Search

Phenolic compounds are important constituents of red wine involved in its sensory properties. Although wine tannins can come from microbial and oak sources, the main sources of polyphenol remains grape skins and seeds. In order to better understand the grape seed and skin tannins contribution to the final wine tannins content, an original approach of winemaking has been set up. Our protocol explains a simple method to determine the percentage of skin and seed tannins extracted in wine all along the winemaking. The advantages of this method are presented below:•This method allows us to describe tannins extraction kinetics in wine according to the berry part (skins and seeds).•Additionally, our protocol allows to specifically determine the percentage of tannins extraction according to the winemaking stages (alcoholic fermentation and post-fermentative maceration) and the berry part (skins and seeds).•To sum up, this method serves to enhance the comprehension of tannins extraction process in wine according to the berry part., Graphical abstract Image, graphical abstract

International audience; Phenolic compounds are among the most important quality factors of wines. They contribute to the organoleptic characteristics of wine such as color, astringency, and bitterness. Although tannins found in wine can come from microbial and oak sources, the main sources of polyphenols are grape skins and seeds. Since the 1960s, this subject has been widely studied by a large number of researchers covering different types of wine, climate conditions, growing practices, and grape varieties. As these works have been conducted under different conditions, the data collected can be conflicting. Moreover, even though the biosynthesis of the major proanthocyanidins units (+)-catechin and (-)-epicatechin is well-known, the mechanism of their polymerization remains unexplained. This is why the question remains: what factors influence the biosynthesis, the quantity, and the distribution of tannins in grape seeds and how can winemaking processes impact the extractability of seed tannins in wine?

International audience; The extraction of seed and skin tannins in wine has been investigated at three different grape maturity stages. For that, the tannins content and composition of seeds and skins at three different maturity stages were characterized. After that, an original approach of nanovinification was conducted. At each maturity stages, three winemaking modalities have been produced: (i) a control modality, (ii) a seed modality made of exclusively with seed and (iii) a skin modality made of exclusively with skins. The aim of this work is to describe and explain the seed tannins kinetics release in wine but also the impact of grape maturity on seed tannins extractability. For that, the evolution of seed and wine tannins content have been followed during the winemaking, from alcoholic fermentation to post-fermentative maceration.

The reproductive cycle of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera) extends over two consecutive years. Grapevine bud fruitfulness is determined by the number and the size of inflorescence primordia (IP) formed in latent buds during the first year. Many studies show that up to 60% of the seasonal variation in yield could be explained by bud fruitfulness. The regulation mechanism of the initiation and differentiation of IP remains little known, but this process seems to be modulated by several molecular regulation factors involved in flowering and embryo development. Some genes involved in flowering process and regulated by auxins (IAA) and abscisic acid (ABA) have also been recently identified in grapevine latent buds. Gene expression analysis of VvL1L, VvMFT1 and VvTFL1A in different types of fruitful buds (N0, N1 and N2) were realized during their development stages (88 to 159 days after budbreak) of the first year in 'Merlot' cultivar. VvL1L and VvTFL1A were up-regulated in early stages of bud development during the period of the initiation and differentiation of IP. The relative expression of VvMFT1 showed significant differences between the three types of buds (N0, N1 and N2) in relation with their development. IAA and ABA contents in latent buds at different stages during the first year were analyzed and correspond to gene expressions: VvTFL1A seems to be activated by IAA, while VvL1L and VvMFT1 might be regulated by IAA/ABA balance. These results may support the assumption of the involvement of VvL1L, VvMFT1 and VvTFL1A in the regulation of bud fruitfulness and their response to IAA/ABA balance.

