Resistance-Gene-Mediated Defense Responses against Biotic Stresses in the Crop Model Plant Tomato
Chaudhary R1*and Atamian HS2
1National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA
2Department of Plant Biology, University of California, California, USA
- *Corresponding Author:
- Chaudhary R
National Cancer Institute, National
Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, USA
Tel: +1 9518233384
Received Date: March 15, 2017; Accepted Date: April 13, 2017; Published Date: April 17, 2017
Citation: Chaudhary R, Atamian HS (2017) Resistance-Gene-Mediated Defense
Responses against Biotic Stresses in the Crop Model Plant Tomato. J Plant Pathol
Microbiol 8:404. doi: 10.4172/2157-7471.1000404
Copyright: © 2017 Chaudhary R, et al. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Visit for more related articles at Journal of Plant Pathology & Microbiology
Complex series of defense response activation, consistent with the studies conducted in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, has been demonstrated in tomato during incompatible pathogen/pest interactions. During the past two decades, numerous tomato genes have been identified conferring resistance to diverse pathogens/ pests in a gene-foR-gene manner. A few of these cloned resistance (R)-genes (Cf and Pto) have been extensively studied and excellent existing reviews describe R-gene function, interacting proteins and the mechanism of Avirulence effector perception. Recent comprehensive gene expression analysis of tomato responses to biotic stresses resulted in identification of genes and potential molecular processes that are associated with several of the tomato R-gene-mediated resistance responses. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of tomato R-gene-mediated defense responses to different pathogens/pests together with the components involved in the organization of this highly complex network of plant defenses.
Resistance-gene; Biotic stresses; Arabidopsis thaliana;
Plants are subjected to various biotic stresses throughout their
sedentary life cycle. These continuous stressful conditions have
prompted development of a range of defense responses including
physical barriers [1-4], chemical weapons [5,6], and resistance (R)-
gene acquisition [7-10]. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is the second
most important vegetable crop next to potato. About 170 million tons
of tomatoes were produced worldwide in 2014 . Due to the high
nutritional value of its fruit, high yield, short life cycle, and diverse
varieties and cultivars, tomato is widely grown all year round under both
outdoor and indoor conditions. However, this worldwide cultivation is
challenged by an abundance of diseases caused by microbial pathogens
composed of fungi, bacteria, and viruses, as well as insect and nematode
Two principal immune mechanisms operate against biotic stresses
in plants. The first line of defense is triggered by a class of immune
receptors upon recognition of pathogen associated molecular patterns
(PAMPs), chemical signatures that appear to be widely conserved
among certain pathogen clades [12,13]. This interaction is referred to
as PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI). As part of the continuous arms
race between plants and pathogens, the later have evolved to acquire
effector molecules to counteract the plant PTI mechanism and ensure
pathogenicity. This weakened plant immune response is known as
compatible interaction. This prompted plants in turn to develop specific
R-proteins that recognize the pathogen/pest effector(s) and initiate
the second principle immune mechanism termed effectoR-triggered
immunity (ETI) . This interaction is also referred to as incompatible
interaction and is generally characterized by a vast transcriptional
reprogramming after recognition of the pathogen/pest effector
molecule(s) . The recognized effector is termed as Avirulent (Avr)
and the recognition could be indirect or directly by an R-gene. R-Avr
interaction typically results in a hypersensitive cell death response (HR)
at the site of infection.
Starting early nineties, extensive research led to the cloning of a
number of tomato R-genes (Table 1). These R-genes together with
those identified from additional plant species were assigned to different
classes based on the presence of various structural motifs that can be extracellular, cytoplasmic or transmembrane [16,17]. Majority of
the plant cloned R-genes encode for nucleotide-binding domain and
leucine-rich repeats (NLR) proteins with variable amino- and carboxyterminal
domains that may contain Toll/interleukin-1 receptor (TIR)-
or coiled-coil (CC)-domain (Table 1). Many R-genes belong to gene
families and are organized in tandem arrays, clusters, and supeR-clusters
[18,19]. Interestingly, these R-genes with low structural diversity were
shown to confer resistance to diverse pathogens and pests via recognition of
arsenal of effectors . This means that, besides the common mechanisms
underlying disease resistance signal transduction throughout the plant
kingdom, individual resistance gene products can act in unique signaling
pathways . In many plant species, it has been shown that during the
course of evolution, R-genes have undergone gene duplication and selection
pressures leading to divergent evolution. Genome-wide identification and
classification of Solanaceae NLRs have identified 267, 443, and 755 NLRencoding
genes in tomato, potato, and pepper genomes, respectively .
Heinz1706 tomato encodes 478 NLRs .
||Alternaria alternataf. sp. lycopersici
||Alfalfa mosaic virus
||Cucumber mosaic virus
||Fusarium oxysporumf.sp. radicis-lycopersici
||Fusarium oxysporum formaespecialeslycopersici
||Meloidogyne spp., Macrosiphum euphorbiae,Bemisiatabaci,Bactericercacockerelli
||M.R. Foolad et al., unpublished data
||Pseudomonas syringaepv tomato
||Potato virus Y, Tobacco etch virus
||Tomato spotted wilt virus
||Tomato spotted wilt virus, tomato chlorotic spot virus, groundnut ringspot virus
||Tomato spotted wilt virus
||Tomato yellow leaf curl virus
||Tomato yellow leaf curl virus, Tomato mosaic virus
||Tomato yellow leaf curl virus
||Tomato chlorotic mottle begomovirus
||Tomato leaf curl virus
||Tomato mosaic virus
||Tobacco mild green mosaic virus, Pepper mild mottle virus
||Tomato mosaic virus
Table 1: Comprehensive list of tomato resistant genes cloned or characterized by virus-induced gene silencing.
Most of our knowledge about plant defense originated from
studies conducted in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana .
Extensive genome-wide transcriptional profiling including cDNAAFLP
[24,25], suppression subtractive hybridization (SSH) [26,27],
microarrays and RNA-sequencing technologies [28-30] provided
valuable insights into plant-pathogen interactions at the cellular and
molecular level. The identification of genes repressed or activated in
plants assisted in making novel hypotheses concerning the biology
of a given interaction (both compatible and incompatible). Further
analysis of the differentially regulated genes, using gene inactivation,
overexpression , and biochemical approaches, confirmed the crucial
roles for some of these genes in the plant ETI responses.
Global transcriptome profiling is an important initial step for
dissecting biological systems particularly with systems where not
much is known about the molecular basis of the resistance response.
The enrichment of the tomato EST databases initiated several genomewide
profiling studies [32-35]. This facilitated significant progress in the
characterization of tomato incompatible responses to Avr pathogens,
contributing to future gene identification and to the understanding of
the potential molecular processes that are associated with the different
tomato R-gene-mediated resistances . With the advent of next
generation sequencing technologies, and the tomato genome sequence
, additional genome wide studies have been conducted. With a
genome sequence and a high-density linkage and molecular maps
, combined with being a host for numerous pathogens and pests,
tomato has emerged as a powerful model system for crop plant defense
response studies. Moreover, the introgression of R-genes from wild
species into cultivated tomato provides a unique opportunity to study
different resistance mechanisms against very diverse biotic agents in a
single plant. In this review, we summarize the current understanding
of R-genes in tomato and the downstream signaling components that
are critical for activating defense responses. In addition, we discuss
the current and future technologies that will significantly enhance
our knowledge about tomato-pathogen interactions and will provide
alternative strategies to develop a sustainable resistance.
Tomato Resistance Genes and their Modes of Action
Host resistance is an important component of a sustainable disease
management system . It is an environmentally benign method
that can be used as an alternative to chemicals, as their applicability
is becoming limited due to adverse environmental and human health
effects [39,40] and the emergence of resistant pathogen/pest strains .
Cultivated tomato, S. lycopersicum, has a narrow genetic base and is
consequently vulnerable to many diseases and pests. On the other hand,
a repertoire of genetically diverse wild tomato species represents a rich
source of R-genes. Over the past 50 years, several race-specific disease resistant genes have been identified in wild tomato species (Table 1), and
extensive tomato breeding programs have been based on the transfer of
R-genes from wild accessions into cultivated tomato. So far, majority of
the identified tomato R-genes conferring resistance to diverse pathogens
and pests belongs the NLR class. An array of mechanisms in tomato
R-gene-mediated resistances has been documented depending on the
particular R-gene and pathogen/pest combination [42,43].
Cladosporium fulvum–tomato pathosystem is a well-established
model system that complies with the gene-foR-gene concept first
described by . Elegant experiments demonstrated the involvement heatof
pathogen effectors or Avrs in the induction of ETI post recognition
by the Cf genes, resulting in incompatible interaction [45-48]. The Cf
genes belong to family of LRR-RLP (ReceptoR-Like Protein) encoding
R-genes and mediate resistance against the apoplast-colonizing foliar
fungal pathogen C. fulvum. The Cf-mediated resistance involves
formation of cell wall appositions, callose deposition and phytoalexin
accumulation. Moreover, the tomato resistance phenotype against C. fulvum is accompanied by HR, typically described as necrotic brown
spots near the site of infection that limits further growth and spread
of the pathogens . About five Avr genes (Avr2, Avr4, Avr4E,
Avr5, and Avr9) have been cloned and characterized from C. fulvum,
and are recognized by the corresponding Cf-2, Cf-4, Cf-4E, Cf-5,
and Cf-9 genes (Table 1). Thus, Cf-mediated resistance phenotype
is the combined result of HR and other defense responses. Another
well-known tomato fungal pathosystem is the xylem colonizing Fusarium oxysporum formae speciales lycopersici (Fol). Resistance to
Fol is mediated by I (Immunity)-genes that mainly involves callose
deposition, accumulation of phenolics and formation of tyloses
(outgrowths of xylem contact cells) and gels in the infected vessels .
