Advertisement

Functional & Integrative Genomics

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 111–134 | Cite as

Water and salinity stress in grapevines: early and late changes in transcript and metabolite profiles

  • Grant R. Cramer
  • Ali Ergül
  • Jerome Grimplet
  • Richard L. Tillett
  • Elizabeth A. R. Tattersall
  • Marlene C. Bohlman
  • Delphine Vincent
  • Justin Sonderegger
  • Jason Evans
  • Craig Osborne
  • David Quilici
  • Karen A. Schlauch
  • David A. Schooley
  • John C. Cushman
Original Paper

Abstract

Grapes are grown in semiarid environments, where drought and salinity are common problems. Microarray transcript profiling, quantitative reverse transcription-PCR, and metabolite profiling were used to define genes and metabolic pathways in Vitis vinifera cv. Cabernet Sauvignon with shared and divergent responses to a gradually applied and long-term (16 days) water-deficit stress and equivalent salinity stress. In this first-of-a-kind study, distinct differences between water deficit and salinity were revealed. Water deficit caused more rapid and greater inhibition of shoot growth than did salinity at equivalent stem water potentials. One of the earliest responses to water deficit was an increase in the transcript abundance of RuBisCo activase (day 4), but this increase occurred much later in salt-stressed plants (day 12). As water deficit progressed, a greater number of affected transcripts were involved in metabolism, transport, and the biogenesis of cellular components than did salinity. Salinity affected a higher percentage of transcripts involved in transcription, protein synthesis, and protein fate than did water deficit. Metabolite profiling revealed that there were higher concentrations of glucose, malate, and proline in water-deficit-treated plants as compared to salinized plants. The metabolite differences were linked to differences in transcript abundance of many genes involved in energy metabolism and nitrogen assimilation, particularly photosynthesis, gluconeogenesis, and photorespiration. Water-deficit-treated plants appear to have a higher demand than salinized plants to adjust osmotically, detoxify free radicals (reactive oxygen species), and cope with photoinhibition.

Keywords

Vitis vinifera Affymetrix oligonucleotide array Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry Abiotic stress 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the American Viticulture Foundation, the USDA Viticulture Consortium, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Plant Genome program (DBI-0217653) to G.R.C. and J.C.C. and the Bioinformatics program (DBI-0136561) to K.A.S., a graduate student fellowship to E.A.R. Tattersall from the NSF EPSCoR Integrated Approaches to Abiotic Stress program (EPS-0132556), and a TUBITAK–NATO B1 fellowship to Dr. A. Ergul. The Nevada Genomics Center is supported by grants from the NIH Biomedical Research Infrastructure Network (NIH-NCRR, P20 RR16464) and NIH IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE, RR-03-008).

Supplementary material

10142_2006_39_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (563 kb)
Supplemental Table S1 Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients across biological triplicate microarray experiments for each experimental state (JPEG 576 kb)
10142_2006_39_MOESM2_ESM.xls (26 kb)
Supplemental Table S2 Genes of water-deficit-treated plants with significantly different expression relative to control plants on day 8 (XLS 26 kb)
10142_2006_39_MOESM3_ESM.xls (1.2 mb)
Supplemental Table S3 Genes of water-deficit-treated plants with significantly different expression relative to control plants on day 12 (XLS 1 mg)
10142_2006_39_MOESM4_ESM.xls (528 kb)
Supplemental Table S4 Genes of salt-stressed plants with significantly different expression relative to control plants on day 12 (XLS 540 kb)
10142_2006_39_MOESM5_ESM.xls (3.7 mb)
Supplemental Table S5 Genes of water-deficit-treated plants with significantly different expression relative to control plants on day 16 (XLS 3 mb)
10142_2006_39_MOESM6_ESM.xls (3.5 mb)
Supplemental Table S6 Genes of salt-stressed plants with significantly different expression relative to control plants on day 16 (XLS 3 mb)
10142_2006_39_MOESM7_ESM.xls (134 kb)
Supplemental Table S7 The top 10% genes of water-deficit-treated plants with significantly different expression relative to control plants on day 12. The gene order is arranged according to hierarchical clustering (XLS 137 kb)
10142_2006_39_MOESM8_ESM.xls (72 kb)
Supplemental Table S8 The top 10% genes of salinity-treated plants with significantly different expression relative to control plants on day 12. The gene order is arranged according to hierarchical clustering (XLS 73 kb)
10142_2006_39_MOESM9_ESM.xls (375 kb)
Supplemental Table S9 The top 10% genes of water-deficit-treated plants with significantly different expression relative to control plants on day 16. The gene order is arranged according to hierarchical clustering (XLS 384 kb)
10142_2006_39_MOESM10_ESM.xls (373 kb)
Supplemental Table S10 The top 10% genes of salinity-treated plants with significantly different expression relative to control plants on day 16. The gene order is arranged according to hierarchical clustering (XLS 381 kb)
10142_2006_39_MOESM11_ESM.xls (510 kb)
Supplemental Table S11 All genes with significantly different expression between water-deficit-treated and salinity-treated plants on day 16. The gene order is arranged according to hierarchical clustering (XLS 522 kb)
10142_2006_39_Fig11_ESM.jpg (78 kb)
Supplemental Fig. S1

Boxplots of PM probe-level intensity levels of all 44 oligonucleotide microarrays after RMA preprocessing and normalization (JPEG 79 KB)

10142_2006_39_Fig12_ESM.jpg (149 kb)
Supplemental Fig. S2

RNA degradation plots of PM hybridization signal intensities across probe sets for all 44 microarrays. The log-transformed preprocessed values of the 10,251 probes having 16 probe pair sets on the arrays are presented in the 5′ to 3′ orientation. Note that differences on the y-axis are relatively small (JPEG 599 KB)

10142_2006_39_Fig13_ESM.jpg (167 kb)
Supplemental Fig. S3

Scatterplot of log-transformed, normalized expression values of biological replicates of water-deficit-treated plants harvested on day 8. The correlation between all three pairs of replications was 0.998, as seen in Supplemental Table S1 (JPEG 466 KB)

10142_2006_39_Fig14_ESM.jpg (158 kb)
Supplemental Fig. S4

Comparison of gene expression levels determined by real time RT-PCR and the GeneChip microarray for five genes assessed in this study. Left: transcript abundance as measured by real time RT-PCR; right: real time RT-PCR transcript abundance correlation with microarray results (JPEG 161 KB)

References

  1. Abe H, Urao T, Ito T, Seki M, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2003) Arabidopsis AtMYC2 (bHLH) and AtMYB2 (MYB) function as transcriptional activators in abscisic acid signaling. Plant Cell 15:63–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandersson E, Fraysse L, Sjovall-Larsen S, Gustavsson S, Fellert M, Karlsson M, Johanson U, Kjellbom P (2005) Whole gene family expression and drought stress regulation of aquaporins. Plant Mol Biol 59:469–484PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aradhya MK, Dangl GS, Prins BH, Boursiquot JM, Walker MA, Meredith CP, Simon CJ (2003) Genetic structure and differentiation in cultivated grape, Vitis vinifera L. Genet Res 81:179–192PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Atienza SG, Faccioli P, Perrotta G, Dalfino G, Zschiesche W, Humbeck K, Stanca AM, Cattivelli L (2004) Large scale analysis of transcripts abundance in barley subjected to several single and combined abiotic stress conditions. Plant Sci 167:1359–1365Google Scholar
  5. Bacon MA, Wilkinson S, Davies WJ (1998) pH-regulated leaf cell expansion in droughted plants is abscisic acid dependent. Plant Physiol 118:1507–1515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bairoch A, Apweiler R, Wu CH, Barker WC, Boeckmann B, Ferro S, Gasteiger E, Huang H, Lopez R, Magrane M, Martin MJ, Natale DA, O’Donovan C, Redaschi N, Yeh LS (2005) The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt). Nucleic Acids Res 33:D154–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein L, Hayward HE (1958) Physiology of salt tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 9:25–46Google Scholar
  9. Bisson LF, Waterhouse AL, Ebeler SE, Walker MA, Lapsley JT (2002) The present and future of the international wine industry. Nature 418:696–699PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Blein J-P, Coutos-Thevenot P, Marion D, Ponchet M (2002) From elicitins to lipid-transfer proteins: a new insight in cell signalling involved in plant defence mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci 7:293–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bohnert HJ, Cushman JC (2002) Plant and environmental stress adaptation strategies. In: Oksman-Caldentey K-M, Barz WH (eds) Plant biotechnology and transgenic plants. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 635–664Google Scholar
  12. Bouche N, Fait A, Bouchez D, Moller SG, Fromm H (2003) Mitochondrial succinic-semialdehyde dehydrogenase of the gamma-aminobutyrate shunt is required to restrict levels of reactive oxygen intermediates in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:6843–6848PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Broeckling CD, Huhman DV, Farag MA, Smith JT, May GD, Mendes P, Dixon RA, Sumner LW (2005) Metabolic profiling of Medicago truncatula cell cultures reveals the effects of biotic and abiotic elicitors on metabolism. J Exp Bot 56:323–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen W, Provart NJ, Glazebrook J, Katagiri F, Chang HS, Eulgem T, Mauch F, Luan S, Zou G, Whitham SA, Budworth PR, Tao Y, Xie Z, Chen X, Lam S, Kreps JA, Harper JF, Si-Ammour A, Mauch-Mani B, Heinlein M, Kobayashi K, Hohn T, Dangl JL, Wang X, Zhu T (2002) Expression profile matrix of Arabidopsis transcription factor genes suggests their putative functions in response to environmental stresses. Plant Cell 14:559–574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen H, Rosin FM, Prat S, Hannapel DJ (2003) Interacting transcription factors from the three-amino acid loop extension superclass regulate tuber formation. Plant Physiol 132:1391–1404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi D, Kim JH, Kende H (2004) Whole genome analysis of the OsGRF gene family encoding plant-specific putative transcription activators in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Cell Physiol 45:897–904PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Corpas FJ, Barroso JB, del Rio LA (2001) Peroxisomes as a source of reactive oxygen species and nitric oxide signal molecules in plant cells. Trends Plant Sci 6:145–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cramer GR, Bowman DC (1991) Kinetics of maize leaf elongation. I. Increased yield threshold limits short-term, steady-state elongation rates after exposure to salinity. J Exp Bot 42:1417–1426Google Scholar
  19. Cutler JM, Rains DW, Loomis RS (1977) Role of changes in solute concentration in maintaining favorable water balance in field-grown cotton. Agron J 69:773–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. da Costa e Silva O, Lorbiecke R, Garg P, Muller L, Wassmann M, Lauert P, Scanlon M, Hsia AP, Schnable PS, Krupinska K, Wienand U (2004) The Etched1 gene of Zea mays (L.) encodes a zinc ribbon protein that belongs to the transcriptionally active chromosome (TAC) of plastids and is similar to the transcription factor TFIIS. Plant J 38:923–939PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. da Silva FG, Iandolino A, Al-Kayal F, Bohlman MC, Cushman MA, Lim H, Ergul A, Figueroa R, Kabuloglu EK, Osborne C, Rowe J, Tattersall E, Leslie A, Xu J, Baek J-M, Cramer GR, Cushman JC, Cook DR (2005) Characterizing the grape transcriptome: analysis of ESTs from multiple Vitis species and development of a compendium of gene expression during berry development. Plant Physiol 139:574–597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Davies C, Robinson SP (2000) Differential screening indicates a dramatic change in mRNA profiles during grape berry ripening. Cloning and characterization of cDNAs encoding putative cell wall and stress response proteins. Plant Physiol 122:803–812PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. DeBolt S, Cook DR, Ford CM (2006) L-tartaric acid synthesis from vitamin C in higher plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:5608–5613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Delauney AJ, Verma DPS (1993) Proline biosynthesis and osmoregulation in plants. Plant J 4:215–223Google Scholar
  25. Deuschle K, Funck D, Forlani G, Stransky H, Biehl A, Leister D, van der Graaff E, Kunze R, Frommer WB (2004) The role of [Delta]1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate dehydrogenase in proline degradation. Plant Cell 16:3413–3425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Dixon RA, Xie DY, Sharma SB (2005) Proanthocyanidins—a final frontier in flavonoid research? New Phytol 165:9–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Eisen MB, Spellman PT, Brown PO, Botstein D (1998) Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:14863–14868PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Espinoza C, Vega A, Medina C, Schlauch K, Cramer G, Arce-Johnson P (2006) Gene expression associated with compatible viral diseases in grapevine cultivars. Funct Integr Genomics (in press) DOI 10.1007/s10142-006-0031-6
  29. Esteban MA, Villanueva MJ, Lissarrague JR (1999) Effect of irrigation on changes in berry composition of Tempranillo during maturation. Sugars, organic acids, and mineral elements. Am J Enol Vitic 50:418–434Google Scholar
  30. Esteban MA, Villanueva MJ, Lissarrague JR (2001) Effect of irrigation on changes in the anthocyanin composition of the skin of cv Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) grape berries during ripening. J Sci Food Agric 81:409–420Google Scholar
  31. FAO (2005) Global network on integrated soil management for sustainable use of salt-affected soils. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  32. Fernandez-Ballester G, Cerdá A, Martínez V (1997) Role of calcium in short-term responses of bean plants to osmotic or saline shocks. J Plant Physiol 151:741–747Google Scholar
  33. Fiorani F, Umbach AL, Siedow JN (2005) The alternative oxidase of plant mitochondria is involved in the acclimation of shoot growth at low temperature. A study of Arabidopsis AOX1a transgenic plants. Plant Physiol 139:1795–1805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Fricke W (2002) Biophysical limitation of leaf cell elongation in source-reduced barley. Planta 215:327–338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Fricke W, Peters WS (2002) The biophysics of leaf growth in salt-stressed barley. A study at the cell level. Plant Physiol 129:374–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Fricke W, Leigh RA, Tomos AD (1996) The intercellular distribution of vacuolar solutes in the epidermis and mesophyll of barley leaves changes in response to NaCl. J Exp Bot 47:1413–1426Google Scholar
  37. Fujita M, Fujita Y, Maruyama K, Seki M, Hiratsu K, Ohme-Takagi M, Tran LS, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (2004) A dehydration-induced NAC protein, RD26, is involved in a novel ABA-dependent stress-signaling pathway. Plant J 39:863–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Gautier L, Cope L, Bolstad BM, Irizarry RA (2004) affy-analysis of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics 20:307–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. German JB, Walzem RL (2000) The health benefits of wine. Annu Rev Nutr 20:561–593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Gibeaut DM, Hulett J, Cramer GR, Seemann JR (1997) Maximal biomass of Arabidopsis thaliana using a simple, low-maintenance hydroponic method and favorable environmental conditions. Plant Physiol 115:317–319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Gong Q, Li P, Ma S, Indu Rupassara S, Bohnert HJ (2005) Salinity stress adaptation competence in the extremophile Thellungiella halophila in comparison with its relative Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 44:826–839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Grallath S, Weimar T, Meyer A, Gumy C, Suter-Grotemeyer M, Neuhaus J-M, Rentsch D (2005) The AtProT family: compatible solute transporters with similar substrate specificity but differential expression patterns. Plant Physiol 137:117–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Greenway H, Munns R (1980) Mechanisms of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 31:149–190Google Scholar
  44. Gu R, Fonseca S, Pushkas LG, Hackler L Jr, Zvara A, Dudits D, Pais MS (2004) Transcript identification and profiling during salt stress and recovery of Populus euphratica. Tree Physiol 24:265–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Guo H, Ecker JR (2004) The ethylene signaling pathway: new insights. Curr Opin Plant Biol 7:40–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hartung W, Radin JW, Hendrix DL (1988) Abscisic acid movement into the apoplastic solution of water-stressed cotton leaves: role of apoplastic pH. Plant Physiol 86:908–913PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Hawker JS, Walker RR (1978) The effect of sodium chloride on the growth and fruiting of Cabernet Sauvignon vines. Am J Enol Vitic 29:172–176Google Scholar
  48. Irizarry RA, Hobbs B, Collin F, Beazer-Barclay YD, Antonellis KJ, Scherf U, Speed TP (2003) Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 4:249–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Iuchi S, Kobayashi M, Taji T, Naramoto M, Seki M, Kato T, Tabata S, Kakubari Y, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (2001) Regulation of drought tolerance by gene manipulation of 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase, a key enzyme in abscisic acid biosynthesis in Arabidopsis. Plant J 27:325–333PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Jeong ML, Jiang H, Chen H-S, Tsai C-J, Harding SA (2004) Metabolic profiling of the sink-to-source transition in developing leaves of quaking aspen. Plant Physiol 136:3364–3375PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kamada T, Nito K, Hayashi H, Mano S, Hayashi M, Nishimura M (2003) Functional differentiation of peroxisomes revealed by expression profiles of peroxisomal genes in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Physiol 44:1275–1289PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Kavi Kishor PB, Hong Z, Miao GH, Hu CAA, Verma DPS (1995) Overexpression of delta1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase increases proline production and confers osmotolerance in transgenic plants. Plant Physiol 108:1387–1394Google Scholar
  53. Kawasaki S, Borchert C, Deyholos M, Wang H, Brazille S, Kawai K, Galbraith D, Bohnert HJ (2001) Gene expression profiles during the initial phase of salt stress in rice. Plant Cell 13:889–906PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Kennedy JA, Matthews MA, Waterhouse AL (2000) Changes in grape seed polyphenols during fruit ripening. Phytochemistry 55:77–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kerr MK, Martin M, Churchill GA (2000) Analysis of variance for gene expression microarray data. J Comput Biol 7:819–837PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Kim CY, Liu Y, Thorne ET, Yang H, Fukushige H, Gassmann W, Hildebrand D, Sharp RE, Zhang S (2003) Activation of a stress-responsive mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade induces the biosynthesis of ethylene in plants. Plant Cell 15:2707–2718PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kiyosue T, Yoshiba Y, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (1996) A nuclear gene encoding mitochondrial proline dehydrogenase, and enzyme involved in proline metabolism, is upregulated by proline but downregulated by dehydration in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 8:1323–1335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Kliewer WM, Nassar AR (1966) Changes in concentration of organic acids, sugars, and amino acids in grape leaves. Am J Enol Vitic 17:48–57Google Scholar
  59. Kocsy G, Laurie R, Szalai G, Szilagyi V, Simon-Sarkadi L, Galiba G, de Ronde JA (2005) Genetic manipulation of proline levels affects antioxidants in soybean subjected to simultaneous drought and heat stresses. Physiol Plant 124:227–235Google Scholar
  60. Kreps JA, Wu Y, Chang HS, Zhu T, Wang X, Harper JF (2002) Transcriptome changes for Arabidopsis in response to salt, osmotic, and cold stress. Plant Physiol 130:2129–2141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Liu Q, Kasuga M, Sakuma Y, Abe H, Miura S, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (1998) Two transcription factors, DREB1 and DREB2, with an EREBP/AP2 DNA binding domain separate two cellular signal transduction pathways in drought- and low-temperature-responsive gene expression, respectively, in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 10:1391–1406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Loveys BR, During H (1984) Diurnal changes in water relations and abscisic acid in field-grown Vitis vinifera cultivars II. Abscisic acid changes under semi-arid conditions. New Phytol 97:37–47Google Scholar
  63. Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance—current assessment. J Irrig Drain Div ASCE 103:115–134Google Scholar
  64. Maathuis FJ, Filatov V, Herzyk P, Krijger GC, Axelsen KB, Chen S, Green BJ, Li Y, Madagan KL, Sanchez-Fernandez R, Forde BG, Palmgren MG, Rea PA, Williams LE, Sanders D, Amtmann A (2003) Transcriptome analysis of root transporters reveals participation of multiple gene families in the response to cation stress. Plant J 35:675–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Matthews MA, Anderson MM (1988) Fruit ripening in Vitis vinifera L.: responses to seasonal water deficits. Am J Enol Vitic 39:313–320Google Scholar
  66. Matthews MA, Ishii R, Anderson MM, O’Mahony M (1990) Dependence of wine sensory attributes on vine water status. J Sci Food Agric 51:321–335Google Scholar
  67. McCutchan J, Shackel KA (1992) Stem-water potential as a sensitive indicator of water stress in prune trees (Prunus domestica L. cv. French). J Am Soc Hortic Sci 117:607–611Google Scholar
  68. Medrano H, Escalona JM, Bota J, Gulias J, Flexas J (2002) Regulation of photosynthesis of C3 plants in response to progressive drought: stomatal conductance as a reference parameter. Ann Bot (Lond) 89:895–905Google Scholar
  69. Millar AH, Heazlewood JL (2003) Genomic and proteomic analysis of mitochondrial carrier proteins in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 131:443–453PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Miller G, Stein H, Honig A, Kapulnik Y, Zilberstein A (2005) Responsive modes of Medicago sativa proline dehydrogenase genes during salt stress and recovery dictate free proline accumulation. Planta 222:70–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Mittler R, Vanderauwera S, Gollery M, Van Breusegem F (2004) Reactive oxygen gene network of plants. Trends Plant Sci 9:490–498PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Moller IM (2001) Plant mitochondria and oxidative stress: electron transport, NADPH turnover, and metabolism of reactive oxygen species. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 52:561–591PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Moreno JI, Martin R, Castresana C (2005) Arabidopsis SHMT1, a serine hydroxymethyltransferase that functions in the photorespiratory pathway influences resistance to biotic and abiotic stress. Plant J 41:451–463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Moser C, Segala C, Fontana P, Salakhudtinov I, Gatto P, Pindo M, Zyprian E, Toepfer R, Grando MS, Velasco R (2005) Comparative analysis of expressed sequence tags from different organs of Vitis vinifera L. Funct Integr Genomics 5:208–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Mott KA, Woodrow IE (2000) Modelling the role of Rubisco activase in limiting non-steady-state photosynthesis. J Exp Bot 51:399–406 (Spec No)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Munns R (2002) Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:239–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Munns R (2005) Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together. New Phytol 167:645–663PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Niyogi KK, Grossman AR, Björkman O (1998) Arabidopsis mutants define a central role for the xanthophyll cycle in the regulation of photosynthetic energy conversion. Plant Cell 10:1121–1134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Noctor G, Veljovic-Jovanovic S, Driscoll S, Novitskaya L, Foyer CH (2002) Drought and oxidative load in the leaves of C3 plants: a predominant role for photorespiration? Ann Bot (Lond) 89:841–850 (Spec No)Google Scholar
  80. Olsen LJ, Harada JJ (1995) Peroxisomes and their assembly in higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 46:123–146Google Scholar
  81. Olsen AN, Ernst HA, Leggio LL, Skriver K (2005) NAC transcription factors: structurally distinct, functionally diverse. Trends Plant Sci 10:79–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Ozturk ZN, Talamé V, Deyholos M, Michalowski CB, Galbraith DW, Gozukirmizi N, Tuberosa R, Bohnert HJ (2002) Monitoring large-scale changes in transcript abundance in drought- and salt-stressed barley. Plant Mol Biol 48:551–573Google Scholar
  83. Parry MA, Andralojc PJ, Khan S, Lea PJ, Keys AJ (2002) Rubisco activity: effects of drought stress. Ann Bot (Lond) 89:833–839 (Spec No)Google Scholar
  84. Parry MA, Andralojc PJ, Mitchell RA, Madgwick PJ, Keys AJ (2003) Manipulation of Rubisco: the amount, activity, function and regulation. J Exp Bot 54:1321–1333PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Passioura JB, Munns R (2000) Rapid environmental changes that affect leaf water status induce transient surges or pauses in leaf expansion rate. Aust J Plant Physiol 27:941–948Google Scholar
  86. Patakas A (2000) Changes in the solutes contributing to osmotic potential during leaf ontogeny in grapevine leaves. Am J Enol Vitic 51:223–226Google Scholar
  87. Patakas A, Noitsakis B (1999) Osmotic adjustment and partitioning of turgor responses to drought in grapevines leaves. Am J Enol Vitic 50:76–80Google Scholar
  88. Patakas A, Nikolaou N, Zioziou E, Radoglou K, Noitsakis B (2002) The role of organic solute and ion accumulation in osmotic adjustment in drought-stressed grapevines. Plant Sci 163:361–367Google Scholar
  89. Peng Z, Lu Q, Verma DPS (1996) Reciprocal regulation of delta 1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase and proline dehydrogenase genes controls proline levels during and after osmotic stress in plants. Mol Gen Genet 253:334–341PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Prior LD, Grieve AM, Cullis BR (1992) Sodium chloride and soil texture interactions in irrigated field grown Sultana grapevines. 1. Yield and fruit quality. Aust J Agric Res 43:1051–1066Google Scholar
  91. Rabbani MA, Maruyama K, Abe H, Khan MA, Katsura K, Ito Y, Yoshiwara K, Seki M, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2003) Monitoring expression profiles of rice genes under cold, drought, and high-salinity stresses and abscisic acid application using cDNA microarray and RNA gel-blot analyses. Plant Physiol 133:1755–1767PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Rassam M, Laing WA (2004) Purification and characterization of phytocystatins from kiwifruit cortex and seeds. Phytochemistry 65:19–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Raven JA (1985) Regulation of pH and generation of osmolarity in vascular plants: a cost–benefit analysis in relation to efficiency of use of energy, nitrogen and water. New Phytol 101:25–77Google Scholar
  94. Reddy AR, Chaitanya KV, Vivekanandan M (2004) Drought-induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants. J Plant Physiol 161:1189–1202Google Scholar
  95. Rentsch D, Hirner B, Schmelzer E, Frommer WB (1996) Salt stress-induced proline transporters and salt stress-repressed broad specificity amino acid permeases identified by suppression of a yeast amino acid permease-targeting mutant. Plant Cell 8:1437–1446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Rhodes D, Nadloska-Orczyk A, Rich PJ (2002) Salinity, osmolytes and compatible solutes. In: Lauchli A, Luttge U (eds) Salinity: environment–plants–molecules. Kluwer, Boston, pp 181–204Google Scholar
  97. Rizhsky L, Liang H, Shuman J, Shulaev V, Davletova S, Mittler R (2004) When defense pathways collide. The response of Arabidopsis to a combination of drought and heat stress. Plant Physiol 134:1683–1696PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Rozen S, Skaletsky H (2000) Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. Methods Mol Biol 132:365–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Scheibe R (2004) Malate valves to balance cellular energy supply. Physiol Plant 120:21–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Schultz HR, Matthews MA (1988) Resistance to water transport in shoots of Vitis vinifera L.: relation to growth at low water potential. Plant Physiol 88:718–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Seki M, Narusaka M, Ishida J, Nanjo T, Fujita M, Oono Y, Kamiya A, Nakajima M, Enju A, Sakurai T, Satou M, Akiyama K, Taji T, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Carninci P, Kawai J, Hayashizaki Y, Shinozaki K (2002) Monitoring the expression profiles of 7000 Arabidopsis genes under drought, cold and high-salinity stresses using a full-length cDNA microarray. Plant J 31:279–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Shani U, Waisel Y, Eshel A, Xue S, Ziv G (1993) Responses to salinity of grapevine plants with split root systems. New Phytol 124:695–701Google Scholar