International audience; The grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) is a widely cultivated species of major economic importance for wine production. The quality and quantity of grapes are criteria of prime importance to the wine industry, but they are highly variable from year to year. Unlike many perennial plants, cluster formation unfolds in two seasons: season 1 takes place in the bud until dormancy, and season 2 starts after budbreak in the following year. Season 1 corresponds to the initiation and differentiation of inflorescence primordia, controlled by many exogenous and endogenous factors, which explains up to 60% seasonal variation in yield. Season 2 consists of flowering and fruit development, which explains, respectively, 30% and 10% of seasonal variation in yield. It is therefore essential to understand the impact of these factors to better control the yield. This review aims to summarize past and present knowledge concerning the physiology of latent buds relating to their fruitfulness, and to assess the impact of environmental, hormonal, and regulation factors on the final yield. Avenues of further research to understand physiological, biochemical and molecular regulatory mechanisms of initiation and differentiation of clusters will be then proposed.; La vigne (Vitis vinifera L.) est une espèce cultivée représentant une importance économique incontournable par la production de vin. La qualité et la quantité des raisins sont des critères préoccupant la filière viti-vinicole, or elles sont très variables selon les millésimes. A la différence de nombreuses plantes pérennes, la formation des fruits se déroule sur deux cycles : une première phase dans le bourgeon jusqu’à la dormance et une seconde phase après le débourrement l’année suivante. La première phase correspond à celle de l’initiation et de la différentiation des primordia inflorescentiels, contrôlée par de nombreux facteurs exogènes et endogènes, et expliquerait jusqu’à 60 % de variation saisonnière du rendement. La deuxième phase consiste en la floraison et le développement des fruits, qui expliqueraient respectivement 30 et 10 % de la variation saisonnière du rendement. Il est donc primordial de comprendre l’impact de ces facteurs pour mieux réguler le rendement. Cette synthèse a pour objectif de faire le point sur les connaissances anciennes et récentes concernant la physiologie du bourgeon latent en rapport avec sa fertilité et d’évaluer l’impact des facteurs environnementaux, hormonaux et de régulation sur le rendement final. Des pistes de recherche afin de comprendre les mécanismes de régulation physiologique, biochimique et moléculaire de l’initiation et de la différentiation des grappes, seront par la suite proposées.

Understanding the response of leaf hydraulic conductance (Kleaf) to light is a challenge in elucidating plant–water relationships. Recent data have shown that the effect of light on Kleaf is not systematically related to aquaporin regulation, leading to conflicting conclusions. Here we investigated the relationship between light, Kleaf, and aquaporin transcript levels in five tree species (Juglans regia L., Fagus sylvatica L., Quercus robur L., Salix alba L. and Populus tremula L.) grown in the same environmental conditions, but differing in their Kleaf responses to light. Moreover, the Kleaf was measured by two independent methods (high-pressure flow metre (HPFM) and evaporative flux method (EFM)) in the most (J. regia) and least (S. alba) responsive species and the transcript levels of aquaporins were analyzed in perfused and unperfused leaves. Here, we found that the light-induced Kleaf value was closely related to stronger expression of both the PIP1 and PIP2 aquaporin genes in walnut (J. regia), but to stimulation of PIP1 aquaporins alone in F. sylvatica and Q. robur. In walnut, all newly identified aquaporins were found to be upregulated in the light and downregulated in the dark, further supporting the relationship between the light-mediated induction of Kleaf and aquaporin expression in walnut. We also demonstrated that the Kleaf response to light was quality-dependent, Kleaf being 60% lower in the absence of blue light. This decrease in Kleaf was correlated with strong downregulation of three PIP2 aquaporins and of all the PIP1 aquaporins tested. These data support a relationship between light-mediated Kleaf regulation and the abundance of aquaporin transcripts in the walnut tree.

