Rootstock effects on scion phenotypes in a ‘Chambourcin’ experimental vineyard

Abstract

Understanding how root systems modulate shoot system phenotypes is a fundamental question in plant biology and will be useful in developing resilient agricultural crops. Grafting is a common horticultural practice that joins the roots (rootstock) of one plant to the shoot (scion) of another, providing an excellent method for investigating how these two organ systems affect each other. In this study, we used the French-American hybrid grapevine ‘Chambourcin’ (Vitis L.) as a model to explore the rootstock–scion relationship. We examined leaf shape, ion concentrations, and gene expression in ‘Chambourcin’ grown ungrafted as well as grafted to three different rootstocks (‘SO4’, ‘1103P’ and ‘3309C’) across 2 years and three different irrigation treatments. We found that a significant amount of the variation in leaf shape could be explained by the interaction between rootstock and irrigation. For ion concentrations, the primary source of variation identified was the position of a leaf in a shoot, although rootstock and rootstock by irrigation interaction also explained a significant amount of variation for most ions. Lastly, we found rootstock-specific patterns of gene expression in grafted plants when compared to ungrafted vines. Thus, our work reveals the subtle and complex effect of grafting on ‘Chambourcin’ leaf morphology, ionomics, and gene expression.

References

[1] Warschefsky, E. J. et al. Rootstocks: diversity, domestication, and impacts on shoot phenotypes. Trends Plant Sci. 21, 418-437 (2016).

[2] Mudge, K., Janick, J., Scofield, S. & Goldschmidt, E. E. A History of Grafting. in Horticultural Reviews 437-493 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2009).

[3] Ollat, N., Bordenave, L., Tandonnet, J. P., Boursiquot, J. M. & Marguerit, E. Grapevine rootstocks: origins and perspectives. Acta Hortic. 11-22 (2016).

[4] Ferris, H., Zheng, L. & Walker, M. A. Resistance of grape rootstocks to plant-parasitic nematodes. J. Nematol. 44, 377 (2012).

[5] Fort, K., Fraga, J., Grossi, D. & Walker, M. A. Early measures of drought tolerance in four grape rootstocks. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 142, 36-46 (2017).

[6] Peccoux, A. et al. Dissecting the rootstock control of scion transpiration using model-assisted analyses in grapevine. Tree Physiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpx153 (2017).

[7] Sohrabi, S., Ebadi, A., Jalali, S. & Salami, S. A. Enhanced values of various physiological traits and VvNAC1 gene expression showing better salinity stress tolerance in some grapevine cultivars as well as rootstocks. Sci. Hortic. 225, 317-326 (2017).

[8] Bavaresco, L. & Lovisolo, C. Effect of grafting on grapevine chlorosis and hydraulic conductivity. VITIS-J. Grapevine Res. 39, 89 (2015).

[9] Lecourt, J., Lauvergeat, V., Ollat, N., Vivin, P . & Cookson, S. J. Shoot and root ionome responses to nitrate supply in grafted grapevines are rootstock genotype dependent. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 21, 311-318 (2015).

[10] Zhang, L., Marguerit, E., Rossdeutsch, L., Ollat, N. & Gambetta, G. A. The influence of grapevine rootstocks on scion growth and drought resistance. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 28, 143-157 (2016).

[11] Corso, M. et al. Comprehensive transcript profiling of two grapevine rootstock genotypes contrasting in drought susceptibility links the phenylpropanoid pathway to enhanced tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 5739-5752 (2015).

[12] Cheng, J., Wei, L., Mei, J. & Wu, J. Effect of rootstock on phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties in berries of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) cv. ‘Red Alexandria’ . Sci. Hortic. 217, 137-144 (2017).

[13] Walker, M. A. et al. Breeding grape rootstocks for resistance to phylloxera and nematodes-it’s not always easy. Vi Int. Phyllox. Sypmposium 1045, 89-97 (2014).

[14] Galet, P. A practical ampelography. (Cornell University Press., Ithaca, USA, 1979).

[15] Salt, D. E., Baxter, I. & Lahner, B. Ionomics and the study of the plant ionome. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 59, 709-733 (2008).

