分子标记辅助选择改良加工番茄的耐旱性

doi:10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2022-0695

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以耐旱番茄M1040为供体，加工番茄里格尔87-5和M3为受体，利用耐旱分子标记ID68对回交材料进行连续4代选择，最终获得改良系里格尔87-5D和M3D。对改良系的苗期耐旱性进行全面评估，结果表明：改良系在重度干旱后的复水存活率显著高于轮回亲本，旱害指数显著低于轮回亲本；在中度干旱胁迫下，改良系的生长、生理和生化指标全面优于轮回亲本。农艺性状比较结果表明，改良系基本恢复到轮回亲本的遗传背景。

关键词: 番茄, 分子育种, 回交, 耐旱, 供体

Abstract:

Molecular marker-assisted selection was used to improve the drought tolerance of two processing tomato lines（Rigel 87-5 and M3）. In this breeding process，a drought-tolerant tomato line（M1040）was used as the donor，while Rigel 87-5 and M3 were used as the recurrent parents. The drought-tolerant molecular marker ID68 was used to select the backcrossing materials for four backcross generations. The drought tolerance of the improved lines（Rigel 87-5D and M3D）at seedling stage was evaluated in detail. The results showed that the survival rate of 87-5D and M3D was significantly higher than that of the recurrent parent after severe drought and rehydration，which can also be reflected by the curve of injury index. The growth，physiological and biochemical indicators under moderate drought stress showed that the improved lines were clearly better than the recurrent parents. Comparison of agronomic traits suggested that the genetic background of the improved lines was restored.

Key words: tomato, molecular breeding, backcross, drought tolerance, donor

沈心彦, 侯晓雷, 孙培楠, 刘敏敏, 唐亚萍, 李宁, 卢永恩, 叶志彪, 欧阳波. 分子标记辅助选择改良加工番茄的耐旱性[J]. 园艺学报, 2023, 50(7): 1429-1443.

SHEN Xinyan, HOU Xiaolei, SUN Peinan, LIU Minmin, TANG Yaping, LI Ning, LU Yong’en, YE Zhibiao, OUYANG Bo. Drought Tolerance Improvement of Processing Tomato by Molecular Marker Assisted Selection[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(7): 1429-1443.

图/表 8

表1 多态性分子标记

Table 1 Polymorphic molecular markers

名称 Name	引物序列（5′-3′） Sequence	物理位置/bp Physical position
ID20	F：AGAGGCCGCATGTAACGACG；R：CGAGTCTCAGACGAAAGGTGAAAG	47 955 901
ID28	F：ATATCGGGGTCAGGTGGTACTATG；R：TGGTACTGCCCTCCTTTTGTTCT	49 922 901
ID32	F：ACTTCCGTCTCCCTAACAATCACT；R：ACAGAGCAACTCTCAACACCCAG	50 920 601
ID38	F：CATACAATGTCACTCCACACGACC；R：TTCTGAACCCAAGTTCCAAAGG	51 943 201
ID41	F：GATGACGGCTGCTGCTGAAC；R：TCTTGCTGCTACCATTGGGAC	52 936 401
ID59	F：TAACAGCTCTTTGAGGCGTAAGTG；R：CCGTCTTCGGATGTATTTGAATC	48 185 801
ID68	F：GTCAAACCAGACCCCTAACACC；R：GTACAACCCCAAGAACCACCAG	49 648 201
ID83	F：GTTTGATAGCCGAGCGAATTG；R：AACGTGTTTCGTGTTGTATGCC	53 854 001

图1 分子标记辅助耐旱加工番茄的回交选育 a：耐旱QTL和分子标记位置示意图（黑色代表来自野生番茄的渗入片段，白色代表背景材料M82的染色体片段；插入/缺失（InDel）标记以ID加数字命名）。b：回交育种技术路线图（ID68 MAS表示ID68分子标记辅助选择）。c：轮回亲本87-5的ID68检测结果（M：5000 Plus marker，D：耐旱供体M1040，S：轮回亲本87-5，H：杂合材料）。d：轮回亲本M3的BC3F1世代（1 ~ 13）检测结果。e：M3的BC4F2世代（1 ~ 21）检测结果。f：覆盖耐旱QTL的多个InDel分子标记检测改良系M3D。

Fig. 1 Backcross breeding of drought-tolerant processing tomato with molecular marker a：Schematic diagram of the drought-tolerant quantitative trait loci（QTL）and molecular marker position（Black bar represents the introgressed fragment from wild tomato species，and white bar represents the background chromosome of M82. Insertion/Deletion(InDel)markers are marked with ID followed by a number）. b：Backcross breeding technique roadmap（ID68 MAS stands for marker assisted selection with ID68）. c：Test result of recurrent parent 87-5 by ID68（M：5000 Plus marker. D，S and H represent the amplicon from drought-tolerant donor，recurrent parent 87-5 and heterozygous material，respectively）. d：Test result of BC3F1 generation（1-13）of the recurrent parent M3. e：Test result of BC4F2 generation（1-21）of M3. f：Test result of the improved line M3D by multiple InDel markers covering the QTLs.

图2 番茄经干旱处理后的旱害指数（A）、复水存活率（B）和胁迫后10 d地上部表型（C） M1040：耐旱供体；M3和87-5：轮回亲本；M3D和87-5D：改良系。数据为平均值 ± 标准差。复水存活率数据通过反正弦转换后采用单因素方差分析和邓肯氏多重比较，不同小写字母表示差异显著（P < 0.05）。

Fig. 2 Drought injury index（A），survival rate after rehydration（B）and aboveground phenotype at 10 d（C）of tomato lines after drought treatment M1040：Drought-tolerant donor；M3 and 87-5：Recurrent parent；M3D and 87-5D：Improved lines. Data are mean ± SD. For survival rate，One-way analysis of variance（ANOVA）with Duncan’s multiple range test was performed after arcsine conversion of the original data. Different small letters on top of the bar indicate significant difference at P < 0.05.

图3 加工番茄改良系中度干旱胁迫后的相对生长量 M1040：耐旱供体；M3和87-5：轮回亲本；M3D和87-5D：改良系。相对株高和相对茎粗为中度干旱处理/对照。数据为平均值 ± 标准差，百分数数据通过反正弦转换后采用单因素方差分析和邓肯氏多重比较，不同小写字母表示差异显著（P < 0.05）。

Fig. 3 Relative growth of the improved processing tomato lines under moderate drought stress M1040：Drought-tolerant donor；M3 and 87-5：Recurrent parent；M3D and 87-5D：Improved lines. Relative plant height and stem diameter are expressed as the ratio of treatment to control under moderate drought stress. Data are mean ± SD. For relative leaf area，One-way analysis of variance（ANOVA）with Duncan’s multiple range test was performed after arcsine conversion of the original percentage data. Different small letters on top of the bar indicate significant difference at P < 0.05.

图4 加工番茄改良系中度干旱胁迫下的叶片相对含水量（RWC）、水分利用效率（WUE）和叶绿素含量 M1040：耐旱供体；M3和87-5：轮回亲本；M3D和87-5D：改良系。* 表示t检验差异显著（α = 0.05）。

Fig. 4 Leaf relative water content（RWC），water use efficiency（WUE）and chlorophyll content of the improved processing tomato lines under moderate drought stress M1040：Drought-tolerant donor；M3 and 87-5：Recurrent parent；M3D and 87-5D：Improved lines.* indicates significant difference at α = 0.05 level using Student’s t-test.

图5 加工番茄改良系中度干旱胁迫下的光合参数和叶绿素荧光参数 M1040：耐旱供体；M3和87-5：轮回亲本；M3D和87-5D：改良系。* 表示表示t检验显著差异显著（α = 0.05），** 表示差异极显著（α = 0.01）。

Fig. 5 Photosynthetic parameters and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of the improved processing tomato lines under moderate drought stress M1040：Drought-tolerant donor；M3 and 87-5：Recurrent parent；M3D and 87-5D：Improved lines. * and ** indicate significant difference at α = 0.05 and α = 0.01 level，respectively，using Student’s t-test.

图6 加工番茄改良系中度干旱胁迫下的生化指标差异 M1040：耐旱供体；M3和87-5：轮回亲本；M3D和87-5D：改良系。* 表示差异显著（α = 0.05）。

Fig. 6 Differences of related biochemical indicators in the improved processing tomato lines under moderate drought stress M1040：Drought-tolerant donor；M3 and 87-5：Recurrent parent；M3D and 87-5D：Improved lines. * indicates significant difference at α = 0.05 level using Student’s t-test.

表2 加工番茄改良系和轮回亲本的农艺性状比较

Table 2 Comparison of the agronomic traits between the improved processing tomato lines and recurrent parents

材料 Material	株高/cm Plant height	茎粗/mm Stem diameter	株幅/cm Plant width	复叶形状 Compound leaf shape	单果质量/g Single fruit weight
耐旱供体 M1040 Drought-tolerant donor M1040	133.87 ± 3.08 a	9.82 ± 0.09 c	60.41 ± 2.03 a	细叶 Narrow leaf	26.86 ± 5.10 c
改良系M3D Improved line M3D	112.68 ± 3.97 b	10.98 ± 0.17 a	47.32 ± 1.52 d	宽叶 Wide leaf	54.33 ± 5.87 ab
轮回亲本M3 Recurrent parent M3	117.82 ± 2.96 b	10.98 ± 0.10 a	49.27 ± 1.43 cd	宽叶 Wide leaf	52.11 ± 4.08 b
改良系87-5D Improved line 87-5D	104.01 ± 3.42 c	10.52 ± 0.11 b	52.95 ± 1.57 b	细叶 Narrow leaf	59.54 ± 4.67 a
轮回亲本87-5 Recurrent parent 87-5	100.98 ± 2.68 c	10.43 ± 0.19 b	51.51 ± 1.68 bc	细叶 Narrow leaf	55.75 ± 3.93 ab