In roses, light is a central environmental factor controlling bud break and involves a stimulation of sugar metabolism. Very little is known about the role of sucrose transporters in the bud break process and its regulation by light. In this study, we show that sugar promotes rose bud break and that bud break is accompanied by an import of sucrose. Radio-labelled sucrose accumulation is higher in buds exposed to light than to darkness and involves an active component. Several sucrose transporter (RhSUC1, 2, 3 and 4) transcripts are expressed in rose tissues, but RhSUC2 transcript level is the only one induced in buds exposed to light after removing the apical dominance. RhSUC2 is preferentially expressed in bursting buds and stems. Functional analyses in baker's yeast demonstrate that RhSUC2 encodes a sucrose/proton co-transporter with a K(m) value of 2.99 mm at pH 4.5 and shows typical features of sucrose symporters. We therefore propose that bud break photocontrol partly depends upon the modulation of sucrose import into buds by RhSUC2.

International audience; Bud burst is a crucial factor in plant architecture and is strongly induced by light. In Rosa sp., this light effect was correlated with the growth of axillary buds and RwMAX1 and RwMAX2 expression within buds. In this paper, we investigated whether strigolactone pathway is involved in the regulation of axillary bud in response to light intensity. Hence, young roses were subjected to two contrasting light intensity regimes: high/high and high/low. The phenotype was characterized in both conditions and the expression of RwMAX1 and RwMAX2 genes was measured in the basal, middle and apical parts of rose primary branch. Light treatments showed a strong impact on axillary bud. The percentage of bud burst was severely reduced in the treatment high/low compared to the treatment high/high in all branch parts. In addition, the expression of RwMAX1 and RwMAX2 was strongly inhibited by high/high light regime and was conversely correlated with the rate of bud burst. In in vitro-grown axillary buds supplied with sucrose, glucose and fructose, RwMAX1 expression was significantly stimulated whereas that of RwMAX2 was significantly inhibited. Our results suggest that although RwMAX1 and RwMAX2 expression can be regulated by light, this expression does not explain the ability of bud burst.

International audience; Our previous findings showed that the expression of the Rosa hybrida vacuolar invertase 1 gene (RhVI1) was tightly correlated with the ability of buds to grow out and was under sugar, gibberellin and light control. Here, we aimed to provide an insight into the mechanistic basis of this regulation. In situ hybridization showed that RhVI1 expression was localized in epidermal cells of young leaves of bursting buds. We then isolated a 895 bp fragment of the promoter of RhVI1. In silico analysis identified putative cis-elements involved in the response to sugars, light and gibberellins on its proximal part (595 bp). To carry out functional analysis of the RhVI1 promoter in a homologous system, we developed a direct method for stable transformation of rose cells. 50 deletions of the proximal promoter fused to the uidA reporter gene were inserted into the rose cell genome to study the cell's response to exogenous and endogenous stimuli. Deletion analysis revealed that the 468 bp promoter fragment is sufficient to trigger reporter gene activity in response to light, sugars and gibberellins. This region confers sucrose- and fructose-, but not glucose-, responsive activation in the dark. Inversely, the -595 to -468 bp region that carries the sugar-repressive element (SRE) is required to down-regulate the RhVI1 promoter in response to sucrose and fructose in the dark. We also demonstrate that sugar/light and gibberellin/light act synergistically to up-regulate beta-glucuronidase (GUS) activity sharply under the control of the 595 bp pRhVI1 region. These results reveal that the 127 bp promoter fragment located between -595 and -468 bp is critical for light and sugar and light and gibberellins to act synergistically.

Bud burst is a decisive process in plant architecture that requires light in Rosa sp. This light effect was correlated with stimulation of sugar transport and metabolism in favor of bud outgrowth. We investigated whether sugars could act as signaling entities in the light-mediated regulation of vacuolar invertases and bud burst. Full-length cDNAs encoding two vacuolar invertases (RhVI1 and RhVI2) were isolated from buds. Unlike RhVI2, RhVI1 was preferentially expressed in bursting buds, and was up-regulated in buds of beheaded plants exposed to light. To assess the importance of sugars in this process, the expression of RhVI1 and RhVI2 and the total vacuolar invertase activity were further characterized in buds cultured in vitro on 100 mM sucrose or mannitol under light or in darkness for 48 h. Unlike mannitol, sucrose promoted the stimulatory effect of light on both RhVI1 expression and vacuolar invertase activity. This up-regulation of RhVI1 was rapid (after 6 h incubation) and was induced by as little as 10 mM sucrose or fructose. No effect of glucose was found. Interestingly, both 30 mM palatinose (a non-metabolizable sucrose analog) and 5 mM psicose (a non-metabolizable fructose analog) promoted the light-induced expression of RhVI1 and total vacuolar invertase activity. Sucrose, fructose, palatinose and psicose all promoted bursting of in vitro cultured buds under light. These findings indicate that soluble sugars contribute to the light effect on bud burst and vacuolar invertases, and can function as signaling entities.

