and other plant species
Plant Physiol., 141 (2006), pp. 1525
Caramante et al., 2009 M. Caramante, R. Rao, L.M. Monti, G. Corrado

Discrimination of San Marzano accessions: a comparison of minisatellite. CAPS and SSR
markers in relation to morphological traits
Sci. Horticult., 120 (2009), pp. 560564
Doyle and Doyle, 1987 J.J. Doyle, J.L. Doyle

A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue
Phytochem. Bull., 19 (1987), pp. 1115
Ercolano et al., 2008 M. Ercolano, P. Carli, A. Soria, A. Cascone, V. Fogliano, L. Frusciante, A. Barone
Biochemical, sensorial and genomic profiling of traditional Italian tomato varieties
Euphytica, 164 (2008), pp. 571582
Garca-Martnez et al., 2006 S. Garca-Martnez, L. Andreani, M. Garca-Gusano, F. Geuna, J.J. Ruiz

Evaluation of amplified fragment length polymorphism and simple sequence repeats for tomato
germplasm fingerprinting: utility for grouping closely related traditional cultivars
Genome, 49 (2006), pp. 648656
Gonzalo and van der Knaap, 2008 M.J. Gonzalo, E. van der Knaap
A comparative analysis into the genetic bases of morphology in tomato varieties exhibiting
elongated fruit shape
Gonzalo et al., 2009 M.J. Gonzalo, M.T. Brewer, C. Anderson, D. Sullivan, S. Gray, E. van der Knaap
Tomato fruit shape analysis using morphometric and morphology attributes implemented in
Tomato Analyzer software program
J. Am. Soc. Horticult. Sci., 134 (2009), pp. 7787
Liu et al., 2002 J. Liu, J. Van Eck, B. Cong, S.D. Tanksley

A new class of regulatory genes underlying the cause of pear-shaped tomato fruit
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 99 (2002), pp. 1330213306
Loiudice et al., 1995 R. Loiudice, M. Impembo, B. Laratta, G. Villari, A. Lovoi, P. Siviero, D. Castaldo
Composition of San Marzano tomato varieties
Food Chem., 53 (1995), pp. 8189
Mazzucato et al., 2008 A. Mazzucato, R. Papa, E. Bitocchi, P. Mosconi, L. Nanni, V. Negri, M.E.
Picarella, F. Siligato, G.P. Soressi, B. Tiranti, F. Veronesi
11/15
3/14/2015
Genetic diversity, structure and marker-trait associations in a collection of Italian tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) landraces
McIntosh, 1983 M.S. McIntosh

Analysis of combined experiments
Agron. J., 75 (1983), pp. 153155
Muoz-Falcn et al., 2009 J.E. Muoz-Falcn, J. Prohens, S. Vilanova, F. Ribas, A. Castro, F. Nuez
Distinguishing a protected geographical indication vegetable (Almagro eggplant) from closely
related varieties with selected morphological traits and molecular markers
J. Sci. Food Agric., 89 (2009), pp. 320328
Nei et al., 1983 M. Nei, F. Tajima, Y. Tateno

Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. II. Gene frequency data
J. Mol. Evol., 91 (1983), pp. 153170
Noli et al., 1999 E. Noli, S. Conti, M. Maccaferri, M.C. Sanguineti

Molecular characterization of tomato cultivars
Seed Sci. Technol., 27 (1999), pp. 110
Parisi et al., 2008 M. Parisi, I. Giordano, G. Villari, A. Lassandro, A. Di Mauro

Caratterizzazione morfologica, produttiva e qualitative della variet locale Pomodoro di
Sorrento
Dal Seme, 4 (2008), pp. 3948
Rao et al., 2006 R. Rao, G. Corrado, M. Bianchi, A.D. Mauro

(GATA)4 DNA fingerprinting identifies morphologically characterized San Marzano tomato plants
Plant Breed., 125 (2006), pp. 173176
Rick, 1976 C.M. Rick

Tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum (Solanaceae)
N.W. Simmonds (Ed.), Evolution of Crop Plants, Longman Group, London, UK (1976), pp. 268273
Rus-Kortekaas et al., 1994 W. Rus-Kortekaas, M.J.M. Smulders, P. Arens, B. Vosman

Direct comparison of levels of genetic variation in tomato detected by a GACA-containing
microsatellite probe and by random amplified DNA
Genome, 37 (1994), pp. 375381
Sabatini et al., 2006 E. Sabatini, G.L. Rotino, S. Voltattorni, N. Acciarri

A novel CAPS marker derived from the Ovate gene in tomato (L. esculentum Mill.) is useful to
distinguish two Italian ecotypes and to recover pear shape in marker assisted selection
Eur. J. Horticult. Sci., 71 (2006), pp. 193198
SAS Institute Inc., 2002 SAS Institute Inc.

SAS Guide for Personal Computers
(9th edn)SAS Institute, Cary, NC (2002)
Sneath and Sokal, 1973 P.H.A. Sneath, R.R. Sokal

Numerical Taxonomy
WH Freeman, San Francisco, CA (1973)
Smulders et al., 1997 M.J.M. Smulders, G. Bredemeijer, W. Rus-Kortekaas, P. Arens, B. Vosman

Use of short microsatellites from database sequences to generate polymorphisms among
12/15
3/14/2015
Lycopersicon esculentum cultivars and accessions of other Lycopersicon species
Soressi, 1969 Soressi, G.P., 1969. Il pomodoro. Ed. Agricole, Bologna, Italy.
Suliman-Pollatschek et al., 2002 S. Suliman-Pollatschek, K. Kashkush, H. Shats, J. Hillel, U. Lavi

Generation and mapping of AFLP, SSRs and SNPs in Lycopersicon esculentum
Cell Mol. Biol. Lett., 7 (2002), pp. 583597
Tanksley, 2004 S.D. Tanksley

The genetic, developmental, and molecular bases of fruit size and shape variation in tomato
Plant Cell, 16 (2004), pp. S181S189
Terzopoulos and Bebeli, 2008 P.J. Terzopoulos, P.J. Bebeli

Genetic diversity and characterization of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) germplasm using
ISSR markers
Sci. Horticult., 116 (2008), pp. 354361
Van de Peer and De Wachter, 1993 Y. Van de Peer, R. De Wachter

TREECON: a software package for the construction and drawing of evolutionary trees
Comput. Appl. Biosci., 9 (1993), pp. 177182
Williams and St. Clair, 1993 C. Williams, D. St. Clair

Phenetic relationships and levels of variability detected by restriction fragment length
polymorphism and random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of cultivated and wild accessions
of Lycopersicon esculentum
Genome, 36 (1993), pp. 619629
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0761 357370; fax: +39 0761 357242.
Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
About ScienceDirect
Contact and support
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Copyright 2015 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.
Cookies are used by this site. To decline or learn more, visit our Cookies page.
Switch to Mobile Site
Recommended articles
DNA and morphological diversity of selected Greek

2008, Scientia Horticulturae
more
Genetic variation in tomato populations from four br

more
13/15
3/14/2015
Phenotypic diversity in Greek tomato (Solanum lyc

more
View more articles
Citing articles (7)
Related book content
14/15
3/14/2015
15/15

Genetic Diversity and Distinctiveness in Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Genetic Diversity and Distinctiveness in Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/14/2015

Show full outline

Volume 125, Issue 1, 31 May 2010, Pages 5562

Genetic diversity and distinctiveness in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum

Figures and tables

, Nadia Ficcadentib, Marcello Caionib, Pietro Mosconia, Enrico Piccininib,

Venkata Rami Reddy Sanampudia, Sara Sestilib, Valentino Ferrarib

Get rights and content

2. Materials and methods

Not determined in 2008.

2.2. Morphometric analysis of fruit shape

2.3. Molecular analysis

study (Mazzucato et al.,

No. of alleles in the

Refers to 59 S. lycopersicum genotypes of various origin and fruit shape.

3.2. Morphometric analysis of fruit shape

Source of variation ANOVA by Typeb

Acc Inf interaction

Type Inf interaction

Fruit shape index I

Fruit shape triangle

Fruit shape ellipssoid

Fruit shape circular

Proximal angle macro

Distal angle macro

Internal fruit shape index

3.3. Molecular analysis

4.1. Genetic variability within the A pera Abruzzese landrace

4.2. Distinctiveness of the A pera Abruzzese from similar landraces

Andreakis et al., 2004 N. Andreakis, L. Monti, R. Rao

Areshchenkova, 2000 Areshchenkova, T., 2000. Isolation, characterization and mapping of

Areshchenkova and Ganal, 2002 T. Areshchenkova, M.W. Ganal

Bassam et al., 1991 B.J. Bassam, G. Caetano-Anolles, P.M. Gresshoff

Caramante et al., 2009 M. Caramante, R. Rao, L.M. Monti, G. Corrado

Doyle and Doyle, 1987 J.J. Doyle, J.L. Doyle

Garca-Martnez et al., 2006 S. Garca-Martnez, L. Andreani, M. Garca-Gusano, F. Geuna, J.J. Ruiz

Liu et al., 2002 J. Liu, J. Van Eck, B. Cong, S.D. Tanksley

McIntosh, 1983 M.S. McIntosh

Nei et al., 1983 M. Nei, F. Tajima, Y. Tateno

Noli et al., 1999 E. Noli, S. Conti, M. Maccaferri, M.C. Sanguineti

Parisi et al., 2008 M. Parisi, I. Giordano, G. Villari, A. Lassandro, A. Di Mauro

Rao et al., 2006 R. Rao, G. Corrado, M. Bianchi, A.D. Mauro

Rick, 1976 C.M. Rick

Rus-Kortekaas et al., 1994 W. Rus-Kortekaas, M.J.M. Smulders, P. Arens, B. Vosman

Sabatini et al., 2006 E. Sabatini, G.L. Rotino, S. Voltattorni, N. Acciarri

SAS Institute Inc., 2002 SAS Institute Inc.

Sneath and Sokal, 1973 P.H.A. Sneath, R.R. Sokal

Smulders et al., 1997 M.J.M. Smulders, G. Bredemeijer, W. Rus-Kortekaas, P. Arens, B. Vosman

Suliman-Pollatschek et al., 2002 S. Suliman-Pollatschek, K. Kashkush, H. Shats, J. Hillel, U. Lavi

Tanksley, 2004 S.D. Tanksley

Terzopoulos and Bebeli, 2008 P.J. Terzopoulos, P.J. Bebeli

Van de Peer and De Wachter, 1993 Y. Van de Peer, R. De Wachter

Williams and St. Clair, 1993 C. Williams, D. St. Clair

Contact and support

Terms and conditions

DNA and morphological diversity of selected Greek

Genetic variation in tomato populations from four br

Phenotypic diversity in Greek tomato (Solanum lyc

View more articles

Citing articles (7)

Related book content

You might also like