Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relative quantification of Vitis vinifera L. varieties in musts by microsatellite DNA analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Varietal wines are defined as made primarily from a single variety of grape, which is identified on the label. However the inclusion of other varieties in their production is permitted under defined percentages. The fact that different grape varieties/varietal wines present far different economical values can attract fraudulent practices. Thus the development of methods, which allow the quantification of those varieties, is of crucial importance. The first approach to the method for the relative quantification of must containing two varieties based on microsatellite DNA analysis is presented. Quantification was achieved by densitometry measurements of the amplification products of the pooled varieties, obtained with loci VVMD6 and VVMD7, after their separation and staining on polyacrilamide gels. We have found that a good correlation between the proportion of each variety in must and the signal intensity of the alleles are dependent on the variety (varietal effect) and the microsatellite locus used. The relative quantification of musts can be accomplished by the presented method depending on the presence of overlapping alleles, and the composition of the varieties and their relative amounts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. González-Lara R, Correa I, Polo MC, Martín-Alvarez PJ, Ramos M (1989) Classification of variety musts by statistical analysis of their electrophoretic protein pattern. Food Chem 34:103–110. doi:10.1016/0308-8146(89)90078-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pueyo E, Dizy M, Polo MC (1993) Am J Enol Vitic 44:255–260

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Moreno-Arribas MV, Cabello F, Polo MC, Martín-Alvarez PJ, Pueyo E (1999) J Agric Food Chem 47:114–120. doi:10.1021/jf980483e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hayasaka Y, Adams KS, Pocock KF, Baldock GA, Waters EJ, Høj PB (2001) J Agric Food Chem 49:1830–1839. doi:10.1021/jf001163+

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Faria MA, Magalhães R, Ferreira MA, Meredith CP, Ferreira-Monteiro F (2000) J Agric Food Chem 48:1096–1100. doi:10.1021/jf990837h

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Siret R, Boursiquot JM, Merle MH, Cabanis JC, This P (2000) J Agric Food Chem 48:5035–5040. doi:10.1021/jf991168a

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Siret R, Gigaud O, Rosec JP, This P (2002) J Agric Food Chem 50:3822–3827. doi:10.1021/jf011462e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. García-Beneytez E, Moreno-Arribas MV, Borrego J, Polo MC, Ibánez J (2002) J Agric Food Chem 50:6090–9096. doi:10.1021/jf0202077

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rodríguez-Plaza P, González R, Moreno-Arribas MV, Polo MC, Bravo G, Martínez-Zapater JM, Martínez MC, Cifuentes A (2006) Eur Food Res Technol 223:625–631. doi:10.1007/s00217-005-0244-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Baleiras-Couto MM, Eiras-Dias JE (2006) Anal Chim Acta 563:283–291. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2005.09.076

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bowers JE, Dangl GS, Vignani R, Meredith CP (1996) Genome 39:628–633

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Raeymaekers L (1995) Genome Res 5:91–94. doi:10.1101/gr.5.1.91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Raeymaekers L (2000) Mol Biotechnol 15:115–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hirano T, Haque M, Utiyama H (2002) Anal Biochem 303:57–65. doi:10.1006/abio.2001.5573

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bassam BJ, Caetano-Anollés G, Gresshoff PM (1991. Anal Biochem 196:80–83. doi:10.1016/0003-2697(91)90120-I

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wood D, Shapiro C (1997) J NIH Res 9:50

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pacek P, Sajantila A, Syvänen AC (1993) PCR Methods Appl 2:313–317. doi:10.1101/gr.2.4.313

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kirov G, Williams N, Sham P, Craddock N, Owen MJ (2000) Genome Res 10:105–115. doi:10.1101/gr.10.1.105

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

M. A. Faria gratefully acknowledges the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, FCT, “Ciência e Inovação 2010”, for the attribution of grant BPD/20725/2004

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. REQUIMTE, Serviço de Bromatologia, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Rua Aníbal Cunha, 164, 4099-030, Porto, Portugal

    Miguel Angelo Faria & Maria Beatriz P. P. Oliveira

  2. CIBIO, Laboratory of Vegetal Genetics, Faculty of Sciences, Universitiy of Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas, Vairão, 4485-661, Vila do Conde, Portugal

    Eugénia Nunes

Authors
  1. Miguel Angelo Faria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eugénia Nunes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Beatriz P. P. Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Angelo Faria.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Faria, M.A., Nunes, E. & Oliveira, M.B.P.P. Relative quantification of Vitis vinifera L. varieties in musts by microsatellite DNA analysis. Eur Food Res Technol 227, 845–850 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-007-0795-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-007-0795-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation