Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-7g5wt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T04:35:05.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Direct multiplex PCR for grapevine genotyping and varietal identification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Daniele Migliaro
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Centro di Ricerca per la Viticoltura (CRA-VIT), Viale XXVIII Aprile 26, 31015 Conegliano, Treviso, Italy
Giacomo Morreale
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Centro di Ricerca per la Viticoltura (CRA-VIT), Viale XXVIII Aprile 26, 31015 Conegliano, Treviso, Italy
Massimo Gardiman
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Centro di Ricerca per la Viticoltura (CRA-VIT), Viale XXVIII Aprile 26, 31015 Conegliano, Treviso, Italy
Sara Landolfo
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Centro di Ricerca per la Viticoltura (CRA-VIT), Viale XXVIII Aprile 26, 31015 Conegliano, Treviso, Italy
Manna Crespan*
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Centro di Ricerca per la Viticoltura (CRA-VIT), Viale XXVIII Aprile 26, 31015 Conegliano, Treviso, Italy
*
*Corresponding author: E-mail: manna.crespan@entecra.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Grapevine cultivar identification is based mainly on two complementary methodologies: microsatellite (simple sequence repeat (SSR)) DNA analysis and traditional ampelography. Here, we report a direct multiplex PCR approach that allows the simultaneous amplification of 11 SSR loci from crude samples, i.e. bypassing DNA extraction, by using an engineered DNA polymerase improved to tolerate plant PCR inhibitors. Many different plant tissues were successfully amplified: leaf, root, wood, berry flesh and skin, stalk and must, from wine and table grape varieties, and rootstocks. The direct multiplex PCR that we propose is quicker and cheaper than the methodologies used until now, and provides accurate results. Thus, SSR DNA analysis becomes economically more accessible to a larger number of potential users in addition to research institutes.

Type
Short Communication
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2012 

Experimental

Genotyping analyses allowed us to estimate that there are approximately 5000 grape varieties (This et al., Reference This, Lacombe and Thomas2006). The cultivar is the basic element in grape growing and wine production, as well as very important from a legal perspective.

Today, microsatellite molecular markers (simple sequence repeats (SSRs)) have become a complementary tool to traditional ampelography for cultivar identification, and techniques capable of speeding up the SSR genotyping are highly desirable.

High-quality genomic DNA is required for most molecular analyses. Grapevine is rich in secondary metabolites, and optimal quantity and quality DNA is usually obtained from young leaves. However, leaves are not always available, and thus it becomes convenient to analyse the DNA from other plant sources, such as wood or grape. In the latter case, it is more difficult to obtain sufficiently pure DNA due to a higher concentration of DNA polymerase inhibitors such as polyphenols and polysaccharides. Nevertheless, new engineered DNA polymerases have recently been developed, with improved tolerance to plant PCR inhibitors and ability to amplify the DNA directly from crude samples, bypassing the purification steps.

Moreover, well-balanced multiplex PCR allows the simultaneous amplification of more SSR loci per reaction, with a considerable saving of time and effort; however, the optimization of the system is crucial and the range size of the alleles and the dynamics of the primers have to be considered (Ibáñez et al., Reference Ibáñez, Vargas, Palancar, Borrego and De Andrés2009).

In this context, we developed an innovative approach for grapevine genotyping by combining a DNA polymerase able to tolerate PCR inhibitors with one multiplex PCR at 11 SSR loci, applied directly on crude tissues. This method was tested on a range of different plant sources such as leaf, root, wood, fresh and frozen berry, stalk and must. Four wine grape cultivars and four rootstocks from the CRA-VIT repository were used as a sample source; in addition, bunches of four table commercial cultivars were bought at a local supermarket. These samples were chosen to represent a large variability in the chemical composition of different tissues and varieties (Table 1).

Table 1 Grapevine varieties and tissues used for molecular analysis

The template, approximately 0.3 mm diameter of crude sample or 1 μl of must, was placed directly into a 0.2 ml Eppendorf tube containing 50 μl of PCR mix using the KAPA3G Plant PCR Kit (Kapa Biosystems, Inc., Boston, MA, USA), and amplified as detailed in the Supplementary Material (available online only at http://journals.cambridge.org).

The routine grapevine genotyping at the CRA-VIT uses 11 SSRs, six proposed by This et al. (Reference This, Jung, Boccacci, Borrego, Botta, Costantini, Crespan, Dangl, Eisenheld, Ferreira-Monteiro, Grando, Ibáñez, Lacombe, Laucou, Magalhães, Meredith, Milani, Peterlunger, Regner, Zulini and Maul2004) and adopted by OIV (2009) in the descriptor list for grape varieties and Vitis species, and the remaining five selected to enhance the resolving power (Bowers et al., Reference Bowers, Dangl and Meredith1999; Crespan, Reference Crespan2003; Welter et al., Reference Welter, Göktürk-Baydar, Akkurt, Maul, Eibach, Töpfer and Zyprian2007). Therefore, the multiplex PCR was set up to amplify these 11 SSR loci in a single reaction. Forward primers were labelled with 6-FAM, NED, PET or VIC fluorochromes (Supplementary Table S1, available online only at http://journals.cambridge.org) and balanced with the criteria reported in the Supplementary Material (available online only at http://journals.cambridge.org). Amplification products were separated on an ABI Prism 3110xl genetic analyser (Life Tech, Foster City, CA, USA). After data collection, genotyping analysis was performed with GeneMapper software version 3.0 (Life Tech), giving rise to four separate panels of signals (Fig. 1). Genotyping data are reported in Supplementary Table S2 (available online only at http://journals.cambridge.org).

Fig. 1 Example of the multiplex PCR molecular profile of 11 SSR loci obtained with the proposed methodology. (a) NED-, (b) 6-FAM-, (c) PET- and (d) VIC-labelled SSR loci. Grey and red stripes represent the home-made bin set produced with reference varieties.

The experimental results confirm that this method works very well, amplifying the entire set of 11 SSRs in a single step directly from all plant tissues tested. In addition, PCR specificity and genotyping accuracy are comparable with those obtained with conventional methods that require DNA purification steps. It is important to mention that the ratio between the amount of crude sample and PCR mix volume is crucial, because no amplification is obtained by increasing the raw material in the reaction mix.

To perform the varietal identification, the SSR profile was compared with the CRA-VIT molecular database (unpublished), which currently contains 1440 unique genotype records. The probability of identity computed with Cervus software version 3.0 (Kalinowski et al., Reference Kalinowski, Taper and Marshall2007) using the 11 SSR markers gave a very close-to-zero outcome (i.e. 3.71 × 10− 16). It is important to mention that SSR markers are not useful to distinguish varieties derived from somatic mutations (Sefc et al., Reference Sefc, Lefort, Grando, Scott, Steinkellner, Thomas and Roubelakis-Angelakis2001). After the comparison, all known samples of SSR profiles matched those of the corresponding variety present in the CRA-VIT database. About the unknown table grapes, samples 1, 3 and 4 were identified as Sugraone, Red Globe and Regina, respectively, whereas sample 2 remained unknown. This last variety could be identified in the future, based on present genotyping results and new experimental or literature data.

Discussion

While the use of multiplex SSR markers in a single PCR has already been documented, with a variable number of loci combined in the same amplification (Merdinoglu et al., Reference Merdinoglu, Butterlin, Bevilacqua, Chiquet, Adam-Blondon and Decroocq2005; Crespan et al., Reference Crespan, Cabello, Giannetto, Ibáñez, Kontić, Maletić, Pejić, Rodriguez and Antonacci2006; Ibáñez et al., Reference Ibáñez, Vargas, Palancar, Borrego and De Andrés2009; Moreno-Sanz et al., Reference Moreno-Sanz, Loureiro and Suárez2011), the implementation of multiplex PCR directly on raw material for grapevine genotyping has not yet been reported.

Here, we present a new and successful approach that both simplifies the conventional protocols for grapevine identification and provides several technological improvements for fluorescence-based SSR genotyping.

Research institutes would benefit by using this new methodology, which allows a significant cost and time saving and can be very useful for fast screening of germplasm collections in any season. It is important to underline that the correct grapevine variety is an essential requirement for viticulture industries. The nurseries could incorrectly label a variety, and this occurrence could damage individual winegrowers if a new vineyard has been planted with a wrong cultivar. Equally, misnomers in wine or fruit distribution could adversely affect reputation and even compromise the businesses. The described direct multiplex PCR for grapevine genotyping could be applied to offer a cheap and fast service, enlarging the number of potential users such as nurserymen, control services, winegrowers and wineries.

In conclusion, our results show that it is possible to obtain reliable 11 SSR profiles from different plant sources, avoiding DNA purification steps. The described approach provides the vine and wine sector with a tool useful to speed up grapevine genotyping and identification, improving the practical application of research results.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ivan Vega Alberdi for technical help in the laboratory. This research was supported by ASER, CONVAR and RGV-FAO projects funded by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Alimentary and Forestry Policies.

References

Bowers, JE, Dangl, GS and Meredith, CP (1999) Development and characterization of additional microsatellite DNA markers for grape. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 50: 243246.Google Scholar
Crespan, M (2003) The parentage of Muscat of Hamburg. Vitis 42: 193197.Google Scholar
Crespan, M, Cabello, F, Giannetto, S, Ibáñez, J, Kontić, JK, Maletić, E, Pejić, I, Rodriguez, I and Antonacci, D (2006) Malvasia delle Lipari, Malvasia di Sardegna, Greco di Gerace, Malvasia de Sitges and Malvasia dubrovačka – synonyms of an old and famous grape cultivar. Vitis 45: 6973.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, J, Vargas, AM, Palancar, M, Borrego, J and De Andrés, MT (2009) Genetic relationships among table-grape varieties. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 60: 3542.Google Scholar
Kalinowski, ST, Taper, ML and Marshall, TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Molecular Ecology 16: 10991106.Google Scholar
Merdinoglu, D, Butterlin, G, Bevilacqua, L, Chiquet, V, Adam-Blondon, AF and Decroocq, S (2005) Development and characterization of a large set of microsatellite markers in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) suitable for multiplex PCR. Molecular Breeding 15: 349366.Google Scholar
Moreno-Sanz, P, Loureiro, MD and Suárez, B (2011) Microsatellite characterization of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) genetic diversity in Asturias (Northern Spain). Scientia Horticulturae 129: 433440.Google Scholar
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV) (2009) OIV Descriptor List for Grape Varieties and Vitis Species, 2nd edn. Available at: http://www.oiv.int/oiv/info/frplubicationoiv. Paris: OIV Publisher.Google Scholar
Sefc, KM, Lefort, F, Grando, MS, Scott, KD, Steinkellner, H and Thomas, MR (2001) Microsatellite markers for grapevine: a state of the art. In: Roubelakis-Angelakis, (ed.) Molecular Biology and Biotechnology of Grapevine. Amsterdam: Kluwer Publishers, pp. 130.Google Scholar
This, P, Jung, A, Boccacci, P, Borrego, J, Botta, R, Costantini, L, Crespan, M, Dangl, GS, Eisenheld, C, Ferreira-Monteiro, F, Grando, S, Ibáñez, J, Lacombe, T, Laucou, V, Magalhães, M, Meredith, CP, Milani, N, Peterlunger, E, Regner, F, Zulini, L and Maul, E (2004) Development of a standard set of microsatellite reference alleles for identification of grape cultivars. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 109: 14481458.Google Scholar
This, P, Lacombe, T and Thomas, MR (2006) Historical origins and genetic diversity of wine grapes. Trends in Genetics 22: 511519.Google Scholar
Welter, LJ, Göktürk-Baydar, N, Akkurt, M, Maul, E, Eibach, R, Töpfer, R and Zyprian, EM (2007) Genetic mapping and localization of quantitative trait loci affecting fungal disease resistance and leaf morphology in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Molecular Breeding 20: 359374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Grapevine varieties and tissues used for molecular analysis

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Example of the multiplex PCR molecular profile of 11 SSR loci obtained with the proposed methodology. (a) NED-, (b) 6-FAM-, (c) PET- and (d) VIC-labelled SSR loci. Grey and red stripes represent the home-made bin set produced with reference varieties.

Supplementary material: File

Migliaro Supplementary Material

Tables 1-2

Download Migliaro Supplementary Material(File)
File 52.7 KB