International audience; Light is a critical determinant of plant shape by controlling branching patterns and bud burst in many species. To gain insight into how light induces bud burst, we investigated whether its inductive effect in rose was related to gibberellin (GA) biosynthesis. In axillary buds of beheaded plants subject to light, the expression of two GA biosynthesis genes (RoGA20ox and RoGA3ox) was promptly and strongly induced, while that of a GA-catabolism genes (RoGA2ox) was reduced. By contrast, lower expression levels of these two GA biosynthesis genes were found in darkness, and correlated with a total inhibition of bud burst. This effect was dependent on both light intensity and quality. In in vitro cultured buds, the inductive effect of light on the growth of preformed leaves and SAM organogenic activity was inhibited by ancymidol and paclobutrazol, two effectors of GA biosynthesis. This effect was concentration-dependent, and negated by GA(3). However, GA(3) alone could not rescue bud burst in the dark. GA biosynthesis was also required for the expression and activity of a vacuolar invertase, and therefore for light-induced sugar metabolism within buds. These findings are evidence that GA biosynthesis contributes to the light effect on bud burst and lay the foundations of a better understanding of its exact role in plant branching.

International audience; Despite the fact that the precise physiological function of ASRs [abscisic acid (ABA), stress, ripening] remains unknown, they have been suggested to play a dual role in the plant response to environmental cues, as highly hydrophilic proteins for direct protection, as well as transcription factors involved in the regulation of gene expression. To investigate further the biological positioning of grape ASR in the hormonal and metabolic signal network, three promoters corresponding to its cDNA were isolated and submited to a detailed in silico and functional analysis. The results obtained provided evidence for the allelic polymorphism of the grape ASR gene, the organ-preferential expression conferred on the GUS reporter gene, and the specific phloem tissue localization revealed by in situ hybridization. The study of glucose and ABA signalling in its transcriptional control, by transfection of grape protoplasts using the dual luciferase system, revealed the complexity of ASR gene expression regulation. A model was proposed allowing a discussion of the place of ASR in the fine tuning of hormonal and metabolic signalling involved in the integration of environmental cues by the plant organism.

Background The acid component of grape berries, originating in the metabolism of malate and tartrate, the latter being less well-known than the former, is a key factor at play in the microbiological stability of wines destined for distillation. Grape acidity is increasingly affected by climate changes. The ability to compare two vintages with contrasted climatic conditions may contribute to a global understanding of the regulation of acid metabolism and the future consequences for berry composition. Results The results of the analyses (molecular, protein, enzymatic) of tartrate biosynthesis pathways were compared with the developmental accumulation of tartrate in Ugni blanc grape berries, from floral bud to maturity. The existence of two distinct steps during this pathway was confirmed: one prior to ascorbate, with phases of VvGME, VvVTC2, VvVTC4, VvL-GalDH, VvGLDH gene expression and abundant protein, different for each vintage; the other downstream of ascorbate, leading to the synthesis of tartrate with maximum VvL-IdnDH genetic and protein expression towards the beginning of the growth process, and in correlation with enzyme activity regardless of the vintage. Conclusions Overall results suggest that the two steps of this pathway do not appear to be regulated in the same way and could both be activated very early on during berry development. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12870-016-0833-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.