Of the three cloned I-genes, only I-2 encodes for CC-NLR (CNL) while
the remaining two encode membrane associated receptoR-like kinase
(RLK), such as I-3 which encodes a S-RLK, or RLP, and I-7 encodes
a LRR-RLP [51-53]. Three Fol effectors, Avr1 (Six4), Avr2 (Six3) and
Avr3 (Six1) are recognized by I (and the non-allelic I-1), I-2 and I-3
genes respectively [54-56]. I-7 confers resistance to Fol races 1, 2 and
3 and I-7-mediated resistance is not suppressed by Avr1 . The Avr
effector that recognizes I-7 is yet to be identified. Unlike Cf-mediated
resistance, I-gene-mediated resistance lacks the classical HR described
above. In the vicinity of the I-2 locus another resistance locus Ty-1,
against Tomato yellow leaf curl geminivirus (TYLCV), is also mapped
. The I-2 locus on chromosome 6 is one of the most divergent R-gene
loci in tomato, partly due to gene duplications among the homologs.
This diversity is also attributed to micro RNAs (miRNAs), specifically
miR6024 that triggers phasiRNAs from I-2 homologs in tomato .
Ouyang et al., 2014 performed deep sequencing from resistant and
susceptible tomato cultivar to identify miRNAs that correlate with Fol
resistance. Interestingly, they found that two miRNAs (slmiR482f and
slmiR5300) were repressed in the resistant plants and these miRNAs
targeted four genes with full or partial NB domains, however, I-2 was
not among these targets . This suggests that there could be more
R-genes involved in the immune signaling against Fol.
In tomato, Ve is a single dominant locus that confers resistance
against Verticillium. The Ve locus contains two closely linked and
inversely oriented genes, Ve1 and Ve2, both encoding a RLP-type cell
surface receptor. Ve1 R-gene provides resistance against race 1 isolates
of Verticillium , by recognition of the Ave1 effector from race 1
strains of V. dahliae . The detailed mechanism of tomato resistance
against Verticillium wilt mediated by Ve1 recognition of Ave1 is not
well understood. However, domain-swapping analysis of Ve1 and Ve2
identified the domains essential for Ve1 functionality in tomato . It
has been suggested that HR is not absolutely required for Verticillium wilt resistance, and may occur as a consequence of escalated signaling
upon Ave1 recognition in both tomato and tobacco . Transgenic
tomato expressing Ave1 induced various defense genes including
PR-1, PR-2 and peroxidases, independently of Ve1 . Homologs of
tomato Ve1 have also been reported from other plant species including
tobacco, potato, wild eggplant, hop and cotton suggesting a conserved
recognition mechanism [65,66]. Host-induced gene silencing (HIGS)
has been successfully used in tomato, Arabidopsis and cotton plants
to suppress Verticillium wilt disease by targeting various virulence
effectors of V. dahliae [67,68].
Distinct resistant mechanisms associated with the Ol-genes
against the powdery mildew species Oidium neolycopersici have been
demonstrated using neaR-isogenic lines (NIL) . The dominant
resistance genes (Ol-1, Ol-3, Ol-4, Ol-5, and Ol-6) hamper the
fungal growth via classical HR of the host epidermal cells, while the
recessive gene ol-2 confers resistance via papilla formation [70,71]. By
performing complementation experiments using transgenic tomato
lines as well as virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) assays it was
demonstrated that the ol-2–mediated powdery mildew resistance is
due to loss of SlMlo1 (mildew resistance locus O) function . Ol-1-
mediated resistance to powdery mildew in tomato requires enzymes
glutathione S-Transferase  and acetolactate synthase . More
recently, 15 other SlMlo homologs were identified and characterized
for their structural organization, phylogenetic analysis and expression
profiles . In the future, it would be interesting to investigate the
possible roles of these homologs in tomato defense against other
powdery mildew species including Erysiphe orontii and Leveillula
As opposed to the specific response to pathogen-encoded effectors in
gene-foR-gene host-pathogen interactions, the mode of action of Asc-1-
mediated resistance to the late blight disease caused by the fungus Alternaria
alternaria formae speciales lycopersici is based on insensitivity to
sphinganine-analog mycotoxins (SAMs) . Consequently, Asc-1
has no homology to any published plant disease resistance gene but
is homologous to the Saccharomyces cerevisiae LAG1 that has been
associated with life span in yeast. Thus, the mechanism of Asc-1-
mediated resistance is by preventing apoptosis in resistant plants by
the restoration of EGGAP transport . Overexpression of Asc-1 gene
also confers resistance to Alternaria in Nicotiana umbratical .
Nematodes and Insects
In nematodes two R-genes have been cloned so far including
Mi and Hero. Differences in resistance mechanisms or incompatible
responses to nematodes are also evident in tomato. Hero-mediated
resistance against potato cyst nematodes (PCNs) (Globodera spp.) is
often described as a “hypersensitive-like” or “delayed hypersensitive”
response that appears after syncytium (feeding structure) induction,
leading to slow deterioration or abnormal development of the feeding
site . Although PCNs and similar cyst-forming nematodes are able
to invade and develop on resistant plants, however, their reproduction
is severely compromised . Hero encodes a NLR protein and confers
resistance to all pathotypes of G. rostochiensis and partial resistance to
G. pallidaMacrosiphum euphorbiae . Hero gene is not only expressed in roots but also in
aerial parts including, stems, leaves, and flower buds, its expression
is upregulated in roots in response to PCN infection and correlates
with the timing of syncytium death . Interestingly, inoculation of
tomato leaves with PCN also leads to HR indicating that Hero-mediated
resistance response is not tissue-specific .
In contrast to Hero, Mi-1.2-mediated resistance against root-knot
nematodes (RKN) (Meloidogyne spp.) is early and involves HR. As a
result, the invading juvenile is not able to induce a feeding site and
becomes surrounded and embedded among necrotized cells . The
Mi-1.2 gene also confers resistance to certain potato aphid isolates
(Macrosiphum euphorbiae), whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) and to some
extend to psyllids (Bactericerca cockerelli) [84-88] via yet unidentified
mechanism(s) that does not involve HR. Although Mi-1 is an effective
source of RKN resistance, Mi-1-mediated resistance is inactive above
28°C soil temperature . More recently, another nematode resistant
gene Mi-9, from the wild species Solanum arcanum, was genetically
characterized and identified as a homolog of Mi-1 that conferred heatof stable resistance to RNK . Interestingly, silencing Mi-1 homologs
in tomato lines carrying Ol-4 and Ol-6 compromised the resistance to O. neolycopersici in those lines, suggesting that Ol-4 and Ol-6 are Mi-1
homologs . About 59 Mi-1 homologs have been identified in the
genome of the cultivated potato species S. tuberosum and S. phureja . The evolutionary history of Mi-1 and another R-gene family
member Sw5 (CNL protein that provides resistance to tomato spotted
wilt virus (TSWV) [93,94]) is analyzed in closely related Solanaceae family members S. tuberosum and S. lycopersicum . In this study,
the authors reported that the potato genome carries larger R-gene
families than tomato and this could due to sequential duplications in
the potato genome or recurrent gene losses in tomato. Further, they
observed that Sw5 and Mi-1 gene families had dissimilar evolutionary
histories. Overall, this work suggests that gene clusters are more prone
to duplication and translocation, which may occur through unequal
crossing overs or errors in the replication or recombination processes.
Interestingly, a recent study reported that Mi-1.2 has direct negative
effects on a zoophytophagous biocontrol agent Orius insidiosus .
Taken together, these findings suggests that a single dominant R-gene
mediated resistance can impact organisms belonging to very diverse
Besides conferring resistance against C. fulvum, the Cf-2 also
mediates resistance to the root parasitic nematode G. rostochiensis and
this resistance requires Rcr3pim protein of S. pimpinellifolium . A
tomato root cDNA library was screened in a yeast two-hybrid assay,
by using G. rostochiensis effector GR-VAP1 as bait. In this screen, it
was found that GR-VAP1interacts with apoplastic papain-like cysteine
proteases Rcr3pim. Tomato plants that lack the Cf-2 gene but has the
functional Rcr3pim allele have higher number of nematodes than the
Cf-0/Rcr3lycand Cf-0/rcr3-3 plants suggesting that Rcr3pim is the
virulence target of G. rostochiensis. Transient expression of GR-
VAP1 in tomato plants harboring Cf-2 and Rcr3pim triggers an HR
Plant viruses cause disease and severe losses in tomato. Similar
to other classes of pathogens, tomato plants have acquired a series of
R-genes against these viruses. Tomato virus can spread by different
ways such as transmission via contaminated seeds or insect borne
transmission. Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV) is a seed borne virus that
can be spread by human activities for instance agricultural workers
with contaminated hands, tools, and clothing, however transmission
by insects is rare. Tomato Tm-1-mediated resistance against ToMV
involves direct or indirect binding of the Tm-1 gene to replication
proteins of ToMV, thus, inhibiting RNA replication even before
formation of the active replication complexes on the membranes,
however there is no HR . The Tm-1 protein is predicted to have
the TIM barrel structure but there are no clues about their cellular
functions. Interestingly, the product of the Tm-1 (allelic to Tm-1)
gene found in the ToMV susceptible tomatoes can neither bind to
ToMV replication proteins nor inhibit ToMV multiplication but have
been shown to bind to the replication proteins of non-host viruses
tobacco mild green mosaic virus (TMGMV) and pepper mild mottle
virus (PMMoV) and inhibit their RNA replication in vitro resulting
in non-host resistance [98-100]. Another tomato R-gene, Tm-22,
confers resistance to ToMV by the recognition of the carboxy terminus
of the ToMV movement protein and interfering with viral cell-tocell
movement in plants . Tm-22 belongs to the CNL class of
resistance proteins . Transgenic tobacco plants expressing Tm-22
gene become resistant against infection with ToMV . Similarly,
transgenic potato plants over expressing Tm-22 gene confers resistance to multiple viruses like tobacco mosaic virus, ToMV, potato virus X
(PVX) and PVY .
An example of virus transmitted by insects mainly thrips is TSWV.
Tomato Sw5 gene confers resistance against TSWV [93,94]. The Avr
determinant of tomato Sw-5 protein is the NSm movement protein of
TSWV . Transient expression of the NSm protein in tomato and
generation of transgenic N. benthamiana harboring the Sw5-b gene
triggers an HR . Eight TSWV R-genes (Sw1a, Sw1b, Sw2, Sw3,
Sw4, Sw-5, Sw-6 and Sw-7) have been reported to date .
TYLCV belongs to the class of DNA viruses that are transmitted
via whiteflies and affects tomato production worldwide. There are total
six TYLCV resistance genes Ty-1 to Ty-6. Ty-1 and Ty-3, both derived
from Solanum chilense and are allelic. The Ty-1/Ty-3-mediated defense
against TYLCV is somehow different from tomato defense against
other viruses as TYLCV shows low levels of viral replication and
systemic spread but with moderate (as with Ty-3) or no (as with Ty-
1) visual symptoms . Ty-1 and Ty-3 are allelic and represents a
unique category of R-genes that encode for RNA-dependent RNA
polymerases (RdRp) unlike most of the R-genes discussed so far that
belongs to NLR family. Ty-1 and Ty-3 are proposed to confer resistance
to TYLCV by amplifying the RNAi signal . The catalytic domain
of the Ty-1/Ty-3 allele is characterized by a five-amino acid motif,
DFDGD . As compared to susceptible tomato plants, Ty-1/Ty-3
plants have higher levels of siRNA amplifications and Ty-1 plants also
show higher levels of TYLCV DNA methylation . Interestingly,
Ty-1-mediated resistance is also effective against the bipartite tomato
severe rugose begomo virus, suggesting enhanced transcriptional gene
silencing, however, a mixed infection of TYLCV with a RNA virus
such as cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) compromised the resistance
leading to a decrease in Ty-1–mounted anti-geminiviral RNAi response
. Under natural field conditions with the occurrences of mixed
viral infection Ty-1-mediated resistance might not be very effective.
Unlike Rx-mediated resistance that results in extreme resistance (ER)
against potato virus X , TYLCV mediated resistance results in
virus tolerance rather than immunity. Functional Ty-1/Ty-3-like
alleles are also present in several other S. chilense wild type tomato
accessions, shown by fine mapping and VIGS . Additionally,
the DFDGD catalytic domain of the Ty-1and Ty-3 genes is conserved
among Solanum species . In a recent study, Ty-2 and Ty-3 genes
were used to develop a series of R-gene pyramided tomato lines and the
linked markers were evaluated for their diagnostic value and utility in
pyramiding Ty genes .
Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pst) causes bacterial speck
of tomato and the major sources of Pst infection can be seed and
infected crop debris. In tomato a serine-threonine protein kinase Pto
gene confers resistance to Pst strains carry the avirulence gene AvrPto
. Prf that encodes an NLR resides in the middle of the Pto gene
cluster . In tomato, Prf-mediated resistance against Pst involves
recognition of secreted effectors (AvrPto or AvrPtoB) by two highly
homologous tomato protein kinases Pto and Fen [114-117]. Changes
in these kinases upon binding to the effectors are detected by Prf,
resulting in HR at the sites of attempted infection.
Signaling Components Acting Downstream of Tomato
Early understanding of host-pathogen interaction came from
studies conducted in Arabidopsis. Identification and characterization
of host components underlying ETI revealed both common and specific signaling components in R-gene mediated resistances against different
biotic stresses [118-120]. Some of the important components of R-gene
mediated downstream signaling from Arabidopsis include Non-Race-
Specific Disease Resistance1 (NDR1), Enhanced Disease Susceptibility1
(EDS1), Phytoalexin Deficient 4 (PAD4), Nonexpresser of PR genes
1 (NPR1), Suppressor of the G2 allele of SKP1 (SGT1), Required for
Mla 12 Resistance (RAR1), RAR2, AvrPphB susceptible 3 (PBS3), Heat
Shock Protein (HSP90) [42,121]. Additional signaling components
include, the mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinases, one of the
largest group of plant kinases that function in the regulation of complex
plant defense reactions by altering the activity of the different signal
transduction pathways through phosphorylation/dephosphorylation of
proteins . Defense associated phytohormones including jasmonic
acid (JA), ethylene (ET) and salicylic acid (SA) regulate plant responses
to a wide range of pests and pathogens. There are excellent reviews
focusing on the complex network of defense signaling pathways that
involve these three phytohormones .
Tomato became another ideal model for studying host-pathogen
interaction as it is natural host of many pests and pathogens as well as
possesses a repertoire of R-genes. The application of VIGS, transient
reverse genetics approach, has been successfully used to study the
function of certain tomato genes . To analyze the function of some
of tomato R-genes that produce HR and to identify their downstream
signaling components and mechanisms many groups have performed
experiments in tomato. However, given the moderate efficiency of
VIGS in tomato, large-scale random screens have been conducted in
the heterologous system N. benthamiana, where VIGS is more effective.
Many of the functional studies in N. benthamiana have been performed
by using an auto active tomato R-gene and by transient expression of
corresponding Avr, to consistently and uniformly activate the host
system and thus avoiding variations caused by the infecting organisms.
Tomato and C. fulvum interaction is a model to study the
receptoR-mediated resistance . Using VIGS in tomato and/
or N. bethamiana or N. tobaccum the different components of this interaction have been identified (Figure 1), including Cf-9-interacting
thioredoxin (CITRX) , Avr9/Cf-9 induced kinase 1 (ACIK1)
, the NLR protein required for HR-associated cell death 1 (NRC1)
, the U-box protein CMPG1 , the LeMPK1, LeMPK2, and
LeMPK3 , Avr9/Cf-9–Induced F-Box1 (ACIF) , members
of the phospholipase C family , Suppressor of BAK1-Interacting
RLK1 1 (SOBIR1) , Somatic Embryogenesis Receptor Kinase1
(SERK3)/BAK1 , endoplasmic reticulum residing chaperones
including HSP70 binding proteins (BiPs) and a lectin-type calreticulin
Figure 1: Downstream signaling components of tomato R-genes.
Likewise, using VIGS in tomato the signaling cascade downstream
of Ve1 is shown to require several components including EDS1, NDR1,
NRC1, ACIF, MEK2 and SERK3/BAK1 (Figure 1) . To identify
additional components involved in Ve1-mediated signaling, a GFPtagged
version of Ve1 protein was overexpressed in N. benthamiana leaves, followed by mass spectrometry. This resulted in the identification
of BiPs and CRT as Ve1 interacting proteins. VIGS mediated
knockdown of BiPs and CRTs in tomato resulted in compromised
Ve1-mediated resistance to V. dahliae in most cases, showing that
these chaperones play an important role in Ve1 functionality .
Furthermore, by using VIGS it has been demonstrated that SOBIR1
and SERK3/BAK1 are also required for I/Avr1-dependent necrosis
in N. benthamiana . In a genetic based screening F2 tomato
seedlings, those homozygous for the eds1 mutation (eds1/eds1) and
those that were heterozygous (EDS1/eds1), were chosen for a disease
assay and were inoculated with Fol race 3. Samples were screened for
the disease resistance and it was found that EDS1 is required for I-7
mediated resistance .
By applying VIGS in tomato plants it has been shown that Mi-1.2-
mediated resistance against nematodes and aphids requires Hsp90,
Sgt1, members of the MAP kinase cascade and WRKY transcription
factors (Figure 1) [138-141]. In addition, by utilizing transgenic tomato
plants expressing NahG (encodes for an enzyme that metabolizes SA) a
role for SA in Mi-1–mediated resistance to potato aphids was identified . In a VIGS screen performed in N. benthamiana to identify
the components of Mi-signaling that can suppress HR triggered by a
constitutively active form of Mi-1, Mi-DS4, SERK1 was identified as an
important player [142,143].
To identify the tomato proteins that interact with ToMV movement
protein or Tm-22-LRR yeast two-hybrid screens were performed
and tomato cDNA library was screened, by using ToMV movement
protein and Tm-22-LRR as respective baits . In these screens
Rubisco small subunit (RbCS) was identified as interacting with ToMV
movement protein and SGT1 as interacting with Tm-22, in addition
MP-Interacting Protein 1 (MIP1), a group of type I J-domain proteins
was found to interact with both ToMV movement protein and Tm-22.
By using VIGS and other in vitro and in vivo functional analysis in
N. benthamiana, it was shown that MIP1s are required for both virus
infection and plant immunity . Furthermore, transgenic N.
benthamiana plants expressing Tm-22, provides extreme resistance to
ToMV, and VIGS mediated silencing of NbRbCS compromised Tm-22-
dependent resistance, suggesting that RbCS of N. benthamiana plays an
important role in ToMV movement and plant antiviral defenses .
To identify the genes involved in TYLCV resistance a reverse genetic
approach was used where the susceptible and resistance tomato inbred
lines from the same breeding program were inoculated with TYLCV
. cDNA libraries from inoculated and non-inoculated plants
were compared and a trans membranal transporter protein Permease
I-like was found to be preferentially expressed in resistant plants and
VIGS mediated silencing of Permease gene in tomato led to decrease
in resistance . Furthermore, VIGS mediated silencing of hexose
transporter LeHT1, resulted in plant growth inhibition and enhanced
virus accumulation and spread and also resulted in a necrotic response
along the stem and petioles of infected LeHT1-silenced R plants .
Pto-mediated resistance involves several components including
kinases MEK1 andMEK2, wound-induced protein kinase (WIPK),
NTF6, two transcription factors TGA1a and TGA2.2 and NPR1
(Figure 1) . Furthermore, using stable RNAi/CaMV transient
overexpression/VIGS about 25 genes were identified to play a role in
Pto-mediated ETI as reviewed by .
Current and Future Perspective
Plants are continuously being challenged by new pathogen and pest
races/strains, some of which being able to overcome the plant R-gene
mediated defenses. One of the main goals of agricultural research is
to develop technologies to overcome resistance breaking to prevent
disease. In the past, few decades use of molecular markers has facilitated
identification, mapping, characterization and transfer of many
important traits in tomato including the traits for disease resistance
[149,150]. With the recent advances in molecular biology and genetic
approaches, several R-genes have been cloned (as discussed above).
A broad-spectrum application for crop improvement and managing
resistance that has gained great attention is non-host resistance .
Other alternatives include functional stacking of R-genes that has been
successfully used in potato and tomato [152-154] and targeting the
susceptible genes can result in a more broad-spectrum and durable type
of resistance . Furthermore, there has been increase resistance
against some pathogens in tomato by transferring the R-genes from
other plant species like pepper and potato [156,157].
Apart from the breeding technologies, a deeper understanding of
plant innate immune perception and signaling is equally important.
Here comes the role of model plants A. thaliana and easily amenable
plant species such as Nicotiana species [158,159]. RNAi based approaches including siRNAs, miRNAs and Agrobacterium-mediated
transient expression of dsRNA have been used against viruses, insects,
and fungal pathogens . Spray-induced gene silencing strategy
utilizing dsRNAs and small RNAs targeting pathogen genes has also
been successful against Botrytis cinerea . More recently genomeediting
technologies such as TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 have been
used in plant crop improvement, plant-breeding and enhanced
pathogen resistance [162-164]. CRISPR/Cas9 has been successfully
used to target TYLCV genome. Guide RNAs specific for coding and
non-coding sequences of TYLCV were delivered via tobacco rattle
virus into N. benthamiana plants stably overexpressing the Cas9
endonuclease. Subsequent challenge of these plants with TYLCV lead to
a significant reduction in TYLCV accumulation and disease symptoms
. Recently, CRISPR-Cas9 system has been also used to inactivate
tomato SlDMR6-1 (downy mildew resistance 6) resulting in disease
resistance against different pathogens, including P. syringae, P. capsici
and Xanthomonas spp. with no significant effect on plant growth and
development . Overall suggesting that these new technologies can
be utilized for multiplex targeting of the pathogen virulence genes as
well as plant susceptibility genes. Thus, there is a potential to enhance
plant resistance by targeting newly evolved effectors and generating a
platform for dissecting natural resistance and immune functions. At
the same time, it will provide biotechnologists with a powerful tool for
producing crop plants resistant to multiple viral infections.
- Buxdorf K, Rubinsky G, Barda O, Burdman S, Aharoni A, et al. (2014) The transcriptionfactor SlSHINE3 modulates defense responses in tomato plants. Plant Mol Biol 84: 37-47.
- Aist J (1979) Papillae and related wound plugs of plant cells. Annu Rev Phytopathol 14:145-63.
- Hematy K, Cherk C, Somerville S (2009) Host-pathogen warfare at the plant cell wall. CurrOpin Plant Biol 12: 406-13.
- Lai A, Cianciolo V, Chiavarinin S, Sonninol A (2000) Effects of glandular trichomes on thedevelopment of Phytophthora infestans infection in potato (S. tuberosum). Euphytica 114: 165-74.
- Unsicker SB, Kunert G, Gershenzon J (2009) Protective perfumes: the role of vegetativevolatiles in plant defense against herbivores. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12: 479-85.
- Bednarek P, Osbourn A (2009) Plant-microbe interactions: chemical diversity in plantdefense. Science 324: 746-8.
- Spoel SH, Dong X (2012) How do plants achieve immunity? Defence without specializedimmune cells. Nat Rev Immunol 12: 89-100.
- Jacob F, Vernaldi S, Maekawa T (2013) Evolution and Conservation of Plant NLRFunctions. Front Immunol 4: 297.
- Maekawa T, Kufer TA, Schulze-Lefert P (2011) NLR functions in plant and animal immunesystems: so far and yet so close. Nature Immunol 12: 817-26.
- Hammond-Kosak KE, Jones JDG (1996) Resistance-gene dependent plant defensemechanisms. Plant Cell 8: 1773-91.
- Konuma H, Gennari P, 2014. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2014 Asia and the Pacific Foodand Agriculture. In. FAO Statistical Yearbook.
- Zipfel C (2009) Early molecular events in PAMP-triggered immunity. Curr Opin Plant Biol12: 414-20.
- Jones JD, Dangl JL (2006) The plant immune system. Nature 444: 323-9.
- Gassmann W, Bhattacharjee S (2012) Effector-triggered immunity signaling: from gene-for-gene pathways to protein-protein interaction networks. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 25: 862-8.
- Eulgem T (2005) Regulation of the Arabidopsis defense transcriptome. Trends Plant Sci10: 71-8.
- Bent AF (1996) Plant Disease Resistance Genes: Function Meets Structure. Plant Cell 8: 1757-71.
- Hammond-Kosack KE, Jones JD (1997) Plant Disease Resistance Genes. Annu Rev PlantPhysiol Plant Mol Biol 48: 575-607.
- Hulbert SH, Webb CA, Smith SM, Sun Q (2001) Resistance gene complexes: evolution andutilization. Annu Rev Phytopathol 39: 285-312.
- Andolfo G, Sanseverino W, Rombauts S, Van De Peer Y, Bradeen JM, et al. (2013)Overview of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) candidate pathogen recognition genes reveal important Solanum R locus dynamics. New Phytol 197: 223-37.
- Salmeron JM, Oldroyd GED, Rommens CMT, Scofield SR, Kim H-S, et al. (1996) TomatoPrf is a member of the leucine-rich repeat class of plant disease resistance genes and liesembedded within the Pto kinase gene cluster. Cell 86: 123-33.
- Seo E, Kim S, Yeom SI, Choi D (2016) Genome-Wide Comparative Analyses Reveal theDynamic Evolution of Nucleotide-Binding Leucine-Rich Repeat Gene Family among Solanaceae Plants. Front Plant Sci 7: 1205.
- Wei C, Chen J, Kuang H (2016) Dramatic Number Variation of R Genes in SolanaceaeSpecies Accounted for by a Few R Gene Subfamilies. PLoS One 11: e0148708.
- Dangl JL (1993) Applications of Arabidopsis thaliana to outstanding issues in plant-pathogen interactions. Int Rev Cytol 144: 53-83.
- Durrant WE, Rowland O, Piedras P, Hammond-Kossak KE, Jones JDG (2000) cDNA-AFLP reveales a striking overlap in the race-specific resistance and wound response expression profiles. Plant Cell 12: 963-77.
- Gabriels SH, Takken FL, Vossen JH, De Jong CF, Liu Q, et al. (2006) CDNA-AFLPcombined with functional analysis reveals novel genes involved in the hypersensitive response. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 19: 567-76.
- Ouyang B, Yang T, Li H, Zhang L, Zhang Y, et al. (2007) Identification of early salt stressresponse genes in tomato root by suppression subtractive hybridization and microarray analysis. J Exp Bot 58: 507-20.
- De Palma M, D'agostino N, Proietti S, Bertini L, Lorito M, et al. (2016) SuppressionSubtractive Hybridization analysis provides new insights into the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum17 L.) response to the plant probioticmicroorganism Trichoderma longibrachiatum MK1. J PlantPhysiol 190: 79-94.
- Lodha TD, Basak J (2012) Plant-pathogen interactions: what microarray tells about it? MolBiotechnol 50: 87-97.
- Maleck K, Levine A, Eulgem T, Morgan A, Schmid J, et al. (2000) The transcriptome ofArabidopsis thaliana during systemic acquired resistance. Nature Genet 26: 403-10.
- O'connell RJ, Thon MR, Hacquard S, Amyotte SG, Kleemann J, et al. (2012) Lifestyletransitions in plant pathogenic Colletotrichum fungi deciphered by genome and transcriptome analyses. Nature Genet 44: 1060-5.
- Stokes TL, Kunkel BN, Richards EJ (2002) Epigenetic variation in Arabidopsis diseaseresistance. Genes Dev 16: 171-82.
- Bhattarai KK, Xie QG, Mantelin S, Bishnoi U, Girke T, et al. (2008) Tomato susceptibilityto root-knot nematodes requires an intact jasmonic acid signaling pathway. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 21: 1205-14.
- Gibly A, Bonshtien A, Balaji V, Debbie P, Martin GB, Sessa G (2004) Identification andexpression profiling of tomato genes differentially regulated during a resistance response to Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 17: 1212-22.
- Li C, Bai Y, Jacobsen E, Visser R, Lindhout P, Bonnema G (2006) Tomato defense to thepowdery mildew fungus: differences in expression of genes in susceptible, monogenic- and polygenic resistance responses are mainly in timing. Plant Mol Biol 62: 127-40.
- Van Esse HP, Fradin EF, De Groot PJ, De Wit PJ, Thomma BP (2009) Tomatotranscriptional responses to a foliar and a vascular fungal pathogen are distinct. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22: 245-58.
- Tomato Genome C (2012) The tomato genome sequence provides insights into fleshy fruitevolution. Nature 485: 635-41.
- Gupta V, Mathur S, Solanke AU, Sharma MK, Kumar R, et al. (2009) Genome analysisand genetic enhancement of tomato. Crit Rev Biotechnol 29: 152-81.
- Dangl JL, Horvath DM, Staskawicz BJ (2013) Pivoting the plant immune system fromdissection to deployment. Science 341: 746-51.
