Prediction of F1 progeny variation in tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) from parental divergence assessed by SSR markers

Cover Page
Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access


Background: Although the use of heterosis is one of the most significant achievements of agriculture, the genetic mechanisms of this phenomenon still remain unclear. Development of numerous molecular tools stimulated efforts to determine the prognostic criteria for selection of best parental combinations. In result of studying the relationship between heterosis in F1 and genetic divergence of the parents, the prospects of utilizing DNA markers have not been persuasively established due to inconsistent findings. Materials and methods: Molecular-genetic data have been used to predict heterosis in F1 hybrids of tomato. Estimates of the genetic dissimilarity of parents for all pair-wise combinations of testcross (4 × 6) were performed based on patterns of 11 SSR informative markers (PIC 0.28-0.85). The general (GCA) and specific (SCA) combining ability of line, mid-parent heterosis (MPH) and high-parent heterosis (HPH) of F1 were assessed. Relationship between GD, MPH and HPH were calculated by correlation analysis. Result: The level of total SSR divergence of the parental lines was significantly associated with heterosis and SCA (sij) for fruit weight and fruit number per plant. Notably, the highest values of MPH and HPH were obtained in the most divergent pair-wise combinations. Lowest negative values of heterosis were observed in the F1 progeny from the least divergent lines. But the main group of F1 progeny demonstrates wide variation of heterosis due to SSR GD have low prognostic potential. Conclusion: Estimation of GDs may be useful for predicting promising combinations, but has limitations, since only a part of F1 heterotic advantage may be explained by the genetic divergence of its parents. Probably for understanding and manipulating heterosis the genetic divergence must be dissected to select “positive” markers, i. e. those that allow identifying the part of heterogeneity associated with the expression of heterosis in F1.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Marina Nikolayevna Shapturenko

Institute of Genetics & Cytology National Academy of Sciences

Leading Researcher, PhD. Laboratory of Ecological Genetics and Biotechnology

Lyudmila Aleksandrovna Tarutina

Institute of Genetics & Cytology National Academy of Sciences

Leading Researcher, PhD. Laboratory of Ecological Genetics and Biotechnology

Leonid Aleksandrovich Mishin

Institute of Vegetable Crops

ead of the Laboratory solanaceous crops, PhD

Svetlana Vladmimrovna Kubrak

Institute of Genetics & Cytology National Academy of Sciences

Junior Researcher. Laboratory of Ecological Genetics and Biotechnology

Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kilchevskiy

Institute of Genetics & Cytology National Academy of Sciences

Head of the Laboratory, Dr.Sci., Prof. Laboratory of Ecological Genetics and Biotechnology

Lyubov Vladimirovna Khotyleva

Institute of Genetics & Cytology National Academy of Sciences

Chief Scientist, Dr.Sci., Prof., Academician. Laboratory of Ecological Genetics and Biotechnology


