Skip to main content

Main menu

  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Preview Papers
    • Focus Collections
    • Classics Collection
    • Upcoming Focus Issues
  • Advertisers
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Board and Staff
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Contact Us
  • Other Publications
    • Plant Physiology
    • The Plant Cell
    • Plant Direct
    • The Arabidopsis Book
    • Plant Cell Teaching Tools
    • ASPB
    • Plantae

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
Plant Physiology
  • Other Publications
    • Plant Physiology
    • The Plant Cell
    • Plant Direct
    • The Arabidopsis Book
    • Plant Cell Teaching Tools
    • ASPB
    • Plantae
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
Plant Physiology

Advanced Search

  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Preview Papers
    • Focus Collections
    • Classics Collection
    • Upcoming Focus Issues
  • Advertisers
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Board and Staff
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Contact Us
  • Follow plantphysiol on Twitter
  • Visit plantphysiol on Facebook
  • Visit Plantae
Research ArticleGENE REGULATION AND MOLECULAR GENETICS
You have accessRestricted Access

Genetic Manipulation of Alcohol Dehydrogenase Levels in Ripening Tomato Fruit Affects the Balance of Some Flavor Aldehydes and Alcohols

Jim Speirs, Elizabeth Lee, Karen Holt, Kim Yong-Duk, Nigel Steele Scott, Brian Loveys, Wolfgang Schuch
Jim Speirs
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth Lee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen Holt
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kim Yong-Duk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nigel Steele Scott
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian Loveys
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wolfgang Schuch
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Published July 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.117.3.1047

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • Copyright © 1998 American Society of Plant Physiologists

Abstract

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) plants were transformed with gene constructs containing a tomato alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) cDNA (ADH 2) coupled in a sense orientation with either the constitutive cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter or the fruit-specific tomato polygalacturonase promoter. Ripening fruit from plants transformed with the constitutively expressed transgene(s) had a range of ADH activities; some plants had no detectable activity, whereas others had significantly higher ADH activity, up to twice that of controls. Transformed plants with fruit-specific expression of the transgene(s) also displayed a range of enhanced ADH activities in the ripening fruit, but no suppression was observed. Modified ADH levels in the ripening fruit influenced the balance between some of the aldehydes and the corresponding alcohols associated with flavor production. Hexanol and Z-3-hexenol levels were increased in fruit with increased ADH activity and reduced in fruit with low ADH activity. Concentrations of the respective aldehydes were generally unaltered. The phenotypes of modified fruit ADH activity and volatile abundance were transmitted to second-generation plants in accordance with the patterns of inheritance of the transgenes. In a preliminary taste trial, fruit with elevated ADH activity and higher levels of alcohols were identified as having a more intense “ripe fruit” flavor.

The tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) is a universally important food, its popularity deriving at least in part from its attractive color, flavor, and versatility. It is an important source of vitamins and minerals (Bittenbender and Kelly, 1988) and is also the primary dietary source of lycopene, a potent antioxidant associated with resistance to several forms of human cancers, in particular cancer of the prostate (Levy et al., 1995; Caperle et al., 1996; Clinton et al., 1996).

Tomatoes are used either fresh or as a range of processed products. An important quality of both the fresh and processed fruit is flavor, comprising mainly sugars, acids, and, of particular importance in fresh fruit, volatile compounds. Despite the efforts of tomato breeders, fresh tomatoes often do not meet the high standards of flavor required by the consumer. Many breeders are now concentrating on improving sugar and acid levels and vine-ripened fruit are becoming increasingly available. However, little attention is being given to improving the flavor and aroma characteristics produced by the volatile compounds.

The development of flavor and aroma volatiles in the ripening tomato fruit has been studied extensively (Kazeniac and Hall, 1970; Buttery et al., 1971, 1987, 1988, 1989; Dirinck et al., 1976; McGlasson et al., 1987; Baldwin et al., 1991; Linforth et al., 1994). Approximately 400 volatile compounds have been found in the ripening fruit (Baldwin et al., 1991), but of these only a small number have been identified as important components of flavor and aroma. These includeZ-3-hexenal, Z-3-hexenol, 2-E-hexenal, hexanal, 3-methylbutanal, 3-methylbutanol, β-ionone, 1-penten-3-one, 2-isobutylthiazole, 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, methyl salicylate, geranylacetone, E-2-heptenal, isobutyl cyanide, and 2-phenylethanol (Dirinck et al., 1976; Buttery et al., 1987, 1989). These flavor volatiles are formed by several different pathways, including the deamination and decarboxylation of amino acids (3-methylbutanal and 3-methylbutanol; Yu et al., 1968) and lipid oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids (hexanal, hexanol, and the hexenals and hexenols; Galliard et al., 1977; Hatanaka et al., 1986).

The tomato ADH 2 enzyme (alcohol:NAD+ oxidoreductase; EC 1.1.1.1) is one of two ADH enzymes described in tomato. It has been implicated in the interconversion of the aldehyde and alcohol forms of flavor volatiles (Sieso et al., 1976; Bicsak et al., 1982) and has been shown to accumulate in the fruit during ripening (Bicsak et al., 1982; Longhurst et al., 1990; Chen and Chase, 1993) and to have appropriate substrate specificities in vitro (Bicsak et al., 1982), but direct proof of its role has not been obtained. The tomato ADH 1 enzyme is found only in pollen, seeds, and young seedlings (Tanksley, 1979) and apparently is not associated with functions in the ripening fruit.

The accumulation of the ADH 2 enzyme late in ripening, combined with the coincident large increase in flavor volatiles in the fruit and the enzyme's putative role in interconversion of the volatile aldehydes and alcohols, has led to the suggestion that ADH may play an important role in flavor development (Longhurst et al., 1990).

To test the putative role of the enzyme in the reduction of some flavor aldehydes to alcohols and to examine its possible involvement in the development of flavor in the tomato fruit, we produced a number of transgenic tomato plants with modified levels of ADH 2 activity in the ripening fruit. Analysis of volatiles from fruit with enhanced, normal, or reduced levels of ADH 2 was carried out by GC-MS to determine the effects on the relative amounts of volatile aldehydes and alcohols and on the flavor of fruit from representative plants (determined by a taste panel). The results indicated that ADH is involved in the interconversion of aldehydes and alcohols in tomatoes and that this affects the flavor of the fruit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv AC) plants were grown under controlled conditions in a greenhouse and in compliance with regulations for the contained growth of transgenic plants as specified by the Australian Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee. Harvesting of fruit was randomized so that environmental or positional effects such as slight variations in light intensity or position of fruit on the vine were minimized.