  103. Shin D, Koo YD, Lee J, Lee HJ, Baek D, Lee S, Cheon CI, Kwak SS, Lee SY, Yun DJ (2004) Athb-12, a homeobox-leucine zipper domain protein from Arabidopsis thaliana, increases salt tolerance in yeast by regulating sodium exclusion. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 323:534–540PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Sipiora MJ, Granda MJG (1998) Effects of pre-veraison irrigation cutoff and skin contact time on the composition, color, and phenolic content of young Cabernet Sauvignon wines in Spain. Am J Enol Vitic 49:152–162Google Scholar
  105. Smyth GK (2005) Limma: linear models for microarray data. In: Gentleman R, Carey V, Huber W, Irizarry R, Dudoit S (eds) Bioinformatics and computational biology solutions using R and bioconductor. Springer, Berlin Heildelberg New York, pp 397–420Google Scholar
  106. Stockinger EJ, Gilmour SJ, Thomashow MF (1997) Arabidopsis thaliana CBF1 encodes an AP2 domain-containing transcriptional activator that binds to the C-repeat/DRE, a cis-acting DNA regulatory element that stimulates transcription in response to low temperature and water deficit. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:1035–1040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Taji T, Ohsumi C, Iuchi S, Seki M, Kasuga M, Kobayashi M, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (2002) Important roles of drought- and cold-inducible genes for galactinol synthase in stress tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 29:417–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Taji T, Seki M, Satou M, Sakurai T, Kobayashi M, Ishiyama K, Narusaka Y, Narusaka M, Zhu JK, Shinozaki K (2004) Comparative genomics in salt tolerance between Arabidopsis and Arabidopsis-related halophyte salt cress using Arabidopsis microarray. Plant Physiol 135:1697–1709PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Tang AC, Boyer JS (2002) Growth-induced water potentials and the growth of maize leaves. J Exp Bot 53:489–503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Tattersall EAR, Ergul A, Al-Kayal F, Cushman JC, Cramer GR (2005) A comparison of methods for isolating RNA from leaves of grapevine (Vitis vinifera). Am J Enol Vitic 56:400–406Google Scholar
  111. Terrier N, Ageorges A, Abbal P, Romieu C (2001) Generation of ESTs from grape berry at various developmental stages. J Plant Physiol 158:1575–1583Google Scholar
  112. Terrier N, Glissant D, Grimplet J, Barrieu F, Abbal P, Couture C, Ageorges A, Atanassova R, Leon C, Renaudin JP, Dedaldechamp F, Romieu C, Delrot S, Hamdi S (2005) Isogene specific oligo arrays reveal multifaceted changes in gene expression during grape berry (Vitis vinifera L.) development. Planta 222:832–847PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Tezara W, Mitchell VJ, Driscoll SD, Lawlor DW (1999) Water stress inhibits plant photosynthesis by decreasing coupling factor and ATP. Nature 401:914–917Google Scholar
  114. Tran LS, Nakashima K, Sakuma Y, Simpson SD, Fujita Y, Maruyama K, Fujita M, Seki M, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2004) Isolation and functional analysis of Arabidopsis stress-inducible NAC transcription factors that bind to a drought-responsive cis-element in the early responsive to dehydration stress 1 promoter. Plant Cell 16:2481–2498PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Ueda A, Kathiresan A, Inada M, Narita Y, Nakamura T, Shi W, Takabe T, Bennett J (2004) Osmotic stress in barley regulates expression of a different set of genes than salt stress does. J Exp Bot 55:2213–2218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Umbach AL, Fiorani F, Siedow JN (2005) Characterization of transformed Arabidopsis with altered alternative oxidase levels and analysis of effects on reactive oxygen species in tissue. Plant Physiol 139:1806–1820PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Verslues PE, Sharp RE (1999) Proline accumulation in maize (Zea mays L.) primary roots at low water potentials. II. Metabolic source of increased proline deposition in the elongation zone. Plant Physiol 119:1349–1360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Vivier MA, Pretorius IS (2002) Genetically tailored grapevines for the wine industry. Trends Biotechnol 20:472–478Google Scholar
  119. Walia H, Wilson C, Condamine P, Liu X, Ismail AM, Zeng L, Wanamaker SI, Mandal J, Xu J, Cui X, Close TJ (2005) Comparative transcriptional profiling of two contrasting rice genotypes under salinity stress during the vegetative growth stage. Plant Physiol 139:822–835PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Walker RR, Torokfalvy E, Steele Scott N, Kriedemann PE (1981) An analysis of photosynthetic response to salt treatment in Vitis vinifera. Aust J Plant Physiol 8:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Walker RR, Blackmore DH, Clingeleffer PR, Correll RL (2002) Rootstock effects of salt tolerance of irrigated field-grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultana) I. Yield and vigour inter-relationships. Aust J Grape Wine Res 8:3–14Google Scholar
  122. Walker RR, Blackmon DH, Clingeleffer PR, Correll RL (2004) Rootstock effects on salt tolerance of irrigated field-grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultana) 2. Ion concentration in leaves and juice. Aust J Grape Wine Res 10:90–99Google Scholar
  123. Waters DL, Holton TA, Ablett EM, Lee LS, Henry RJ (2005) cDNA microarray analysis of developing grape (Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz) berry skin. Funct Integr Genomics 5:40–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Whittaker A, Bochicchio A, Vazzana C, Lindsey G, Farrant J (2001) Changes in leaf hexokinase activity and metabolite levels in response to drying in the desiccation-tolerant species Sporobolus stapfianus and Xerophyta viscosa. J Exp Bot 52:961–969PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. Wilkinson S, Davies WJ (2002) ABA-based chemical signalling: the co-ordination of responses to stress in plants. Plant Cell Environ 25:195–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Wingler A, Lea PJ, Quick WP, Leegood RC (2000) Photorespiration: metabolic pathways and their role in stress protection. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 355:1517–1529Google Scholar
  127. Wyn Jones RG, Brady CJ, Speirs J (1979) Ionic and osmotic relations in plant cells. In: Recent advances in the biochemistry of cereals. Academic, New York, pp 63–103Google Scholar
  128. Yamada M, Morishita H, Urano K, Shiozaki N, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K, Yoshiba Y (2005) Effects of free proline accumulation in petunias under drought stress. J Exp Bot 56:1975–1981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (2006) Transcriptional regulatory networks in cellular responses and tolerance to dehydration and cold stresses. Annu Rev Plant BiolGoogle Scholar
  130. Yancey PH, Clark ME, Hand SC, Bowlus RD, Somero GN (1982) Living with water stress: evolution of osmolyte systems. Science 217:1214–1222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. Yanhui C, Xiaoyuan Y, Kun H, Meihua L, Jigang L, Zhaofeng G, Zhiqiang L, Yunfei Z, Xiaoxiao W, Xiaoming Q, Yunping S, Li Z, Xiaohui D, Jingchu L, Xing-Wang D, Zhangliang C, Hongya G, Li-Jia Q (2006) The MYB transcription factor superfamily of Arabidopsis: expression analysis and phylogenetic comparison with the rice MYB family. Plant Mol Biol 60:107–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Yeo AR (1983) Salinity resistance: physiologies and prices. Physiol Plant 58:214–222Google Scholar
  133. Yoshiba Y, Kiyosue T, Nakashima K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (1997) Regulation of levels of proline as an osmolyte in plants under water stress. Plant Cell Physiol 38:1095–1102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Zhao XC, Schaller GE (2004) Effect of salt and osmotic stress upon expression of the ethylene receptor ETR1 in Arabidopsis thaliana. FEBS Lett 562:189–192PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. Zhu BC, Su J, Chan MC, Verma DPS, Fan YL, Wu R (1998) Overexpression of a Delta1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase gene and analysis of tolerance to water- and salt-stress in transgenic rice. Plant Sci 139:41–48Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grant R. Cramer
    • 1
  • Ali Ergül
    • 2
  • Jerome Grimplet
    • 1
  • Richard L. Tillett
    • 1
  • Elizabeth A. R. Tattersall
    • 1
  • Marlene C. Bohlman
    • 1
  • Delphine Vincent
    • 1
  • Justin Sonderegger
    • 1
  • Jason Evans
    • 1
  • Craig Osborne
    • 3
  • David Quilici
    • 1
  • Karen A. Schlauch
    • 4
  • David A. Schooley
    • 1
  • John C. Cushman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, MS200University of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.Biotechnology InstituteAnkara UniversityBesevler-AnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Animal BiotechnologyUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  4. 4.Boston University School of Medicine, Department of Genetics and GenomicsBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations