GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 GiESCO 2019 9 The state-of-the-art of grapevine biotechnology and new breeding technologies (NBTS)

The state-of-the-art of grapevine biotechnology and new breeding technologies (NBTS)

Abstract

Context of the review – The manipulation of the genetic basis controlling grapevine adaptation and phenotypic plasticity can be performed either by classical genetics or biotechnologies. In the last 15 years, considerable knowledge has accumulated about the grapevine genome as well as the mechanisms involved in the interaction of the vine with the environment, pests and diseases. Despite the difficulties associated with genetic mapping in this species (allele diversity, chimerism, long generation intervals…), several major QTLs controlling important vegetative or reproductive traits have been identified. Considering the huge genotypic and phenotypic diversities existing in Vitis, breeding offers a substantial range of options to improve the performances of cultivars. However, even if marker-assisted selection was largely developed to shorten breeding programs, the selection of improved cultivars, whether for agronomic traits or disease tolerances, is still long and uncertain. Moreover, breeding by crossing does not preserve cultivar genetic background, when the wine industry and market being still based on varietal wines.

Significance of the review – In grapevine, pioneering biotechnologies were set up in the 1960’s to propagate and/or clean the material from micro-organisms. In the 1990’s, the basis of genetic engineering was primary established through biolistic or Agrobacterium with several derived technologies refined in the last 10 years. The latest advance is represented by a group of technologies based on genome editing which allows a much more precise modification of the genome. These technologies, so-called NBT (new breeding technologies), which theoretically do not deconstruct the phenotype of existing cultivars, could be potentially better accepted by the wine industry and consumers than previous GMO approaches. This paper review the current state-of-the-art of the biotechnologies available for grapevine genome manipulation and future prospects for genetic improvement.

DOI:

Publication date: June 19, 2020

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Article

Authors

Lorenza DALLA COSTA (1), Mickael MALNOY (1), David LECOURIEUX (2), Laurent DELUC (3), Fatma OUAKED- LECOURIEUX (2), Mark R. THOMAS (4) and Laurent TORREGROSA (5)

(1) Dept. of Biology and Genomic of Fruit Plants, Foundation E. Mach, 38010 San Michele all’Adige, Italy
(2) ISVV-EGFV, CNRS, INRA, Uni Bordeaux, 33883 Villenave d’Ornon, France
(3) Dept. of Horticulture, Oregon State University, OR 97331, Corvallis, USA
(4) CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Hartley Grove, Urrbrae SA 5064, Australia
(5) AGAP, Montpellier University, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France

Contact the author

Keywords

Grapevine, biotechnologies, gene transfer, genome editing, genetic improvement

Tags

GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Anti/prooxidant activity of wine polyphenols in reactions of adrenaline auto-oxidation

Adrenaline (epinephrine) belongs to catecholamine class. It is a neurotransmitter and both a hormone which is released by the sympathetic nervous system and adrenal medulla in response to a range of stresses in order to regulate blood pressure, cardiac stimulation, relaxation of smooth muscles and other physiological processes. Adrenaline exhibits an effective antioxidant capacity (1). However, adrenalin is capable to auto-oxidation and in this case it generates toxic reactive oxygen intermediates and adrenochrome. Under in vitro conditions, auto-oxidation of adrenaline occurs in an alkaline medium (2).

Comparison of the effects of hormone- and natural-based elicitors on key metabolic pathways in cv. Tempranillo

One of the most important effects of climate change in wine-growing areas is the advance of phenological stages, especially concerning early berry ripening. In the hottest seasons, this results in a lack of synchrony between sugar and phenolic ripeness. In order to cope with this fact, a general effort is being made by researchers and growers aiming at delaying ripening through different strategies. One of the proposed approaches is the application of elicitors. This study aims to assess the effect at the transcriptomic level of application of three elicitors (Vitalfit, Fruitel, and Protone) in Tempranillo.

Sensory and chemical phenotyping of wines from a F1 grapevine population

The European Green Deal, a concept of the European Commission, aims at the reduction of pesticides in EU agriculture for 2030 by 50%. Viticulture uses the largest amounts of fungicides in the EU

Lactiplantibacillus plantarum – A versatile tool for biological deacidification

Malolactic fermentation (MLF) is a secondary wine fermentation conducted by lactic acid bacteria (LAB). This fermentation is important in winemaking as it deacidifies the wine, converting L-malic acid into L-lactic acid and carbon dioxide, and it contributes to microbial stability. Wine pH is highly selective, and at pH below 3.5 generally only strains of O. oeni can survive and express malolactic activity, while under more favorable growth conditions above pH 3.5, species of Lactobacillus and Pediococcus may conduct the MLF. Among the LAB species Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains have shown most interesting results under hot climate conditions, not only for their capacity to induce MLF, but also for their homo-fermentative properties towards hexose sugars, which makes them suitable for induction of MLF in high pH and high alcohol wines, when inoculated at the beginning of alcoholic fermentation.

Different yield regulation strategies in semi-minimal-pruned hedge (SMPH) and impact on bunch architecture

Yields in the novel viticulture training system Semi-Minimal-Pruned Hedge (SMPH) are generally higher compared to the traditional Vertical Shoot Positioning (VSP). Excessive yields have a negative impact on the vine and wine quality, which can result in substantial losses in yield in subsequent vintages (alternate bearing) or penalties in fruit quality. Therefore yield regulation is essential. The bunch architecture in SMPH differs from VSP. Generally there is a higher amount but smaller bunches with lower single berry weights in SMPH compared to VSP.