参考文献 49

[1]	Bodner G, Nakhforoosh A, Kaul H P. 2015. Management of crop water under drought:a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35 (2):339-360. doi: 10.1007/s13593-014-0249-y URL
[2]	Cao Bi-li, Liu Can-yu, Xu Kun. 2014. Effects of silicon on ultrastructure and active oxygen metabolism in mitochondria of tomato roots under drought stress. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 41 (12):2419-2426. (in Chinese)
	曹逼力, 刘灿玉, 徐坤. 2014. 硅对干旱胁迫下番茄根系细胞超微结构及线粒体活性氧代谢的影响. 园艺学报, 41 (12):2419-2426.
[3]	Dhawan G, Kumar A, Dwivedi P, Gopala K S, Pal M, Vinod K K, Nagarajan M, Bhowmick P K, Bollinedi H, Ellur R K, Ravikiran K T, Kumar P, Singh A K. 2021. Introgression of qDTY1.1 governing reproductive stage drought tolerance into an elite basmati rice variety“Pusa Basmati 1”through marker assisted backcross breeding. Agronomy, 11 (2):202. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11020202 URL
[4]	Du Min-min, Zhou Ming, Deng Lei, Li Chuan-you, Li Chang-bao. 2017. Current status and prospects on tomato molecular breeding — from gene cloning to cultivar improvement. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 44 (3):581-600. (in Chinese)
	杜敏敏, 周明, 邓磊, 李传友, 李常保. 2017. 番茄分子育种现状与展望——从基因克隆到品种改良. 园艺学报, 44 (3):581-600. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2016-0795
[5]	Du Yong-chen, Li Xi-xiang. 2006. Descriptors and data standard for tomato(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Beijing: China Agriculture Press. (in Chinese)
	杜永臣, 李锡香. 2006. 番茄种质资源描述规范和数据标准. 北京: 中国农业出版社.
[6]	Ebrahimiyan M, Majidi M M, Mirlohi A, Noroozi A. 2013. Physiological traits related to drought tolerance in tall fescue. Euphytica, 190 (3):401-414. doi: 10.1007/s10681-012-0808-8 URL
[7]	Foolad M R, Zhang L P, Subbiah P. 2003a. Relationship among cold,salt and drought tolerance during seed germination in tomato:inhertance and QTL mapping. Acta Horticulturae, 618:47-57.
[8]	Foolad M R, Zhang L P, Subbiah P. 2003b. Genetics of drought tolerance during seed germination in tomato:inheritance and QTL mapping. Genome, 46:536-545. doi: 10.1139/g03-035 URL
[9]	Fujita Y, Fujita M, Satoh R, Maruyama K, Parvez M M, Seki M, Hiratsu K, Ohme-Takagi M, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K. 2005. AREB 1 is a transcription activator of novel ABRE-dependent ABA signaling that enhances drought stress tolerance in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell, 17 (12):3470-3488. doi: 10.1105/tpc.105.035659 URL
[10]	Galmés J, Medrano H, Flexas J. 2007. Photosynthetic limitations in response to water stress and recovery in mediterranean plants with different growth forms. New Phytologist, 175 (1):81-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02087.x pmid: 17547669
[11]	Giannakoula A E, Ilias I. 2013. The effect of water stress and salinity on growth and physiology of tomato(Lycopersicon esculentum Mil.). Archives of Biological Sciences, 65 (2):611-620. doi: 10.2298/ABS1302611G URL
[12]	Gong P J, Zhang J H, Li H X, Yang C X, Zhang C J, Zhang X H, Khurram Z, Zhang Y Y, Wang T T, Fei Z J, Ye Z B. 2010. Transcriptional profiles of drought-responsive genes in modulating transcription signal transduction,and biochemical pathways in tomato. Journal of Experimental Botany, 61 (13):3563-3575. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq167 URL
[13]	Huang Qiu-feng. 2016. Mapping and identifying candidates of drought-tolerant genes in the tomato introgression line IL9-1[M. D. Dissertation]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
	黄秋凤. 2016. 番茄渐渗系IL9-1耐旱基因的定位和候选[硕士论文]. 武汉: 华中农业大学.
[14]	Jangid K K, Dwivedi P. 2016. Physiological responses of drought stress in tomato:a review. International Journal of Agriculture,Environment and Biotechnology, 9 (1):53-61. doi: 10.5958/2230-732X.2016.00009.7 URL
[15]	Jiang M Y, Zhang J H. 2002. Water stress-induced abscisic acid accumulation triggers the increased generation of reactive oxygen species and up-regulates the activities of antioxidant enzymes in maize leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany, 53 (379):2401-2410. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erf090 pmid: 12432032
[16]	Kamoshita A, Babu R C, Boopathi N M, Fukai S. 2008. Phenotypic and genotypic analysis of drought-resistance traits for development of rice cultivars adapted to rainfed environments. Field Crops Research, 109 (1):1-23. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2008.06.010 URL
[17]	Kirda C, Cetin M, Dasgan Y, Topcu S, Kaman H, Ekici B, Derici M R, Ozguven A I. 2004. Yield response of greenhouse grown tomato to partial root drying and conventional deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 69 (3):191-201. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2004.04.008 URL
[18]	Kushanov F N, Pepper A E, Yu J Z, Buriev Z T, Shermatov S E, Saha S, Ulloa M, Jenkins J N, Abdukarimov A, Abdurakhmonov I Y. 2016. Development,genetic mapping and QTL association of cotton PHYA,PHYB,and HY5-specific CAPS and dCAPS markers. BMC Genetics, 17 (1):1-11.
[19]	Landi S, Nurcato R, de Lillo A, Lentini M, Grillo S, Esposito S. 2016. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase plays a central role in the response of tomato(Solanum lycopersicum)plants to short and long-term drought. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 105:79-89. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.04.013 URL
[20]	Lara-Nuñez A, Romero-Romero T, Ventura J L, Blancas V, Anaya A L, Cruz-Ortega R. 2006. Allelochemical stress causes inhibition of growth and oxidative damage in Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Plant,Cell and Environment, 29 (11):2009-2016. doi: 10.1111/pce.2006.29.issue-11 URL
[21]	Lawlor D W, Cornic G. 2002. Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant Cell and Environment, 25 (2):275-294. doi: 10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00814.x URL
[22]	Li J H, Sima W, Ouyang B, WangT T, Ziaf K, Luo Z D, Liu L F, Li H X, Chen M L, Huang Y Q, Feng Y Q, Hao Y H, Ye Z B. 2012. Tomato SlDREB gene restricts leaf expansion and internode elongation by downregulating key genes for gibberellin biosynthesis. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63 (18):6407-6420. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ers295 URL
[23]	Li Kai, Tan Dan. 2018. Analysis on international competitiveness of Xinjiang tomato industry. Modern Business,(35):65-68. (in Chinese)
	李凯, 谭丹. 2018. 新疆番茄产业国际竞争力分析. 现代商业,(35):65-68.
[24]	Li Qiang. 2012. Characteristics and mechanism of aridity in major arid areas of the world under the background of climate warming[M. D. Dissertation]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University. (in Chinese)
	李强. 2012. 气候变暖背景下全球主要干旱区的干旱化特征及机理分析[硕士论文]. 兰州: 兰州大学.
[25]	Lippman Z B, Semel Y, Zamir D. 2007. An integrated view of quantitative trait variation using tomato interspecific introgression lines. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 17 (6):545-552.
[26]	Liu Lei, Deng Xuebin, Feng Jingjing, Wang Jing, Sun Xiaorong, Shu Jinshuai, Li Junming. 2018. Exploring variant sites associated with Ve-1,I-2,Mi-1 and Pto genes in processing tomato by genome-wide association analysis. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 45 (6):1089-1100. (in Chinese)
	刘磊, 邓学斌, 冯晶晶, 王静, 孙晓荣, 舒金帅, 李君明. 2018. 加工番茄Ve-1、I-2、Mi-1和Pto基因关联变异位点的挖掘. 园艺学报, 45 (6):1089-1100. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2017-0829
[27]	Liu Lei, Song Yan, Li Jun-ming. 2011. Mapping of QTLs for drought tolerance during seedling stage using introgression line populations in tomato. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 38 (10):1921-1928. (in Chinese)
	刘磊, 宋燕, 李君明. 2011. 利用渐渗系群体初步定位番茄苗期耐旱QTL. 园艺学报, 38 (10):1921-1928.
[28]	Liu Min-min. 2017. QTL mapping of drought-tolerance and identification of drought-responsive microRNA in tomato introgression lines[Ph. D. Dissertation]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
	刘敏敏. 2017. 番茄渐渗系耐旱QTL定位与干旱响应microRNA鉴定[博士论文]. 武汉: 华中农业大学.
[29]	Maimaitiyiming M, Ghulam A, Bozzolo A, Wilkins J L, Kwasniewski M T, Galvao L S, Atzberger C, Thenkabail P S. 2017. Early detection of plant physiological responses to different levels of water stress using reflectance spectroscopy. Remote Sensing, 9 (7):745. doi: 10.3390/rs9070745 URL
[30]	Mathobo R, Marais D, Steyn J M. 2017. The effect of drought stress on yield,leaf gaseous exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agricultural Water Management, 180:118-125. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.11.005 URL
[31]	Morohashi Y. 2002. Peroxidase activity develops in the micropylar endosperm of tomato seeds prior to radicle protrusion. Journal of Experimental Botany, 53 (374):1643-1650. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erf012 pmid: 12096103
[32]	Orellana S, Yañez M, Espinoza A, Verdugo I, González E, Ruiz-Lara S, Casaretto J A. 2010. The transcription factor SlAREB 1 confers drought, salt stress tolerance and regulates biotic and abiotic stress‐related genes in tomato. Plant,Cell and Environment, 33 (12):2191-2208. doi: 10.1111/pce.2010.33.issue-12 URL
[33]	Ren Jing. 2018. Tomato soluble sugar content genetic regularity analysis and QTL mapping[M. D. Dissertation]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
	任婧. 2018. 番茄果实可溶性糖含量遗传规律的研究及QTL定位[硕士论文]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学.
[34]	Ribaut J M, Ragot M. 2007. Marker-assisted selection to improve drought adaptation in maize: the backcross approach, perspectives, limitations, and alternatives. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58 (2):351-360. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erl214 URL
[35]	Roger S D, Bendich A J. 1988. Extraction of DNA from plant tissue. Plant Molecular Biology Manual, A6:1-10.
[36]	Simko I, Jia M Y, Venkatesh J, Kang B C, Weng Y Q, Barcaccia G, Lanteri S, Bhattarai G, Foolad M R. 2021. Genomics and marker-assisted improvement of vegetable crops. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 40 (4):303-365. doi: 10.1080/07352689.2021.1941605 URL
[37]	Subramanian K, Santhanakrishnan P, Balasubramanian P. 2005. Responses of field grown tomato plants to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal colonization under varying intensities of drought stress. Scientia Horticulturae, 107 (3):245-253. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2005.07.006 URL
[38]	Sun Yu-yan, Liu Lei, Zheng Zheng, Zhang Chun-zhi, Zhou Long-xi, Zong Yuan-yuan, Li Tao, Li Jun-ming. 2012. A review and perspectives on genetic improvement of salt and drought tolerance in tomato. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 39 (10):2061-2074. (in Chinese)
	孙玉燕, 刘磊, 郑峥, 张春芝, 周龙溪, 宗园园, 李涛, 李君明. 2012. 番茄耐旱和耐盐遗传改良的研究进展及展望. 园艺学报, 39 (10):2061-2074.
[39]	Thirumalaikumar V P, Devkar V, Mehterov N, Ali S, Ozgur R, Turkan I, Mueller-Roeber B, Balazadeh S. 2018. NAC transcription factor JUNGBRUNNEN 1 enhances drought tolerance in tomato. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 16 (2):354-366. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12776 pmid: 28640975
[40]	Wakchaure G, Minhas P, Meena K K, Singh N P, Hegade P M, Sorty A M. 2018. Growth,bulb yield,water productivity and quality of onion (Allium cepa L.) as affected by deficit irrigation regimes and exogenous application of plant bio-regulators. Agricultural Water Management, 199:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.11.026 URL
[41]	Wang C R, Yang A F, Yin H Y, Zhang J R. 2008. Influence of water stress on endogenous hormone contents and cell damage of maize seedlings. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 50 (4):427-434. doi: 10.1111/j.1774-7909.2008.00638.x
[42]	Wang He-zheng, Li Yan, Ma Jun, Zhang Rong-ping, Li Xu-yi, Wang Ren-quan. 2007. Screening indexes of drought resistance during seedling stage in rice. Acta Agronomica Sinica,(9):1523-1529. (in Chinese)
	王贺正, 李艳, 马均, 张荣萍, 李旭毅, 汪仁全. 2007. 水稻苗期抗旱性指标的筛选. 作物学报,(9):1523-1529.
[43]	Wang Jing, Kang Lin-yu, Liu Zhou-bin, Lü Jun-heng, Liu Yu-hua, Zou Xue-xiao. 2017. Research progress on the impact of drought on plant. Hunan Agricultural Sciences,(7):123-126,130. (in Chinese)
	王静, 康林玉, 刘周斌, 吕俊恒, 刘宇华, 邹学校. 2017. 干旱对植物影响的研究进展. 湖南农业科学,(7):123-126,130.
[44]	Wang Peng, Tian Zhejuan, Kang Chen, Li Yadong, Wang Hongle, Yang Chaosha, Mang Guangwei, Kang Liang, Fan Qingjie, Wu Zhiming. 2021. Establishment and application of a tomato KASP genotyping system based on five disease resistance genes. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 48 (11):2211-2226. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2020-0913
	王鹏, 田哲娟, 康忱, 李亚栋, 王洪乐, 杨超沙, 邙光伟, 康亮, 范庆杰, 吴志明. 2021. 番茄5个抗病基因KASP分型技术体系的建立与应用. 园艺学报, 48 (11):2211-2226. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2020-0913
[45]	Wang X L, Wang H W, Liu S X, Ferjani A, Li J S, Yan J B, Yang X H, Qin F. 2016. Genetic variation in ZmVPP 1 contributes to drought tolerance in maize seedlings. Nature Genetics, 48 (10):1233-1241. doi: 10.1038/ng.3636
[46]	Wang Y, Zang J P, Sun Y, Ali J, Xu J L, Li Z K. 2012. Identification of genetic overlaps for salt and drought tolerance using simple sequence repeat markers on an advanced backcross population in rice. Crop Science, 52 (4):1583-1592. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2011.12.0628 URL
[47]	Zhang Li-ying, Chai Min, Jiang Li-gang. 2008. Studies on drought resistance identification and its evaluation method for tomato seeding. China Vegetables,(2):15-20,68. (in Chinese)
	张丽英, 柴敏, 姜立纲. 2008. 番茄苗期抗旱性鉴定及其评价方法的研究. 中国蔬菜,(2):15-20,68.
[48]	Zhang Z H, Cao B L, Gao S, Xu K. 2019. Grafting improves tomato drought tolerance through enhancing photosynthetic capacity and reducing ROS accumulation. Protoplasma, 256 (4):1013-1024. doi: 10.1007/s00709-019-01357-3 pmid: 30805718
[49]	Zhou R, Yu X Q, Ottosen C, Zhao T M. 2020. High throughput sequencing of circRNAs in tomato leaves responding to multiple stresses of drought and heat. Horticultural Plant Journal, 6 (1):34-38. doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2019.12.004 URL