- Kohler HR, Triebskorn R (2013) Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: can we track effectsto the population level and beyond? Science 341: 759-65.18
- Corsini E, Sokooti M, Galli CL, Moretto A, Colosio C (2013) Pesticide inducedimmunotoxicity in humans: a comprehensive review of the existing evidence. Toxicol 307: 123-35.
- Tiewsiri K, Wang P (2011) Differential alteration of two aminopeptidases N associatedwith resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ac in cabbage looper. Proc Natl Acad Sci US A 108: 14037-42.
- Martin G, Bogdanove A, Sessa G (2003) Understanding the functions of plant diseaseresistance proteins. Annu Rev Plant Biol 54: 23-61.
- Soosaar JL, Burch-Smith TM, Dinesh-Kumar SP (2005) Mechanisms of plant resistance toviruses. Nature Reviews Microbiology 3: 789-98.
- Flor HH (1971) Current status of the gene-for-gene concept. Annu Rev Phytopathol 9: 275-96.
- Dixon M, Hatzixanthis K, Jones DA, Harrison K, Jones JDG (1998) The tomato Cf-5disease resistance gene and six homologs show pronounced allelic variation in leucine-rich repeat copy number. Plant Cell 10: 1915-25.
- Dixon MS, Jones DA, Keddie JS, Thomas CM, Harrison K, Jones JDG (1996) The tomatoCf-2 disease resistance locus comprises two functional genes encoding leucine-rich repeatproteins. Cell 84: 451-60.
- Jones DA, Thomas CM, Hammond-Kosack KE, Balint-Kurti PJ, Jones JDG (1994)Isolation of the tomato Cf-9 gene for resistance to Cladosporium fulvum by transposon tagging.Science 266: 789-93.
- Thomas CM, Jones DA, Parniske M, Harrison K, Balint-Kurti PJ, et al. (1997)Characterization of the Tomato Cf-4 gene for resistance to Cladosporium fulvum identifies sequences that determine recognitional specificity in Cf-4 and Cf-9. Plant Cell 9: 2209-24.
- Vossen JH, Abd-El-Haliem A, Fradin EF, Van Den Berg GC, Ekengren SK, et al. (2010)Identification of tomato phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase-C (PI-PLC) family members and the role of PLC4 and PLC6 in HR and disease resistance. Plant J 62: 224-39.
- Beckman CH (2000) Phenolic-storing cells: keys to programmed cell death and peridermformation in wilt disease resistance and in general defence responses in plants? Physiol Mol Plant Path 57: 101-10.19
- Catanzariti AM, Lim GT, Jones DA (2015) The tomato I-3 gene: a novel gene for resistance to Fusarium wilt disease. New Phytol 207: 106-18.
- Simons G, Groenendijk J, Wijbrandi J, Reijans M, Groenen J, et al. (1998) Dissection ofthe fusarium I2 gene cluster in tomato reveals six homologs and one active gene copy. Plant Cell 10: 1055-68.
- Gonzalez-Cendales Y, Catanzariti AM, Baker B, Mcgrath DJ, Jones DA (2016)Identification of I-7 expands the repertoire of genes for resistance to Fusarium wilt in tomato tothree resistance gene classes. Mol Plant Pathol 17: 448-63.
- Houterman PM, Cornelissen BJ, Rep M (2008) Suppression of plant resistance gene-basedimmunity by a fungal effector. PLoS Pathog 4: e1000061.
- Houterman PM, Ma L, Van Ooijen G, De Vroomen MJ, Cornelissen BJ, et al. (2009) Theeffector protein Avr2 of the xylem-colonizing fungus Fusarium oxysporum activates the tomato resistance protein I-2 intracellularly. Plant J 58: 970-8.
- Rep M, Van Der Does HC, Meijer M, Van Wijk R, Houterman PM, et al. (2004) A small,cysteine-rich protein secreted by Fusarium oxysporum during colonization of xylem vessels isrequired for I-3-mediated resistance in tomato. Mol Microbiol 53: 1373-83.
- Ji Y, Scott JW, Schuster DJ (2009) Toward fine mapping of the tomato yellow leaf curlvirus resistance gene Ty-2 on chromosome 11 of tomato. HortScience 44: 614-8.
- Wei C, Kuang H, Li F, Chen J (2014) The I2 resistance gene homologues in Solanum havecomplex evolutionary patterns and are targeted by miRNAs. BMC Genomics 15: 743.
- Ouyang S, Park G, Atamian HS, Han CS, Stajich JE, et al. (2014) MicroRNAs suppress NBdomain genes in tomato that confer resistance to Fusarium oxysporum. PLoS Pathog 10:e1004464.
- Fradin EF, Abd-El-Haliem A, Masini L, Van Den Berg GC, Joosten MH, Thomma BP(2011) Interfamily transfer of tomato Ve1 mediates Verticillium resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 156: 2255-65.
- De Jonge R, Van Esse HP, Maruthachalam K, Bolton MD, Santhanam P, et al. (2012)Tomato immune receptor Ve1 recognizes effector of multiple fungal pathogens uncovered by genome and RNA sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 5110-5.
- Fradin EF, Zhang Z, Rovenich H, Song Y, Liebrand TW, et al. (2014) Functional analysis of the tomato immune receptor Ve1 through domain swaps with its non-functional homolog Ve2. PLoS One 9: e88208.
- Zhang Z, Van Esse HP, Van Damme M, Fradin EF, Liu CM, et al. (2013) Ve1-mediated resistance against Verticillium does not involve a hypersensitive response inArabidopsis. Mol Plant Pathol 14: 719-27.
- Castroverde CD, Nazar RN, Robb J (2016) Verticillium Ave1 effector induces tomatodefense gene expression independent of Ve1 protein. Plant Signal Behav 11: e1245254.
- Song Y, Zhang Z, Seidl MF, Majer A, Jakse J, et al. (2017) Broad taxonomiccharacterization of Verticillium wilt resistance genes reveals ancient origin of the tomato Ve1 immune receptor. Mol Plant Pathol 18: 196-209.
- Chen T, Kan J, Yang Y, Ling X, Chang Y, et al. (2016) A Ve homologous gene fromGossypiumbarbadense, Gbvdr3, enhances the defense response against Verticillium dahliae.Plant Physiol Biochem 98: 101-11.
- Zhang T, Jin Y, Zhao JH, Gao F, Zhou BJ, et al. (2016) Host-Induced Gene Silencing ofthe Target Gene in Fungal Cells Confers Effective Resistance to the Cotton Wilt Disease Pathogen Verticillium dahliae. Mol Plant 9: 939-42.
- Song Y, Thomma BP (2016) Host-induced gene silencing compromises Verticillium wilt intomato and Arabidopsis. Mol Plant Pathol.
- Bai Y, Van Der Hulst R, Bonnema G, Marcel TC, Meijer-Dekens F, et al. (2005) Tomatodefense to Oidiumneolycopersici: dominant Ol genes confer isolate-dependent resistance via adifferent mechanism than recessive ol-2. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 18: 354-62.
- Li C, Bonnema G, Che D, Dong L, Lindhout P, et al. (2007) Biochemical and molecularmechanisms involved in monogenic resistance responses to tomato powdery mildew. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 20: 1161-72.
- Bai Y, Pavan S, Zheng Z, Zappel NF, Reinstadler A, et al. (2008) Naturally occurringbroad-spectrum powdery mildew resistance in a Central American tomato accession is caused by loss of mlo function. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 21: 30-9.
- Pei D, Ma H, Zhang Y, Ma Y, Wang W, et al. (2011) Virus-Induced Gene Silencing of a Putative Glutathione S-Transferase Gene Compromised Ol-1-Mediated Resistance againstPowdery Mildew in Tomato. Plant Mol Biol Rep 29: 972-8.
- Gao D, Huibers RP, Loonen AE, Visser RG, Wolters AM, (2014) Down-regulationof acetolactate synthase compromises Ol-1- mediated resistance to powdery mildew in tomato.BMC Plant Biol 14: 32.
- Zheng Z, Appiano M, Pavan S, Bracuto V, Ricciardi L, et al. (2016) Genome-Wide Studyof the Tomato SlMLO Gene Family and Its Functional Characterization in Response to the Powdery Mildew Fungus Oidiumneolycopersici. Front Plant Sci 7: 380.
- Spassieva SD, Markham JE, Hille J (2002) The plant disease resistance gene Asc-1prevents disruption of sphingolipid metabolism during AAL-toxin-induced programmed cell death. Plant J 32: 561-72.
- Brandwagt BF, Mesbah LA, Takken FL, Laurent PL, Kneppers TJ, et al. (2000) Alongevity assurance gene homolog of tomato mediates resistance to Alternaria alternata f. sp.lycopersici toxins and fumonisin B1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97: 4961-6.
- Brandwagt BF, Kneppers TJ, Nijkamp HJ, Hille J (2002) Overexpression of the tomatoAsc-1 gene mediates high insensitivity to AAL toxins and fumonisin B1 in tomato hairy roots andconfers resistance to Alternaria alternata f. sp. lycopersici in Nicotiana umbratica plants. MolPlant Microbe Interact 15: 35-42.
- Holtmann B, Kleine M, Grundler FMW (2000) Ultrastructure and anatomy of nematode-induced syncytia in roots of susceptible and resistant sugar beet. Protoplasma 211: 39-50.
- Sobczak M, Avrova A, Jupowicz J, Phillips MS, Ernst K, et al. (2005) Characterizationof susceptibility and resistance responses to potato cyst nematode (Globodera spp.) infection of tomato lines in the absence and presence of the broad-spectrum nematode resistance Hero gene.Mol Plant Microbe Interact 18: 158-68.
- Ernst K, Kumar A, Kriseleit D, Kloos DU, Phillips MS, et al. (2002) The broad-spectrum potato cyst nematode resistance gene (Hero) from tomato is the only member of a largegene family of NBS-LRR genes with an unusual amino acid repeat in the LRR region. Plant J 31:127-36.22
- Poch HL, Lopez RH, Kanyuka K (2006) Functionality of resistance gene Hero, which hcontrols plant root-infecting potato cyst nematodes, in leaves of tomato. Plant Cell Environ 29: 1372-8.
