Cargando…

A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation

We report physiological, anatomical and molecular differences in two economically important grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars cv. Grenache (near-isohydric) and Chardonnay (anisohydric) in their response to water-stress induced cavitation. The aim of the study was to compare organ vulnerability...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shelden, Megan C., Vandeleur, Rebecca, Kaiser, Brent N., Tyerman, Stephen D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5681967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29163613
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01893
_version_ 1783278013038723072
author Shelden, Megan C.
Vandeleur, Rebecca
Kaiser, Brent N.
Tyerman, Stephen D.
author_facet Shelden, Megan C.
Vandeleur, Rebecca
Kaiser, Brent N.
Tyerman, Stephen D.
author_sort Shelden, Megan C.
collection PubMed
description We report physiological, anatomical and molecular differences in two economically important grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars cv. Grenache (near-isohydric) and Chardonnay (anisohydric) in their response to water-stress induced cavitation. The aim of the study was to compare organ vulnerability (petiole and stem) to cavitation by measuring ultrasonic acoustic emissions (UAE) and percent loss of conductance of potted grapevines subject to the onset of water-stress. Leaf (ψ(L)) and stem water potential (ψ(S)), stomatal conductance (g(s)), transpiration (E), petiole hydraulics (K(Pet)), and xylem diameter were also measured. Chardonnay displayed hydraulic segmentation based on UAE, with cavitation occurring at a less negative ψ(L) in the petiole than in the stem. Vulnerability segmentation was not observed in Grenache, with both petioles and stems equally vulnerable to cavitation. Leaf water potential that induced 50% of maximum UAE was significantly different between petioles and stems in Chardonnay (ψ(50Petiole) = -1.14 and ψ(50Stem) = -2.24 MPa) but not in Grenache (ψ(50Petiole) = -0.73 and ψ(50Stem) = -0.78 MPa). Grenache stems appeared more susceptible to water-stress induced cavitation than Chardonnay stems. Grenache displayed (on average) a higher K(Pet) likely due to the presence of larger xylem vessels. A close relationship between petiole hydraulic properties and vine water status was observed in Chardonnay but not in Grenache. Transcriptional analysis of aquaporins in the petioles and leaves (VvPIP1;1, VvPIP2;1, VvPIP2;2 VvPIP2;3, VvTIP1;1, and VvTIP2;1) showed differential regulation diurnally and in response to water-stress. VvPIP2;1 showed strong diurnal regulation in the petioles and leaves of both cultivars with expression highest predawn. Expression of VvPIP2;1 and VvPIP2;2 responded to ψ(L) and ψ(S) in both cultivars indicating the expression of these two genes are closely linked to vine water status. Expression of several aquaporin genes correlated with gas exchange measurements, however, these genes differed between cultivars. In summary, the data shows two contrasting responses in petiole hydraulics and aquaporin expression between the near-isohydric cultivar, Grenache and anisohydric cultivar, Chardonnay.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5681967
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56819672017-11-21 A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation Shelden, Megan C. Vandeleur, Rebecca Kaiser, Brent N. Tyerman, Stephen D. Front Plant Sci Plant Science We report physiological, anatomical and molecular differences in two economically important grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars cv. Grenache (near-isohydric) and Chardonnay (anisohydric) in their response to water-stress induced cavitation. The aim of the study was to compare organ vulnerability (petiole and stem) to cavitation by measuring ultrasonic acoustic emissions (UAE) and percent loss of conductance of potted grapevines subject to the onset of water-stress. Leaf (ψ(L)) and stem water potential (ψ(S)), stomatal conductance (g(s)), transpiration (E), petiole hydraulics (K(Pet)), and xylem diameter were also measured. Chardonnay displayed hydraulic segmentation based on UAE, with cavitation occurring at a less negative ψ(L) in the petiole than in the stem. Vulnerability segmentation was not observed in Grenache, with both petioles and stems equally vulnerable to cavitation. Leaf water potential that induced 50% of maximum UAE was significantly different between petioles and stems in Chardonnay (ψ(50Petiole) = -1.14 and ψ(50Stem) = -2.24 MPa) but not in Grenache (ψ(50Petiole) = -0.73 and ψ(50Stem) = -0.78 MPa). Grenache stems appeared more susceptible to water-stress induced cavitation than Chardonnay stems. Grenache displayed (on average) a higher K(Pet) likely due to the presence of larger xylem vessels. A close relationship between petiole hydraulic properties and vine water status was observed in Chardonnay but not in Grenache. Transcriptional analysis of aquaporins in the petioles and leaves (VvPIP1;1, VvPIP2;1, VvPIP2;2 VvPIP2;3, VvTIP1;1, and VvTIP2;1) showed differential regulation diurnally and in response to water-stress. VvPIP2;1 showed strong diurnal regulation in the petioles and leaves of both cultivars with expression highest predawn. Expression of VvPIP2;1 and VvPIP2;2 responded to ψ(L) and ψ(S) in both cultivars indicating the expression of these two genes are closely linked to vine water status. Expression of several aquaporin genes correlated with gas exchange measurements, however, these genes differed between cultivars. In summary, the data shows two contrasting responses in petiole hydraulics and aquaporin expression between the near-isohydric cultivar, Grenache and anisohydric cultivar, Chardonnay. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5681967/ /pubmed/29163613 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01893 Text en Copyright © 2017 Shelden, Vandeleur, Kaiser and Tyerman. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Plant Science
Shelden, Megan C.
Vandeleur, Rebecca
Kaiser, Brent N.
Tyerman, Stephen D.
A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation
title A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation
title_full A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation
title_fullStr A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation
title_short A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation
title_sort comparison of petiole hydraulics and aquaporin expression in an anisohydric and isohydric cultivar of grapevine in response to water-stress induced cavitation
topic Plant Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5681967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29163613
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01893
work_keys_str_mv AT sheldenmeganc acomparisonofpetiolehydraulicsandaquaporinexpressioninananisohydricandisohydriccultivarofgrapevineinresponsetowaterstressinducedcavitation
AT vandeleurrebecca acomparisonofpetiolehydraulicsandaquaporinexpressioninananisohydricandisohydriccultivarofgrapevineinresponsetowaterstressinducedcavitation
AT kaiserbrentn acomparisonofpetiolehydraulicsandaquaporinexpressioninananisohydricandisohydriccultivarofgrapevineinresponsetowaterstressinducedcavitation
AT tyermanstephend acomparisonofpetiolehydraulicsandaquaporinexpressioninananisohydricandisohydriccultivarofgrapevineinresponsetowaterstressinducedcavitation
AT sheldenmeganc comparisonofpetiolehydraulicsandaquaporinexpressioninananisohydricandisohydriccultivarofgrapevineinresponsetowaterstressinducedcavitation
AT vandeleurrebecca comparisonofpetiolehydraulicsandaquaporinexpressioninananisohydricandisohydriccultivarofgrapevineinresponsetowaterstressinducedcavitation
AT kaiserbrentn comparisonofpetiolehydraulicsandaquaporinexpressioninananisohydricandisohydriccultivarofgrapevineinresponsetowaterstressinducedcavitation
AT tyermanstephend comparisonofpetiolehydraulicsandaquaporinexpressioninananisohydricandisohydriccultivarofgrapevineinresponsetowaterstressinducedcavitation