Tomatoes could be engineered to be sweeter without sacrificing their size, research suggests.
Experts said that most consumers prefer sweeter tomatoes and higher sugar content increases the value of the tomato for the tomato processing industry.
However, it can be difficult to achieve both sweetness and size in tomato plants.
But a new study suggests that altering two genes can result in sweeter tomatoes, without their size or yield being compromised.
Chinese researchers compared cultivated and wild tomato species and identified two genes, SlCDPK27 and SlCDPK26, behind sugar accumulation in tomatoes.
Using the gene-editing tool known as Crispr, the scientists knocked out these genes in tomatoes and found that glucose and fructose levels increased by up to 30% in the fruit, without reducing weight or yield from the plants.
Although the gene-edited tomatoes produced fewer and lighter seeds, the seed health and germination rates were only minimally affected, the researchers noted.
Writing in the journal Nature, Sanwen Huang, from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and colleagues, said: “Together, these findings provide insight into the regulatory mechanisms controlling fruit sugar accumulation in tomato and offer opportunities to increase sugar content in large-fruited cultivars without sacrificing size and yield.”
They added that the findings provide a possible solution for improving sugar content without reduction in fruit yield for modern commercial varieties, “which are preferred by both consumers and producers, and Crispr-edited ‘sweetness-promoting’ tomatoes may be available to consumers in the near future”.
According to the researchers, during the domestication of tomatoes, breeders have prioritised fruit size, resulting in fruits that are now 10–100 times larger than their wild ancestor, but this has come at the expense of sweetness.
The scientists also found that the two genes they identified are found in a range of plant species, suggesting that the findings could potentially be applied to other crops.
In an accompanying News and Views article, also published in Nature, Amy Lanctot and Patrick Shih said that the “work represents an exciting step forward in the understanding of resource partitioning in the fruit, and its implications for crop improvement worldwide”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here