ISSN 10214437, Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 2013, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 721–732. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2013.
Original Russian Text © M.R. Khaliluev, G.V. Shpakovskii, 2013, published in Fiziologiya Rastenii, 2013, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 763–775.
Tom a t o (
Mill.) is one of the most important
food crops that occupy the first place in vegetable pro
duction, both in the value and volume of production.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO), the global gross market
able tomato production in 2010 amounted to more
than 145.8 million tons, of which Russia accounted for
about 1.4% (2 million tons, on the area of 115.2 thou
sand hectares) . High demand for tomato causes
continuous improvement of assortment, which, in
turn, requires continuous improvements in some eco
nomically important traits.
The average yield of tomato in Russia remains low,
and for the 2000–2010 period it was 14.9 ton/ha .
One of the main reasons for limiting tomato produc
tivity is a substantial damage caused by diseases. In
tomato, there are about 40 widely spread infectious
diseases, most of which has a fungal and bacterial eti
ology. In this connection, resistance to biotic stresses is
one of priority requirements to modern tomato culti
vars and hybrids.
Despite the progress attained by the classical
breeding of genotypes with increased resistance to
some diseases, the problem of complex resistance, as
well as the resistance to the most dangerous diseases
has not yet been solved . The reasons are the genetic
complexity of the trait, the constant evolution pro
cesses taking place in the system “host–pathogen”, as
well as the emergence of highly resistant biotypes of
pathogens arising due to the wide application of
chemical protection .
In the past decade, to improve the resistance of
plants (including tomato) to biotic stresses, the meth
ods of genetic engineering were applied more widely.
This was favored by the progress in the elucidation of
the molecular nature of protective mechanisms pro
viding a possibility to develop new strategies for dis
ease control in addition to existing conventional
approaches. Application of transgenic plants resistant
to biopathogens can significantly increase the payback
of agricultural production, dramatically reduce envi
ronment pollution by pesticides, as well as, in many
cases, realize the potential plant productivity. In this
review, various genetic engineering strategies success
fully applied now for enhancing tomato plant resis
tance to fungal and bacterial diseases and mechanisms
of their action are summarized.
EXPRESSION OF GENES ENCODING PLANT
PR PROTEINS AND ANTIMICROBIAL
Expression of heterologous genes of plants encod
ing PR proteins (proteins synthesized in the plant cells
in response to pathogen attack) and/or antimicrobial
peptides (AMP) are the most frequently applicapable
Genetic Engineering Strategies for Enhancing Tomato Resistance
to Fungal and Bacterial Pathogens
M. R. Khaliluev
and G. V. Shpakovskii
Russian State Agrarian University–Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, Moscow, Russia
Shemyakin–Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences,
ul. MiklukhoMaklaya 16/10, Moscow, 117997 Russia;
fax: +7 (495) 3357103; email: email@example.com
Received January 24, 2013
—The classification and detailed overview of the currently known effective strategies used to
increase the resistance of tomato (
Mill.) plants to
infectious fungal and bacterial diseases by genetic engineering approaches are presented. Modern data on the
mechanisms of the protective effect of heterologous genes on the enhancement of transgenic tomato resis
tance to fungal and bacterial pathogens are discussed.
Keywords: Solanum lycopersicum (Lycopersicon esculentum)
, genetic transformation, resistance, phytopatho
gens, PR proteins, antimicrobial peptides
: AMP—antimicrobial peptides; HR—hypersensi
tive response; PGIP—polygalacturonaseinhibiting proteins; PR
proteins—pathogenesisrelated proteins; RIP—ribosomeinactivat
ing proteins; SAR—systemic acquired resistance;
stitutive promoter of 35S RNA of cauliflower mosaic virus; KLP—