Petit, Anne-Noëlle, Baillieul, Fabienne, Vaillant-Gaveau, Nathalie, Jacquens, Lucile, Conreux, Alexandra, Jeandet, Philippe, Clément, Christophe, and Fontaine, Florence
In grapevine, stimulation of defence responses was evidenced in response to various types of abiotic stresses in both leaves and berries, as revealed by the increasing expression of genes encoding defence-related proteins or the stimulation of their corresponding activities. However, the capability of inflorescences to respond to abiotic stresses has never been investigated. Therefore, plant defence reactions in response to UV-C irradiation were followed in inflorescences and young clusters focusing on both bunchstems (peduncle and pedicels) and developing flowers/berries from separated floral buds stage [Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt and CHemical industry (BBCH) stage 57] to groat-sized berries stage (BBCH 73). For this purpose, the expression of various genes coding for pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins (class I and III chitinases, Chi1b and CH3; β-1,3-glucanase, GLUC), an enzyme of the phenylpropanoid pathway (phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, PAL), and stilbene synthase (STS) was analysed in parallel with variations of chitinase activity and the accumulation of the phytoalexin resveratrol. Multiple defence responses were induced in bunchstems of both inflorescences and clusters following UV-C treatment. First, expression of genes encoding PR proteins was stimulated and chitinase activity was enhanced. Secondly, PAL and STS expression increased in association with resveratrol accumulation. Amazingly, none of the tested defence processes was induced in grapevine flowers following UV-C exposure, whatever the stage analysed. Similarly, in berries at fruit set, induction of gene expression was weak and neither an increase in chitinase activity nor resveratrol synthesis was noticed. However, in groat-sized berries, responsiveness to UV-C increased, as revealed by the induction of CH3, PAL, and STS expression, together with resveratrol accumulation. The differential responsiveness between bunchstems, flowers, and berries is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]