- Paulson RE, Webster JM (1972) Ultrastructure of the hypersensitive reaction in roots oftomato, Lycopersiconesculentum L., to infection by the root-knot nematode, Meloidogyneincognita. Physiol Mol Plant Path 2: 227-34.
- Casteel CL, Walling LL, Paine TD (2006) Behavior and biology of the tomato psyllid,Bactericercacockerelli, in response to the Mi-1.2 gene. EntomolExpAppl 121: 67-72.
- Nombela G, Williamson VM, Muñiz M (2003) The root-knot nematode resistance geneMi-1.2 of tomato is responsible for resistance against the whitefly Bemisiatabaci. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 16: 645-9.
- Rossi M, Goggin FL, Milligan SB, Kaloshian I, Williamson VM et al. (1998) Thenematode resistance gene Mi of tomato confers resistance against the potato aphid. Proc NatlAcad Sci U S A 95: 9570-754.
- Kaloshian I, Lange WH, Williamson VM (1995) An aphid-resistance locus is tightly linkedto the nematode-resistance gene, Mi, in tomato. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92: 622-5.
- Kaloshian I, Yaghoobi J, Liharska T, Hontelez J, Hanson D, et al. (1998) Genetic andphysical localization of the root-knot nematode resistance locus mi in tomato. Mol Gen Genet 257: 376-85.
- Dropkin VH (1969) The necrotic reaction of tomatoes and other hosts resistant toMeloidogyne: reversal by temperature. Phytopathol 59: 1632-7.
- Jablonska B, Ammiraju JS, Bhattarai KK, Mantelin S, Martinez De Ilarduya O, et al.(2007) The Mi-9 gene from Solanum arcanum conferring heat-stable resistance to root-knot nematodes is a homolog of Mi-1. Plant Physiol 143: 1044-54.
- Seifi A, Kaloshian I, Vossen J, Che D, Bhattarai KK, et al. (2011) Linked, if not the same,Mi-1 homologues confer resistance to tomato powdery mildew and root-knot nematodes. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 24: 441-50.
- Sanchez-Puerta MV, Masuelli RW (2011) Evolution of nematode-resistant Mi-1 genehomologs in three species of Solanum. Mol Genet Genomics 285: 207-18.
- Brommonschenkel SH, Frary A, Frary A, Tanksley SD (2000) The broad-spectrum tospovirus resistance gene Sw-5 of tomato is a homolog of the root-knot nematode resistance gene Mi. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 13: 1130-8.
- Spassova MI, Prins TW, Folkertsma RT, Klein-Lankhorst RM, Goldbach RW, et al. (2001) The tomato gene Sw5 is a member of the coiled coil, nucleotide binding, leucine-rich repeat class of plant resistance genes and confers resistance to TSWV in tobacco. Mol Breed 7: 151-61.
- Segura DM, Masuelli RW, Sanchez-Puerta MV (2016) Dissimilar evolutionary histories oftwo resistance gene families in the genus Solanum. Genome: 1-9.
- Pallipparambil GR, Sayler RJ, Shapiro JP, Thomas JM, Kring TJ, et al. (2015) Mi-1.2, an R gene for aphid resistance in tomato, has direct negative effects on a zoophytophagousbiocontrol agent, Oriusinsidiosus. J Exp Bot 66: 549-57.
- Lozano-Torres JL, Wilbers RH, Gawronski P, Boshoven JC, Finkers-Tomczak A, et al.(2012) Dual disease resistance mediated by the immune receptor Cf-2 in tomato requires a common virulence target of a fungus and a nematode. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 10119-24.
- Ishibashi K, Masuda K, Naito S, Meshi T, Ishikawa M (2007) An inhibitor of viral RNAreplication is encoded by a plant resistance gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 13833-8.
- Ishibashi K, Naitob S, Meshia T, Ishikawaa M (2009) An inhibitory interaction betweenviral and cellular proteins underlies the resistance of tomato to non-adapted tobamoviruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 8778-83.
- Ishibashi K, Ishikawa M (2013) The resistance protein Tm-1 inhibits formation of aTomato mosaic virus replication protein-host membrane protein complex. J Virol 87: 7933-9.
- Weber H, Pfitzner AJ (1998) Tm-2(2) resistance in tomato requires recognition of thecarboxy terminus of the movement protein of tomato mosaic virus. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 11: 498-503.
- Lanfermeijer FC, Dijkhuis J, Sturre MJ, De Haan P, Hille J (2003) Cloning andcharacterization of the durable tomato mosaic virus resistance gene Tm-2(2) from Lycopersiconesculentum. Plant Mol Biol 52: 1037-49.
- Lanfermeijer FC, Jiang G, Ferwerda MA, Dijkhuis J, De Haan P, et al. (2004) Thedurable resistance gene Tm-22 from tomato confers resistance against ToMV in tobacco and preserves its viral specificity. Plant Sci 167: 687-92.24
- Hu Z, Liu G, Gao J, Zhang C, Wu X, et al. (2015) Tomato Tm-22 gene confers multiple resistances to TMV, ToMV, PVX, and PVY to cultivated potato. Russ J Plant Physiol 62: 101-8.
- Peiro A, Canizares MC, Rubio L, Lopez C, Moriones E, et al. (2014) The movementprotein (NSm) of Tomato spotted wilt virus is the avirulence determinant in the tomato Sw-5 gene-based resistance. Mol Plant Pathol 15: 802-13.
- Hallwass M, De Oliveira AS, De Campos Dianese E, Lohuis D, Boiteux LS, et al. (2014)The Tomato spotted wilt virus cell-to-cell movement protein (NSM ) triggers a hypersensitive response in Sw-5-containing resistant tomato lines and in Nicotiana benthamianatransformedwith the functional Sw-5b resistance gene copy. Mol Plant Pathol 15: 871-80.
- Saidi M, Warade SD (2008) Tomato breeding for resistance to Tomato spotted wilt virus(TSWV): an overview of conventional and molecular approaches. Czech J Genet Plant Breed 44: 83-92.
- Verlaan MG, Hutton SF, Ibrahem RM, Kormelink R, Visser RG, et al. (2013) The TomatoYellow Leaf Curl Virus resistance genes Ty-1 and Ty-3 are allelic and code for DFDGD-class RNA-dependent RNA polymerases. PLoS Genet 9: e1003399.
- Butterbach P, Verlaan MG, Dullemans A, Lohuis D, Visser RG, et al. (2014) Tomatoyellow leaf curl virus resistance by Ty-1 involves increased cytosine methylation of viralgenomes and is compromised by cucumber mosaic virus infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A111: 12942-7.
- Bendahmane A, Kanyuka K, Baulcombe DC (1999) The Rx gene from potato controlsseparate virus resistance and cell death responses. Plant Cell 11: 781-92.
- Caro M, Verlaan MG, Julian O, Finkers R, Wolters AM, et al. (2015) Assessing thegenetic variation of Ty-1 and Ty-3 alleles conferring resistance to tomato yellow leaf curl virus ina broad tomato germplasm. Mol Breed 35: 132.
- Prasanna HC, Sinha DP, Rai GK, Krishna R, Kashyap SP (2014) Pyramiding Ty-2 andTy-3 genes for resistance to monopartite and bipartite tomato leaf curl viruses of India. Plant Pathol 64: 256-64.
- Martin GB, Brommonschenkel SH, Chunwongse J, Frary A, Ganal MW, et al. (1993)Map-based cloning of a protein kinase gene conferring disease resistance in tomato. Science 262: 1432-6.
- Tang X, Frederick RD, Zhou J, Halterman DA, Jia Y, et al. (1996) Initiation of Plant Disease Resistance by Physical Interaction of AvrPto and Pto Kinase. Science 274: 2060-3.
- Scofield SR, Tobias CM, Rathjen JP, Chang JH, Lavelle DT, et al. (1996) Molecular Basisof Gene-for-Gene Specificity in Bacterial Speck Disease of Tomato. Science 274: 2063-5.
- Kim YJ, Lin NC, Martin GB (2002) Two distinct Pseudomonas effector proteins interactwith the Pto kinase and activate plant immunity. Cell 109: 589-98.
- Mucyn TS, Clemente A, Andriotis VM, Balmuth AL, Oldroyd GE, et al. (2006) Thetomato NBARC-LRR protein Prf interacts with Pto kinase in vivo to regulate specific plant immunity. Plant Cell 18: 2792-806.
- Ekengren SK, Liu Y, Schiff M, Dinesh-Kumar SP, Martin GB (2003) Two MAPKcascades, NPR1, and TGA transcription factors play a role in Pto-mediated disease resistance in tomato. Plant J 36: 905-17.
- Lu R, Malcuit I, Moffett P, Ruiz MT, Peart J, et al. (2003) High throughput virus-inducedgene silencing implicates heat shock protein 90 in plant disease resistance. EMBO J 22: 5690-9.
- Peart JR, Lu R, Sadanandom A, Malcuit I, Moffett P, et al. (2002) Ubiquitin ligase-associated protein SGT1 is required for host and nonhost disease resistance in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 10865-9.
- Kadota Y, Shirasu K (2012) The HSP90 complex of plants. BiochimBiophys Acta 1823:689-97.
- Taj G, Agarwal P, Grant M, Kumar A (2010) MAPK machinery in plants: recognition andresponse to different stresses through multiple signal transduction pathways. Plant Signal Behav 5: 1370-8
- De Vleesschauwer D, Xu J, Hofte M (2014) Making sense of hormone-mediated defensenetworking: from rice to Arabidopsis. Front Plant Sci 5: 611.
