Maillot P, Velt A, Rustenholz C, Butterlin G, Merdinoglu D, Duchêne E. Alternative splicing regulation appears to play a crucial role in grape berry development and is also potentially involved in adaptation responses to the environment.
BMC PLANT BIOLOGY 2021;
21:487. [PMID:
34696712 PMCID:
PMC8543832 DOI:
10.1186/s12870-021-03266-1]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2021] [Accepted: 10/11/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Alternative splicing (AS) produces transcript variants playing potential roles in proteome diversification and gene expression regulation. AS modulation is thus essential to respond to developmental and environmental stimuli. In grapevine, a better understanding of berry development is crucial for implementing breeding and viticultural strategies allowing adaptation to climate changes. Although profound changes in gene transcription have been shown to occur in the course of berry ripening, no detailed study on splicing modifications during this period has been published so far. We report here on the regulation of gene AS in developing berries of two grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) varieties, Gewurztraminer (Gw) and Riesling (Ri), showing distinctive phenotypic characteristics. Using the software rMATS, the transcriptomes of berries at four developmental steps, from the green stage to mid-ripening, were analysed in pairwise comparisons between stages and varieties.
RESULTS
A total of 305 differential AS (DAS) events, affecting 258 genes, were identified. Interestingly, 22% of these AS events had not been reported before. Among the 80 genes that underwent the most significant variations during ripening, 22 showed a similar splicing profile in Gw and Ri, which suggests their involvement in berry development. Conversely, 23 genes were subjected to splicing regulation in only one variety. In addition, the ratios of alternative isoforms were different in Gw and Ri for 35 other genes, without any change during ripening. This last result indicates substantial AS differences between the two varieties. Remarkably, 8 AS events were specific to one variety, due to the lack of a splice site in the other variety. Furthermore, the transcription rates of the genes affected by stage-dependent splicing regulation were mostly unchanged, identifying AS modulation as an independent way of shaping the transcriptome.
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of AS profiles in grapevine varieties with contrasting phenotypes revealed some similarity in the regulation of several genes with developmental functions, suggesting their involvement in berry ripening. Additionally, many splicing differences were discovered between the two varieties, that could be linked to phenotypic specificities and distinct adaptive capacities. Together, these findings open perspectives for a better understanding of berry development and for the selection of grapevine genotypes adapted to climate change.
Collapse