Characterization of induced mutants and their hybrids of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) for growth, yield and fruit quality traits to explore the feasibility in future breeding

  • Ipsita Das
  • Pranab Hazra
  • Mrinalini Longjam
  • Tridip Bhattacharjee
  • Praveen Kumar Maurya
  • Swadesh Banerjee
  • Arup ChattopadhyayEmail author
Research Article


Characterization of tomato mutants affecting growth, yield and fruit quality traits could provide valuable insights into the underlying biology vis-à-vis source of new alleles for breeding programs. Knowing the presence of useful genes and alleles would help in making decisions on the multiplication of accessions and the maintenance of seed stocks when responding to an expected higher demand for materials. Such information may also help in making decisions on heterogeneous accessions, where only some genotypes may possess useful alleles. Thus, the present study was undertaken to characterize three induced mutants, two parental lines and three hybrids for 9 qualitative and 27 quantitative traits to utilize useful genes in tomato breeding, and to assess genetic variability and character associationship among 27 quantitative characters to identify important selection indices. The variation was observed in the habit of growth, type of blossoms, fruit form and the color of the immature fruit among mutants. A significant effect of mutant genes is recorded in a heterogeneous state to express desirable horticultural qualities in hybrids. Partial effects to excessive dominance have been found to inherit fruit yields and other horticultural qualities. Exploit the hybrid Berika × B Mut-1 appeared as the most promising and could either commercially use for both table and processing purpose after critical evaluation or could be utilized in segregating generation to identify pure lines with desirable horticultural traits. The most important traits for high heritability with high genetic advance are: flower cluster per plant, flower per cluster, fruit per plant, number of locules per fruit, total chlorophyll content of leaf, total chlorophyll content of immature fruits, chlorophyll a content of immature fruits, chlorophyll b content of immature fruits, lycopene content of mature fruits and ascorbic acid content, suggesting selection would be rewarding for improvement of these traits. The top priority should be given to selection based on lycopene content, chlorophyll a content of leaf, ascorbic acid content, fruit number per plant and chlorophyll b content of immature fruit for yield improvement and could be considered while formulating selection indices in the improvement of tomato.


Characterization Correlation Genetic variability Mutant Path analysis Quality traits Tomato 



Exotic collection


Association of official analytical chemist



This research was supported by a scholarship from the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, which was awarded to the first and third author.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adams MW (1967) Basis of yield component compensation in crop plants with special reference to field bean, Phaseolous vulgaris. Crop Sci 7:505–510Google Scholar
  2. Amaral AT Jr, Casali VWD, Cruz CD, Finger FL (1997) Simple and canonic correlation among morphological, agronomic and fruit quality characters in tomato. Hortic Bras 15:49–52Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (1996) Descriptors for tomato (Lycopersicon spp.). International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome p 44Google Scholar
  4. AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemist. vol 1, Arlington, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Ara A, Raj N, Nazeer A, Khan SH (2009) Genetic variability and selection parameters for yield and quality attributes in tomato. Indian J Hortic 66:30–35Google Scholar
  6. Asmahan AM, Al-Twaty N (2006) Effect of irradiation and sodium azide on some economic traits in tomato. Saudi J Biol Sci 13(1):194–199Google Scholar
  7. Balatcheva E, Atanassova B, Hazra P (2008) Application of contemporary achievements in plant genetic improvement for tomato—the basic tool for sustainable development of agriculture in the coastal area. J Indian Soc Coastal Agric Res 26(1):22–27Google Scholar
  8. Bartoli CG, Yu J, Gómez F, Fernández L, McIntosh L, Foyer CH (2006) Inter-relationships between light and respiration in the control of ascorbic acid synthesis and accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana leaves. J Exp Bot 57:1621–1631Google Scholar
  9. Bauchet G, Causse M (2012) Genetic diversity in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and its wild relatives. In: Caliskan M (ed) Genetic diversity in plants. In Tech, Rijeka, pp 133–162Google Scholar
  10. Bell AE (1977) Heritability in retrospect. J Hered 68:297–300Google Scholar
  11. Burton GW (1952) Quantitative inheritance in grasses. In: Proceeding of 6th international grassland congress. National Publishing Company, Washington, pp 277–283Google Scholar
  12. Calvenzani V, Martinelli M, Lazzeri V, Giuntini D, Dall’Asta C, Galaverna G, Tonelli C, Ranieri A, Petroni K (2010) Response of wild-type and high pigment-1 tomato fruit to UV-B depletion: xavonoid prowling and gene expression. Planta 231:755–765Google Scholar
  13. Causse M, Damidaux R, Rousselle P (2007) Traditional and enhanced breeding for quality traits in tomato. In: Razdan M, Mattoo AK (eds) Genetic improvement of solanaceous crops, vol 2. Tomato. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp 153–192Google Scholar
  14. Chattopadhyay A, Dutta S, Bhattacharya I, Karmakar K, Hazra P (2007) Technology for vegetable crop production. Published by All India Coordinated Research Project on Vegetable Science, Directorate of Research, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Kalyani-741235, Nadia, West Bengal, India, p 226Google Scholar
  15. Chetelat RT (2002) Revised list of monogenic stocks. TGC 52:41–62Google Scholar
  16. Chory J, Peto CA, Ashbaugh M, Saganich R, Pratt LH, Ausubel F (1989) Different roles for phytochrome in etiolated and green plants deduced from characterization of Arabidopsis thaliana mutants. Plant Cell 1:867–880Google Scholar
  17. Comstock RR, Robinson HF (1952) Genetic parameters, their estimation and significance. In: Proceedings of 6th international grassland congress. Pennsylvania State College, State College, PA, pp 248–291Google Scholar
  18. Cunningham FXJ, Gantt E (1998) Genes and enzymes of carotenoid biosynthesis in plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 49:557–583Google Scholar
  19. Das B, Murmu DK, Ghimiray TS, Karforma J, Kundu S, Yonzone R (2018) Estimation of genetic variability and character association of fruit yield and quality traits in tomato. Int J Pure App Biosci 6(1):1587–1595Google Scholar
  20. Davies BH (1976) Carotenoids. In: Goodwin TW (ed) Chemistry and Biochemistry of Plant. Academic Press, London, pp 38–155Google Scholar
  21. Dewey DR, Lu HK (1959) A correlation and path-coefficient analysis of components of crested wheat grass production. Agron J 51(9):515–518Google Scholar
  22. Dorais M, Ehret DL, Papadopoulos AP (2008) Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) health components: from the seed to the consumer. Phytochem Rev 7(2):231–250Google Scholar
  23. Dubois M, Gilles K, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F (1951) A colorimetric method for the determination of sugar. Nature 168:167Google Scholar
  24. Dudley JW, Moll RH (1968) Interpretation and use of estimates of heritability and genetic variances in plant breeding. Crop Sci 9(3):257–262Google Scholar
  25. El-Sayed HH, Abd El-Tawab FM, El-Souedy A, Sharabash MT, Mahmoud AA (1994) Effect of gamma irradiation on growth, yield and chemical constituents for three tomato varieties and their crosses. In: Second Arab conference on the peaceful uses energy, Cairo, pp 913–923Google Scholar
  26. Evans LT (1993) Crop evolution, adaptation and yield. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 500Google Scholar
  27. Falconer DS (1960) Introduction of quantitative genetics. Oliver and Boyd Ltd., Edinburgh, pp 1–140Google Scholar
  28. Faria MV, Maluf WR, de Resende JTV, Andrade VC Jr, do Nascimento IR, Benites FRG, de Menezes CB, Azevedo SM (2006) Rin, nor, ogc and hp mutants in tomatoes with different genetic backgrounds. Pesq Agropec Bras 41:793–800Google Scholar
  29. Garg N, Cheema DS, Dhatt AS (2008) Genetics of yield, quality and shelf life characteristics in tomato under normal and late planting conditions. Euphytica 159(2):275–288Google Scholar
  30. Gerszberg A, Hnatuszko-Konka K, Kowalczyk T, Kononowicz AK (2015) Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in the service of biotechnology. Plant Cell, Tissue Organ Cult 120:881–902Google Scholar
  31. Gillaspy G, Ben-David H, Gruissem W (1993) Fruits: a developmental perspective. Plant Cell 5:1439–1451Google Scholar
  32. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, p 680Google Scholar
  33. Grandillo S, Zamir D, Tanksley SD (1999) Genetic improvement of processing tomatoes: a 20 years perspective. Euphytica 110(2):85–97Google Scholar
  34. Grout BWW, Crisp PC (1995) Cryopreservation of germplasm of tomato. In: Bajaj YPS (ed) Cryopreservation of Plant Germplasm I. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry. Springer, Berlin, pp 371–380Google Scholar
  35. Hanson WD (1961) Heritability, statistical genetics and plant breeding. National Academy of Science, National Research Council, Washington, pp 125–140Google Scholar
  36. Hayes HK, Immer FR, Smith DC (1955) Methods of plant breeding, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, p 551Google Scholar
  37. Jarret RL, Sayama H, Tigchelaar EC (1984) Pleiotropic effects associated with the chlorophyll intensifier mutations high pigment and dark green in tomato. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 109:873–878Google Scholar
  38. Johnson HW, Robinson HF, Comstock RE (1955) Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans. Agron J 47(7):314–318Google Scholar
  39. Just D, Garcia V, Fernandez L, Bres C, Mauxion JP, Petit J, Jorly J, Assali J, Bournonville C, Ferrand C, Baldet P, Lemaire-Chamley M, Mori K, Okabe Y, Ariizumi T, Asamizu E, Ezura H, Rothan C (2013) Micro-tom mutants for functional analysis of target genes and discovery of new alleles in tomato. Plant Biotechnol 30:225–231Google Scholar
  40. Kendrick RE, Kerckhoffs LHJ, Van Tuinen A, Koornneef M (1997) Photomorphogenic mutants of tomato. Plant, Cell Environ 20:746–751Google Scholar
  41. Khachik F, Carvalho L, Bernstein PS, Garth J, Muir DZ, Katz NB (2002) Chemistry, distribution, and metabolism of tomato carotenoids and their impact on human health. Exp Biol Med 227:845–851Google Scholar
  42. Khanom MSR, Khan MHK, Hassan L (2008) Variability, heritability and genetic advance for yield and yield contributing characters in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Progress Agric 19(1):1–5Google Scholar
  43. Klee HJ, Giovannoni JJ (2011) Genetics and control of tomato fruit ripening and quality attributes. Annu Rev Genet 45:41–59Google Scholar
  44. Kulus D (2018) Tomato molecular breeding—a mini-review of latest achievements. Nauka Przy Technol 12(1):65–72Google Scholar
  45. Kumar R, Tamboli V, Sharma R, Sreelakshmi Y (2018) NAC-NOR mutations in tomato Penjar accessions attenuate multiple metabolic processes and prolong the fruit shelf life. Food Chem 259:234–244Google Scholar
  46. Levin I, Frankel P, Gilboa N, Tanny S, Lalazar A (2003) The tomato dark green mutation is a novel allele of the tomato homolog of DEETIOLATED1 gene. Theor Appl Genet 106:454–460Google Scholar
  47. Liang GHL, Walter TL (1968) Heritability estimates and gene effects for agronomic traits in grain sorghum, Sorghum vulgare Pers. Crop Sci 8:77–81Google Scholar
  48. Ligade PP, Vijay B, Gudadinni P (2017) Study on genetic variability, heritability, genetic advance in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 6(11):1775–1783Google Scholar
  49. Lincoln RE, Porter JW (1950) Inheritance of beta-carotene in tomatoes. Genetics 35:206–211Google Scholar
  50. Longjam M (2016) Development of tomato lines with increased lycopene and anthocyanin contents through introgression of mutant genes. Ph.D. thesis, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, West BengalGoogle Scholar
  51. Lush JL (1940) Intra-sire correlations or regressions of offspring on dam as a method of estimating heritability of characteristics. In: 33rd annual proceedings of the American society of animal production, pp 293–301Google Scholar
