Buds of “Italia melhorada” grapevines grown under tropical conditions develop a quiescent state

Dantas, Débora; Bressan-Smith, Ricardo; Noriega, Ximena; Pérez, Francisco J.

doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2019.103951

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following 24 h of PDHC treatment, noticeable decrease was detected in the expression of cell cycle genes (VvCYCD3) and genes associated with DNA replication and repair. This downregulation pattern corresponds to the growth cessation observed during the release of endodormancy in natural conditions, reaching its lowest point during the deepest phase of endodormancy (Karlberg et al, 2010;Vergara et al, 2016;Dantas et al, 2020). This global change in gene expression can be interpreted as a preparatory phase for reactivating physiological activities and metabolic processes in anticipation of bud sprouting (Shi et al, 2020).…”

Section: Comparative Similarities In Mechanisms Of Paradormancy and E...mentioning

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative transcriptome analysis of genes involved in paradormant bud release response in ‘Summer Black’ grape

Fan,

Luo,

Wang

et al. 2023

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grapevines possess a hierarchy of buds, and the fruitful winter bud forms the foundation of the two-crop-a-year cultivation system, yielding biannual harvests. Throughout its developmental stages, the winter bud sequentially undergoes paradormancy, endodormancy, and ecodormancy to ensure survival in challenging environmental conditions. Releasing the endodormancy of winter bud results in the first crop yield, while breaking the paradormancy of winter bud allows for the second crop harvest. Hydrogen cyanamide serves as an agent to break endodormancy, which counteracting the inhibitory effects of ABA, while H2O2 and ethylene function as signaling molecules in the process of endodormancy release. In the context of breaking paradormancy, common agronomic practices include short pruning and hydrogen cyanamide treatment. However, the mechanism of hydrogen cyanamide contributes to this process remains unknown. This study confirms that hydrogen cyanamide treatment significantly improved both the speed and uniformity of bud sprouting, while short pruning proved to be an effective method for releasing paradormancy until August. This observation highlights the role of apical dominance as a primary inhibitory factor in suppressing the sprouting of paradormant winter bud. Comparative transcriptome analysis revealed that the sixth node winter bud convert to apical tissue following short pruning and established a polar auxin transport canal through the upregulated expression of VvPIN3 and VvTIR1. Moreover, short pruning induced the generation of reactive oxygen species, and wounding, ethylene, and H2O2 collectively acted as stimulating signals and amplified effects through the MAPK cascade. In contrast, hydrogen cyanamide treatment directly disrupted mitochondrial function, resulting in ROS production and an extended efficacy of the growth hormone signaling pathway induction.

show abstract

Section: Comparative Similarities In Mechanisms Of Paradormancy and E...mentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Thus, it can be inferred that the inhibitory effects on bud growth primarily arise from apical dominance. Paradormancy represents an inhibited state rather than true dormancy ( Dantas et al., 2020 ). Importantly, in second fruit cultivation, short pruning effectively induces the release of paradormancy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative transcriptome analysis of genes involved in paradormant bud release response in ‘Summer Black’ grape

Fan,

Luo,

Wang

et al. 2023

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ED of buds can be de ned as a physiological state in which the resumption of bud growth is prevented even under conditions that promote it, and their meristematic activity is inhibited [4]. At the physiological level, bud ED is related to decreased bud respiration [5], arrest of cell division [6], thickening of the cell wall of meristematic cells [7], and increased content of sucrose and the sucrose-glucose ratio [8]. It has been postulated that deciduous fruit trees require low temperatures (LTs) to release their buds from ED [9], and the term "chilling requirement" (CR) was coined to indicate the LT requirements necessary for the releasing of the buds from ED [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative transcriptomic analysis of grapevine buds subjected to low temperature and short days revealed contrasting regulation of cell cycle genes in response to both environmental cues

Rubio

Noriega

Pérez

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: With respect to grapevine buds, short days (SDs) induces endodormancy (ED), while low temperature (LT) induces cold hardiness. However, the relationship between both of these environmental cues has been explored little. In this study, transcriptomic data based on an RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) analysis of grapevine buds exposed to LT and SDs were compared. Results: A total of 6121 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified in the comparison between grapevine buds subjected to LT and control buds, while 1336 were identified in the comparison between grapevine buds subjected to SDs and long days (LDs). Cluster analysis showed that most gene differentially expressed in response to SDs were downregulated, while most genes differentially expressed in response to LT were upregulated. A small number of the DEGs were simultaneously upregulated or downregulated in response to LT and the SDs, while conversely, a large number of them were downregulated in response to SDs but upregulated in response to LT. Gen Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of the DEGs downregulated in response to SDs and upregulated in response to LT indicated that most of these DEGs were related to the cell cycle. These results were somewhat surprising, since although cell cycle genes are downregulated during ED of grapevine buds as a consequence of SD conditions, their upregulation caused by LT was unexpected, since in other species, these genes are downregulated in response to LT. Conclusion: Repression of transcriptome and cell cycle genes in grapevine buds in response to SD, and massive upregulation of transcriptome and cell cycle genes in response to LT support the idea that SD induces the ED, and that the LT induces the release of the buds from the ED.

show abstract

“…For grapevines, ED is triggered by the short-day (SD) photoperiod (Kühn et al 2009;Grant et al 2013;Cragin et al 2017) and is preceded by growth arrest. At the physiological and metabolic level, the ED in the grapevine buds is characterized by a decrease in respiration and metabolism (Parada et al 2017), the arrest of cell division (Vergara et al 2017), the accumulation of starch (Rubio et al 2019), and the thickening of the cell wall of the bud meristematic cells (Dantas et al 2020). ED in grapevines is important since it allows the survival of the bud throughout the winter, prevents its sprouting in response to transient warm spells during the winter (Jian et al 1997) and is essential for the development of cold hardiness (Rubio et al 2016;Cragin et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship Between Bud Cold Hardiness and Budbreak in Two Vitis vinifera L Cultivars, Chardonnay and Thompson Seedless

Pérez

Rubio

2021

J Plant Growth Regul

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lack of winter cold is a severe limitation for the cultivation of grapevines (Vitis vinifera L) in areas with warm winter climates. This phenomenon is currently becoming quite important due to global warming, which will increase winter temperatures in many temperate regions of the planet where grapevines are cultivated. Although various physical and chemical stimuli have been used to address the lack of winter cold in grapevine cultivation, quantitative studies on its effects on different cultivars are limited. Here, the effects of (a) low temperatures during endodormancy (ED), (b) temperature increases during eco-dormancy (ECD) and (c) the effects of dormancy-breaking compounds such as hydrogen cyanamide (HC) and sodium azide (AZ) on the budburst of an early budbreak cultivar, Chardonnay, and an late budbreak cultivar, Thompson seedless, were assessed. The results were analysed by the Kaplan–Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to establish statistical significance between the control and treatments. In general, Chardonnay grapevines were more sensitive than Thompson seedless grapevines to all budbreak stimuli, and a temperature increase during ECD was the stimulus that had the greatest effect on the budbreak in both cultivars. Exposure to cold temperatures during ED increased the cold hardiness and improved the budbreak in both cultivars. Based on the results, a relationship between the degree of bud cold hardiness and budbreak potential is suggested, and it is proposed that the greater the cold hardiness achieved by the buds, the better their subsequent budbreak will be.

show abstract

Buds of “Italia melhorada” grapevines grown under tropical conditions develop a quiescent state

Cited by 5 publications

References 38 publications

Comparative transcriptome analysis of genes involved in paradormant bud release response in ‘Summer Black’ grape

Comparative transcriptome analysis of genes involved in paradormant bud release response in ‘Summer Black’ grape

Comparative transcriptomic analysis of grapevine buds subjected to low temperature and short days revealed contrasting regulation of cell cycle genes in response to both environmental cues

Relationship Between Bud Cold Hardiness and Budbreak in Two Vitis vinifera L Cultivars, Chardonnay and Thompson Seedless

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About