[16] Cochetel, N. et al. Root transcriptomic responses of grafted grapevines to heterogeneous nitrogen availability depend on rootstock genotype. J. Exp. Bot. 68, 4339-4355 (2017).

[17] USDA-ARS. Chambourcin (Johannes Seyve 26-205). U.S. National Plant Germplasm System (2018). https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/accessiondetail.aspx?id=1001527.

[18] Chitwood, D. H. et al. A modern ampelography: a genetic basis for leaf shape and venation patterning in grape. Plant Physiol. 164, 259-272 (2014).

[19] Kaplan, D. R. The science of plant morphology: definition, history, and role in modern biology. Am. J. Bot. 88, 1711-1741 (2001).

[20] Nicotra, A. B. et al. The evolution and functional significance of leaf shape in the angiosperms. Funct. Plant Biol. 38, 535-552 (2011).

[21] Dkhar, J. & Pareek, A. What determines a leaf’s shape?. Evodevo 5, 47 (2014).

[22] Chitwood, D. H. et al. Latent developmental and evolutionary shapes embedded within the grapevine leaf. New Phytol. 210, 343-355 (2016).

[23] Migicovsky, Z., Li, M., Chitwood, D. H. & Myles, S. Morphometrics reveals complex and heritable apple leaf shapes. Front. Plant Sci. 8 2185, (2018).

[24] Kim, M., Canio, W., Kessler, S. & Sinha, N. Developmental changes due to long-distance movement of a homeobox fusion transcript in tomato. Science 293, 287-289 (2001).

[25] Tsialtas, J. T., Koundouras, S. & Zioziou, E. Leaf area estimation by simple measurements and evaluation of leaf area prediction models in Cabernet-Sauvignon grapevine leaves. Photosynthetica 46, 452-456 (2008).

[26] Sabir, A. Physiological and morphological responses of grapevine (V. vinifera L. cv.‘Italia’) leaf to water deficit under different rootstock effects . Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 15, 135-148 (2016).

[27] Pii, Y. et al. Prospect on ionomic signatures for the classification of grapevine berries according to their geographical origin. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 640 (2017).

[28] Pepi, S. & Vaccaro, C. Geochemical fingerprints of ‘Prosecco’ wine based on major and trace elements. Environ. Geochem. Health 40, 833-847 (2018).

[29] Versari, A., Laurie, V. F., Ricci, A., Laghi, L. & Parpinello, G. P. Progress in authentication, typification and traceability of grapes and wines by chemometric approaches. Food Res. Int. 60, 2-18 (2014).

[30] Pisciotta, A., Tutone, L. & Saiano, F. Distribution of YLOID in soil-grapevine system (Vitis vinifera L.) as tool for geographical characterization of agro-food products. A two years case study on different grafting combinations . Food Chem. 221, 1214-1220 (2017).

[31] Huber, S. C. et al. Canopy position has a profound effect on soybean seed composition. PeerJ 4, e2452 (2016).

[32] White, P. J. & Broadley, M. R. Calcium in plants. Ann. Bot. 92, 487-511 (2003).

[33] Nawaz, M. A. et al. Grafting: a technique to modify ion accumulation in horticultural crops. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1457 (2016).

[34] Garcia, M., Gallego, P., Daverède, C. & Ibrahim, H. Effect of three rootstocks on grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) CV. Négrette, grown hydroponically. I. Potassium, calcium and magnesium nutrition . S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 22, 101-103 (2001).

[35] Holmgren, G., Meyer, M. W., Chaney, R. L. & Daniels, R. B. Cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, and nickel in agricultural soils of the United States of America. J. Environ. Qual. 22, 335-348 (1993).

[36] Licina, V., Antic‐Mladenovic, S., Kresovic, M. & Rinklebe, J. Effect of high nickel and chromium background levels in serpentine soil on their accumulation in organs of a perennial plant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 41, 482-496 (2010).

[37] Singh, A. L., Jat, R. S., Chaudhari, V., Bariya, H. & Sharma, S. J. Toxicities and tolerance of mineral elements boron, cobalt, molybdenum and nickel in crop plants. Plant Nutr. abiotic stress Toler. Ii. Plant stress 4, 31-56 (2010).

[38] Baxter, I . Should we treat the ionome as a combination of individual elements, or should we be deriving novel combined traits?. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 2127-2131 (2015).

[39] Berdeja, M. et al. Water limitation and rootstock genotype interact to alter grape berry metabolism through transcriptome reprogramming. Hortic. Res. 2, 15012 (2015).

[40] Bhogale, S. et al. MicroRNA156: a potential graft-transmissible microRNA that modulates plant architecture and tuberization in Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena . Plant Physiol. 164, 1011-1027 (2014).

[41] Fu, L. et al. Physiological and transcriptional changes of three citrus rootstock seedlings under iron deficiency. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1104 (2017).

[42] Jensen, P. J. et al. Rootstock-regulated gene expression patterns associated with fire blight resistance in apple. BMC Genom. 13, 9 (2012).

[43] Corso, M. et al. Grapevine rootstocks differentially affect the rate of ripening and modulate auxin-related genes in cabernet sauvignon berries. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 69 (2016).

[44] Vannozzi, A. et al. Comparative analysis of genes involved in iron homeostasis in grapevine rootstocks characterized by contrasting tolerance to iron chlorosis. Acta Hortic. 1136, 169-176 (2016).

[45] Vannozzi, A. et al. Transcriptional characterization of a widely-used grapevine rootstock genotype under different iron-limited conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 7, (2017).

[46] Maimaitiyiming, M., Ghulam, A., Bozzolo, A., Wilkins, J. L. & Kwasniewski, M. T. Early detection of plant physiological responses to different levels of water stress using reflectance spectroscopy. Remote Sens. 9, 745 (2017).

[47] Migicovsky, Z. mt_vernon_2014_2016. GitHub (2018). https://github.com/PGRP1546869/mt_vernon_2014_2016.

[48] Abràmoff, M. D., Magalhães, P. J. & Ram, S. J. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int. 11, 36-42 (2004).

[49] Cope, J. S., Corney, D., Clark, J. Y., Remagnino, P. & Wilkin, P. Plant species identification using digital morphometrics: A review. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 7562-7573 (2012).

[50] Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (Springer-Verlag New York, 2009).

[51] Li, M. et al. Topological data analysis as a morphometric method: using persistent homology to demarcate a leaf morphospace. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 553 (2018).

[52] Li, M. et al. The persistent homology mathematical framework provides enhanced genotype-to-phenotype associations for plant morphology. Plant Physiol. 177, 1382-1395 (2018).

[53] Migicovsky, Z. Mt Vernon 2014/2016 Leaf Images. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6104798.v1. (2018)

[54] Ziegler, G. et al. Ionomic Screening of Field-Grown Soybean Identifies Mutants with Altered Seed Elemental Composition. Plant Genome 6, (2013).

[55] Anders, S., Pyl, P. T. & Huber, W. HTSeq-a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 31, 166-169 (2015).

[56] Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).

[57] Subramanian, A. et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15545-15550 (2005).

[58] Subramanian, A., Kuehn, H., Gould, J., Tamayo, P. & Mesirov, J. P. GSEA-P: a desktop application for gene set enrichment analysis. Bioinformatics 23, 3251-3253 (2007).

[59] Fennell, A. Y. et al. Short day transcriptomic programming during induction of dormancy in grapevine. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 834 (2015).

[60] Grimplet, J. et al. VitisNet: ‘Omics’ integration through grapevine molecular networks. PLoS ONE 4, e8365 (2009).

[61] Grimplet, J. et al. Comparative analysis of grapevine whole-genome gene predictions, functional annotation, categorization and integration of the predicted gene sequences. BMC Res. Notes 5, 213 (2012).

[62] Conesa, A. & Nueda, M. J. maSigPro: Significant Gene Expression Profile Differences in Time Course Microarray Data. (R package version 1, 2013).

[63] Nueda, M. J., Tarazona, S. & Conesa, A. Next maSigPro: updating maSigPro bioconductor package for RNA-seq time series. Bioinformatics 30, 2598-2602 (2014).

[64] Osier, M. V. VitisPathways: gene pathway analysis for ‘ V. vinifera’ . Vitis: J. Grapevine Res. 55, 129-133 (2016).