Rootstock Breeding in Grapes

Many nurseries now offer trees with a choice of several rootstocks. Rootstocks play an
essential role in determining orchard performance. They are responsible for water and mineral
uptake and provide anchorage for the tree. Rootstocks may also provide some degree of tolerance
to drought and flooding. However, disease resistance and quality improvement is the major
components of rootstock breeding programs (Roper, 2001).
Importance of Grape rootstock
It is generally believed that Vitis vinifera, the grape of antiquity, has the
genome of 2n=38, originated in the Middle East and its cultivation began during
the Neolithic era (6,000–5,000 BC) along the eastern shores of the Black Sea
(Mullins et al., . 1992). In India, grape is grown on an area of 45,000 hectare with an
annual production of 1,20,000 tones in Maharashtra and in Karnataka it is grown on an area of
12,000 hectare with a production of 1,65,000 tones (Sheikh and Manjula, 2009).
Rootstocks offer grape producers a risk avoidance strategy (www.csiro.au) by acting as a
tool to manipulate vine performance. With reports of declining yield in the states of Maharashtra
and North Karnataka due to salinity of soil, water and severe drought, the farmers have realized
the importance of grape rootstock. Apart the drivers for rootstock adoption are wide ranging with
the more important being phylloxera, nematode and salt tolerance. Water-use efficiency and
drought tolerance are also increasingly important.
Rootstock breeding in grapes
Rootstock breeding has driven call for reduced vigour to counter the negative impacts of
high vigour on berry composition; for reduced potassium uptake to counter the impact of high
berry potassium on pH; and to reduce the need for pH adjustment during winemaking (Walker
and Clingeleffer, 2009). Different Vitis species are known for their ability to tolerate soil
infestations of phylloxera and nematodes. In breeding new rootstocks, the aim is to combine
resistance to these pests along with other key traits. At this point of view, it is important to test
hybrids for resistance to different races or biotypes of pests before they are selected for use as
rootstocks in evaluation trials.

Planchon (1887) divided the Vitis species into two sub-genera namely
Euvitis (bunch grapes) and Muscadinia (muscadine grapes). Muscadinia has a
genome of 2n =40, similar to the one of several other genera of Vitaceae
(Ampelopsis, Ampelocissus, Parthenocissus), while for Euvitis it is 2n =38.
Muscadinia is endemic to the southeastern states of the USA and among the
three species known, only Vitis rotundifolia Michx. is of commercial value
(Olien, 1990).
Great genetic diversity is found in grapevines and they are adapted to
different soils and climates. A number of American Vitis spp. were used in the
past and are still being used in breeding programmes, especially in
developing phylloxera resistant rootstocks, but also disease resistant wine
and table grape cultivars. Of these, the following are of highest importance:
V. labrusca, V. aestivalis and V. rupestris Vitis spp. native to tropical America,
like V. smalliana, V. caribaea and V. shuttleworthii are included in breeding
programmes to develop cultivars adapted to climatic conditions of the tropics
(Camargo, 2000). In the Eastern European and Asian countries, V. amurensis
is often included in breeding programmes to introduce cold hardiness and
disease resistance.
Objectives of rootstock breeding

Breeding rootstocks for tolerance to root pests of phylloxera, nematodes

Tolerance to adverse soil conditions – salinity, high lime and pH, low nutrient
status, poor water availability

To possess favourably nursery and viticultural characteristics of high propagation
rate, graft compatibility, appropriate growth, yield and fruit quality.

History and results of grape rootstock breeding
In Europe, the need of using of grapevine rootstocks occurred after the phylloxera
invasion in the second half of the 19th century. The destruction of European viticulture took

V. only V. V. The first vines began to deteriorate in France and the problem spread rapidly across the European continent (Granett et al. rupestris and V. (Meredith et al. Use of Euvitis Species in Resistance Breeding The introduction of American species resistant to phylloxera (mainly V. in their pedigree can also be highly phylloxera-resistant but such a resistance is not of permanent nature (Martinez-Peniche. Very early. or to their interspecific hybrids and hybrids with the botanial species Vitis berlandieri Planch.. Several species of North American grapes viz V.. (Cousins et al. riparia and V. berlandieri was adapted to the highly calcareous soils. 1997). vinifera and resistant American Vitis spp. In the former AustroHungarian Monarchy. riparia.. the breeding of rootstocks was oriented either to genuine Vitis species – Vitis rupestris Scheele. but could not be used in its pure form and hybridisation was necessary to develop rootstocks resistant to lime-induced chlorosis. Among the resistant species. labrusca. riparia were found to have certain characteristics like phylloxera resistance. 1999). As usual. nematode resistance. 1982).. Teleki’s rootstocks are still an important part of the breeding programme of resistant rootstocks.). like V. V. rupestris. Vitis riparia Michx. champinii. Rootstocks with a partial share of Vitis vinifera L. V. (Kocsis et al. berlandieri. special value as rootstocks in certain soils and drought tolerance. roots of rootstocks selected on the base of North American Vitis spp. 1990). Although chemical sprays (sulphur and copper) were rapidly effective against the fungal diseases. In France.place above all after 1860s when phylloxera was inadvertently introduced to Europe and devastated the European grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. 2001). berlandieri) and intensive breeding programmes saved grapevine production in many regions of the world (Pouget. 2003) and Xiphinema spp. After several experiments with a chemical liquidation of this pest the plant breeders and selectionists established new nurseries and started to breed resistant rootstocks. the breeding work was performed by the Hungarian breeder Zsigmond Teleki. Rootstocks were also breed for resistance against nematodes like Meloidogyne spp. 2002). these are still difficult to control and costs are high. aestivalis to combine their . are not at all (or only a little) infested by phylloxera. rupestris and V. numerous European breeders made crosses between V.. V. His breeding and selection process resulted in the creation of a number of rootstocks that are still being used in all wine-growing countries of the worlds (Bakonyi et al. former Czechoslovakia and present Czech Republic.

. Resistance to powdery mildew was also found in the wild Chinese species V. Other fungal diseases apart from the mildews. but not to the virus itself and also confirmed a large degree of dominance of this resistance (Bouquet et al. vinifera. Use of Muscadinia in Resistance Breeding Muscadinia is native to the southeastern United States and is a useful source for genes of resistance to phylloxera. 2005).. piasezkii (Wang et al.. include anthracnose (Mortensen. a new rootstock resistant to virus spread has been selected (Bouquet et al. davidii and V. Bouquet et al. It appeared that genotypes carrying the Run 1 gene also showed partial resistance to downy mildew due to the Rpv 1 linked gene (Merdinoglu et al. the same author also identified a dominant gene called Run 1 that confers resistance to powdery mildew and which he introduced in advanced back-cross progenies with V. Bouquet (1981) found the muscadines resistant to Xiphinema index the vector of grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV). Although hundreds of so-called ‘direct producer hybrids’ were introduced to the French wine industry during the first half of the twentieth century. they are not of commercial importance today. Chambourcin. V. In Muscadinia. Boubals (1959) postulated resistance to downy mildew to be dependent on two genic systems: a single gene for the hypersensitive reaction at the time of infection and several genes for the inhibition of growth of the fungal mycelium. 2000b). This was confirmed by Bouquet (1983) who found a high degree of resistance to phylloxera in Muscadinia. of importance in the USA (Krivanek et al. 2003).resistance with the fruit quality of V. while resistance against bacterial diseases include Pierce’s Disease. 2000).. Current strategies being . Eibach (2000) found different genes to be responsible for resistance to downy and powdery mildew and that no marked linkage seemed to exist between those genes. that breeders endeavour to develop resistance against. PD and fungal diseases.. amurensis (Korbuly. 1995) and to downy mildew in the Asiatic species V. these genes have a high degree of dominance (Olmo. 2004). nematodes. 2000a). bryoniifolia. Li (1993) also viewed resistance to powdery mildew to be of a polygenic nature and found minor resistance genes in V. 1981) and Botrytis. vinifera (Bouquet. By backcrossing a resistant F1 hybrid to the rootstock cultivar 140 Ruggeri. 1986). 2003). vinifera. Seyval) were intensively used in modern breeding programmes for disease resistance (Eibach and Topfer.. but some of them (Villard blanc. 1986. In Euvitis. Often. He also postulated resistance to powdery mildew to be dependent on a polygenic system.

cold hardiness .good affinity to Vitis vinifera L.suitable for light. 1989) . Characteristic features of certain major rootstocks of grapes Rootstock Carman Parentage V. and root knot nematode Vitis champini . less fertile soils with a good heat accumulation capacity .rootstock variety is phylloxera-tolerant Table 1B.resistance to active limestone is lower and does not exceed 10% Vitis riparia . .suitable for cultivation in lighter soils . Severnyj x (Vitis riparia x . Table 1A.resistant to Pierce disease. sandy.Adopted to both light sandy soils and calcareous soils A selection from .High vigour. 2003). A detailed characterisation of rootstock clones selected in the Grapevine Breeding Station Polešovice (Křivánek. lincecumii x Dog Ridge Triumph A selection from Schwarzmann Amos Characteristic features .good affinity to all common varieties of Vitis vinifera L.developed in European countries aim at combining genes of resistance from Muscadinia and Euvitis (Kozma and Dula.resistance to the content of low active limestone in soil Vitis rupestris) .

Procedure involved in grapevine breeding Some wild grapevine species have unique nematode resistance mechanisms. recovered with the bag  In the summer. and are thus used as parents in rootstock breeding. can be stored for a relatively long time. facilitating crosses between vines  To pollinate. the bags are removed. and their hybrids. individual vines bear clusters of either male or female flowers  Dioecious vines are relatively easy to cross as the flowers do not have to be emasculated. the appropriate pollen is slathered on with paint brush and the cluster is labeled. extract the seeds from the fruit and sow them in polybags . periodically tap the bag and listen for the rattle of detached petals that signals the blossoms are ready to be pollinated  Properly prepared pollen. to prevent unwanted crosses. The procedure involved are as follows:  Wild grapevines. enclose female flower clusters in paper bags prior to bloom  As bloom approaches. by grinding flowers. are dioecious.

Dusting of pollen to the grape flower Fig 2. . Later. because there is still no proven. irrespective of location. and the best selections would be evaluated alongside their parents. the number of insects of phylloxera strain G30 counted on Schwarzmann roots after eight weeks was 285. rootstocks should be assessed against as wide a range of strains as possible. Fig 1. For example. seedlings will then be screened for nematode resistance. long term method of controlling phylloxera with insecticides (Buchanan and Godden. Removal of bags after pollination Pest tolerance It would be a major risk to overlook phylloxera resistance and tolerance when selecting rootstocks for future plantings. in a laboratory based excised root bioassay. 1989). There are multiple strains of phylloxera and ideally.

champini. V. Magoon and Magness (1937) tested 42 rootstocks in South Mississippi and found only 6 of them exhibited resistance to root nematodes. . V. which is relatively tolerant or resistant to the bunch grape pests and diseases common in North America. and V. 2003). Resistance to nematodes and pierce disease Root nematodes (Meloidogyne spp. V. When the Florida hybrid bunch grape cultivar Blanc du Bois was grafted on to muscadine. and reduced establishment. cordifolia..). biformis. 1965). nesbittiana. and ‘Rupestris St. This compared with just one insect each of strain G30 and strain G4 on roots of 1103 Paulsen and 612 and 725 insects. 2007).compared with just two insects of strain G4. the scion showed a reduction in both PD and anthracnose symptoms and fruiting improved (Ren and Lu.. ‘Riparia x berlandieri 161-49’. ‘Ramsey’ (V rupestris x V. ‘Monticola x Rupestris’. shortened vine life. ‘Harmony’. candicans). rotundifolia (muscadine grape). Some other rootstocks considered to be resistant to nematodes are ‘Ramsey’.) are another severe pest problem in Vitis. including Vitis mustangensis. champini). cinerea and its hybrids (Cousins et al. 1992). Nematode resistant Vitis species include V. Some novel sources of resistance to aggressive root-knot nematodes. Grape rootstock trials in Mississippi showed a large effect of rootstock trial on vine longevity in a region recognized for high Pierce’s disease pressure (Loomis. ‘Barnes’ (V. ‘Joly’ (V. Rootstocks demonstrating high survival rates had lower PD scores. George’. and V. respectively of strain. weak vines. longii (Mullins et al. Pierce’s disease (PD) caused by gram-negative bacterium Xylella fastidiosa. ‘1613 C’ and ‘SO4’ (Mullins et al. is the primary limiting factor of growing Euvitis grape. It results in galled roots. champini).. aestivalis. V. ‘Dog Ridge’. V. 1992. 2003). namely. cinerea. V. while the lower survival percentage rootstocks had higher PD ratings (Lu and Cousins.

vinifera × V. 1996) and was largely used in breeding programmes for wine grapes in the USA (Hemstad and Luby. Troncoso et al. Rootstocks of V. Some salt tolerant rootstocks are also important as the grapevine is easily affected by salinity. (1999) found in vitro techniques suitable for the selection of salt tolerance in various rootstocks. labrusca and V.Fig 3. riparia. tolerance to abiotic stress factors is also important. 2000). Further work. Pouget (1980) bred a new rootstock cultivar highly resistant to iron chlorosis by inter-crossing rootstocks of V. 1986). rupestris and V. V. However. Skene and Barlass (1988) stressed the need for verification under field conditions. riparia. (1990) investigated the possibility of in vitro selection. Rootstock Transformation . berlandieri ancestry. amurensis (Reisch and Pratt. berlandieri ancestry were found the most tolerant to drought in greenhouse conducted tests by Carbonneau (1985). 2000) and Eastern Europe (Korbuly. PD score effect on vine survival rate after three growing seasons Resistance to Abiotic Stress In breeding programmes for some wine grapes and rootstocks. V. Cold tolerance is found in V. berlandieri ancestry led to another new cultivar well adapted to acid soils (Pouget and Ottenwaelter. Some rootstocks are known to be susceptible to magnesium deficiency and Bouquet et al. using inter-crossing rootstocks of V. rupestris × V.

expressed normally with a mendelian segregation in offspring. Torregrosa and Bouquet (1997) co-inoculated in vitro grown plantlets of the rootstock Gravesac with a mixture of wild A. therefore. while Mauro et al. (2003a) found that transgenes (nptII. introduced into 110 Richter and V. 3 did not show reaction to GFLV infection 3 years after planting (Vigne et al. (2002) reported stable transformation of V. Martinelli et al. (1994) transformed 110 Richter with the coat protein of Grapevine Chrome Mosaic Virus (GCMV-CP).GFLV is transmitted by the nematode X.. Transformed hairy root cultures were initiated from excised root tips. (1995) obtained V. index resistant rootstocks developed by conventional cross-breeding. GFLV infected vines which are infested with Blister mite form white blisters Le Gall et al. many researchers put their efforts into producing transgenic plants with coat protein mediated protection. (1995) obtained 41B and SO4 plants also transformed with GFLV-CP. rupestris rootstocks and transmitted by hybridisation in X. Plant regeneration was not achieved. Sade et al. Krastanova et al. rhizogenes and A. index. tumefaciens carrying plasmids containing GCMV-CP genes. Fig 4. . but the authors mentioned the possibility to graft in vitro transgenic roots to non-transformed shoot systems. uidA and GFLV-CP). (2000) cloned the gene encoding the coat protein of Grapevine Virus A (GVA-CP) and used this gene to transform the rootstock 41B and tobacco. Bouquet et al. Dangerous chemicals are used for soil disinfection and. From 18 independent transgenic grapevine lines established in a naturally infected vineyard. 2003). rupestris with the movement protein of GVA. rupestris and 110 Richter plants transformed with the coat protein of GFLV.

. Neo Muscat (V. namely the GFLV-CP gene.. Nebbiolo with the same gene. into non-toxic eutypinol. Transformed plants were established only for the rootstock cultivar 110R and were not affected by relatively high concentrations of eutypine. vinifera) plants transformed with a rice chitinase gene showed enhanced disease resistance to powdery mildew and anthracnose (Yamamoto et al. the toxin that is involved in eutypa dieback. Scorza et al. . (2005) reported transformation of cv. while Gambino et al. (1995) reported the first transformed plants of a scion cultivar (V. vinifera) cells transformed with the gene (Vr-ERE) encoding the eutypine-reducing enzyme showed in vitro resistance to the toxin. 2003). hydrolytic enzyme coding genes are very attractive for researchers in their efforts to improve disease resistance. 2000). were evaluated for resistance to crown gall and powdery mildew (Vidal et al.. 2006).Guillen et al. (1996) reported that by combining particle bombardment of somatic embryos with Agrobacterium co-cultivation produced Thompson seedless plants transformed with the lytic peptide Shiva-1 or the tomato ring spot virus (Tom RSV) coat protein genes. Chardonnay plants. Chitinase is one of the hydrolytic enzymes. transformed with an antimicrobial peptide gene by using biolistics. whereas growth of untransformed plants were highly inhibited (Legrand et al. (2005) obtained Chardonnay and Thompson Seedless plants transformed with the pear polygalacturonase inhibiting protein (pPGIP) gene. Ag¨uero et al. Because of this characteristic. Plants were evaluated for tolerance to PD and Botrytis and delay in the development of PD was observed in some transgenic lines with increased pPGIP activity. Scion Transformation Mauro et al. (1998) purified a NADPH-dependent aldehyde reductase from Vigna radiata that converts eutypine. Chardonnay) with a gene of agricultural value. Grapevine (V. which can degrade fungal cell wall components. vinifera cv.

but a yield of only 18. is not necessarily indicative of vine performance. Mean yield of Sun Muscat was 28. or downward flow in phloem of carbohydrates or other essential factors for root function. For example. George to single level of imposed soil moisture stress in an existing vineyard revealed that Thompson Seedless on Dogridge B performed well in terms of growth.8kg/vine for Ramsey.9kg/vine for 1103 Paulsen. Salt Creek. (1969) reported large and easily detectable differences in wine composition and quality that were related to scion/rootstock combinations. Conferred vigour. the most obvious being the anatomy and morphology of the graft union itself.1kg/vine for 140 Ruggeri and 25. Rootstock B2/56. Grapes from vines grown on the relatively vigorous Ramsey rootstock had a higher pH and higher levels of titratable acidity. resembling 110 R was found to have better salt exclusion as indicated by lower sodium content in petiole of Thompson Seedless vines grafted on this rootstock. 2010). yield and quality both under normal and stressed conditions (NRC grapes. Ough et al. vine performance and wine quality Performance of Thompson Seedless grafted on Dogridge B. measured by the ratio of stem girth above and below the graft union. 1:24 for 140 Ruggeri and 1:25 for Ramsey. the scion/rootstock girth ratio measured above and below the graft union was 0:92 for 1103 Paulsen.7kg/vine. in a rootstock trial involving the variety Sun Muscat as scion. 1613 C and St. 2006).Rootstock and scion compatibility There are potentially a range of factors affecting the level of compatibility between rootstock and scion. A successful graft union is one where xylem and phloem integrity is maintained between rootstock and scion with no adverse impacts on upward flow in the xylem of water. mineral elements and root to shoot signaling compounds. 2010). The level of deformity of the graft union. The yield was also highest in vines grafted on this rootstock (NRC Grapes. Sun Muscat on 101-14 had a scion/rootstock girth ratio of 1:21. However. . 26. indicating that scion/ rootstock girth ratio is not strongly related to yield performance (Clingeleffer and Emanuelli.

Wines made from these grapes also showed similar differences in composition. In a study involving seven scions (Gamay. eventually leading to selection of 60 promising rootstock genotypes for evaluation as grafted vines.77) and malic acid (r=0. selection of rootstocks with reduced potassium uptake (Rühl. Kerridge and E. there was a three-fold range in conferred vigour based on overall mean weights of one year. It plays a major role in anthocyanins equilibria and in compositional changes during wine ageing. as other rootstocks induce similar effects (Cirami et al.55) and grape juice malic acid (r=0. Perdea and Roussanne). Schwarzmann.62) and between berry weight and tartaric acid (r=0.old pruning wood and yield (r=0. like that associated with the dense canopies of scions on vigorous rootstocks. the composition of wine volatiles and susceptibility of the wine to oxidative and biological spoilage. Chasselas. In the study of 60 rootstock genotypes each grafted with Shiraz. Rootstock and trellis interactions also influence wine quality.H. These effects are not restricted to vines on Ramsey. It is known to influence taste. 1103 Paulsen. grape juice K (r=0.56) (Clingeleffer. unpublished data). Strong positive correlations were also obtained between grape juice potassium and pH (r=0. five rootstocks (SO4.H. Ehrenfelser. Ramsey and Dog Ridge) and own-rooted vines of the scion varieties.57). Richensteiner. Strong negative correlations were obtained between yield and grape juice tartaric acid (r=0. 1984). 1975). but there was no relationship between conferred vigour and grape berry maturity assessed by total soluble solids . The prime importance of pH for wine quality is well-known..old pruning wood for the range of scion varieties. The excellent correlation between wine pH and potassium content confirms that potassium content has a controlling influence on pH (Somers. G. 1978). there was a 10 fold range in conferred vigour (assessed by the weight of one-year-old pruning wood). 1989) became a focus of the Australian rootstock breeding effort. Rühl.74). also result in higher pH and potassium content of musts (Smart et al. Excessive shading of berries. Egiodola. Strong positive correlations were obtained between the weight of one year.. 1985). Accordingly.69).malate and potassium and a lower level of soluble solids than grapes from vines grown on their own roots (Hale and Brien. Any increase in berry potassium content that might be attributable to rootstock would be undesirable from a consideration of the chemical and biological stability of wine.

. will greatly affect yeast growth.. 1968). and relative amounts of individual nitrogenous constituents.81). yield (r=0. three new rootstocks have been selected. lower grape juice pH). higher berry nitrogen was associated with higher conferred vigour. In the study involving Shiraz with 60 rootstock genotypes.66) and berry weight (r=0.71) and berry weight (0.69). lower grape juice potassium (and. The initial total nitrogen content of the must. between grape juice titratable acidity and the weight of one-year-old pruning wood (r=0. With respect to the above statement.85). This appears to be related to the nature and content of specific nitrogenous compounds in the must. 1996).62) (Clingeleffer.measurements. There were strong negative correlations between grape berry colour (anthocyanins) and the weight of one-year-old pruning wood (r=0. therefore. and between grape juice potassium and the weight of one-year-old pruning wood (r=0. yield (r=0. named and released with Plant Breeder’s Rights in Australia. resulted in acceptable yields and berry weights. Very high or very low total nitrogen is associated with deterioration in wine quality. They are Merbein 5489. yield (r=0. and between grape berry total phenolics and the weight of one-year-old pruning wood (r=0.80) and berry weight (r=0. . In this case. A comparison of their performance with two standard rootstocks Ramsey and 1103 Paulsen is shown as follows. end-product formation and ultimately. the final organoleptic quality of wine (Bell et al. there were strong positive correlations between grape juice pH and the weight of one-year-old pruning wood ( r=0.66). The total nitrogen and free amino acid content of wines is another factor that can be influenced by the rootstock (Ough et al. rate of fermentation. 1979). In any rootstock-breeding program the main aim was to select rootstock types. and higher grape berry anthocyanins relative to that conferred by standard higher vigour rootstocks.72).81) and berry weight (r=0.76). which through their lower vigor. Merbein 5512 and Merbein 6262.61).55).70) and berry weight (r=0. yield (r=0.

