Display options
Cite
Berdeja M, Nicolas P, Kappel C, et al. Water limitation and rootstock genotype interact to alter grape berry metabolism through transcriptome reprogramming. Hortic Res. 2015;2:15012doi: 10.1038/hortres.2015.12.
Berdeja, M., Nicolas, P., Kappel, C., Dai, Z. W., Hilbert, G., Peccoux, A., Lafontaine, M., Ollat, N., Gomès, E., & Delrot, S. (2015). Water limitation and rootstock genotype interact to alter grape berry metabolism through transcriptome reprogramming. Horticulture research, 215012. https://doi.org/10.1038/hortres.2015.12
Berdeja, Mariam, et al. "Water limitation and rootstock genotype interact to alter grape berry metabolism through transcriptome reprogramming." Horticulture research vol. 2 (2015): 15012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/hortres.2015.12
Berdeja M, Nicolas P, Kappel C, Dai ZW, Hilbert G, Peccoux A, Lafontaine M, Ollat N, Gomès E, Delrot S. Water limitation and rootstock genotype interact to alter grape berry metabolism through transcriptome reprogramming. Hortic Res. 2015 Apr 15;2:15012. doi: 10.1038/hortres.2015.12. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26504567; PMCID: PMC4595978.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Hortic Res. 2015 Apr 15;2:15012. doi: 10.1038/hortres.2015.12. eCollection 2015.

Water limitation and rootstock genotype interact to alter grape berry metabolism through transcriptome reprogramming.

Horticulture research

Mariam Berdeja, Philippe Nicolas, Christian Kappel, Zhan Wu Dai, Ghislaine Hilbert, Anthony Peccoux, Magali Lafontaine, Nathalie Ollat, Eric Gomès, Serge Delrot

Affiliations

  1. Ecophysiologie et Génomique Fonctionnelle de la Vigne, University Bordeaux, ISVV, UMR 1287 , Villenave d'Ornon F-33140, France.
  2. Department of General and Organic Viticulture, Hochschule Geisenheim University , Geisenheim, Germany.

PMID: 26504567 PMCID: PMC4595978 DOI: 10.1038/hortres.2015.12

Abstract

Grapevine is a perennial crop often cultivated by grafting a scion cultivar on a suitable rootstock. Rootstocks influence scions, particularly with regard to water uptake and vigor. Therefore, one of the possibilities to adapt viticulture to the extended drought stress periods is to select rootstocks conferring increased tolerance to drought. However, the molecular mechanisms associated with the ability of rootstock/scion combination to influence grape berry metabolism under drought stress are still poorly understood. The transcriptomic changes induced by drought stress in grape berries (cv. Pinot noir) from vines grafted on either 110R (drought-tolerant) or 125AA (drought-sensitive) rootstock were compared. The experiments were conducted in the vineyard for two years and two grape berry developmental stages (50% and 100% veraison). The genome-wide microarray approach showed that water stress strongly impacts gene expression in the berries, through ontology categories that cover cell wall metabolism, primary and secondary metabolism, signaling, stress, and hormones, and that some of these effects strongly depend on the rootstock genotype. Indeed, under drought stress, berries from vines grafted on 110R displayed a different transcriptional response compared to 125AA-concerning genes related to jasmonate (JA), phenylpropanoid metabolism, and pathogenesis-related proteins. The data also suggest a link between JA and secondary metabolism in water-stressed berries. Overall, genes related to secondary metabolism and JA are more induced and/or less repressed by drought stress in the berries grafted on the drought-sensitive rootstock 125AA. These rootstock-dependent gene expression changes are relevant for berry composition and sensory properties.

References

  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Apr 23;110(17):6907-12 - PubMed
  2. Plant Cell. 1995 Jul;7(7):1059-1070 - PubMed
  3. BMC Plant Biol. 2011 Nov 17;11:163 - PubMed
  4. BMC Plant Biol. 2013 Oct 02;13:147 - PubMed
  5. Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Aug;3(8):579-88 - PubMed
  6. Trends Biotechnol. 2004 Apr;22(4):168-73 - PubMed
  7. J Exp Bot. 2009;60(13):3849-60 - PubMed
  8. BMC Plant Biol. 2006 Nov 14;6:27 - PubMed
  9. Trends Plant Sci. 2009 Feb;14(2):87-91 - PubMed
  10. Plant J. 2004 Mar;37(6):914-39 - PubMed
  11. Plant Cell Environ. 2006 May;29(5):746-53 - PubMed
  12. Plant Biotechnol J. 2011 Oct;9(8):922-31 - PubMed
  13. BMC Genomics. 2007 Nov 22;8:428 - PubMed
  14. BMC Genomics. 2007 Nov 22;8:429 - PubMed
  15. Plant Cell. 2004 Jun;16(6):1446-65 - PubMed
  16. Genome Biol. 2002 Jun 18;3(7):RESEARCH0034 - PubMed
  17. Plant Cell Environ. 2007 Nov;30(11):1381-99 - PubMed
  18. Mol Plant. 2010 Jan;3(1):2-20 - PubMed
  19. Phytochemistry. 2004 Oct;65(19):2631-48 - PubMed
  20. Micron. 2004;35(1-2):93-6 - PubMed
  21. BMC Genomics. 2009 May 08;10 :212 - PubMed
  22. J Agric Food Chem. 2011 Jan 12;59(1):289-97 - PubMed
  23. Trends Plant Sci. 1999 Oct;4(10):394-400 - PubMed
  24. J Nutr. 2004 Jan;134(1):18-23 - PubMed
  25. J Agric Food Chem. 2006 Oct 4;54(20):7692-702 - PubMed
  26. Funct Integr Genomics. 2007 Apr;7(2):111-34 - PubMed
  27. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2006;44:135-62 - PubMed
  28. Plant Physiol. 2005 Jul;138(3):1195-204 - PubMed
  29. New Phytol. 2005 Jun;166(3):895-905 - PubMed
  30. Mol Gen Genet. 1991 Dec;230(3):456-62 - PubMed
  31. Plant J. 2004 Jan;37(2):186-98 - PubMed
  32. Hortic Res. 2014 Mar 26;1:14016 - PubMed
  33. Plant Cell Physiol. 2013 Jun;54(6):990-1004 - PubMed
  34. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1997 Jun;48:355-381 - PubMed
  35. Planta. 2010 May;231(6):1237-49 - PubMed
  36. Proteomics. 2009 May;9(9):2503-28 - PubMed
  37. Plant Signal Behav. 2010 Jan;5(1):26-33 - PubMed
  38. Genome Biol. 2004;5(10):R80 - PubMed
  39. J Biol Chem. 2002 May 24;277(21):18373-82 - PubMed
  40. Plant Cell Physiol. 2008 Feb;49(2):226-41 - PubMed
  41. Proteomics. 2007 Sep;7(17):3154-70 - PubMed
  42. Plant Physiol. 2004 Apr;134(4):1536-45 - PubMed
  43. J Agric Food Chem. 2009 Sep 9;57(17 ):7805-13 - PubMed
  44. J Exp Bot. 2014 Mar;65(3):821-32 - PubMed
  45. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2004;3:Article3 - PubMed
  46. Planta. 2010 Jun;232(1):219-34 - PubMed
  47. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60422 - PubMed
  48. J Agric Food Chem. 2007 Aug 8;55(16):6575-84 - PubMed
  49. Plant Mol Biol. 2002 Mar;48(4):361-8 - PubMed
  50. J Exp Bot. 2012 Nov;63(18):6445-55 - PubMed
  51. Phytopathology. 1999 Mar;89(3):197-203 - PubMed
  52. Plant Physiol. 2007 Mar;143(3):1398-407 - PubMed
  53. Bioinformatics. 2009 Feb 1;25(3):415-6 - PubMed
  54. Plant Physiol. 2010 Nov;154(3):1439-59 - PubMed
  55. BMC Genomics. 2007 Jun 21;8:187 - PubMed
  56. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Aug 27;56(16):6777-84 - PubMed
  57. Trends Plant Sci. 2007 Jan;12(1):29-36 - PubMed
  58. Plant Cell Physiol. 2010 Jun;51(6):936-48 - PubMed
  59. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Dec 18;7:535 - PubMed
  60. J Exp Bot. 2014 Aug;65(16):4543-59 - PubMed
  61. Plant J. 2004 Oct;40(2):200-12 - PubMed
  62. Mol Plant. 2013 Sep;6(5):1487-502 - PubMed
  63. Planta. 2007 Dec;227(1):101-12 - PubMed
  64. J Biol Chem. 1995 Jul 7;270(27):16315-20 - PubMed
  65. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2005 May;69(5):1042-4 - PubMed
  66. J Biol Chem. 2006 Aug 18;281(33):23357-66 - PubMed
  67. Ann Bot. 2010 May;105(5):661-76 - PubMed
  68. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014 Nov;55(11):1925-36 - PubMed
  69. J Integr Plant Biol. 2010 Apr;52(4):360-76 - PubMed
  70. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2007 Jun;10(3):296-302 - PubMed
  71. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Feb 15;31(4):e15 - PubMed
  72. Trends Biotechnol. 2002 Nov;20(11):472-8 - PubMed

Publication Types