1. Supplementary Fig. S1: GO classification of 2,318 differentially expressed genes during fruit ripening in tomato. The genes which show differential expression in at least one stage, out of the total four different ripening transition phases (Kumar et al., 2012), including mature green versus breaker, breaker versus breaker+3, breaker+3 versus breaker+7 and breaker+7 versus breaker+20 in wild type were used for the study. All the differentially expressed genes (p value≤0.05, FC≥2 fold) were sorted for unique gene list. The differentially expressed genes were used for GO classification, based on biological process, using tomato functional genomics database (http://ted.bti.cornell.edu/).The output was use to make the final graph using MS excel. Functional categories with at least 50 or more genes were used to make final graph.

2. SlAAD3:CaAAD3 SlAAD4:CaAAD4 SlGAD4:CaGAD4, CaGAD5 SlHDC1:CaHDC1 SlHDC9:CaHDC11 SlHDC15:CaAAD5 SlGAD1:CaGAD3 Supplementary Fig. S2: Syntelog analysis between tomato and pepper. The analysis was performed as described in earlier.

3. B LeafShootFlowerRootMGRRB WT SlHDC10-FL C GUS Activity (nmoles 4MU/hr/mg protein) GUS -1599 NOS 5' +1 SlHDC10-Fl GUS -968 NOS SlHDC10-DI +1 GUS -668 NOS SlHDC10-DII +1 A CArG box Nitrate responsive element Ethylene responsive element Ethylene biosynthesis element Supplementary Fig. S3: (A) Scheme of SlHDC10 full length and deletion GUS reporter constructs. Presence of different important cis-regulatory elements and their subsequent deletions in the deletion constructs are shown in figure. (B) & (C) Histochemical analysis of GUS activity in different tissues of transgenic tomato lines. For histochemical assay of three independent transgenic lines were used and data of a representative line is presented. For fluorimetric analysis at least three independent transgenic lines which gave GUS staining were taken and three biological replicate for each line were utilized and average of fluorimetry reading were taken for calculation.