A common measure is crop water use index which is yield /evapotranspiration or preferably yield/vine water use. Ramsey and three Australian rootstock selections grown in the warm irrigated Sunraysia region of north-west Victoria LSD = least significant difference.05) between treatment means. Water use efficiency can be measured in various ways. Pruning wood weights. grape juice pH at harvest. except for the comparison between Merbein 5489. Values are means of three seasons (2001-2003).5. The work with ungrafted vines so far has shown a wide variation (50%) in carbon isotope discrimination across 220 hybrids from 14 families. assessed by transpirational cooling under drought conditions. indicating significant opportunity to select for increased transpiration efficiency. and drought tolerance. Yield is also lower.Table 2. 1103 Paulsen and Ramsey. acid added during winemaking and wine pH (data not shown) is lower than for the standard stocks. in a comparative study involving mature vines in the field of Shiraz grafted to Merbein 5489 and . yield and wine spectral parameters of Shiraz grafted to 1103 Paulsen. Merbein 5512 and 1103 Paulsen. Specifically. Water use efficiency and drought tolerance Increased emphasis is being placed on these characteristics and. assessed using carbon isotope discrimination (Gibberd et al. has been the main approaches used to date. accordingly. Wine was pH adjusted to 3. Conferred vigour. 2001). and between Merbein 6262. Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (P < 0. juice total soluble solids and pH. they are a focus of current research. Encouraging data with respect to water use efficiency has obtained using the low to medium vigour rootstocks produced from the CSIRO rootstock breeding program. Rootstock transpiration efficiency. Wine colour density of Merbein 5489 and Merbein 6262 and total phenolics of Merbein 5489. Merbein 5512 and Merbein 6262 are higher than for the standard stocks.

2002 and 2004). For example. whereas a poor chloride excluder K51-40. resulting in a two-fold higher crop water use index for Merbein 5489 relative to 1103 Paulsen. 2006).1103 Paulsen.4% of chloride from xylem (Tregeagle 2007). excludes 96. Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (P < 0. Gong and R. yield. Cumulative water use over a 75-day period from 14 October 2003 to 29 December 2003. Salt-tolerant rootstocks are known to confer moderate to high vigour to scions and are good chloride and sodium excluders (Walker et al. unpublished data) suggests that chloride entry into xylem is principally regulated by membrane ion transport. Table 3. Shiraz on Merbein 5489 had a smaller canopy (measured by the weight of oneyear-old pruning wood). The higher concentration of chloride in the xylem of K51-40 over the course of a season leads to excessive accumulation of chloride in grape juice and laminae (Tregeagle et al. lower water use over a 75-day period (measured by sap flow) and higher yield. Initial evidence obtained using a fluorescent apoplast tracer to monitor uptake pathways in grapevine roots (H.05) between treatment means. they . All grapevine rootstocks appear to exclude sodium and chloride to some extent. Chloride uptake studies involving rooted leaves of 140 Ruggeri and K51-40 and using 36chloride as a tracer suggest that the better chloride exclusion of 140 Ruggeri is linked to reduced transport of chloride into the xylem (Tregeagle 2007).4% of chloride from xylem. Tolerance of salinity Salt tolerance breeding in grapevines is hampered by the complex nature of the plant response to a soil solution containing a high concentration of salt. comparison of chloride concentrations in xylem with concentrations in the soil solution show that a good chloride excluder. excludes 99. Walker. the results revealed that the rootstocks H-516 and Dogridge recorded the lowest reduction in growth attributes and so. 140 Ruggeri. pruning wood weight and crop water use index for Shiraz vines on 1103 Paulsen (n = 4) and Merbein 5489 (n = 3). In a screening study of grape rootstocks for sulphate salinity.

can be further used for grafting of seedless / wine grape varieties for their cultivation under sulphate salinity soils (Deshmuki and Patil. will continue forever on such unchanged basis. during 2009-10 vis 135-5 EVEX (EC659392). based on today's context. biotechnology offers a means of inserting new characters into the genome of traditional cultivars without changing any of their other characteristics. in such a case. several important rootstocks were introduced from Oenological Research Institute. 2011)  Standardization of propagation techniques in grapes based upon the assessment of plant sap extract effect on rooting of promising grape rootstock and commercial varieties (Somkuwar et al. or if possible indistinguishable from the traditional cultivar that it is designed to replace except for the addition of a desirable trait such as disease or pest resistance. The major biotechnological approaches under grape rootstock breeding are as follows. In fact. particularly wine typicity and quality. 143 Mgt.. 2010). South Africa. Current research activities in NRC.  Evaluation on the performance of Cabernet Sauvignon grapes raised on different rootstocks under various salinity levels (Upadhyay et al. Biotechnological approaches in rootstock breeding The present generation within the wine industry may be too presumptuous to believe that success of traditional cultivars. 1045 Paulsen (EC659394) and 140 Ruggeri (EC659395). 2011)  Studies to assess the effect of grape rootstock in influencing the protein profile in Thompson Seedless at different phenological stages (Sathisa et al. there is a general industry perception that to be successful a new wine cultivar must be very similar to. Grapes Certain research work on rootstock breeding in grapes are undergoing at NRC. (EC659393).. Grapes under progress and their details are as follows. So. .. 2011) Apart.

. thaumatin and some osmotins (Monteiro et al. tissue or organ. proteomic analysis helps to characterize the protein profile of Thompson Seedless grapes grafted on different rootstocks at different phenological stages of vine growth and fruit development. climate.. period of the year and rootstocks (Baily and Berg. 1967). The protein present in the grapes is dictated by several factors such as cultivars. As far as grapevine is considered.. two dimensional electrophoresis (2 DE) remain one of the most efficient strategies to isolate proteins showing qualitative variation in response to a treatment (Gorg et al. The confusion between two morphologically different Dogridge rootstock plants. Though many methodologies have been developed for characterization of protein profiles. 2001). and their properties enable a wide range of applications from cultivar identification based on various parts of the grapevine plant to pedigree reconstruction and genome mapping. 24 rootstocks and 44 other accessions were characterized with micro satellite markers. Rootstocks Dogridge-A resembled 110 Richter (110 R). champini. cell. 2004). which is a hybrid of V. cultural practices. 2006). rupestris. It is the set of expressed proteins in a given type of cell or an organism at a given time under defined conditions. Hence. . 2010). like chitinase. berlandieri × V. soil. The work on molecular database is initiated for storage and retrieval of molecular data. it contains a wide range of proteins. b) Microsatellite markers Microsatellite markers are one of the desired type of DNA marker for identification of grapevine cultivars. Grapevine proteomic profiles have been characterized by proteomic studies (Vincent et al.a) Proteomic analysis in grape rootstock Proteome is the entire set of proteins expressed by a genome. available with grape growers as Dogridge-A (America) and Dogridge-B (Bangalore) was resolved based on micro satellite marker analysis and ampelometric studies (NRC Grapes. whereas Dogridge-B belongs to the species V.

The number of alleles detected by each primer ranged between 9 to 26. With this analysis. so far. Total protein content varied significantly in response to salinity as well as combined stress among different rootstocks. due to their reproducibility. simple implementation and interpretation of allelic patterns. 2004). total protein. 110-R. In a pot study conducted at NRC Grapes. SSRs are best suited for genetic analyses.Fig. In 110R there was no . total sugar. d) Antiporter gene expression The expression of Na+/H+ antiporter gene was affected by different levels of salt and moisture stress. carried out at NRC grapes (2010) revealed that 134 grape accessions were analyzed with 25 primers. Dogridge. a key issue when working on fingerprinting (Jung. indigenous material collections and certain hybrids developed from IIHR and IARI. four rootstocks viz. 25 primers detected 405 alleles in 134 accessions with an average of 16 alleles per primer. low cost and because results can be shared among different laboratories. Two levels of salt stress viz. total phenols. 1613 C and Salt Creek were subjected to combined salinity and moisture stress. The analysis of expression of Na+/H+ antiporter gene in rootstocks 110R and 1613C showed differential response by different rootstock. 188 genotypes have been characterized. These include all the rootstocks available at the Centre. 2 EC and 4 EC were used either at 100% or 50% field capacity. moisture and combined stress. proline and glycine betain were estimated. 5. In a research work. DDRT-PCR of 110R RNA identified differentially expressed transcript specific to salinity. Different biochemical parameters viz. Micro satellite analysis of grape accessions c) Molecular characterization using SSR analysis In usual.

Somatic embryos (with size of 1-2 mm) of Richter 110 were treated with Agrobacterium tumefaciens EHA101 (pRok2: Ferr).500 transformed lines have been produced. with approximately 750 lines already released to a bio safety field. support and response oxidative stress. The germinating embryos were transferred on light three months ago and the embryos developed to green plantlets (Oláh. However in 1613 no effect on gene expression levels of this gene was observed in response to salinity. it seems that the overexpression of ferritin in grapevine plants makes them tolerant to oxidative damage and pathogen attack. Within seven days. primers were designed to study the expression of Na+/H+ antiporter gene. Increased expression was observed in response to moisture and combined stress at 21 days (Fig. 6). moisture as well as combined stress (Fig. cloned from Medicago sativa. a gene known to be involved in salinity tolerance. The expression of Na+/H+ antiporter gene was found to be upregulated in 110R in response to salinity.5 fold under saline stress (4EC) and moisture stress (50% field capacity) respectively. Other applications of genetic transformation focused on the .5 and 7. More than 2. Based on the sequence information available in online grape gene index database. 7). Fig 6. whereas proline content increased in response to water and combined stress. Expression of Na+/H+ antiporter gene in 1613 C e) Genetic transformation of grape rootstocks The development and use of a genetic transformation platform has become of much importance for various activities in grape breeding and biotechnology. ferritin. Therefore. Gene encoding the iron binding protein.significant difference in proline accumulation under salinity stress. Expression of Na+/H+ antiporter gene in 110R Fig 7. 2004). the expression increased 4. The real time PCR was used for relative quantification of gene expression in different treatments.

2002). bearing CP. The gene coding for the movement protein of GVA was inserted in sense and antisense orientation into the table grape cultivar Superior seedless and the rootstock V. rupestris cv. vinifera cv. the capacity to select for rootstocks with both low-medium and medium-high vigour will be important to retain flexibility in capacity to address future needs.. vinifera cv. rupestris cv. This success was concomitant with the transformation of the rootstocks 110 R and V. du Lot (Martinelli et al. CONCLUSION Key rootstock characteristics for selection includes phylloxera.. proteinase. biotechnological approaches paved a new way for developing elite rootstocks and further studies have to be made in this line in future. 1996). 1994).. Water-use efficiency and drought tolerance have increasing priority. However. The same plasmid p1660. . Chardonnay (Mauro et al. nematode and salt tolerance. Until now. Thompson seedless (Scorza et al. 1995) with the grape fan leaf virus (GFLV) CP gene. The GFLV replicase. Rootstock vigour is linked to salt tolerance and there is evidence that higher vigour rootstocks with penetrating root systems perform better under water deficit conditions. With regard to other nepoviruses. f) Genes of interest in grape rootstock breeding Viral resistance was obtained by introducing the grape chrome mosaic virus (GCMV) CP gene into the rootstock 110 R (Le Gall et al.. and good viticultural characteristics. Accordingly.. SO4. du Lot (Krastanova et al. and movement protein genes were inserted in the rootstocks 110 R and 41 B (Valat et al. uidA. and V. the tomato ring spot virus (TomRSV) CP gene was inserted into V.testing of a series of candidate genes derived from functional genomics experiments from Vitis or other species or by crossing the information coming from linkage mapping and QTL identification plus the mapping of candidate genes by using Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) markers. and nptII genes. Conferred vigour by the rootstock to the scion has important consequences for yield and berry composition. was used to obtain transgenic plants from the rootstocks 41 B. 2006). there has been a demand for rootstocks with reduced vigour to counter the negative impacts of high conferred vigour on berry composition. 1995)..

2000 V. 2000 110 Richter NPTII NOS. 2006 protein Source: Bouquet et al. NPTII NOS. 35S GFLV replicase. 35S ArMV coat protein Spielmann et al. 2003 110 Richter NPTII NOS. Rootstocks of grapes obtained as Transgenic forms with Vitis species Cultivar Selectable Promoter Gene product References marker V.. Translatable. 101-14.. Krastanova et al. (2009) . 2004 41 B NPTII NOS. rupestris NPTII NOS. riparia.. 35S Ferritin (iron binding protein) Olah et al. antisense. 35S GFLV coat protein and movement Valat et al.Table 4. untranslatable coat protein (GFLV. 35S 3309 Couderc. 2000 GLRaV).. GUS Barbier et al.. 35S Eutypine-reducing enzyme Legrand et al. GUS 110 Richter 110 Richter NPTII NOS..