↓ Skip to main content

Transcriptional Responses to Pre-flowering Leaf Defoliation in Grapevine Berry from Different Growing Sites, Years, and Genotypes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transcriptional Responses to Pre-flowering Leaf Defoliation in Grapevine Berry from Different Growing Sites, Years, and Genotypes
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.00630
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Zenoni, Silvia Dal Santo, Giovanni B. Tornielli, Erica D’Incà, Ilaria Filippetti, Chiara Pastore, Gianluca Allegro, Oriana Silvestroni, Vania Lanari, Antonino Pisciotta, Rosario Di Lorenzo, Alberto Palliotti, Sergio Tombesi, Matteo Gatti, Stefano Poni

Abstract

Leaf removal is a grapevine canopy management technique widely used to modify the source-sink balance and/or microclimate around berry clusters to optimize fruit composition. In general, the removal of basal leaves before flowering reduces fruit set, hence achieving looser clusters, and improves grape composition since yield is generally curtailed more than proportionally to leaf area itself. Albeit responses to this practice seem quite consistent, overall vine performance is affected by genotype, environmental conditions, and severity of treatment. The physiological responses of grape varieties to defoliation practices have been widely investigated, and just recently a whole genome transcriptomic approach was exploited showing an extensive transcriptome rearrangement in berries defoliated before flowering. Nevertheless, the extent to which these transcriptomic reactions could be manifested by different genotypes and growing environments is entirely unexplored. To highlight general responses to defoliation vs. different locations, we analyzed the transcriptome of cv. Sangiovese berries sampled at four development stages from pre-flowering defoliated vines in two different geographical areas of Italy. We obtained and validated five markers of the early defoliation treatment in Sangiovese, an ATP-binding cassette transporter, an auxin response factor, a cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase, a flavonoid 3-O-glucosyltransferase and an indole-3-acetate beta-glucosyltransferase. Candidate molecular markers were also obtained in another three grapevine genotypes (Nero d'Avola, Ortrugo, and Ciliegiolo), subjected to the same level of selective pre-flowering defoliation (PFD) over two consecutive years in their different areas of cultivation. The flavonol synthase was identified as a marker in the pre-veraison phase, the jasmonate methyltransferase during the transition phase and the abscisic acid receptor PYL4 in the ripening phase. The characterization of transcriptome changes in Sangiovese berry after PFD highlights, on one hand, the stronger effect of environment than treatment on the whole berry transcriptome rearrangement during development and, on the other, expands existing knowledge of the main molecular and biochemical modifications occurring in defoliated vines. Moreover, the identification of candidate genes associated with PFD in different genotypes and environments provides new insights into the applicability and repeatability of this crop practice, as well as its possible agricultural and qualitative outcomes across genetic and environmental variability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 10 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Unspecified 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,459,782
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#10,960
of 20,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,780
of 310,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#374
of 597 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,410 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 597 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.