Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Visiting Potato from a Breeding Perspective: Accomplishments and Prospects

Written By

Navjot Singh Brar, Sat Pal Sharma and Prashant Kaushik

Submitted: 10 May 2021 Reviewed: 21 May 2021 Published: 14 June 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.98519

From the Edited Volume

Solanum tuberosum

Edited by Mustafa Yildiz and Yasin Ozgen

Chapter metrics overview

718 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Several enhancements to the conventional potato breeding are possible though they have encouragement as well as limitations. I n this direction, the marker-assisted selection may be utilized to stack major genes as well as QTLs. Whereas the genetic transformation and genome editing methods accelerate the process of ricking of genes/transgenes. Moreover, these methodologies supplemented with the next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms and pipelines further aid in reaching the potato ideotype. Here, we overviewed the critical topics that are related to potatoes, from general background, breeding behavior, breeding approaches employed to the potato improvement. Overall, this information complied might serve as background information that is important for potato breeders.


  • Potato
  • varieties
  • heterosis
  • heterosis
  • polyploidy
  • wild relatives

1. Introduction

Potato is among the most important food staples that rank overall fourth after cereals (maize, wheat and rice), belonging to one of the largest genus Solanum (over 1500 species) of family Solanaceae [1, 2]. Solanaceae family comprises of about 90 genera consisting of 3000–4000 species. Potato offers a considerable component of the world’s food source. From unknown until the sixteenth century in the six following centuries, potato cultivation had spread from its centre of origin, in South America into the rest of the world [3, 4]. The genetic diversity is harboured in wild relatives and landraces considered to be valuable sources of deviation for genetic enhancement and crop improvement because the genetic foundation of the modern cultivated potato is quite narrow [5]. At present, the collected developed to guarantee the long-term upkeep of potato hereditary resources and reaffirms the benefits of potato genetic resources [3]. Collaboration between potato researchers and gene bank curators promotes the utilization of the genetic resources [6].

Moreover, there are over 5000 cultivar varieties of potato-based on its size, color, shape, texture, flavor, taste, storage quality and cooking quality [7]. These varieties are differing in physiochemical properties (carotenoids and ascorbic acid content) because of the location, agronomy practices, climatic and degree of stress conditions of that area [8, 9]. The potato crop is affordable (the poorest and most undernourished households can afford), high in quality nutrients (potential high food security crop), matures rapidly (4–6 months), need moderate care (irrigation at an interval of 6–7 days), easy to cook, protect itself against microbes (impermeable to gases, water and chemicals), feed entire populations from hunger (high food security crop), easy to digest (quick breakdown with high glycemic index), used for some byproducts production (starch and alcohol) and also consumed by the animal as fodder [10]. Potato has high dietary fibers, magnesium, manganese, potassium, phosphorus, amino acids, proteins, carbohydrates, minerals, moisture, starch content, vitamins (Vit-C, B6) as well as other antioxidants like polyphenols and carotenoids and low in fats [11, 12].

Worldwide, economic losses occur in potato because of diseases like late blight although these diseases are controlled by regular application of fungicides [13, 14]. Recent improvement in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has resulted in a major reduction in the sequencing costs that makes genotyping with NGS systems cheaper and achievable [15]. Massive genotyping of the gene bank collections as well as posting the info will be a strategy to show the prospective utilization of germplasm collections in gene banks. Some gene banks have started distribution of germplasm collections together with all the genotyping information by NGS datasets [16]. NGS technologies are particularly helpful in the taxonomy that depends considerably on the herbarium specimen conceived from wild plants from the wild [17]. In this review, we have gathered the information from the general background, breeding behaviour, conventional breeding, genetic engineering to NGS methodologies employed to the potato improvement. This information is going to be a useful resource for potato breeders, offering information about the development made and prospects of reading a potato ideotype.


2. Taxonomy

S. tuberosum further diverges into two subspecies:

  1. andigena: It is a diploid grown mainly in the Central and South American regions and is adapted to short day conditions.

  2. tuberosum: It is a tetraploid potato with worldwide cultivation [18, 19, 20]. A general belief is that the subspecies tuberosum has descended from subspecies andigena introduced to Europe that later adapted to longer day lengths [21].

The section Petota is splits in to 8 cultivated and 228 wild species of potato, which are further grouped into 21 taxonomic series (19 tuber bearing+2 non-tuberous) [22]. Out of the cultivated species, only S. tuberosum ssp. tuberosum is extensively cultivated all around the globe, while others are cultivated especially in the Andean nations.

Sr NoSolanum speciesChromosome numberPloidy level
1Solanum ajanhuiri
Solanum goniocalyx
Solanum phureja
Solanum stenotomum
2n = 2x = 24Diploid
2Solanum chaucha
Solanum juzepczukii
2n = 3x = 36Triploid
3Solanum tuberosum ssp. tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena
2n = 4x = 48Tetraploid
4Solanum curtilobum2n = 5x = 60Pentaploid


3. Origin and evolution

Series tuberosa (containing S. tuberosum) and other series of subsection potatoe have two centres of diversity. One is a long-stretching Andean terrain in Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela, while the other is in central Mexico [18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. This theory is based on the fact that the plants originally introduced into Europe were late flowering and tuberising, and the morphological description [32]. Such transition can take place in a fairly short period of approximately ten years of selection [33]. An alternative school of thought is that, after the potato blight epidemic in Europe, new germplasm of S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum, which originated from Chile was introduced into Europe [18].

Hawkes [18] and Grun [34] opined that the cultigenic species S. stenotomum is the most primitive and progenitor of all other cultivated material. S. leptophyes Bitt. has been theorized as the probable progenitor of S. stenotomum based on morphological similarity [18]. The first cultivated material of S. stenotomum, has also been considered to be domesticated from S. brevicaule complex genepool [25, 34, 35, 36, 37]. With advent of molecular techniques seven different chloroplast haplotypes were distinguished in a selection of wild and cultivated species [38]. Kardolus et al. [39] revealed that S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum forms a cluster with S. multidissectum and S. canasense in the Brevicaule complex. S. tuberosum is believed to be a straight tetraploid of S. stenotomum by some workers but some evidence strongly support the allotetraploid origin of S. tuberosum [40]. As per another report the cultivated species are in the same clade as the northern Brevicaule clade that consists of S. bukasovii, S. ambosinum, S. canasense, S. leptophyes, S. achacachense Card. and S. multidissectum [41]. Multiple origin from S. stenotomum is believed to be cause of rising of initial populations of S. tuberosum subsp. andigena [42].

To summarize, first diploid cultivated material (S. stenotomum) has probably descended from one of the species in the Brevicaule complex. Sexual polyploidization, accompanied by hybridization and human selection led to the development of tetraploid landraces (S. tuberosum subsp. andigenum). However, there is an absence of sufficient molecular data to point out a particular wild ancestral species.


4. Domestication of potato

Spanish conquerors introduced potato into the European countries by the 16th century [18, 43, 44, 45, 46]. There are two competing theories about the nature of the first material to be introduced into Europe. Grun [34] and Hawkes [18] suggested the very first potato material brought to Europe consisted of S. tuberosum subsp. andigena from the Andes, quite probably from Colombia. The late blight epidemic in Europe during the 1840s led to the destruction of most of the original stock of potato. In the post epidemic period, new introductions consisted mainly of S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum. Whereas Juzepczuk and Bukasov [47] were of the opinion that the subsp. tuberosum germplasm from Chile was already a part of early introductions in Europe, as morphology and growing conditions of early European plants and Chilean material bore similarities. Chilean potatoes were suitable for growing in Europe as they were adapted for tuberization under long-day conditions. DNA analysis of the historical herbarium specimens suggested that although Andean potato arrived first but Chilean potato was present long before late blight epidemics in Europe [44].

Introduction of potato to the Bengal floodplains, Nile delta, Morocco and Nigeria was made by European colonizers, colonial governors, missionaries [48, 49]. Emigrant farmers carried the potato to Australia and South America that led to the establishment of the potato in Argentina and Brazil. The tuber spread was along the old Asian routes through the Caucasus to Turkey, and from Russian federation to western China [31].

During the 20th century, potato emerged as a truly global food. After the Second World War, the potato was grown on a huge span of arable land in Germany and Britain, and potato has surpassed cereal production in Belarus and Poland. Since 1960s, cultivation of potato has been expanding in the ever-developing world [50, 51], it is grown as a cash crop in Bangladesh.


5. Floral biology

Potato inflorescence is terminal comprising 1–30 (but usually 7–15) flowers, depending on the type of cultivar [52, 53, 54, 55]. The inflorescence is cymose, and flowers are actinomorphic and hypogynous. Arrangement of floral parts is regular. Five petal arrangement of the flower gives it a star shape [56]. Depending upon the cultivar, shape and size of lobes of sepals vary. The androecium comprises of five stamens alternating with the petals. The anthers collectively form a cone shaped structure to conceal the ovary [55]. Anthers are bright yellow or orange coloured except in case of male sterile plants in which the colour of anthers is light yellow or yellow green [57]. The ovary is superior and bilocular with ovules arranged at the periphery of the placenta.

Details of the S. tuberosum inflorescence are given below:

InflorescenceSolitoryor cymose
FlowerBisexual, actinomorphic
CalyxSepals five, united, persistent valvate aestivation
CorollaPetals five, united, velvate aestivation
AndroeciumStamens five, epipetalous
GynoeciumBicarpellary syncarpoes, ovary superior bilocular, placenta with many vacuoles
FruitsBerry or capsule
SeedsMany, endospermous

Colour of the corolla varies from white to complex range of blue, red, and purple [53]. Opening of flowers start near the base of the inflorescence and proceed upward at the rate of about 2–3 flowers each day [54]. Long day length accompanied by high humidity and low temperature are conducive for potato flowering [57, 58]. Flower production and berry setting is favoured by 12–14-hour photoperiod and night temperature of 12-15°C [59, 60]. Short day duration at the time of flowering may result in abscission of floral bud [58]. Flower and fruit production in potato is influenced by several factors such as genotype, temperature, photoperiod, inflorescence position, plant/stem density, competition between flower and tuber, precipitation, date of planting and nutrient level [61, 62, 63, 64, 65]. Flowers remain open for 2–4 days, and out of this duration, pollen production and stigma remains receptive for about 2 days [57]. The fruit type is a berry, and are spherical to ovoid in shape, about 14 cm in diameter. Berries are green in colour or green-tinged, and upon ripening bear white or purple spots or bands [53, 66].

Floral bud abscission occurs in case of short days at the time of flowering, hence giving the impression of poor flowering of a cultivar [58]. Thus, conditions favourable for flowering and fruiting in tropics and subtropics can be found at higher altitudes (1500 m above sea level) [67]. Characteristics like days to flowering, flowering duration, the intensity of flowering and fruit set have wide genetic diversity [60]. A survey on flowering behaviour, male sterility and berry set was conducted across 25 countries by Gopal [67]. Flowering initiated after 6–15 weeks of planting and duration of flowering ranged from 1 to 10 weeks. The setting of berries ranged from 0 to more than 5 berries/plant, while there no setting in 31.8% of accessions in blooming. Production of flowers and fruits is influenced by several factors like temperature, photoperiod, genotype, inflorescence position, plant/stem density, flower and tuber competition, precipitation, date of planting and nutrient level [61, 62, 63, 64, 65]. The number of primary flowers increased with increase in plant density while the proportion of flowers on lateral stems reduced [62].


6. Pollination

Potato is predominantly a self-pollinated plant and is occasionally cross-pollinated [54, 56]. Generally, diploid wild species are insect-pollinated and cross-breeding in nature. Presence of insects is imperative in facilitating cross-breeding and selfing in potato. Bumblebee species like Bombus terricola and B. impatiens are particularly good pollinators for potatoes [68, 69]. European honey bee (Apis mellifera) and B. fervidus do not contribute to the pollination of potato, as the flowers are devoid of nectar [70]. Despite the lack of pollinator resources provided by the crop, a great diversity of bees was recorded in a potato-dominated agroecosystem [71]. Wind does not play any role in the pollination of potato, and no seed set was observed [68]. There are no detailed studies of pollination behavior of potato in India. Controlled pollination can be achieved under field or greenhouse. However, crosses made under the field conditions are prone to losses from the environmental factors like wind, rain, heat and drought. Therefore, breeders prefer crossing in the greenhouse. The crossing should preferably be done during the early morning hours when the temperature is moderate [54].


7. Wild relatives of potato

Comprehensive taxonomic treatment by Hawkes [18] found there are 235 potato species in total, 228 outdoors and 7 cultivated potato species. Various studies, implementing advanced molecular resources with a considerable amount of samples covering a broad range of species have advised that a reconsideration of the taxonomic classification is necessary [72]. As previously, potato species are hugely sophisticated in taxonomic classification. A broad area of distribution, together with an extensive selection of altitudinal division, from sea level up to 4500 MSL, indicates a broad range of adaptation this has resulted in the huge diversity and adaptations in the potatoes [73].

Genetic diversity of the germplasm and usefulness has been the drive to incorporate wild genes into cultivated types. The achievements of the application of wild relatives for genetic improvement relies a great deal on crossability with developed species. The gene pool is essentially the most often used concept determining the level of relatedness between species [74]. Though the genepool concept has been generally accepted, efforts to utilize the genepool concept to the potato was also presented [75]. Manipulation methods to alter the ploidy level in potato have been discovered. Even important genes from the tertiary genepool could be unveiled using bridge species in the crossing, embryo rescue, and somatic hybridization [76]. Currently, potato genetic materials are preserved in gene banks around the planet and therefore, are offered for potato breeders as well as researchers [77]. Cultivated potatoes are conserved primarily as clonal collections, like a tuber, in vitro and cryopreservation; on the flip side, wild potato species are primarily gathered up and also retained in the type of botanical seeds [78, 79].


8. Fertility issues in potato breeding

Potato is propagated sexually by seeds and asexually by tubers [80]. Most of Solanum species are diploid in nature with obligate allogamy (cross-pollination) which is result of multi-allelic gametophytic self-incompatibility (S) locus, thus preventing self-fertilization among Solanum species. In contrast to this, tetraploid cultivated potato (Solanum tuberosum ssp. tuberosum L.) [81]. However, their highly heterozygous nature (interlocus and intralocus) with tetrasomic inheritance pose difficulty in genetic complexity and challenge in potato breeding, and this is further aggravated by, high genetic load due to accumulation of deleterious alleles as a result of its vegetative propagation. Severe inbreeding depression is anticipated upon selfing, which results in the reduction of seedling germination and many reproductive complexities like reduction in flowering [57].

Conventionally potato varieties are developed through hybridization and selection, with a huge investment of time and resources because of its complex multi-locus inheritance and tetraploid genome. Successful hybridization programme between different potato populations have to deal with many barriers like pre-zygotic barriers including pollen and pistil incompatibility and post-zygotic barriers like embryo and endosperm abortion, sterility and hybrid breakdown in segregating generations [82], that leads to the hindering of the breeding programmes [60]. In male-sterile plants, flowers do not produce functional anthers or viable pollen, but the ovaries usually function [57]. The failure to produce pollen may be an inherent characteristic with sterility being dominant over fertility [83]. Even after successful fertilization by overcoming these issues, development of seeds requires proper endosperm development.

Male sterility is the result of nuclear cytoplasm interactions; the predominant Ms. gene interacts with the cytoplasm, for instance, the diploid hybrids between S. tuberosum Group Tuberosum haploids × Group Phureja yield all or perhaps nearly all-male sterile progeny [84]. The occurrence of male sterility typically leads to issues for potato breeders, as the option of parental lines can limit the introgression of characteristics [85]. The frequency of male fertile offspring in a hybrid between the group Tuberosum and Phureja are different because of their different ploidy levels [86, 87, 88].

In the last couple of years, a pattern emerged in a group of potato breeders to reconsider the pick as a diploid species constructed from a compilation of inbred lines that capture the favourable genetic diversity accessible in cultivated and wild potatoes [89]. Inbreeding due to selfing might be useful for organizing the entire gene pool into different favourably interacting and healthy epistatic systems. Whatever the nature of its, self-compatible 2x cultivars will offer an even more appealing self-compatible source than S. chacoense since they will avoid the undesirable linkage drag regarding the usage of an untamed species within the development of 2x inbred lines. Loss of S-RNase functionality is a standard route to self-compatibility [90].


9. Unilateral compatibility

The endosperm balance number (EBN) seems to be very likely that a mechanism related to a loss of protein functionality results in the formation of 2n gametes. Although it is not complete, the consistency of the self-incompatible self-compatible rule indicates a link between inter- and intraspecific pollen rejection [91, 92]. The EBN concept was helpful to elucidate the nature of the pollinator result in haploid removal. The triploid block is a reproductive screen resulting from endosperm malfunction due to the epigenetic event of genomic imprinting. Evidence implies that the endosperm dosage devices are imprinted within the gametes; therefore, the similar gene being functionally different in paternal and maternal chromosomes [93].

Spooner et al. [22] proposed a concept particularly for the Potato, implementing 5 crossability groups based on self-compatible/self-incompatible systems and endosperm balance number (EBN). The main genepool of potato contains S. tuberosum ssp. tuberosum with all cultivars and landraces. All the cultivated potatoes are tetraploid (2n = 4x = forty eight) with 4EBN. Potato has a vast secondary gene pool comprising of related wild species that gives a rich, distinctive, and different supply of hereditary variation. The EBN is a unit identifying the realizations of interspecific crosses [94]. Hybridization within every group is anticipated to achieve success rather than hybridization across groups, and therefore the executions of hybridization may be predicted. Whereas the genepool principle, as well as the EBN model, provides assistance in the utilization of wild genetic resources, additionally, they provide insight into phylogenetic connection and also taxonomy. Nevertheless, species crossability are always crucial to offer concrete evidence. Potato researchers have developed strategies to conquer the hybridization screen to transfer genes from wild species of the secondary and even tertiary genepool [95].

Haploids exhibited disomic inheritance, that implies that every chromosome combined with its homolog, thus giving means for simplifying genetic research in potato. They can furthermore be well utilized for research on natural mutation and chromosome pairing accumulated at the tetraploid fitness level. In this direction, the reason behind the generation of haploids was acquiring a genetic bridge between the different genomes of Solanum species [96]. Haploids from tetraploids usually don’t flower and can also be male sterile because of inbreeding throughout the tasks of haploidization [97]. Selection of haploids can result in diploid breeding lines; additionally, a particular kind of haploids are accustomed for understanding the segregation of characteristics at the tetraploid level if numerous haploids are made of a single tetraploid genotype [98]. Whereas, tuberization in potato is controlled by day length [99, 100], and plant hormones, such as gibberellin and jasmonic acid also play a crucial role in defining tuberization. Although, specific potato genotype tuberizes under a particular day length condition along with specific physiological requirements that vary from genotype to genotype. In in vitro studies, no particular method of tuberization is found, and it’s regarded as a complex trait. Utilizing the genome sequence [101] as well as info on Ft, it was determined that the potato genomic locus StSP6A, induces movable tuberization signal. The StSP6A signal led to the induction of tuber growth at the stolon termini. They’ve postulated that diverse allelic deviation of this gene is connected with the domestication of potatoes.


10. Breeding behavior of potato: from conventional to new breeding technologies

Potato breeding and improvement is an uphill task owing to its complex genetic structure and multi-allelic gene action arising due to its tetraploid genome [102]. Any breeding programme relies on the objective of the programme, germplasm availability and breeding method/technique. Genetic resources of potato are quite rich as compared to any other cultivated plant consisting of about 190 wild and primitive species [103], resulting in great amount of genetic diversity readily available for exploitation. Its rich variations are also attributed due to its reproductive biology which shows there can be 40% (range 21–74%) natural cross-pollination [104]. Besides this, its tetraploid nature (2n = 4x = 48) having four sets of chromosomes entirely homologous shows random pairing at meiosis [57] further adding to its diversity and genetic variations. This sexual reproduction generates ample amount of diversity by recombining the variants of genes that arose by mutation. As a consequence, potatoes are highly heterozygous individuals that display inbreeding depression on selfing and thus become the major impediment for the exploitation of its heterosis [105, 106].

Despite the broad genetic base, progress in efforts for potato breeding is quite slow, and its genetic gains are not fixable due to the obligatory out-breeding nature. Several conventional, as well as modern breeding techniques, have been utilized for improvement in yield, processing, storage-quality [107] and against biotic stresses [108, 109]. Although conventional breeding approaches like hybridization, clonal selection, irradiation/mutagens and introgression has been successfully employed [57]. But the progress is limited and slower due to demanding tasks of introgression and phenotypic characterization of better performing individuals in successive generations. Apart from this, intraspecific incompatibilities and inbreeding depression lead to failure of trait incorporations in the polyploid crop.

Although conventional breeding has played an important role in potato improvement by developing coloured potatoes and potatoes with improved nutrients [110], but the progress is very slow. In order to overcome these challenges, biotechnological, molecular breeding and genome editing tools, considered as new breeding techniques, have played an important role to facilitate interspecies crosses, and towards augmenting and broadening of the genetic base of gene pool of cultivated material. Biotechnological techniques like in vitro meristem shoot tips culture have been successfully eliminated potato virus Y [111]. This method was crucial and reliable for supplying pathogen-free seed potatoes to farm [112]. Embryo culture technique has been used successfully for improving resistance to potato leafroll virus so as to circumvent interspecific incompatibility [113]. Utilization of somaclonal variation resulting heritable phenotypic changes arise during the cell culture and regeneration of potato tissue culture was reported from leaf protoplasts of ‘Russet Burbank’ cultivar [114] along with improved resistance to pathogens like Phytophthora infestans; Alternaria solani [114, 115] and tuber morphology [116]. The somatic fusion of potato protoplasts with protoplasts of wild relatives has also been extensively exploited for introgression of novel sources of disease and pest resistance [105, 109, 117, 118, 119].

Potato is a model crop in which transgenic or genetic engineering technology has been exploited to the maximum extent, and it is one of the first crops for which transgenic plants were regenerated [120]. Genetic engineering is an important and highly effective tool for incorporating single gene or pyramiding gene into elite potato cultivars with minimal or no disturbances to their genetic background [121]. Numerous transgenic genotypes have been developed for a wide range of traits, including pest and disease resistances; abiotic stress resistance; quality attributes for improved processing, nutrition and appearance etc. Gene silencing is another novel technique which uses RNAi for traits like increased carotenoid content and reducing cold-induced sweetening [122, 123, 124].

Apart from transgenics/genetic engineering techniques, marker-assisted breeding (MAB) has been successfully demonstrated in tetraploid potato [125] for potato cyst nematode resistance trait. Several other examples like resistance to the nematode Globodera rostochiensis, resistance to potato virus X and resistance to potato wart [126] are the success stories of the application of MAB in potato. But the progress in MAB is negligible as compared to other crops due to its complex tetrasomic inheritance and high allelic variation [127]. However, in the current era of genomic breeding, prediction of genomic information is the best method to use for making breeding decisions [128]. Rather than using only significant marker-trait associations to build a prediction version, genomic prediction makes simultaneous usage of all markers [129]. In potato, genomic selection (GS) models are being utilized for predicting the accuracies of prediction models for various traits like for maturity [130], tuber starch content and chipping quality [131], Phytophthora infestans infection, plant maturity, tuber starch yield and tuber yield have been successfully predicted using GS models [132].

For the successful application of genome editing technologies, the first and foremost requirement is the availability of efficient transformation systems. Since potato has excellent availability of genomic resources as well as genome sequence and efficient transformation systems, several workers used various genome editing approaches viz. zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) [133, 134, 135, 136, 137] for improving traits like herbicide resistance, modification of starch, bio-fortification and reducing anti-nutritional factors to enhance overall increased quality of produce. Earlier for targeting traits like insect resistance, proteins, vitamins and carotenoids, transgenic technology was extensively used. Still, due to their off-target, copy number variations and other drawbacks, the trend has been shifted towards these new breeding technologies whereby TALENs and more recently CRISPR/CAS9 genome editing technologies were used for targeting traits like alteration of starch composition or hormonal expressions, reduction of anti-nutritional elements, imparting herbicide resistance, improving starch quality and overcoming self-incompatibility issues.

11. Conclusions and future prospects

The genetic improvement of potato depends on germplasm sources. In the genomics era, germplasm development can be easily performed by incorporating noval alleles from wild species, landraces, cultivated varieties, and even from distantly related species. In corporating the genomics equipment will substantially enhance the effectiveness of introgressing multi genic characteristics. Introgression may be possible through sexual hybridization, or molecular manipulations. In the context of molecular manipulations, different breeding technologies as TALEN and CRISPR/Cas9 are already used to improve the potato ideotype as per the market requirements. Moreover, the potato genome sequence, as well as useful potato hereditary transformation strategies, have hugely facilitated potato genetic engineering. The commercialization of these engineered goods is challenging because of regulatory/ethical restrictions and consumer preferences.

Breeding objectives like bio-fortification, as well as the removal of anti-nutritional factors like steroidal glycoalkaloids as already achieved. Additionally, incorporation of abiotic (environmental, salinity, drought, temperature) anxiety resistance that comes with improved nutrition can facilitate potato to acclimatize in varied agro-ecological zones, therefore impeding food shortage in less fertile/water deficit farming lands. Further expansion of food studies can establish several preliminary values to rationalize the health advantages of potato derived foods. Indeed, the potato genome sequence has facilitated the relative genomic analyses to determine the genes helpful for improving several agronomically significant characteristics as tuberization, damage of bitterness, along with ailments opposition. Whereas, the studies concentrating on food safety and protection can offer considerable means to meet up the soaring food demands, particularly in the food-deficit countries. The rapid advancement of growing genetic engineering has supplied brand new exciting resources to produce crops with nutritional traits and enhanced yield. In this particular context, potato harvest has potential that is enormous to help with food security as it can offer inexpensive, energy food that is high at a sustainable basis.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


This research received no external funding.


  1. 1. FAO . [Internet]. 2019.
  2. 2. Myers, N. A Wealth Of Wild Species. New York: Routledge, 2019,
  3. 3. Machida-Hirano, R.; Niino, T. Potato genetic resources. In The Potato Genome; Springer, 2017; pp. 11-30.
  4. 4. Christenhusz, M.J.; Fay, M.F.; Chase, M.W. Plants of the World: an illustrated encyclopedia of vascular plants; University of Chicago Press, 2017; 816 pp.
  5. 5. Bhandari, H.R.; Bhanu, A.N.; Srivastava, K.; Singh, M.N.; Shreya, H.A. Assessment of genetic diversity in crop plants-an overview. Adv. Pl. Agric. Res. 2017, 7, 00255.
  6. 6. Halewood, M.; Chiurugwi, T.; Sackville Hamilton, R.; Kurtz, B.; Marden, E.; Welch, E.; Michiels, F.; Mozafari, J.; Sabran, M.; Patron, N. Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: opportunities and challenges emerging from the science and information technology revolution. New Phytol. 2018, 217, 1407-1419.
  7. 7. Singh, J.; Kaur, L. Advances in potato chemistry and technology; Academic press, 2016; 732 pp.
  8. 8. Saini, R.K.; Keum, Y.-S. Significance of genetic, environmental, and pre-and postharvest factors affecting carotenoid contents in crops: a review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 5310-5324.
  9. 9. Escuredo, O.; Seijo-Rodríguez, A.; Rodríguez-Flores, M.S.; Meno, L.; Seijo, M.C. Changes in the Morphological Characteristics of Potato Plants Attributed to Seasonal Variability. Agriculture 2020, 10, 95.
  10. 10. Joardder, M.U.; Masud, M.H. Food Preservation in Developing Countries: Challenges and Solutions; Springer, 2019; pp 27-55.
  11. 11. Yadav, V.; Jha, R.; Kaushik, P.; others Biochemical Composition of Potato Biowaste of Popular North Indian Cultivars. Indian Journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics (IJBB) 2021, 58, 100-104.
  12. 12. Brown, C.R.; Haynes, K.G.; Moore, M.; Pavek, M.J.; Hane, D.C.; Love, S.L.; Novy, R.G.; Miller, J.C. Stability and broad-sense heritability of mineral content in potato: iron. Am. J. Pot. Res. 2010, 87, 390-396.
  13. 13. Kirk, W.W.; Felcher, K.J.; Douches, D.S.; Coombs, J.; Stein, J.M.; Baker, K.M.; Hammerschmidt, R. Effect of host plant resistance and reduced rates and frequencies of fungicide application to control potato late blight. Pl. Dis. 2001, 85, 1113-1118.
  14. 14. Tsedaley, B. Late blight of potato (Phytophthora infestans) biology, economic importance and its management approaches. J. Biol. Agric. Healthcare 2014, 4, 215-225.
  15. 15. Zhang, J.; Chiodini, R.; Badr, A.; Zhang, G. The impact of next-generation sequencing on genomics. J. Genet. Genomics 2011, 38, 95-109.
  16. 16. Aksoy, E.; Demirel, U.; ÖZTÜRK, Z.N.; ÇALIŞKAN, S.; ÇALIŞKAN, M.E. Recent advances in potato genomics, transcriptomics, and transgenicsunder drought and heat stresses: A review. Turkish J. Bot. 2015, 39, 920-940.
  17. 17. Castañeda-Álvarez, N.P.; de Haan, S.; Juarez, H.; Khoury, C.K.; Achicanoy, H.A.; Sosa, C.C.; Bernau, V.; Salas, A.; Heider, B.; Simon, R. Ex situ conservation priorities for the wild relatives of potato (Solanum L. section Petota). PloS One 2015, 10(6), e0129873.
  18. 18. Malhi, G.S.; Kaur, M.; Kaushik, P. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1318.
  19. 19. Hanneman Jr., R.E. The testing and release of transgenic potatoes in the North American Center of diversity. In Biosafety of Sustainable Agriculture: Sharing Biotechnology Regulatory Experiences of the Western Hemisphere, Krattiger, A.F.; Rosemarin, A. Eds.; ISAAA, Ithaca and SEI, Stockholm, 1994; pp. 47-67.
  20. 20. OECD. Consensus document on the biology of Solanum tuberosum subsp. tuberosum (potato). Organization for Economic Co–operation and Development, Paris, 1997; pp. 38.
  21. 21. Anonymous. The biology of Solanum tuberosum (potato). Regulation Directive of the plant products Division, Agriculture and Agri–Food Canada. Organization for economic co–operation and development (OECD), 1996, 11, 1-38.
  22. 22. Spooner, D.M.; Ghislain, M.; Simon, R.; Jansky, S.H.; Gavrilenko, T. Systematics, Diversity, Genetics, and Evolution of Wild and Cultivated Potatoes. Bot. Rev. 2014, 80, 283-383.
  23. 23. Graves, C. The potato treasure of the Andes: From agriculture to culture. International Potato Center, 2001; pp 208.
  24. 24. F.A.O. 2008–2008/en/potato/origins.html
  25. 25. Ugent, D. The potato in Mexico: geography and primitive culture. Econ. Bot. 1968, 22, 109-123.
  26. 26. Child, A. A synopsis of Solanum subgenus Potatoe (G. DON) (D'ARCY) (tuberarium) (DUN.) BITTER (s.l.). Feddes Repertorium 1990, 101, 209-235.
  27. 27. Swaminathan, M.; Magoon, M. Origin and cytogenetics of the commercial potato. Adv. Genet. 1961, 10, 217-256.
  28. 28. Hawkes, J.G. Origins of cultivated potatoes and species relationships. In Potato Genetics, Bradshaw J.E.; Mackay G.R. Eds.; CAB International, Wallingford, 1994; pp. 3-42.
  29. 29. Spooner, D.M.; Núñez, J.; Trujillo, G.; Del Rosario Herrera, M.; Guzmán, F.; Ghislain, M. Extensive simple sequence repeat genotyping of potato landraces supports a major reevaluation of their gene pool structure and classification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 19398-19403.
  30. 30. OECD Safety assessment of transgenic organisms. OECD Publishing, 2008; pp 744.
  31. 31. Smith, A.F. Potato: A global history. Reaktion Books, 2012; pp 142.
  32. 32. Howard, H.W. Genetics of the potato. Logos Press, London, 1970;
  33. 33. Simmonds, N.W. Studies of the tetraploid potatoes. III. Progress in the experimental re–creation of the Tuberosum group. J. Linnean Soc. Bot. 1966, 59, 279-288.
  34. 34. Grun, P. The evolution of cultivated potatoes. Econ. Bot. 1990, 44, 39-55.
  35. 35. Correll, D.S. The potato and its wild relatives. Texas Research Foundation, Renner, Texas, 1962; pp. 1-606.
  36. 36. Miller, J.T.; Spooner, D.M. Collapse of species boundaries in the wild potato Solanum brevicaule complex (Solanaceae, S. sect. Petota): molecular data. Pl. Syst. Evol. 1999, 214, 103-130.
  37. 37. van den Berg, R.G.; Miller, J.T.; Ugarte, M.L.; Kardolus, J.P.; Villand, J.; Nienhuis, J.; Spooner, D.M. Collapse of morphological species in the wild potato Solanum brevicaule complex (Solanaceae: sect. Petota). Am. J. Bot. 1998, 85, 92-109.
  38. 38. Hosaka, K. Who it the mother of the potato? Restriction endonuclease analysis of chloroplast DNA of cultivated potatoes. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1986, 72, 606-618.
  39. 39. Kardolus, J.P.; van Eck, H.J.; van den Berg, R.G. The potential of AFLPs in biosystematics: A first application in Solanum taxonomy (Solanaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 1998, 210, 87-103.
  40. 40. Kaushik, P. Precision Vegetable Farming Technologies: An Update; IntechOpen, 2021; ISBN 978-1-83881-922-4.
  41. 41. Spooner, D.M.; McLean, K.; Ramsay, G.; Waugh, R.; Bryan, G. J. 2005a. A single domestication for potato based on mutilocus amplified fragment length polymorphism genotyping. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2005a, 102, 14694-14699.
  42. 42. Sukhotu, T.; Hosaka, K. Origin and evolution of Andigena potatoes revealed by chloroplast and nuclear DNA markers. Genome 2006, 49, 636-647.
  43. 43. Ríos, D.; Ghislain, M.; Rodriguez, F.; Spooner, D.M. What is the origin of the European potato? Evidence from Canary Island landraces. Crop Sci. 2007, 47, 1271-1280.
  44. 44. Ames, M.; Spooner, D.M. DNA from herbarium specimens settles a controversy about origins of the European potato. Am. J. Bot. 2008, 95, 252-257.
  45. 45. Peralta, I.; Spooner, D.; Knapp, S. Taxonomy of wild tomatoes and their relatives (Solanum sect. Lycopersicoides, sect. Juglandifolia, sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae. Syst. Bot. Monogr. 2008, 84, 1-186.
  46. 46. Knapp, S.; Peralta, I. The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and its botanical relatives. In The Tomato Genome; Causse, M., Giovannoni, J., Bouzayen, M., Zouine, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016, pp. 7-21.
  47. 47. Juzepczuk, S.W.; Bukasov, S.M. A contribution to the question of the origin of the potato. Trudy. Vsesoyuzn. Szeda. Genet. Selek. 1929, 3, 593-611.
  48. 48. Laufer, B. The American plant migration. Part I: The potato. Field Museum of Natural History Anthropological Series, 1938, pp. 1-132.
  49. 49. Sauer J.D. Historical Geography of Crop Plants: A Select Roster. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017, 320 p.
  50. 50. I.Y.P. International Year of Potato, 2008–2008/en/potato/diffusion.html
  51. 51. Hijamns, R.J. Global distribution of the potato crop. Am. J. Pot. Res. 2001, 78, 403-412.
  52. 52. Plaisted, R.L. Potato. In: Hybridization of crop plants. Fehr, W.R.; Hadley, H.H., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America, publishers, Madison, Wisconsin, 1980, pp. 483-494.
  53. 53. Spooner, D.M., Knapp, S. K. Solanum stipuloideum Rusby, the correct name for Solanum circaeifolium Bitter. Am. J. Pot. Res. 2013, 90, 301-305.
  54. 54. Acquaah, G. Principles of plant genetics and breeding. Blackwell publishing, Maden, MA, USA, 2007, 758 p
  55. 55. Struik, P.C. The canon of potato science: 40. Physiological age of seed tubers. Pot. Res. 2007, 50, 375-377
  56. 56. Caligari, P.D.S. Breeding new varieties. In: The potato crop: scientific basis for improvement, Harris, P.M. Ed.; Chapman and Hall, London, 1992, 909 pp.
  57. 57. Sleper, D.A.; Poehlman, J.M. Breeding field crops. Blackwell publishing, 2006; pp 424.
  58. 58. Almekinders, C.J.M.; Struik P.C. Shoot development and flowering in potato (Solanum tuberosum L). Pot. Res. 1996, 39, 581-607.
  59. 59. Almekinders, C.J.M. The effect of photoperiod on flowering and TPS production in the warm tropics. Pot. Res. 1992, 35, 433-442.
  60. 60. Gopal, J. Considerations for successful breeding. In: Gopal J, Khurana SMP (eds) Handbook of potato production, improvement and postharvest management, Haworth’s Press, New York, 2006, pp 77-108
  61. 61. Almekinders, C.J.M.; Wiersema, S.G. Flowering and true seed production in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) 1. Effects of inflorescence position, nitrogen treatment and harvest date of berries. Pot. Res. 1991, 34, 365-377.
  62. 62. Almekinders, C.J.M. Flowering and true seed production in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) 2. Effects of stem density and pruning of lateral stems. Pot. Res. 1991, 34, 379-388.
  63. 63. Thijn, G.A. Observations on flower induction with potatoes Euphytica 1954, 3, 28-34
  64. 64. Jauhnl, G. Zur Kenntnis des Bluuhverhaltens der Kartoffel. Verouff. Bundesanst. alp. Landw. Admont. 1954, 9, 40-74.
  65. 65. Saini, I.; Kaushik, P.; Al-Huqail, A.A.; Khan, F.; Siddiqui, M.H. Effect of the Diverse Combinations of Useful Microbes and Chemical Fertilizers on Important Traits of Potato. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 2021, doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.02.070.
  66. 66. Spooner, D.M.; Salas, A. Structure, biosystematics, and genetic resources. In: Handbook of potato production, improvement, and post–harvest management, Gopal, J.; Khurana, S.M.P. Eds.; Haworth’s Press, Binghampton, 2006, pp. 1-39.
  67. 67. Gopal, J. Flowering behaviour, male sterility, and berry setting in tetraploid Solanum tuberosum germplasm. Euphytica 1994, 72, 133-142.
  68. 68. White, J.W. Pollination of potatoes under natural conditions. CIP Circular 1983 11, 1-2.
  69. 69. Batra, S.W.T. Male–fertile potato flowers are selectively buzz–pollinated only by Bombus terricola Kirby in upstate New York. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 1993, 66, 252-254.
  70. 70. Sanford, J.C.; Hanneman, R.E. The use of bees for the purpose of inter–mating in potato. Am. Pot. J. 1981, 58, 481-485.
  71. 71. Buchanan, A.L.; Gibbs, J.; Komondy, L.; Szendrei, Z. Bee community of commercial potato fields in Michigan and Bombus impatiens visitation to neonicotinoid–treated potato plants. Insects 2017, 8, 30.
  72. 72. De Haan, S.; Rodriguez, F. Potato origin and production. In Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology; Elsevier, 2016, pp. 1-32.
  73. 73. Hijmans, R.J. Diversity and ecology of the potato: the use of spatial analysis in crop science; Wageningen University. 2002.
  74. 74. Hunter, D. Crop wild relatives: a manual of in situ conservation; Routledge, 2012; 440 p
  75. 75. Jansky, S.H.; Charkowski, A.O.; Douches, D.S.; Gusmini, G.; Richael, C.; Bethke, P.C.; Spooner, D.M.; Novy, R.G.; De Jong, H.; De Jong, W.S. Reinventing potato as a diploid inbred line–based crop. Crop Science 2016, 56, 1412-1422.
  76. 76. Ortiz, R. Potato breeding via ploidy manipulations. Pl. Breed. Rev. 1998, 16, 15-86.
  77. 77. Jansky, S.H.; Dempewolf, H.; Camadro, E.L.; Simon, R.; Zimnoch-Guzowska, E.; Bisognin, D.A.; Bonierbale, M. A case for crop wild relative preservation and use in potato. Crop Science 2013, 53, 746-754.
  78. 78. Maxted, N.; Ford-Lloyd, B.V.; Hawkes, J.G. Plant genetic conservation: the in situ approach; Springer Netherlands, 2013, 250 pp.
  79. 79. Plucknett, D.L.; Smith, N.J. Gene banks and the world’s food; Princeton University Press, 2014.
  80. 80. Harris, P.M. The Potato Crop. The scientific basis for improvement. Chapman & Hall, London, 1978, 730 pp.
  81. 81. Watanabe, K.N.; Orrillo, M.; Iwanaga, M.; Ortiz, R.; Freyre, R.; Perez, S. Diploid potato germplasm derived from wild and landrace genetic resources. Am. Pot. J. 1994, 71, 599-604.
  82. 82. Camadro, E.L.; Carputo, D.; Peloquin, S.J. Substitutes for genome differentiation in tuber–bearing Solanum: interspecific pollen– pistil incompatibility, nuclear–cytoplasmic male sterility, and endosperm. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2004,109, 1369-1376.
  83. 83. Pushkarnath; Dwivedi, R.S. Potato floral biology series. II. Pollen and pollination. Indian Pot. J. 1961, 3, 76-85.
  84. 84. Muthoni, J.; Shimelis, H.; Melis, R. Genetics and Reproductive Biology of Cultivated Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.): Implications in Breeding. Rep. Biol. Pl. 2014, 164-194
  85. 85. Kempe, K.; Gils, M. Pollination control technologies for hybrid breeding. Molec. Breed. 2011, 27, 417-437.
  86. 86. Jansky, S. Overcoming hybridization barriers in potato. Pl. Breed. 2006, 125, 1-12.
  87. 87. Newbigin, E.; Uyenoyama, M.K. The evolutionary dynamics of self-incompatibility systems. TRENDS Genet. 2005, 21, 500-505.
  88. 88. Zuriaga, E.; Muñoz-Sanz, J.V.; Molina, L.; Gisbert, A.D.; Badenes, M.L.; Romero, C. An S-Locus Independent Pollen Factor Confers Self-Compatibility in ‘Katy’ Apricot. PLOS One 2013, 8, e53947.
  89. 89. Borrelli, G.M.; De Vita, P.; Mastrangelo, A.M.; Cattivelli, L. Integrated views in plant breeding: modern approaches for an old topic. Crop Physiology: Applications for Genetic improvement and Agronomy. Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2009, 327-354.
  90. 90. Bradshaw, J.E. Root and tuber crops; Springer Science & Business Media, 2010, 7, 10.1007/978-0-387-92765-7
  91. 91. Ramawat, K.; Merillon, J.M.; Shivanna, K. Reproductive Biology of Plants. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2014,
  92. 92. Brownfield L, Köhler C. Unreduced gamete formation in plants: mechanisms and prospects. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62(5), 1659-1668. doi:10.1093/jxb/erq37
  93. 93. Rodrigues, J.A.; Zilberman, D. Evolution and function of genomic imprinting in plants. Genes Dev. 2015, 29, 2517-2531.
  94. 94. Machida-Hirano, R. Diversity of potato genetic resources. Breed. Sci. 2015, 65, 26-40.
  95. 95. Vincent, H.; Wiersema, J.; Kell, S.; Fielder, H.; Dobbie, S.; Castaneda Alvarez, N.; Guarino, L.; Eastwood, R.; León, B.; Maxted, N. A prioritized crop wild relative inventory to help underpin global food security. Biol. Conser. 2013, 167, 265-275.
  96. 96. Watanabe, K. Potato genetics, genomics, and applications. Breed. Sci. 2015, 65, 53-68.
  97. 97. Gross, K.; Schiestl, F.P. Are tetraploids more successful? Floral signals, reproductive success and floral isolation in mixed-ploidy populations of a terrestrial orchid. Ann. Bot. 2015, 115, 263-273.
  98. 98. Bartkiewicz, A.M.; Chilla, F.; Terefe-Ayana, D.; Lübeck, J.; Strahwald, J.; Tacke, E.; Hofferbert, H.-R.; Linde, M.; Debener, T. Maximization of Markers Linked in Coupling for Tetraploid Potatoes via Monoparental Haploids. Front. Pl. Sci. 2018, 9, 620.
  99. 99. Rodríguez-Falcón, M.; J. Bou and S. Prat. Seasonal control of tuberization in potato: Conserved elements with the flowering re-sponse. Ann. Rev. Pl. Biol. 2006, 57, 151-18
  100. 100. Seabrook, J.E.A.; S. Coleman and D. Levy. Effect of photoperi-od on in vitro tuberization of potato (Solanum tubersoum L.). Pl. Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 1999, 34, 43-51.
  101. 101. P.G.S.C. Genome sequence and analysis of the tuber crop potato. Nature 2011, 475, 189.
  102. 102. Carputo, D.; Barone, A. Ploidy level manipulations in potato through sexual hybridization. Ann. Appl Biol. 2005,146, 71-79.
  103. 103. Jacobs, M.M.; Smulders, M.J.; van den Berg, R.G.; Vosman, B. What's in a name; Genetic structure in Solanum section Petota studied using population–genetic tools. BMC Evol. Biol. 2011, 11, 42.
  104. 104. Brown, C.R. Outcrossing rate in cultivated autotetraploid potato. Am. Pot. J. 1993, 70, 725-734.
  105. 105. Bradshaw, J.E. Potato–breeding strategy. In Potato biology and biotechnology. Elsevier Science BV, 2007, pp 157-177.
  106. 106. Lindhout, P.; Meijer, D.; Schotte, T.; Hutten, R.C.; Visser, R.G.; van Eck, H.J. Towards F1 hybrid seed potato breeding. Pot. Res. 2011, 54, 301-312.
  107. 107. Halterman, D.; Guenthner, J.; Collinge, S.; Butler, N.; Douches, D. Biotech potatoes in the 21st century: 20 years since the first biotech potato. Am. J. Pot. Res. 2016, 93, 1-20.
  108. 108. Naess, S.K.; Bradeen, J.M.; Wielgus, S.M.; Haberlach, G.T.; Mcgrath, J.M.; Helgeson, J.P. Resistance to late blight in Solanum bulbocastanum is mapped to chromosome 8. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 101, 697-704.
  109. 109. Tek, A.L.; Stevenson, W.R.; Helgeson, J.P., Jiang, J. Transfer of tuber soft rot and early blight resistances from Solanum brevidens into cultivated potato. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2004, 109, 249-254.
  110. 110. Patil, V.U.; Sundaresha, S.; Kawar, P.G.; Bhardwaj, V. Biology of Solanum tuberosum (Potato). Series of Crop Specific Biology Documents, 2016.
  111. 111. Kassanis, B. The use of tissue cultures to produce virus-free clones from infected potato varieties. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1957, 45, 422-427.
  112. 112. Brar, N.S.; Saini, D.K.; Kaushik, P.; Chauhan, J.; Kamboj, N.K. Directing for Higher Seed Production in Vegetables. Agronomy-Climate Change & Food Security 2020, 55.
  113. 113. Eijlander, R.; Stiekema, W.J. Biological containment of potato (Solanum tuberosum): outcrossing to the related wild species black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara). Sexual Pl. Rep. 1994, 7, 29-40.
  114. 114. Shepard, J.F.; Bidney, D.; Shahin, E. Potato protoplasts in crop improvement. Science, 1980, 208, 17-24.
  115. 115. Matern, U.; Strobel, G.; Shepard, J. Reaction to phytotoxins in a potato population derived from mesophyll protoplasts. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 1978, 75, 4935-4939.
  116. 116. Thieme, R.; Griess, H. Somaclonal variation in tuber traits of potato. Pot. Res. 2005, 48, 153-165.
  117. 117. Helgeson, J.P.; Pohlman, J.D.; Austin, S.; Haberlach, G.T.; Wielgus, S.M.; Ronis, D.; Zambolim, L.; Tooley, P.; McGrath, J. M.; James, R.V.; Stevenson, W.R. Somatic hybrids between Solanum bulbocastanum and potato: a new source of resistance to late blight. Theoret. Appl. Genet. 1998, 96, 738-742.
  118. 118. Brown, C.R., Mojtahedi, H., James, S., Novy, R.G. and Love, S. Development and evaluation of potato breeding lines with introgressed resistance to Columbia root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne chitwoodi). Am. J. Pot. Res. 2006, 83, 1-8.
  119. 119. Thieme, R.; Rakosy–Tican, E.; Nachtigall, M.; Schubert, J.; Hammann, T.; Antonova, O.; Gavrilenko, T.; Heimbach, U.; Thieme, T. Characterization of the multiple resistance traits of somatic hybrids between Solanum cardiophyllum Lindl. and two commercial potato cultivars. Pl. Cell Rep. 2010, 29, 1187-1201.
  120. 120. An, G.; Watson, B.D.; Chiang, C.C. Transformation of tobacco, tomato, potato, and Arabidopsis thaliana using a binary Ti vector system. Pl. Physiol, 1986, 81, 301-305.
  121. 121. Conner, A.J.; Jacobs, J.M.E.; Genet, R.A. Transgenic potatoes versus “traditional” potatoes: what’s the difference. In Commercialization of Transgenic Crops: Risk, benefit and trade considerations, McLean, G.D.; Waterhouse, P.M.; Evans, G.; Gibbs, M.J.; Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra, 1997, pp. 23-36.
  122. 122. Chen, S.; Hajirezaei, M.R.; Zanor, M.I.; Hornyik, C.; Debast, S.; Lacomme, C.; Fernie, A.R.; Sonnewald, U.; Boernke, F. RNA interference mediated repression of sucrose phosphatase in transgenic potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum) strongly affects the hexose to sucrose ratio upon cold storage with only minor effects on total soluble carbohydrate accumulation. Pl. Cell Environ. 2008, 31, 165-176.
  123. 123. Bhaskar, P.B.; Wu, L.; Busse, J.S.; Whitty, B.R.; Hamernik, A.J.; Jansky, S.H.; Buell, C.R.; Bethke, P.C.; Jiang, J. Suppression of the vacuolar invertase gene prevents cold–induced sweetening in potato. Pl. Physiol. 2010, 154, 939-948.
  124. 124. Chawla, R.; Shakya, R.; Rommens, C.M. Tuber specific silencing of asparagine synthetase reduces the acrylamideforming potential of potatoes grown in the field without affecting tuber shape and yield. Pl. Biotechnol. J. 2012, 10, 913-924.
  125. 125. Moloney, C.; Griffin, D.; Jones, P.W.; Bryan, G.J.; McLean, K.; Bradshaw, J.E.; Milbourne, D. Development of diagnostic markers for use in breeding potatoes resistant to Globodera pallida pathotype Pa2/3 using germplasm derived from Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena CPC 2802. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2010, 120, 679-689.
  126. 126. Gebhardt, C.; Bellin, D.; Henselewski, H.; Lehmann, W.; Schwarzfischer, J.; Valkonen, J.P.T. Marker–assisted combination of major genes for pathogen resistance in potato. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2006, 112, 1458-1464.
  127. 127. Luo, Z.W.; Hackett, C.A.; Bradshaw, J.E.; McNicol, J.W.; Milbourne, D. Construction of a genetic linkage map in tetraploid species using molecular markers. Genetics 2011, 157, 1369-1385.
  128. 128. Meuwissen, T.H.E., Hayes, B.J., and Goddard, M.E. Prediction of total genetic value using genome–wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001, 157, 1819-1829.
  129. 129. Windhausen, V.S.; Atlin, G.N.; Hickey, J.M.; Crossa, J.; Jannink, J.L.; Sorrells, M.E.; et al. Effectiveness of genomic prediction of maize hybrid performance in different breeding populations and environments. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 2012, 2, 1427-1436.
  130. 130. Slater, A.T.; Cogan, N.O.; Forster, J.W.; Hayes, B.J.; Daetwyler, H.D. Improving genetic gain with genomic selection in autotetraploid potato. Pl. Genome 2016, 9, 3.
  131. 131. Sverrisdóttir, E.; Byrne, S.; Sundmark, E.H.R.; Johnsen, H.Ø.; Kirk, H.G.; Asp, T.; Janss, L.; Nielsen, K.L. Genomic prediction of starch content and chipping quality in tetraploid potato using genotyping–by–sequencing. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2017, 130, 2091-2108.
  132. 132. Stich, B.; van Inghelandt, D. Prospects and potential uses of genomic prediction of key performance traits in tetraploid potato. Front. Pl. Sci. 2018; 9, 159.
  133. 133. Jinek, M.; Chylinski, K.; Fonfara, I.; Hauer, M.; Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. A programmable dual–RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 2012, 337, 816-821.
  134. 134. Schaart, J.G.; van de Wiel, C.C.; Lotz, L.A.; Smulders, M.J. Opportunities for products of new plant breeding techniques. Trends Pl. Sci. 2016, 21, 438-449.
  135. 135. Weeks, D.P. Gene editing in polyploid crops: wheat, camelina, canola, potato, cotton, peanut, sugar cane, and citrus. In Progress in molecular biology and translational science, Volume 149, Academic Press, 2017, pp. 65-80.
  136. 136. Nadakuduti, S.S.; Buell, C.R.; Voytas, D.F.; Starker, C.G.; Douches, D.S. Genome editing for crop improvement–applications in clonally propagated polyploids with a focus on potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Front. Pl. Sci. 2018, 9, 1607.
  137. 137. Korobko, I.V.; Georgiev, P.G.; Skryabin, K.G.; Kirpichnikov, M.P. GMOs in Russia: research, society and legislation. Acta Nat. 2016, 8, 6-13.

Written By

Navjot Singh Brar, Sat Pal Sharma and Prashant Kaushik

Submitted: 10 May 2021 Reviewed: 21 May 2021 Published: 14 June 2021