Construction of Adh Transgenes

The Adh cDNA used for the construction of theAdh transgene was modified by PCR using the tomato Adh 2 cDNA pTADH 2 (Longhurst et al., 1994) as a template. The 1.5-kb PCR product includes a 5′ untranslated region 91 bp upstream of the ATG start codon and a 320-bp untranslated region 3′ of the TAA stop codon. The integrity of the sequences was confirmed by sequence analysis. TwoAdh 2 transgenes were constructed. The first construct, PJR-ADH, consists of the Adh 2 cDNA ligated into the binary vector PJR1. The PJR1 vector (Smith et al., 1988) is a derivative of Bin 19 (Bevan, 1984; Frisch et al., 1995) and contains the constitutive CaMV 35S promoter and the nopaline synthase 3′ terminator sequence. The second construct, PRD-ADH, consists of the Adh 2 cDNA ligated into the binary vector PRD. The PRD binary vector was derived from Bin 19 and contains a tomato-fruit-specific PG promoter (4.8 kb) and PG terminator (1.8 kb; Nicholass et al., 1995). The Adh 2 cDNA fragment was inserted into the BsaI andSpeI sites of the PRD binary vector.

Tomato Transformation

The constructs PJR-ADH and PRD-ADH were transferred fromEscherichia coli DH5α to Agrobacterium tumefaciens LBA4404 by triparental mating via E. coliHB101 and pRK2013. Tomato transformations were carried out according to the method of Bird et al. (1988). Southern-blot analysis of DNA from young leaf tissue was used to estimate the number of Npt IIand Adh 2 inserts integrated into each plant, and plants were allowed to grow to maturity and set fruit. Fruit were harvested at the first color change (Br) and 2 (Br+2) and 7 d (Br+7) after the Br stage, and ADH activity in the pericarp tissue was determined. For maintenance of the primary transformants and to provide sufficient fruit for subsequent analyses, multiple cuttings of selected plants were vegetatively propagated.

Genomic Southern-Blot Analyses

Genomic DNA was extracted from young leaves by the method ofThomas et al. (1993). Seven micrograms of each of the genomic DNAs was digested with either HindIII or XmnI and was fractionated by electrophoresis on 0.7% agarose-TBE (89 mmTris/borate and 2 mm EDTA, pH 8.0) gels. The DNA was transferred onto nylon membranes (Zetaprobe, Bio-Rad) as described by the manufacturer. The filters were hybridized sequentially with32P-labeled probes corresponding to theNpt II and Adh 2 cDNA regions of the transgene. Hybridization was according to the procedure recommended for Zetaprobe at 65°C for 16 h. The filters were washed twice with 2× SSC, 0.1% SDS at 65°C for 15 min each, followed by two washes of 10 min each with 0.1× SSC, 0.1% SDS at 65°C. The membranes were blotted dry and analyzed by phosphor imaging. The numbers ofNpt II and Adh 2 inserts were estimated from the number of bands of hybridization with the respective probes together with their intensities (HindIII). Digestion with XmnI excised the introduced Adh 2 cDNA from the inserted gene construct(s). In this case, the number of copies of the Adh 2 gene inserted was estimated from the intensity of hybridization to the inserted gene(s) relative to the intensity of hybridization to the endogenous gene.

Extraction and Assay of ADH

Tomato pericarp tissues and whole-fruit tissues were extracted and assayed according to the method of Longhurst et al. (1990). Protein concentration was measured using a protein quantification kit (Bio-Rad). Enzyme activities are given in units per milligram of protein, where 1 unit is the amount of enzyme required to produce 1 μmol NADH min−1.

Volatile Analyses

The method used for isolation of headspace volatiles was modified from that of Buttery et al. (1987) and included a short, room-temperature incubation of the macerated tomato tissue before inactivation of endogenous enzymes by the addition of CaCl2. This step was included to simulate the development of volatiles in sliced and chewed tomato. SPME absorption was used to collect headspace volatiles for fractionation and analysis by GC-MS.

Fruit were harvested at the Br+7 stage. Pericarp tissue (10 g) was taken from freshly harvested fruit, sliced, and then briefly macerated using a Polytron homogenizer (model PT2000, Kinematica AG, Littau, Switzerland). The slurry was allowed to stand at room temperature for exactly 3 min, after which 3.3 g of solid CaCl2 was added to inhibit further enzyme activity. Uniformly labeled, deuterated hexanol (1 μL at a concentration of 80 nmol μL−1) was added as an internal standard. An aliquot of the mixture (5.5 g) was transferred to a 10-mL headspace vial sealed with a silicon/Teflon septum. The vial was incubated at 40°C for 30 min. Sampling of the headspace was carried out by insertion of a SPME fiber (65 μm, Carbowax-divinylbenzene, Supelco, Bellefonte, PA) for 30 min while incubation of the vial continued at 40°C. The absorbed sample was analyzed on a gas chromatograph (series 6809, Hewlett-Packard) fitted with a capillary DB-wax column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.25 μm, J & W Scientific, Folsom, CA) and individual peaks were identified by MS. Peak areas were measured by integration and were normalized against the internal deuterated hexanol standard. Tabulated data are peak areas × 10−6.

Taste Trial

To comply with the requirements of the Australian Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee, seeds were removed from the tomatoes before taste testing. Tomatoes from several vegetatively propagated clones of each of the primary transformed plants of interest were harvested between 7 and 9 d after ripening. The tomatoes were matched on the basis of size. Each tomato was quartered, and the locular tissue containing the seeds was removed. Each quarter was used by each panelist for each of the four attributes in the following order: ripe flavor, green flavor, sweetness, and acidity. Four sets of samples were presented to each panelist, each in a different random order. Each set was used to rank only one of the attributes. Panelists were asked to rank the samples on each of the four attributes. Samples with the greatest intensity of the attribute were given a rank of 1, whereas the least intense was ranked 4. An orthogonal Latin-square design was used to balance out carryover effects. This design required 12 assessments (panelists). However, because of insufficient samples, only 11 assessments were made in this trial.

Seven of the 11 panelists were trained oenologists with extensive experience in wine flavor and acid-balance assessment (mean experience, 10 years). One panelist, although not formally trained, had 3 years of regular experience in assessing these attributes. The three remaining panelists were laboratory employees. Although all panelists knew the general purpose of the tasting, i.e. a comparison of flavor-modified tomatoes, none was aware of the exact nature of the samples.

RESULTS

Transformation with Adh 2 Constructs and Initial Screening

Tomato explants were transformed with constructs containing the tomato Adh 2 cDNA as shown in Figure1, and transformed plants from each experiment were selected for analysis.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Constructs PJR-ADH and PRD-ADH. A, General map of the T-DNA region of the binary vector Bin 19 (Bevan, 1984; Frisch et al., 1995) showing the Npt II-selectable marker gene and the polylinker site. B, For construction of the vector PJR-ADH, the tomato Adh 2 cDNA was ligated between the CaMV 35S promoter (prom) and the nopaline synthase (Nos) 3′ terminator, which were inserted into the polycloning site of the Bin 19 vector as described in Methods. C, For construction of the PRD-ADH vector, the tomato Adh 2 cDNA was ligated between the promoter and 3′ regions of the tomato PG, which were inserted into the polycloning site of the Bin 19 vector as described inMethods.

Two types of transformation construct were used. Both contained the tomato Adh 2 cDNA in a sense orientation relative to the construct promoter. In one set of experiments the CaMV 35S promoter was used to provide constitutive expression of the cDNA. In the other the tomato PG gene promoter (Bird et al., 1988; Nicholass et al., 1995) was used to provide fruit-ripening-specific expression of the cDNA.

ADH activity was measured in pericarp, locular, and whole-fruit tissues. Activity was found to vary in the different tissues but was highest in pericarp tissue (data not shown). Because of this, and because of the uniform composition of the tissue, only pericarp activities are presented here.

Constitutive expression of the introduced cDNA(s) resulted in both enhanced and inhibited accumulation of the ADH 2 enzyme in the ripening fruit (Fig. 2). Enhanced levels of accumulation were most evident in Br fruit, but a number of fruit continued to show significantly (P < 0.05) enhanced levels at Br+7. About 40% of the plants analyzed had fruit in which ADH 2 expression was completely inhibited.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

ADH specific activities in pericarp from Br, Br+2, and Br+7 fruit from transformed tomato plants. The top two histograms show results for plants transformed with the PJR-ADH construct containing the tomato Adh 2 cDNA coupled with the constitutive CaMV 35S promoter (left Br, right Br+7). The bottom two histograms show results from plants transformed with the PRD-ADH construct containing the tomato Adh 2 cDNA coupled with the tomato fruit-ripening-specific PG promoter (left Br+2, right Br+7). Results are arranged in order of increasing activity in Br+7 fruit and are indicated in the same order in the histograms on the left. Three fruit were averaged for each data point. Control in each histogram is a mean ± sd obtained from three fruit (each control point) from separate, untransformed plants. U, Units.

In the second set of experiments, in which the introduced cDNA(s) was expressed in a fruit-ripening-specific manner, ADH activities at Br+2 ranged from approximately that in control fruit to six to seven times control levels, whereas activities at Br+7 ranged from approximately control fruit levels to two to three times control levels (Fig. 2). With the fruit-specific promoter none of the transgenic fruit had significantly lower ADH activity than the controls (Fig. 2).

ADH Activities during Ripening

Seven plants showing significant modifications in ADH activities in fruit pericarp were selected for more extensive analysis during fruit ripening and for analysis of fruit volatiles. Cuttings from the selected plants were propagated to provide sufficient material and fruit of appropriate ages. Plants C20 and C23 contained constructs with constitutive expression of the inserted cDNA(s). Fruit from these plants showed, respectively, either enhanced ADH activity or minimal activity in fruit throughout ripening relative to levels in fruit from untransformed control plants (Fig. 3). Plant C13 contained Adh 2 cDNAs regulated by the fruit-ripening-specific PG promoter. Fruit from the C13 plant showed significantly enhanced levels of ADH activity, which continued to increase up to Br+7 and then declined.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

ADH activities in pericarp tissue are shown for ripening fruit from three transgenic plants and are compared with ADH activities in fruit from an untransformed plant. Plant C13 was transformed with the Adh 2 cDNA coupled with the fruit-ripening-specific PG promoter. Plants C20 and C23 were transformed with constructs containing the CaMV 35S promoter. White bars, Untransformed fruit; black bars, transformed fruit. Three fruit were averaged for each data point.

Comparative Activities in Fruit from T0 Plants

In a separate series of experiments, ADH levels were determined in pericarp tissue of Br+7 fruit from the seven selected T0 plants (TableI). ADH activities in fruit from the three plants containing one or two constitutively expressed transgenes, C7, C14, and C20, were significantly higher than in control, untransformed fruit. In contrast, activity was almost undetectable in fruit from the three plants containing three or more constitutively expressed transgenes, C4, C11, and C23. Consistent with activities determined during fruit ripening (Fig. 3), the highest ADH activities were found in Br+7 fruit from the C13 plant (Table I), which contained about six transgenes regulated by the fruit-specific tomato PG promoter.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table I.

Number of introduced genes, ADH specific activities, and relative abundances of some volatiles in fruit from transformed and control plants

Analysis of Adh mRNA

Hybridization analysis was used to examine gene activity relative to ADH activity in one of the plants in which ADH activity was suppressed. Hybridization analysis of Adh mRNA in pericarp tissue of fruit from one of the untransformed plants (AC2), showed mRNA abundance increasing in the fruit up to about Br+10, then declining slightly (Fig. 4). In contrast, no Adh mRNA was detectable in ripening fruit from the C23 plant, in which ADH activity was minimal. This observation indicates that inhibition of ADH activity in this plant is a result of gene silencing or cosuppression (Jorgensen, 1990).

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Hybridization of 32P-labeled tomatoAdh 2 cDNA to RNA from pericarp of ripening fruit from a control plant and a low-ADH transgenic plant (C23). Each lane contains 10 μg of total RNA. Fractionation, transfer to membrane, and hybridization were as described by Longhurst et al. (1994).

Transgene Inheritance and Segregation in T1 Plants

T1 populations were generated from all seven of the transgenic plants described above. Inheritance of the transgenes was determined by Southern-blot analysis. Twenty-five T1 progeny from the plants with single inserts, C7 and C14, segregated in an approximately Mendelian fashion. The C7 T1 plants had a ratio of azygous:hemizygous:homozygous plants of 5:12:8 and the C14 T1 plants had a ratio of 8:11:6. Similarly, 40 T1 progeny obtained from the plant with a double insert, C20, segregated in an approximately Mendelian fashion, with a distribution of 9:24:7. We saw no evidence of separation of the two inserts, suggesting that they were closely linked. T1 progeny from the primary transgenic plants with multiple inserts had approximately Gaussian distributions (TableII), with some abnormalities resulting in part from analysis of small populations, but in some cases, also from insertion of clusters of transgenes. For example, C11 hybridization profiles (not shown) and T1 distribution suggest that five or six of the estimated eight transgenes in the T0 plant have been inserted at a single genetic locus.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table II.

Segregation of T1 plants

ADH Activity in T1 Fruit

The T1 progeny of the C7, C14, and C20 T0 plants were of particular interest to us because of their simple genetic characteristics and their enhanced ADH levels (Table I). ADH activities were determined in Br+7 fruit from all of the T1 progeny of these three T0 plants. Data for each class of T1, azygous, hemizygous, and homozygous, were pooled and are presented as means ± sd in TableIII. ADH activities from control, untransformed fruit (AC2), grown and harvested at the same time as the T1 fruit, are included in Table III. The enhanced ADH character was evident in most of the T1plants containing one or two transgenes, but activity was almost completely suppressed in fruit from all of the homozygous C20 T1 plants. In addition, ADH activity was also suppressed in fruit from 6 of the 24 hemizygous C20 T1 progeny.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table III.

ADH activities in Br+7 fruit from T0and T1 plants

Analysis of Volatiles in T0 Fruit

Analysis of headspace volatiles in fruit with modified ADH activities was carried out on Br+7 fruit from the seven selected T0 plants. SPME was used as a quick and convenient method for measuring headspace volatiles from individual fruit. This method revealed some 15 major peaks of volatiles and many minor peaks (Fig. 5). A number of the volatiles identified in Figure 5 are among those considered to be important to flavor and aroma development. Of particular interest to us were the hexanal/hexanol and hexenal/hexenol compounds, peak areas of which are listed in Table I, together with areas of some other aldehydes and alcohols detected.

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Volatiles isolated from headspace above macerated whole-fruit tissue. Typical elution profile of compounds detected by GC analysis of headspace volatiles.

Comparison of areas of individual peaks between tissue from control, high-ADH, and low-ADH fruit generally showed little variation. Peak areas of the aldehyde Z-3-hexenal did not vary greatly between the various plants, whereas variations in the levels ofE-2-hexenal were detected only in fruit from the C20 and C11 plants. Similarly, the area of the aldehyde hexanal varied little between plants except in C13, in which it was significantly lower relative to controls (Table I). In contrast, levels of the alcohols hexanol and Z-3-hexenol did show significant variation between plants with differing ADH levels (Table I). Relative to levels in control fruit, hexanol levels were significantly higher in fruit from two of the high-ADH plants, C14 and C20. Z-3-Hexenol levels were also higher in fruit from two of the high-ADH plants, but in this case the significantly increased levels were in C7 and C20. Both hexanol and Z-3-hexenol levels were significantly lower in fruit from all three low-ADH plants. E-2-Hexenol was not detected in any of the fruit.

Analysis of Volatiles in T1 Fruit

Analysis of headspace volatiles was undertaken for fruit from a number of hemizygous and homozygous T1 progeny of the three T0 plants of greatest interest, C7, C14, and C20. During the course of these analyses the abundances of some of the headspace volatiles (particularly hexanol andZ-3-hexenol) obtained from fruit from each plant were observed to vary significantly in fruit harvested several weeks apart. The variations may have resulted from differences in growing conditions, and to compensate for this the results in TableIV are grouped so that each group includes data from control and T0 fruit that were grown along with the T1 fruit and harvested and analyzed during the same period. For brevity, the analyses of hexanal, hexanol, Z-3-hexenal, E-2-hexenal, andZ-3-hexenol are presented in Table IV as ratios of the aldehyde to alcohol. Because Z-3-hexenal isomerizes toE-2-hexenal (Kazeniac and Hall, 1970) and because we detected no E-2-hexenol, the ratio of (Z-3 +E-2)-hexenal to Z-3-hexenol has been used.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table IV.

ADH activities and ratios of aldehydes:alcohols for populations of Br+7 T0 and T1 fruit

A comparison of the ratios obtained in the later analyses with those derived from the initial analyses of the T0plants shows large differences, mostly attributable to differences in abundance of the alcohols. However, within each of the four sets of data a consistent correlation can be seen between the increased levels of ADH in the T0 and T1fruit and lower aldehyde-to-alcohol ratios, indicating increased levels of the alcohols. In the one cosuppressed plant analyzed, C20 T1 P18 (hemizygous), the barely detectable levels of ADH in the fruit correlated with zero or barely detectable levels of the alcohols, giving rise to high aldehyde-to-alcohol ratios (infinitely high in the case of the hexanal-to-hexanol ratio, because hexanol was undetectable in one of the three fruit analyzed).

Flavor Testing: Taste Trial

Deseeded fruit tissue from three of the T0plants and a control plant was taste tested by a panel of 11 individuals, most of whom had training and extensive taste panel experience. The panel found a significant increase in ripe-fruit flavor in fruit from the C20 plant in which ADH levels were constitutively enhanced relative to fruit from other transgenic plants and from control plants (Table V). Other attributes did not vary significantly between fruit from the various plants; however, a slight correlation between lowered green-tomato character and increased sweetness of the C20 fruit relative to the other fruit was noted. The flavor characteristics of fruit from the C13 plant did not differ from those of control fruit.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table V.

Taste trial of transgenic tomatoes

DISCUSSION

By introducing tomato Adh 2 cDNA constructs coupled to either a constitutive promoter or a fruit-ripening-specific promoter, we have produced a number of T0 and T1 transgenic tomato plants with modified levels of ADH 2 activity in their ripening fruit. The introduction of theAdh 2 cDNA under the control of the constitutive promoter resulted in a spectrum of T0 plants, including those with enhanced levels of ADH 2 activity in the ripening fruit and other tissues (J. Speirs and E. Lee, unpublished data) and plants with barely detectable levels of ADH 2 activity in the ripening fruit. Hybridization analysis (Fig. 4) related the suppressed ADH activity in fruit from one of the transgenic plants to an absence of AdhmRNA in the fruit, indicating that the introduced transgene had induced gene silencing or co-suppression (Jorgensen, 1990). Transgenic plants containing constructs with the tomato PG promoter produced fruit showing enhanced levels of ADH 2 activity. In fruit from these plants, ADH 2 activity increased as the fruit ripened (C13; Fig. 3), consistent with the fruit-ripening specificity of the PG promoter (Bird et al., 1988; Nicholass et al., 1995).

The production of tomato plants that bear fruit with significantly different ADH activities in their tissues has allowed us to examine the role of ADH in the production of volatiles associated with flavor in the ripening fruit. We found some quantitative variation in headspace volatiles between fruit, but we also found consistent differences in the balance between some of the volatile aldehydes and alcohols in fruit from plants with differing ADH levels. Of particular interest was the interconversion of the 6-C alcohols and aldehydes, which has been linked indirectly with the ADH 2 enzyme (Sieso et al., 1976;Bicsak et al., 1982; Longhurst et al., 1990; Chen and Chase, 1993).

Constitutive Promoter: High-ADH Plant C20

Associated with the increased ADH activity in fruit from plant C20 were increases in the alcohol forms of the hexanal/hexanol and hexenal/hexenol volatiles (Table I), giving rise to reduced ratios of aldehyde to alcohol (Table IV). These low ratios are consistent with an increased conversion of the 6-C aldehydes to their alcohols by the increased ADH activity in the transformed fruit, which is, to our knowledge, the first direct evidence that the tomato ADH 2 enzyme mediates interconversion of hexanal/hexanol and the Z-3- form of hexenal/hexenol in the ripening fruit.

Fruit-Specific Promoter: High-ADH Plant C13

In fruit from the C13 plant ADH activity was marginally higher during development relative to control fruit (J. Speirs and E. Lee, unpublished data), but increased to approximately three times the level in control fruit during ripening (Fig. 3). A small, nonsignificant increase in Z-3-hexenol was found in fruit from this plant (Table I), resulting in a decrease in hexenal-to-hexenol ratios (TableIV). However, no increase in hexanol was observed, whereas a decrease in hexanal was evident (Table I). Although these changes result in small but significant reductions in both hexanal-to-hexanol and (Z-3 + E-2)-hexenal-to-Z-3-hexenol ratios, similar to those evident in the C20 fruit, the mechanism appears to be different. Assuming that ADH is involved, the high ADH activity attained in the fruit, or the specific timing of its increase in the tissues, may affect the mechanism. Possibilities include feedback from the alcohol end of the pathway to the primary events associated with the conversion of free fatty acids to linoleic acid, or some mechanism for increased efflux of the alcohol product. It may also be that the high ADH levels influence some remote pathway that has an indirect influence on the levels of hexanal/hexanol.

Constitutive Promoter: Low-ADH Plant C23

ADH activity was reduced to barely detectable levels in fruit of plant C23. Also barely detectable in these fruit were hexanol andZ-3-hexenol (Table I), with the resulting aldehyde-to-alcohol ratios for C23 fruit differing grossly from those of control fruit (Tables I and IV). Reduction of ADH 2 activity therefore resulted in the inhibition of the conversion of hexanal andZ-3-hexenal to their corresponding alcohols, providing further direct evidence of at least one of the roles of ADH 2 in the ripening fruit.

Inheritance in T1 Plants

Inheritance of the transgene(s) in small populations of T1 plants derived from selfing of the seven T0 plants conformed to expected patterns of Mendelian inheritance of a single genetic locus (plants C7, C14, and C20) or approximated Gaussian distributions in progeny from the plants with more than two inserts (Table II).

Analysis of ADH activities and volatiles in the T1 plants was restricted to the progeny of the C7, C14, and C20 T0 plants because of their simple genetic characteristics and enhanced ADH levels (which were of particular interest). Azygous, hemizygous, and homozygous progeny from these plants had ADH activities consistent with the inheritance of the phenotype endowed by the transgene. That is, azygous progeny had levels of activity equivalent to those of controls grown and harvested during the same period, and hemizygous or homozygous progeny had enhanced activities (or cosuppressed activities) relative to the same controls (Table III).

Inheritance of modified aldehyde and alcohol phenotypes in the T1 fruit was confirmed in a small number of representative progeny from the three T0 plants, C7, C14, and C20 (Table IV). Within groups of control and transgenic T0 and T1 plants grown and analyzed during the same period a consistent trend was evident relating high ADH activity to increased abundances of the alcohols hexanol andZ-3-hexenol. The relationship between ADH activity and changes in the balance between aldehyde and alcohol is shown in TableIV, where the lower ratios of hexanal-to-hexanol and (Z-3 +E-2)-hexenal-to-Z-3-hexenol are mainly indicative of increased levels of the alcohols and the higher ratios are indicative of decreased levels of the alcohols.

The variability in the ratios of aldehyde to alcohol that we have found between sets of plants grown and analyzed at different periods during the year is not fully understood. It may reflect, to an extent, changes in the growing environment. However, because the pathway leading from free fatty acids to the 6-C aldehydes and alcohols is operative mainly in disrupted tissue (Galliard and Matthews, 1977;Hatanaka et al., 1992), an association between growing environment and extracellular conversion of aldehydes to alcohols is difficult to envisage. This is currently under investigation.

Our results indicate that modification of ADH 2 activity in the tomato fruit affects the balance between the 6-C aldehydes and alcohols. The effects are most marked when ADH 2 activity is reduced. The less-pronounced consequences of increasing ADH 2 activity may indicate an upper limit to the tolerated concentration of the alcohols, which is regulated by feedback or by further metabolism, or limitations in the reducing potential of NADH. It is also possible that the upper limit of ADH activity is a function of gene activity. The introduction of a single, constitutively regulated Adh transgene enhanced the activity of the enzyme in the fruit, whereas two transgenes gave rise to a further small increase in most cases. However, 6 of the 24 hemizygous C20 T1 progeny examined that contained two transgenes were cosuppressed, suggesting that the combined activities of the endogenous genes plus the two transgenes constituted a threshold at or above which gene suppression was possible or probable. This is supported by the cosuppression observed in all the T0 and T1 plants containing more than two constitutively expressed transgenes (Tables I and III). The same threshold was not evident in the C13 plant containing six transgenes regulated by a fruit-specific promoter. One explanation may be that gene silencing or cosuppression, if it occurs in the ripening C13 fruit, occurs subsequent to the synthesis of the active enzyme, the residual activity of which masks the more long-term effects throughout the sampling period.

We were unable to detect the E-2-hexenol volatile in SPME-headspace analyses of any of the tomato extracts despite confirming that the compound could be detected by our sampling procedure. Low levels of the aldehyde E-2-hexenal relative to its Z-3-isomer have been reported in tomato fruit (Dirinck et al., 1976; Buttery et al., 1987, 1988, 1989; Baldwin et al., 1991), and an absence or low activity of thecis-3-trans-2 isomerase has been postulated as a reason for this (Galliard et al., 1977). The relatively high levels ofE-2-hexenal observed in all of our samples, therefore, were unexpected and may have resulted from nonenzymic isomerization during volatile collection and processing. The apparent absence ofE-2-hexenol would therefore result from the accumulation of the E-2-aldehyde subsequent to the inactivation of the ADH enzyme.

Also missing in the headspace analyses was 3-methylbutanal. In this case, however, standards of the volatile were also undetectable by our methods. Direct analysis of headspace volatiles has been undertaken and does show ADH-related modulation of the ratio of 3-methylbutanal to 3-methylbutanol (A. Taylor, personal communication). These results will be published elsewhere.

It was of interest to determine the specificity of ADH 2 on other aldehydes and alcohols readily detectable in headspace analyses of the various fruit. Although some inter- and intrafruit variation was observed in the relative abundances of octenal and octenol, there was no evidence of ADH 2 being involved in their interconversion. Production of the alcohol from the unstable free radical of linoleic acid and an unstable hemiacetal intermediate has been postulated (Hoffman, 1962), and it is possible that dehydrogenases are not involved in regulating the balance between this alcohol and its aldehyde.

Another aldehyde/alcohol combination of interest was citral (trans-3,7-dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-al)/geraniol (trans-3,7-dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-ol). Bicsak et al. (1982)reported the tomato ADH enzyme as having “appreciable activity” in vitro on the terpene geraniol, and suggested that the NAD+-dependent tomato enzyme was associated with interconversion of citral and geraniol in the tomato fruit, with the equilibrium being in favor of aldehyde formation. In strawberry (Yamashita et al., 1978), pea (Eriksson, 1968; Leblová and Mancal, 1975), potato, and orange (Potty and Bruemmer, 1970), this interconversion is believed to be mediated by an NADP+-preferring terpene ADH (Bicsak et al., 1982). In addition, Kazeniac and Hall (1970) reported an absence of geraniol in extracts of tomato, although its isomer, linalool, was found. In contrast, we detected significant amounts of geraniol in the tomato fruit and, although there is considerable variation in ratios of citral to geraniol between individual fruit and between plants, there is no evidence of the ratio being influenced by variations in the activity of the ADH 2 enzyme.

The tomato ADH 2 enzyme accumulates naturally during the ripening/softening of the fruit (Bicsak et al., 1982; Longhurst et al., 1990), being most abundant late in ripening. Associated with the increase in enzyme is an increase in abundance of its mRNA (Chen and Chase, 1993; Longhurst et al., 1994). The mechanism for these increases is as yet unclear. It has been speculated (Longhurst et al., 1990) that changes in cytoplasmic pH accompanying changes in cytoplasmic ion concentrations (Vickery and Bruinsma, 1973), which result from membrane leakage in the softening fruit, might be responsible. Another suggested mechanism (Longhurst et al., 1994) is enhanced transcription of theAdh 2 gene in response to a slight lowering of internal O2 concentrations, again as a consequence of the softening process. Analysis of ADH activity levels in firm-fruit varieties (cvs Sunny and Floradade) and soft-fruit varieties (cvs 83G38, Momotaro, and Castlemart) has suggested a loose connection between fruit softness and ADH activity (Longhurst et al., 1990). If fruit softness affects ADH activity, which, as shown here, influences the natural balances of flavor-associated aldehydes and alcohols in the ripening fruit, then a correlation between fruit firmness and flavor development can be postulated.

Modification in Flavor

In a preliminary taste trial, fruit from the C20 T0 high-ADH plant were evaluated by a panel as having significantly enhanced ripe-fruit flavor relative to control fruit (Table V). Despite the preliminary nature of the trial and the small size of the panel, the results are encouraging, particularly in that 10 of the 11 panelists selected the C20 fruit. The C20 fruit also tended to have a lower intensity of the green-fruit attribute and a higher intensity of the sweetness attribute, but these trends were not statistically significant. The C13 T0 high-ADH fruit and the C23 T0 low-ADH fruit did not appear to differ in flavor characteristics from control fruit. Both the C20 and C13 fruit had increased levels of ADH activity relative to control fruit, approximately 2.0 and 3.4 times, respectively. However, the resulting increase in levels of the 6-C alcohols, hexanol andZ-3-hexenol, was greater in the C20 fruit than in the C13 fruit. As discussed above, this may be attributable to enhanced ADH levels being constitutive and maintained throughout the development of the C20 fruit, while being limited to the ripening fruit in the C13 plant. However, because the bulk of the pathway from free fatty acids to the 6-C aldehydes and alcohols occurs only in macerated tissue, the reason for the difference is not clear.

The improved flavor characteristics of the C20 fruit, therefore, appear to be related to increased levels of the alcohols, particularly theZ-3-hexenol, because hexanol is a weak odorant not considered important for flavor (Buttery et al., 1987). Kazeniac and Hall (1970) underlined the importance of the aldehydes to the fresh tomato flavor and suggested that reduction of the aldehydes allowed the contribution of the alcohols to predominate and resulted in development of a “processed” or “enzymic” flavor. In contrast, our findings stress the importance of the alcohols and suggest that a balance between aldehydes and alcohols is essential to the development of the ripe-fruit flavor.

All the fruit compared in the taste trial were equally ripe, between Br+7 and Br+9. Although the ripening process in tomato fruit is generally coordinated, such features as color and flavor development can be uncoupled, e.g. by genetic manipulation and in a variety of mutants (compare with Tucker, 1993). It is possible, therefore, that increasing the ADH level in the transgenic fruit enhanced the rate of flavor development rather than the overall extent of flavor development. Although we consider this unlikely it would still be beneficial because it would impart a richer flavor to less-ripe fruit, thus improving their consumer acceptability.

Wang et al. (1996) have reported the introduction of a functional yeast Δ–9 desaturase gene into tomato. The introduced gene affected unsaturation of fatty acids in the fruit, which resulted in increased abundances of several of the volatiles discussed above. In fruit from one transgenic plant, hexanal and Z-3-hexenal concentrations were 2.7- and 2-fold higher, respectively, than levels in control fruit, whereas hexanol and Z-3-hexenol concentrations were both increased about 4-fold relative to controls.

The increasing ability to modify individual stages of this important pathway greatly increases the prospects for improving the flavor characteristics of tomato and possibly other fruits.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to Dr. Richard Gawel, University of Adelaide, for conducting the taste trial, to Dr. Rachel Drake for advice on analysis of transformants, and to Sue Maffei for helping to establish the system for volatile analyses. We would also like to thank the Australian Horticultural Research and Development Corporation for financial support.

Footnotes

  • ↵1 This work was supported by a grant from the Australian Horticultural Research and Development Corporation.

  • ↵* Corresponding author; e-mail j.speirs{at}pi.csiro.au; fax 61–8–8303–8601.

Abbreviations:

AC
Ailsa Craig
ADH
alcohol dehydrogenase
Br
breaker
CaMV
cauliflower mosaic virus
PG
polygalacturonase
SPME
solid-phase microextraction
  • Received December 8, 1997.
  • Accepted April 7, 1998.

LITERATURE  CITED

  1. ↵
    1. Baldwin EA,
    2. Nisperos-Carriedo MO,
    3. Moshonas MG
    (1991) Quantitative analysis of flavour and other volatiles and for certain constituents of two tomato cultivars during ripening. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 116:265–269.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Bevan MW
    (1984) Binary Agrobacterium vectors for plant transformation. Nucleic Acids Res 12:8711–8721.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Bicsak TA,
    2. Kann LR,
    3. Reiter A,
    4. Chase T Jr.
    (1982) Tomato alcohol dehydrogenase: purification and substrate specificity. Arch Biochem Biophys 216:605–615.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Bird CR,
    2. Smith CJS,
    3. Ray JA,
    4. Moureau P,
    5. Bevan MJ,
    6. Bird AS,
    7. Hughes S,
    8. Morris PC,
    9. Grierson D,
    10. Schuch W
    (1988) The tomato polygalacturonase gene and ripening specific expression in transgenic plants. Plant Mol Biol 11:651–662.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    Bittenbender HC, Kelly JF (1988) Improving the nutritional quality of vegtables through plant breeding. In E Karmas, RS Harris, eds, Nutritional Evaluation of Food Processing, Ed 3. Wiley, New York, pp 659–686
  6. ↵
    1. Buttery RG,
    2. Seifert RM,
    3. Guardagni DG,
    4. Ling LC
    (1971) Characterization of additional volatile components of tomato. J Agric Food Chem 19:524–529.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Teranishi R,
    2. Buttery RG,
    3. Shahidi F
    1. Buttery RG,
    2. Teranishi R,
    3. Flath RA,
    4. Ling LC
    (1989) Fresh tomato volatiles. in Flavour Chemistry: Trends and Developments. ACS Symposium Series 338. eds Teranishi R, Buttery RG, Shahidi F (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC), pp 213–222.
  8. ↵
    1. Buttery RG,
    2. Teranishi R,
    3. Ling LC
    (1987) Fresh tomato aroma volatiles: a quantitative study. J Agric Food Chem 35:540–544.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Buttery RG,
    2. Teranishi R,
    3. Ling LC,
    4. Flath RA,
    5. Stern DJ
    (1988) Quantitative studies on origins of fresh tomato volatiles. J Agric Food Chem 36:1247–1250.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Caperle M,
    2. Maiani G,
    3. Azzini E,
    4. Conti EMS,
    5. Raguzzini A,
    6. Ramazzotti V,
    7. Crespi M
    (1996) Dietary profiles and anti-oxidants in a rural population of central Italy with a low frequency of cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev 5:197–206.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Chen A-RS,
    2. Chase T Jr.
    (1993) Alcohol dehydrogenase 2 and pyruvate decarboxylase induction in ripening and hypoxic tomato fruit. Plant Physiol Biochem 31:875–885.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Clinton SK,
    2. Emenhiser C,
    3. Schwartz SJ,
    4. Bostwick DG,
    5. Williams AW,
    6. Moore BJ,
    7. Erdman JW
    (1996) Cis-trans lycopene isomers, carotenoids, and retinol in the human prostate. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 5:823–833.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  13. ↵
    1. Dirinck P,
    2. Schreyen L,
    3. van Wassenhove F,
    4. Schamp N
    (1976) Flavour quality of tomatoes. J Sci Food Agric 27:499–508.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Eriksson CE
    (1968) Alcohol: NAD oxidoreductase (E.C.1.1.1.1.) from peas. J Food Sci 33:525–532.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Frisch DA,
    2. Harris-Haller LW,
    3. Yokubaitis NT,
    4. Thomas TL,
    5. Hardin SH,
    6. Hall TC
    (1995) Complete sequence of the binary vector Bin 19. Plant Mol Biol 27:405–409.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Galliard T,
    2. Matthew JA,
    3. Wright AJ,
    4. Fishwick MJ
    (1977) The enzymatic breakdown of lipids to volatile and non-volatile carbonyl fragments in disrupted tomato fruits. J Sci Food Agric 28:863–868.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Hatanaka A,
    2. Kajiwara T,
    3. Matsui K,
    4. Kitamura A
    (1992) Expression of lipoxygenase and hydroperoxide lyase activities in tomato fruits. Z Naturforsch 47c:369–374.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Parliament TH,
    2. Croteau R
    1. Hatanaka A,
    2. Kajiwara T,
    3. Sekiya J
    (1986) Fatty acid hyperoxide lyase in plant tissues: volatile aldehyde formation from linoleic and linolenic acid. in Biogeneration of Aroma. ACS Symposium Series 317. eds Parliament TH, Croteau R (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC), pp 167–175.
  19. ↵
    1. Hoffman G
    (1962) 1-Octen-3-ol and its relation to the oxidative cleavage products from esters of linoleic acid. J Am Oil Chem Soc 39:439–444.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Jorgensen R
    (1990) Altered gene expression in plants due to trans interaction between homologous genes. Trends Biotechnol 8:340–344.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Kazeniac SJ,
    2. Hall RM
    (1970) Flavour chemistry of tomato volatiles. J Food Sci 35:519–530.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Leblová S,
    2. Mancal P
    (1975) Characterization of plant alcohol dehydrogenase. Physiol Plant 34:246–249.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Levy J,
    2. Bosin E,
    3. Feldman B,
    4. Giat Y,
    5. Miinster A,
    6. Danilenko M,
    7. Sharoni Y
    (1995) Lycopene is a more potent inhibitor of human cancer cell proliferation than either alpha-carotene or beta-carotene. Nutr Cancer 24:257–266.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Linforth RST,
    2. Savary I,
    3. Pattenden B,
    4. Taylor AJ
    (1994) Volatile compounds found in expired air during eating of fresh tomatoes and in the headspace above tomatoes. J Sci Food Agric 65:241–247.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Longhurst T,
    2. Lee L,
    3. Hinde R,
    4. Brady C,
    5. Speirs J
    (1994) Structure of the tomato Adh 2 gene and Adh 2 pseudogenes, and a study of Adh 2 gene expression in fruit. Plant Mol Biol 26:1073–1084.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Longhurst TJ,
    2. Tung HF,
    3. Brady CJ
    (1990) Developmental regulation of the expression of alcohol dehydrogenase in ripening tomato fruits. J Food Biochem 14:421–433.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. McGlasson WB,
    2. Last JH,
    3. Shaw KJ,
    4. Meldrum SK
    (1987) Influence of the non-ripening mutants rin and nor on the aroma of tomato fruit. HortScience 22:632–634.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Nicholass FJ,
    2. Smith CJS,
    3. Schuch W,
    4. Bird CR,
    5. Grierson D
    (1995) High levels of ripening-specific reporter gene expression directed by tomato fruit polygalacturonase gene-flanking regions. Plant Mol Biol 28:423–435.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Potty VH,
    2. Bruemmer JH
    (1970) Oxidation of geraniol by an enzyme system from orange. Phytochemistry 9:1001–1007.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Sieso V,
    2. Nicolas M,
    3. Seck S,
    4. Crouzet J
    (1976) Constituants volatils de la tomate: mise en evidence et formation par voie enzymatique du trans-hexene-2-ol. Agric Biol Chem 40:2349–2353.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Skillings JH,
    2. Mack GA
    (1981) On the use of a Friedman-type statistic in balanced and unbalanced block designs. Technometrics 23:171–177.
  32. ↵
    1. Smith CJS,
    2. Watson CF,
    3. Ray J,
    4. Bird CR,
    5. Morris PC,
    6. Schuch W,
    7. Grierson D
    (1988) Antisense RNA inhibition of polygalacturonase gene expression in transgenic tomatoes. Nature 334:724–726.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    1. Tanksley SD
    (1979) Linkage, chromosomal association and expression of Adh-1 and Pgm-2 in tomato. Biochem Genet 17:1159–1167.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Thomas MR,
    2. Matsumoto S,
    3. Cain P,
    4. Scott NS
    (1993) Repetitive DNA of grape wine: classes present and sequences suitable for cultivar identification. Theor Appl Genet 86:173–180.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Seymour GB,
    2. Taylor JE,
    3. Tucker GA
    1. Tucker GA
    (1993) Introduction. in Biochemistry of Fruit Ripening. eds Seymour GB, Taylor JE, Tucker GA (Chapman & Hall, New York), pp 1–51.
  36. ↵
    1. Vickery RS,
    2. Bruinsma J
    (1973) Compartments and permeability for potassium in developing fruits of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). J Exp Bot 24:1261–1270.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Wang C,
    2. Chin C-K,
    3. Ho C-T,
    4. Hwang C-F,
    5. Polashock JJ,
    6. Martin CE
    (1996) Changes in fatty acids and fatty acid-derived flavour compounds by expressing the yeast Δ–9 desaturase gene in tomato. J Agric Food Chem 44:3399–3402.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Yamashita I,
    2. Iino K,
    3. Yoshikawa S
    (1978) Alcohol dehydrogenases from strawberry seeds. Agric Biol Chem 42:1125–1132.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Yu MH,
    2. Salunkhe DK,
    3. Olsen LE
    (1968) Production of 3-methyl-butanal from L-leucine by tomato extracts. Plant Cell Physiol 9:633–638.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

Table of Contents

Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Plant Physiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Genetic Manipulation of Alcohol Dehydrogenase Levels in Ripening Tomato Fruit Affects the Balance of Some Flavor Aldehydes and Alcohols
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Plant Physiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Plant Physiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Genetic Manipulation of Alcohol Dehydrogenase Levels in Ripening Tomato Fruit Affects the Balance of Some Flavor Aldehydes and Alcohols
Jim Speirs, Elizabeth Lee, Karen Holt, Kim Yong-Duk, Nigel Steele Scott, Brian Loveys, Wolfgang Schuch
Plant Physiology Jul 1998, 117 (3) 1047-1058; DOI: 10.1104/pp.117.3.1047

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Genetic Manipulation of Alcohol Dehydrogenase Levels in Ripening Tomato Fruit Affects the Balance of Some Flavor Aldehydes and Alcohols
Jim Speirs, Elizabeth Lee, Karen Holt, Kim Yong-Duk, Nigel Steele Scott, Brian Loveys, Wolfgang Schuch
Plant Physiology Jul 1998, 117 (3) 1047-1058; DOI: 10.1104/pp.117.3.1047
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • Abbreviations:
    • LITERATURE  CITED
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

In this issue

Plant Physiology: 117 (3)
Plant Physiology
Vol. 117, Issue 3
Jul 1998
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View this article with LENS

More in this TOC Section

  • RNA Polymerase Subunits Encoded by the Plastid rpoGenes Are Not Shared with the Nucleus-Encoded Plastid Enzyme
  • Decreased GA1 Content Caused by the Overexpression ofOSH1 Is Accompanied by Suppression of GA 20-Oxidase Gene Expression
  • Developmental and Light Regulation of Desacetoxyvindoline 4-Hydroxylase in Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don.
Show more GENE REGULATION AND MOLECULAR GENETICS

Similar Articles

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Plant Physiology Preview
  • Archive
  • Focus Collections
  • Classic Collections
  • The Plant Cell
  • Plant Direct
  • Plantae
  • ASPB

For Authors

  • Instructions
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Editorial Board and Staff
  • Policies
  • Recognizing our Authors

For Reviewers

  • Instructions
  • Journal Miles
  • Policies

Other Services

  • Permissions
  • Librarian resources
  • Advertise in our journals
  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2021 by The American Society of Plant Biologists

Powered by HighWire