  52. Lush JL (1943) Animal breeding plans, 2nd edn. Collegiate Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  53. Lush JL (1949) Heritability of quantitative characters in farm animals. In: Proceedings of 8th congress of genetics and hereditas 35: 356–375Google Scholar
  54. Macua JI, Lahoz I, Garnica J, Santos A, Armendariz R (2007) The influence of planting time on the lycopene content of commercial tomato varieties for industry from the Ebro Valley. Acta Hortic 758:315–320Google Scholar
  55. Mangi SA, Sial MA, Ansari BA, Arian MA, Laghari KA, Mirbahar AA (2010) Heritability studies for grain yield and yield components in F3 segregating generation of spring wheat. Pak J Bot 42(3):1807–1813Google Scholar
  56. Meena RK, Kumar S, Meena ML, Verma S (2018) Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance for yield and quality attributes in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem 7(1):1937–1939Google Scholar
  57. Menda N, Semel Y, Peled D, Eshed Y, Zamir D (2004) In silico screening of a saturated mutation library of tomato. Plant J 38:861–872Google Scholar
  58. Muños S, Ranc N, Botton E, Bérard A, Rolland S, Duffé P (2011) Increase in tomato locule number is controlled by two single-nucleotide polymorphisms located near WUSCHEL. Plant Physiol 156:2244–2254Google Scholar
  59. Nwosu JN, Owuamanam CI, Omeire GC, Eke CC (2014) Quality parameters of bread produced from substitution of wheat flour with cassava flour using soybean as an improver. Am J Res Commun 2(3):99–118Google Scholar
  60. Okabe Y, Asamizu E, Saito T, Matsukura C, Ariizumi T, Brès C, Rothan C, Mizoguchi T, Ezura H (2011) Tomato TILLING technology: development of a reverse genetics tool for the efficient isolation of mutants from Micro-Tom mutant libraries. Plant Cell Physiol 52:1994–2005Google Scholar
  61. Pandey RP, Kumar N, Mishra SP (2018) Study on genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. Mill.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem 7(3):3387–3389Google Scholar
  62. Panse VG (1957) Genetics of quantitative characters in relation to plant breeding. Indian J Genet Pl Breed 17:318–328Google Scholar
  63. Peters JL, Schreuder MEL, Verduin SJW, Kendrick RE (1992) Physiological characterization of a high-pigment mutant of tomato. Photochem Photobiol 56:75–82Google Scholar
  64. Peters JL, Széll M, Kendrick RE (1998) The expression of light-regulated genes in the high-pigment-1 mutant of tomato. Plant Physiol 117:797–807Google Scholar
  65. Quinet M, Dubois C, Goffin MC, Chao J, Dielen V, Batoko H (2006) Characterization of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) mutants affected in their flowering time and in the morphogenesis of their reproductive structure. J Exp Bot 57:1381–1390Google Scholar
  66. Rai AK, Vikram A, Pandav A (2016) Genetic variability studies in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) for yield and quality traits. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol 9(5):739–744Google Scholar
  67. Reddy BR, Reddy DS, Reddaiah K, Sunil N (2013) Studies on genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance for yield and quality traits in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 2(9):238–244Google Scholar
  68. Robinson HF, Comstock RE, Harvey PH (1949) Estimates of heritability and the degree of dominance in corn. Agron J 41:353–359Google Scholar
  69. Rodríguez GR, Muños S, Anderson C, Sim SC, Michel A, Causse M, Mc S, Gardener BB, Francis D, van der Knaap E (2011) Distribution of SUN, OVATE, LC, and FAS alleles in tomato germplasm and their effect on fruit morphology. Plant Physiol 156:275–285Google Scholar
  70. Ronen G, Carmel-Goren L, Zamir D, Hirschberg J (2000) An alternative pathway to β-carotene formation in plant chromoplasts discovered by map-based cloning of Beta and old-gold color mutations in tomato. Proc Natl Acad Sci 97:11102–11107Google Scholar
  71. Sacks EJ, Francis DM (2001) Genetic and environmental variation for tomato flesh colour in a population of modern breeding lines. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 126:221–226Google Scholar
  72. Sadasivam S, Manickam A (1996) Biochemical Methods, 2nd edn. New Age International (P) Ltd Publisher, New Delhi, pp 187–188Google Scholar
  73. Sadiq SM, Saleem M, Igbal J (1986) Genetic variation and selection in hexaploid triticale. In: Darvey NL (ed) Proceedings of the international triticale symposium, Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, pp 182–185Google Scholar
  74. Searle SR (1965) The value of indirect selection I mass selection. Biometrics 21:682–708Google Scholar
  75. Sharifova S, Mehidyeva S, Theodorikas K, Roubos K (2013) Assessment of genetic diversity in cultivated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L) genotypes using RAPD primers. J Hortic Res 21(1):83–89Google Scholar
  76. Shull GH (1952) Beginnings of the heterosis concept. In: Gowen W (ed) heterosis. Iowa State College Press, Ames, pp 14–48Google Scholar
  77. Sikder S, Biswas P, Hazra P, Chattopadhyay A, Badigannavar AM, D’Souza SF (2013) Induction of mutation in tomato (Solanum lycopersiccon L.) by gamma irradiation, EMS and their combinations. Indian J Genet Pl Breed 73:392–399Google Scholar
  78. Singh HN, Singh RR, Mital RK (1974) Genotypic and phenotypic variability in tomato. Indian J Agric Sci 44(12):807–811Google Scholar
  79. Sivasubramanian S, Madhava Menon P (1973) Genotypic and phenotypic variability in rice. Madras Agric J 60:1093–1096Google Scholar
  80. Smith HH (1952) Fixing transgressive vigor in Nicotiana rustica. In: Goodwin TW (ed) Heterosis. Iowa State College Press, Ames, pp 161–174Google Scholar
  81. Solieman THI, El-Gabry MAH, Abido AI (2013) Heterosis, potence ratio and correlation of some important characters in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Sci Hortic 150:25–30Google Scholar
  82. Solovchenko AE, Chivkunova OB, Merzlyak MN, Gudkovsky VA (2005) Relationships between chlorophyll and carotenoid pigments during on- and off-tree ripening of apple fruit as revealed non-destructively with reflectance spectroscopy. Postharvest Biol Technol 38(1):9–17Google Scholar
  83. Songsri P, Jogloy S, Kesmala T, Vorasoot N, Akkasaeng C, Patanothai A, Holbrook CC (2008) Heritability of drought resistance traits and correlation of drought resistance and agronomic traits in peanut. Crop Sci 48:2245–2253Google Scholar
  84. Stommel JR, Haynes KG (1994) Inheritance of beta carotene content in the wild tomato species Lycopersicon cheesmanii. J Hered 85(5):401–404Google Scholar
  85. Stommel JR, Abbott JA, Saftner RA, Camp MJ (2005) Sensory and objective quality attributes of beta-carotene and lycopene-rich tomato fruit. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 130:244–251Google Scholar
  86. Tanksley SD (2004) The genetic, developmental, and molecular bases of fruit size and shape variation in tomato. Plant Cell 16(S):181–189Google Scholar
  87. Telef N, Stammitti-Bert L, Mortain-Bertrand A, Maucourt M, Carde JP, Rolin D, Gallusc P (2006) Sucrose deficiency delays lycopene accumulation in tomato fruit pericarp discs. Plant Mol Biol 62:453–469Google Scholar
  88. Tigchelaar EC (1986) Tomato breeding. In: Bassett MJ (ed) Breeding vegetable crops. AVI Publishing, Westport, pp 135–171Google Scholar
  89. Van Tuinen A, Cordonnier-Pratt M, Pratt LH, Verkerk R, Koorneef M, Zabel P (1997) The mapping of phytochrome genes and photomorphogenic mutants of tomato. Theor Appl Genet 94:115–122Google Scholar
  90. Watanabe S, Mizoguchi T, Aoki K, Kubo Y, Mori H, Imanishi S, Yamazaki Y, Shibata D, Ezura H (2007) Ethylmethanesulfonate (EMS) mutagenesis of Solanum lycopersicum cv Micro-Tom for large-scale mutant screens. Plant Biotechnol 24(1):33–38Google Scholar
  91. Weber CR, Moorty BR (1952) Heritable and non- heritable relationships and variability of oil content and agronomic characters in the F2 generation of soybean crosses. Agron J 44:202–209Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ipsita Das
    • 1
  • Pranab Hazra
    • 1
  • Mrinalini Longjam
    • 1
  • Tridip Bhattacharjee
    • 1
  • Praveen Kumar Maurya
    • 1
  • Swadesh Banerjee
    • 1
  • Arup Chattopadhyay
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Vegetable Science, Faculty of HorticultureBidhan Chandra Krishi ViswavidyalayaMohanpur, NadiaIndia

Personalised recommendations