  1. Мазер К., Джинкс Дж. (1985) Гетерозис. В кн. Биометрическая генетика. Москва: Мир. С. 156-163.
  2. Турбин Н. В. (1961) Гетерозис и генетический баланс. В кн. Гетерозис. Теория и методы практического использования. Минск: изд-во АН БССР. С. 3-34.
  3. Burgueño J., Campos G., Weigel K., Crossa J. (2012) Genomic prediction of breeding values when modeling genotype × environment interaction using pedigree and dense molecular markers. Crop Sci. V. 52: P. 707-719.
  4. Cho Y. I., Park Ch. W., Kwon S. W. et al. (2004) Key DNA markers for predicting heterosis in F1 hybrids of japonica rice. Breeding Sci. V. 54. P. 389-397.
  5. Comstock R. E., Robinson H. F. (1948) The components of genetic variance in population of biparental progenies and their use in estimating the average degree of dominance. Biometrics, V. 4(3): P. 254-266.
  6. Cox T., Kiang Y., Gorman M., Rodgers D. (1984) Relationship between coefficient of parentage and genetic similarity indices in the soybean. Crop Sci. V. 25 (3): P. 529-532.
  7. Crossa J., Campos G., Pérez P. et al. (2010) Prediction of Genetic Values of Quantitative Traits in Plant Breeding Using Pedigree and Molecular Markers. Genetics. V. 186(2): P. 713-724.
  8. Davenport С. B. (1908) Degeneration, albinism and inbreeding. Science. V. 28 (718): P. 454-455.
  9. East E. M., Hayes H. K. (1912) Heterozygosis in evolution and in plant breeding. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Plant. Indus. Bull. 243. 58 p.
  10. Frisch M., Thiemann A., Fu J. et al. (2010) Transcriptome-based distance measures for grouping of germplasm and prediction of hybrid performance in maize. Theor Appl Genet. V. 120(2): P. 441-450.
  11. Gärtner T., Steinfath M., Andorf S., Lisec J., Meyer Rh. C., Altmann T., Willmitzer L., Selbig J. (2009) Improved Heterosis Prediction by Combining Information on DNA- and Metabolic Markers. PLoS ONE. V. 4(4): e5220.
  12. Geethanjali S., Kadirvel P., Pana R. et al. (2011) Development of tomato SSR markers from anchored BAC clones of chromosome 12 and their application for genetic diversity analysis and linkage mapping. Euphytica V. 178(2): P. 283-295.
  13. Geethanjali S., Wang J. F., Chen K. Y., Pastrana D. V. (2010) Development and characterization of tomato SSR markers from genomic sequences of anchored BAC clones on chromosome VI. Euphytica. V. 173(1): P. 85-97.
  14. Goff S. A., Zhang Q. (2013) Heterosis in elite hybrid rice: speculation on the genetic and biochemical mechanisms. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. V. 16(2): P. 221-227.
  15. Goodnigh C. J. (1999) Epistasis and heterosis. In: James Coors and Shivaji Pandey, editors. The Genetics and Exploitation of Heterosis in Crops. Am. Soc. of Agronomy/Crop. Sci. Soc. of Am. Madison, WI.: P. 59-68.
  16. Gupta P. K., Varshney R. K. (2000) The development and use of microsatellite markers for genetic analysis and plant breeding with emphasis on bread wheat. Euphytica. V. 113(3): P. 163-185.
  17. Jones D. T. (1917) Dominance of linked factors as a means of accounting for heterosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. V. 3(4): P. 310-312.
  18. Kabelka E., Yang W., Francis D. M. (2004) Improved tomato fruit color within an inbred backcross line derived from Lycopersocon esculentum and L. hirsutum involves the interaction of loci. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. V. 129 (2): P. 250-257.
  19. Lee E. A., Ash M. J., Good B. (2007) Re-examining the relationship between degree of relatedness, genetic effects, and heterosis in maize. Crop Sci. V. 47(2): P. 629-635.
  20. Mazzucato A., Papa R., Bitocchi E. et al. (2008) Genetic diversity, structure and marker-trait associations in a collection of Italian tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.) landraces. Theor Appl Genet. V. 116(5): P. 657-669.
  21. Nei M., Li M. H. (1979) Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. V. 76: P. 5269-5273.
  22. Riedelsheimer C., Czedik-Eysenberg A., Grieder C. et al. (2012) Genomic and metabolic prediction of complex heterotic traits in hybrid maize. Nat Genet. V. 44(2): P. 217-220.
  23. Ruiz J. J., Garcia-Martinez S., Pico B. et al. (2005) Genetic variability and relationship of closely related Spanish traditional cultivars of tomato as detected by SRAP and SSR markers. J Amer Soc Hort Sci. V. 130(1): P. 88-94.
  24. Saatchi M., McClure M. C., McKay S. D. et al. (2011) Accuracies of genomic breeding values in American Angus beef cattle using K-means clustering for cross-validation. Genetics Selection Evolution. V. 43: 40. URL: (doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-43-40).
  25. Semel Y., Nissenbaum J., Menda N. et al. (2006) Overdominant quantitative trait loci for yield and fitness in tomato. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. V. 103(35): P. 12981-12986.
  26. Schrag T. A., Möhring J., Melchinger A. E. et al. (2010) Prediction of hybrid performance in maize using molecular markers and joint analyses of hybrids and parental inbreds. Theor Appl Genet. V. 120(2): P. 451-461.
  27. Stuber C. W. (1994) Heterosis in plant breeding. Plant Breed. Rev. V. 12: P. 227-251.
  28. Shull G. H. (1911) The genotypes of maize. Amer Naturalist. V. 45(2): P. 232-252.
  29. Varshney R. K., Graner A., Sorrells M. E. (2005) Genic microsatellite markers in plants: features and applications. Trends in Biotechnology. V. 23(1): P. 48-55.



Abstract - 623

PDF (Russian) - 259


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...



Copyright (c) 2014 Shapturenko M.N., Tarutina L.A., Mishin L.A., Kubrak S.V., Kilchevskiy A.V., Khotyleva L.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies