Functional & Integrative Genomics

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 317–333

Transcript abundance profiles reveal larger and more complex responses of grapevine to chilling compared to osmotic and salinity stress

  • Elizabeth A. R. Tattersall
  • Jérôme Grimplet
  • Laurent DeLuc
  • Matthew D. Wheatley
  • Delphine Vincent
  • Craig Osborne
  • Ali Ergül
  • Evan Lomen
  • Robert R. Blank
  • Karen A. Schlauch
  • John C. Cushman
  • Grant R. Cramer
Original Paper

DOI: 10.1007/s10142-007-0051-x

Cite this article as:
Tattersall, E.A.R., Grimplet, J., DeLuc, L. et al. Funct Integr Genomics (2007) 7: 317. doi:10.1007/s10142-007-0051-x

Abstract

Cabernet Sauvignon grapevines were exposed to sudden chilling (5°C), water deficit (PEG), and an iso-osmotic salinity (120 mM NaCl and 12 mM CaCl2) for 1, 4, 8, and 24 h. Stomatal conductance and stem water potentials were significantly reduced after stress application. Microarray analysis of transcript abundance in shoot tips detected no significant differences in transcript abundance between salinity and PEG before 24 h. Chilling stress relates to changes in membrane structure, and transcript abundance patterns were predicted to reflect this. Forty-three percent of transcripts affected by stress vs control for 1 through 8 h were affected only by chilling. The functional categories most affected by stress included metabolism, protein metabolism, and signal transduction. Osmotic stress affected more protein synthesis and cell cycle transcripts, whereas chilling affected more calcium signaling transcripts, indicating that chilling has more complex calcium signaling. Stress affected many hormone (ABA, ethylene, and jasmonate) and transcription factor transcripts. The concentrations and transporter transcripts of several anions increased with time, including nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate. The transcript abundance changes in this short-term study were largely the same as a gradually applied long-term salinity and water-deficit study (Cramer et al. Funct Integr Genomics 7:111–134, 2007), but the reverse was not true, indicating a larger and more complex response in the acclimation process of a gradual long-term stress.

Keywords

Vitis viniferaAbiotic stressMicroarray

Supplementary material

10142_2007_51_Fig1_ESM.gif (15 kb)
Supplemental Figure 1S

Percent of transcripts representing significantly different abundance (p < 0.01) in stress versus control (1, 4 and 8 hours) that were assigned to MIPS functional categories. Results are given as a percentage of the total number of transcripts in the set to reflect relative differences among treatments (GIF 15 kb)

10142_2007_51_Fig2_ESM.gif (22 kb)
Supplemental Figure 1S

Percent of transcripts representing significantly different abundance (p < 0.01) in stress versus control (1, 4 and 8 hours) that were assigned to MIPS functional categories. Results are given as a percentage of the total number of transcripts in the set to reflect relative differences among treatments (GIF 15 kb)

10142_2007_51_Fig3_ESM.gif (20 kb)
Supplemental Figure 1S

Percent of transcripts representing significantly different abundance (p < 0.01) in stress versus control (1, 4 and 8 hours) that were assigned to MIPS functional categories. Results are given as a percentage of the total number of transcripts in the set to reflect relative differences among treatments (GIF 15 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth A. R. Tattersall
    • 1
  • Jérôme Grimplet
    • 1
  • Laurent DeLuc
    • 1
  • Matthew D. Wheatley
    • 1
  • Delphine Vincent
    • 1
  • Craig Osborne
    • 3
  • Ali Ergül
    • 2
  • Evan Lomen
    • 1
  • Robert R. Blank
    • 4
  • Karen A. Schlauch
    • 5
  • John C. Cushman
    • 1
  • Grant R. Cramer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry & Molecular BiologyUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.Biotechnology InstituteAnkara UniversityBesevler-AnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Animal BiotechnologyUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  4. 4.USDA-Agricultural Research ServiceRenoUSA
  5. 5.Boston University School of Medicine, Department of Genetics and GenomicsBoston UniversityBostonUSA