- Liu Y, Schiff M, Dinesh-Kumar SP (2002) Virus-induced gene silencing in tomato. PlantJ 31: 777-86.
- Wulff BB, Chakrabarti A, Jones DA (2009) Recognitional specificity and evolution in thetomato-Cladosporium fulvumpathosystem. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22: 1191-202.
- Rivas S, Rougon-Cardoso A, Smoker M, Schauser L, Yoshioka H, et al. (2004)CITRX thioredoxin interacts with the tomato Cf-9 resistance protein and negatively regulates defence. EMBO J 23: 2156-65.
- Rowland O, Ludwig AA, Merrick CJ, Baillieul F, Tracy FE, et al. (2005) Functional analysis of Avr9/Cf-9 rapidly elicited genes identifies a protein kinase, ACIK1, that is essential for full Cf-9-dependent disease resistance in tomato. Plant Cell 17: 295-310.
- Gabriels SH, Vossen JH, Ekengren SK, Van Ooijen G, Abd-El-Haliem AM, et al. (2007)An NB-LRR protein required for HR signalling mediated by both extra- and intracellular resistance proteins. Plant J 50: 14-28.
- Gonzalez-Lamothe R, Tsitsigiannis DI, Ludwig AA, Panicot M, Shirasu K, et al. (2006) The U-box protein CMPG1 is required for efficient activation of defense mechanisms triggered by multiple resistance genes in tobacco and tomato. Plant Cell 18: 1067-83.
- Stulemeijer IJ, Stratmann JW, Joosten MH (2007) Tomato mitogen-activated proteinkinases LeMPK1, LeMPK2, and LeMPK3 are activated during the Cf-4/Avr4-inducedhypersensitive response and have distinct phosphorylation specificities. Plant Physiol 144: 1481-94.
- Van Den Burg HA, Tsitsigiannis DI, Rowland O, Lo J, Rallapalli G, et al. (2008) The F-box protein ACRE189/ACIF1 regulates cell death and defense responses activated during pathogen recognition in tobacco and tomato. Plant Cell 20: 697-719.
- Liebrand TW, Van Den Berg GC, Zhang Z, Smit P, Cordewener JH, et al. (2013)Receptor-like kinase SOBIR1/EVR interacts with receptor-like proteins in plant immunity against fungal infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 10010-5.
- Postma J, Liebrand TW, Bi G, Evrard A, Bye RR, et al. (2016) Avr4 promotes Cf-4receptor-like protein association with the BAK1/SERK3 receptor-like kinase to initiate receptor endocytosis and plant immunity. New Phytol 210: 627-42.
- Liebrand TW, Smit P, Abd-El-Haliem A, De Jonge R, Cordewener JH, et al. (2012)Endoplasmic reticulum-quality control chaperones facilitate the biogenesis of Cf receptor-like proteins involved in pathogen resistance of tomato. Plant Physiol 159: 1819-33.
- Fradin EF, Zhang Z, Juarez Ayala JC, Castroverde CD, Nazar RN, et al. (2009) Geneticdissection of Verticillium wilt resistance mediated by tomato Ve1. Plant Physiol 150: 320-32.
- Liebrand TW, Kombrink A, Zhang Z, Sklenar J, Jones AM, et al. (2014) Chaperones ofthe endoplasmic reticulum are required for Ve1-mediated resistance to Verticillium. Mol Plant Pathol 15: 109-17.
- Catanzariti AM, Do HT, Bru P, De Sain M, Thatcher LF, et al. (2017) The tomato I gene for Fusarium wilt resistance encodes an atypical leucine-rich repeat receptor-like protein whose function is nevertheless dependent on SOBIR1 and SERK3/BAK1. Plant J 89: 1195-209.
- Bhattarai KK, Atamian HS, Kaloshian I, Eulgem T (2010) WRKY72-type transcriptionfactors contribute to basal immunity in tomato and Arabidopsis as well as gene-for-gene resistance mediated by the tomato R gene Mi-1. Plant J 63: 229-40.
- Atamian HS, Eulgem T, Kaloshian I (2012) SlWRKY70 is required for Mi-1-mediatedresistance to aphids and nematodes in tomato. Planta 235: 299-309.
- Bhattarai KK, Li Q, Liu Y, Dinesh-Kumar SP, Kaloshian I (2007) The Mi-1-mediated pestresistance requires Hsp90 and Sgt1. Plant Physiol 144: 312-23.
- Li Q, Xie QG, Smith-Becker J, Navarre DA, Kaloshian I (2006) Mi-1-Mediated aphidresistance involves salicylic acid and mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling cascades. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 19: 655-64.
- Mantelin S, Peng HC, Li B, Atamian HS, Takken FL, et al. (2011) The receptor-like kinase SlSERK1 is required for Mi-1-mediated resistance to potato aphids in tomato. Plant J67: 459-71.
- Peng HC, Mantelin S, Hicks GR, Takken FL, Kaloshian I (2016) The Conformation of aPlasma Membrane-Localized Somatic Embryogenesis Receptor Kinase Complex Is Altered by a Potato Aphid-Derived Effector. Plant Physiol 171: 2211-22.
- Du Y, Zhao J, Chen T, Liu Q, Zhang H, et al. (2013) Type I J-domain NbMIP1 proteinsare required for both Tobacco mosaic virus infection and plant innate immunity. PLoS Pathog 9:e1003659.
- Zhao J, Liu Q, Zhang H, Jia Q, Hong Y, et al. (2013) The rubisco small subunit isinvolved in tobamovirus movement and Tm-2(2)-mediated extreme resistance. Plant Physiol 161:374-83.
- Eybishtz A, Peretz Y, Sade D, Akad F, Czosnek H (2009) Silencing of a single gene intomato plants resistant to Tomato yellow leaf curl virus renders them susceptible to the virus.Plant Mol Biol 71: 157-71.
- Eybishtz A, Peretz Y, Sade D, Gorovits R, Czosnek H (2010) Tomato yellow leaf curlvirus infection of a resistant tomato line with a silenced sucrose transporter gene LeHT1 resultsin inhibition of growth, enhanced virus spread, and necrosis. Planta 231: 537-48.
- Oh CS, Martin GB (2011) Effector-triggered immunity mediated by the Pto kinase. Trends Plant Sci 16: 132-40.
- Foolad MR, Merk HL, Ashrafi H (2008) Genetics, Genomics and Breeding of Late Blightand Early Blight Resistance in Tomato. Crit Rev Plant Sci 27: 75-107.
- Foolad MR, Panthee DR (2012) Marker-assisted selection in tomato breeding. CritRevPlant Sci 31: 93-123.
- Lee S, Whitaker VM, Hutton SF (2016) Mini Review: Potential Applications of Non-hostResistance for Crop Improvement. Front Plant Sci 7: 997.
- Zhu S, Li Y, Vossen JH, Visser RG, Jacobsen E (2012) Functional stacking of threeresistance genes against Phytophthora infestans in potato. Transgenic Res 21: 89-99.
- Jo KR, Kim CJ, Kim SJ, Kim TY, Bergervoet M, et al. (2014) Development of late blightresistant potatoes by cisgene stacking. BMC Biotechnol 14: 50.
- Hanson P, Lu SF, Wang JF, Chen W, Kenyon L, et al. (2016) Conventional and molecularmarker-assisted selection and pyramiding of genes for multiple disease resistance in tomato. Sci Hort 201: 346-54.
- Van Schie CC, Takken FL (2014) Susceptibility genes 101: how to be a good host. AnnuRevPhytopathol 52: 551-81.
- Faino L, Carli P, Testa A, Cristinzio G, Frusciante L, Ercolano MR (2010) Potato R1resistance gene confers resistance against Phytophthora infestans in transgenic tomato plants.Eur J Plant Pathol 128: 233-41.
- Tai TH, Dahlbeck D, Clark ET, Gajiwala P, Pasion R, et al. (1999) Expression of the Bs2pepper gene confers resistance to bacterial spot disease in tomato. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 14153-8.
- Schwessinger B, Bart R, Krasileva KV, Coaker G (2015) Focus issue on plant immunity:from model systems to crop species. Front Plant Sci 6: 195.
- Goodin MM, Zaitlin D, Naidu RA, Lommel SA (2008) Nicotiana benthamiana: its historyand future as a model for plant-pathogen interactions. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 21: 1015-26.
- Duan CG, Wang CH, Guo HS (2012) Application of RNA silencing to plant diseaseresistance. Silence 3: 5.
- Wang M, Weiberg A, Lin FM, Thomma BP, Huang HD, et al. (2016) Bidirectional cross-kingdom RNAi and fungal uptake of external RNAs confer plant protection. Nat Plants 2: 16151.
- Nejat N, Rookes J, Mantri NL, Cahill DM (2016) Plant-pathogen interactions: toward development of next-generation disease-resistant plants. Crit Rev Biotechnol 37: 1-9.
- Wang F, Wang C, Liu P, Lei C, Hao W, et al. (2016) Enhanced Rice Blast Resistance byCRISPR/Cas9-Targeted Mutagenesis of the ERF Transcription Factor Gene OsERF922. PLoS One 11: e0154027.
- Song G, Jia M, Chen K, Kong X, Khattak B, et al. (2016) CRISPR/Cas9: A powerful toolfor crop genome editing. Crop J 4: 75-82.
- Ali Z, Abulfaraj A, Idris A, Ali S, Tashkandi M, et al. (2015) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated viral interference in plants. Genome Biol 16: 238.
- Thomazella DPDT, Brail Q, Dahlbeck D, Staskawicz BJ (2016) CRISPR-Cas9 mediatedmutagenesis of a DMR6 ortholog in tomato confers broad-spectrum disease resistance. bioRxiv.
- Langford AN (1937) The parasitism of Cladosporium fulvum Cooke and the genetics ofresistance to it. Can J Res 15: 10828.
- Panter SN, Hammond-Kosack KE, Harrison K, Jones JD, Jones DA (2002) Developmental control of promoter activity is not responsible for mature onset of Cf-9B-mediated resistance to leaf mold in tomato. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 15: 1099-107.
- Parrella G, Moretti A, Gognalons P, Lesage ML, Marchoux G, et al. (2004) The Am GeneControlling Resistance to Alfalfa mosaic virus in Tomato Is Located in the Cluster of Dominant Resistance Genes on Chromosome 6. Phytopathol 94: 345-350.
- Schornack S, Ballvora A, Gurlebeck D, Peart J, Baulcombe D, et al. (2004) The tomatoresistance protein Bs4 is a predicted non-nuclear TIR-NB-LRR protein that mediates defense responses to severely truncated derivatives of AvrBs4 and overexpressed AvrBs3. Plant J 37: 46-60.
- Stamova BS, Chetelat RT (2000) Inheritance and genetic mapping of cucumber mosaicvirus resistance introgressed from Lycopersiconchilense into tomato. TheorAppl Genet 101:527-537.
- Takken FL, Schipper D, Nijkamp HJ, Hille J (1998) Identification and Ds-tagged isolationof a new gene at the Cf-4 locus of tomato involved in disease resistance to Cladosporium fulvumrace 5. Plant J 14: 401-11.
- Takken FL, Thomas CM, Joosten MH, Golstein C, Westerink N, et al. (1999) A secondgene at the tomato Cf-4 locus confers resistance to Cladosporium fulvum through recognition ofa novel avirulence determinant. Plant J 20: 279-288.
- Soumpourou E, Iakovidis M, Chartrain L, Lyall V, Thomas CM (2007) The SolanumPimpinellifolium Cf-Ecp1 and Cf-Ecp4 genes for resistance to Cladosporium Fulvum are locatedat the Milky Way locus on the short arm of chromosome 1.TheorAppl Genet 115: 1127-36.
- Haanstra JP, Lauge R, Meijer-Dekens F, Bonnema G, De Wit PJ, et al. (1999) TheCf-ECP2 gene is linked to, but not part of, the Cf-4/Cf-9 cluster on the short arm of chromosome1 in tomato. Mol Gen Genet 262: 839-845.
- Haanstra JPW, Meijer-Dekens F, Lauge R, Seetanah DC, JoostenMHaJ, et al. (2000)Mapping strategy for resistance genes against Cladosporium fulvum on the short arm ofchromosome 1 of tomato: Cf-ECP5 near the Hcr9 Milky Way cluster. TheorAppl Genet 101:661-8.
- Bolton MD, Van Esse HP, Vossen JH, De Jonge R, Stergiopoulos I, et al. (2008) Thenovel Cladosporium fulvumlysin motif effector Ecp6 is a virulence factor with orthologues inother fungal species. Mol Microbiol 69: 119-36.
- Zhao T, Jiang J, Liu G, He S, Zhang H, et al. (2016) Mapping and candidate genescreening of tomato Cladosporium fulvum-resistant gene Cf-19, based on high-throughputsequencing technology. BMC Plant Biol 16: 51.
- Vakalounalus DJ, Laterrot H, Moretti A, Ligoxigakis EL, Smardas K (1997) Linkagebetween Frl (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. radicis-lycopersici resistance) and Tm-2 (tobacco mosaicvirus resistance-2) loci in tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum). Ann Appl Biol 130: 319-23.
- Sela-Buurlage MB, Budai-Hadrian O, Pan Q, Carmel-Goren L, Vunsch R, et al. (2001)Genome-wide dissection of Fusarium resistance in tomato reveals multiple complex loci. MolGenet Genomics 265: 1104-1111.
- Sarfatti M, Abu-Abied M, Katan J, Zamir D (1991) RFLP mapping of I1, a new locus intomatoconfering resistance against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici race1. TheorApplGenet 82: 22-6.
- Stamova L, Yordanov M (1990) Lv-as a symbol of the gene controlling resistance toLeveillulataurica. Rep Tomato Genet Coop 40: 36.
- Ammiraju JS, Veremis JC, Huang X, Roberts PA, Kaloshian I (2003) The heat-stableroot-knot nematode resistance gene Mi-9 from Lycopersiconperuvianum is localized on the shortarm of chromosome 6. TheorAppl Genet 106: 478-84.
- Huang CC, Cui YY, Weng CR, Zabel P, Lindhout P (2000) Development of diagnosticPCR markers closely linked to the tomato powdery mildew resistance gene Ol-1 onchromosome 6 of tomato. TheorAppl Genet 101: 918-24.
- De Giovanni C, Dell’orco P, Bruno A, Ciccarese F, Lotti C, et al. (2004)Identification of PCR-based markers (RAPD, AFLP) linked to a novel mildew resistance gene (ol-2) in tomato. Plant Sci 166: 41-8.
- Bonde R, Murphy EF (1952) Resistance of certain tomato varieties and crosses to lateblight. Maine AgrExpSta Bull 497: 5-15.
- Moreau P, Thoquet P, Olivier J, Laterrot H, Grimsley N (1998) Genetic mapping of Ph-2, a single locus controlling partial resistance to Phytophthora infestans in tomato. Mol PlantMicrobe Interact 11: 259-69.
- Zhang C, Liu L, Zheng Z, Sun Y, Zhou L, et al. (2013) Fine mapping of the Ph-3 geneconferring resistance to late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in tomato. TheorAppl Genet 126: 2643-2653.
- Kole C, Ashrafi H, Lin G, Foolad M (2006) Identification and molecular mapping of anew R gene, Ph-4, conferring resistance to late blight in tomato. In. Solanaceae Conference.University of Wisconsin, Madison.
- Pitblado RE, Macneill BH, Kerr EA (1984) Chromosomal identity and linkagerelationships of Pto, a gene for resistance to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in tomato. Can JPlant Pathol 6: 48-53.
- Doganlar S, Dodson J, Gabor B, Beck-Bunn T, Crossman C, et al. (1998)Molecular mapping of the py-1 gene for resistance to corky root rot (Pyrenochaetalycopersici)in tomato. TheorAppl Genet 97: 784-788.
- Parrella G, Ruffel S, Moretti A, Morel C, Palloix A, et al. (2002) Recessiveresistance genes against potyviruses are localized in colinear genomic regions of the tomato (Lycopersicon spp.) and pepper (Capsicum spp.) genomes. TheorAppl Genet 105: 855-61.
- Behare J, Laterrot H, Sarfatti M, Zamir D (1991) Restriction fragment lengthpolymorphism mapping of the Stemphylium resistance gene in tomato. Mol Plant MicrobeInteract 4: 489-92.
- Brommenschenkel SH, Tankslet SD (1997) Map-based cloning of the tomato genomicregion that spans the Sw-5 tospovirus resistance gene in tomato. Mol Genet Genomics 256: 121-126.
- Roselló S, Diez J, Nuez F (1998) Genetics of tomato spotted wilt virus resistance comingfromLycopersiconperuvianum. Eur J Plant Pathol 104: 499-509.
- Dockter KG, O'neil DS, Price DL, Scott J, Stevens MR(2009) Molecular Mapping of thetomato spotted wilt virus resistance gene Sw-7 in tomato. In. American Society for HorticulturalScience. St. Louis, MO.
- Zamir D, Ekstein-Michelson I, Zakay Y, Navot N, Zeidan M, et al. (1994) Mapping andintrogression of a tomato yellow leaf curl virus tolerance gene, TY-1. TheorAppl Genet 88: 141-146.
- Ji Y, Scott JW, Schuster DJ (2009) Toward Fine Mapping of the Tomato Yellow Leaf CurlVirus Resistance Gene Ty-2 on Chromosome 11 of Tomato.HortScience 44: 614-8.
- Ji Y, Schuster DJ, Scott JW (2007) Ty-3, a begomovirus resistance locus near the Tomatoyellow leaf curl virus resistance locus Ty-1 on chromosome 6 of tomato. Mol Breed 20: 271-284.
- Anbinder I, Reuveni M, Azari R, Paran I, Nahon S, et al. (2009) Molecular dissection ofTomato leaf curl virus resistance in tomato line TY172 derived from Solanum peruvianum. TheorAppl Genet 119: 519-530.
- Giordano LB, Silva-Lobo VL, Santana FM, Fonseca MEN, Boiteux LS (2005) Inheritanceof resistance to the bipartite Tomato chlorotic mottle begomovirus derived from Lycopersiconesculentum cv. ‘Tyking’. Euphytica 143: 27-33.
- Bian XY, Thomas MR, Rasheed MS, Saeed M, Hanson P, et al. (2007) A RecessiveAllele (tgr-1) Conditioning Tomato Resistance to Geminivirus Infection Is Associated withImpaired Viral Movement. Phytopathol 97: 930-7.
- Clayberg CD, Butler L, Rick CM, Young PA (1960) Second list of known genes in thetomato. J Hered 51: 167.
- Kawchuk LM, Hachey J, Lynch DR, Kulcsar F, Van Rooijen G, et al. (2001) Tomato Ve disease resistance genes encode cell surface-like receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 6511-6515.
- Hammond-Kosack KE, Jones JDG (1993) Incomplete dominance of tomato Cf genes forresistance to Cladosporium fulvum. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 7: 58-70.
- Hemming MN, Basuki S, Mcgrath DJ, Carroll BJ, Jones DA (2004) Fine mapping of thetomato I-3 gene for fusarium wilt resistance and elimination of a co-segregating resistance gene analogue as a candidate for I-3. TheorAppl Genet 109: 409-418.
- Milligan SB, Bodeau J, Yaghoobi J, Kaloshian I, Zabel P, et al. (1998) Theroot knot nematode resistance gene Mi from tomato is a member of the leucine zipper, nucleotide binding, leucine-rich repeat family of plant genes. Plant Cell 10: 1307-1319.