Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27014294›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2016

Variations in Early Response of Grapevine Wood Depending on Wound and Inoculation Combinations with Phaeoacremonium aleophilum and Phaeomoniella chlamydospora.

Romain J G Pierron, Jérôme Pouzoulet, Christel Couderc, Elodie Judic, Stéphane Compant, Alban Jacques

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Frontiers in plant science · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Romain J G PierronEquipe Agrophysiologie et Agromolécules, Département des Sciences Agronomiques et Agroalimentaires, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse - Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan, Université de ToulouseToulouse, France; Département BioSym, LGC UMR 5503 (CNRS/UPS/INPT), INP-ENSAT Université de ToulouseCastanet-Tolosan, France.
Jérôme PouzouletDepartment of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside CA, USA.
Christel CoudercEquipe Agrophysiologie et Agromolécules, Département des Sciences Agronomiques et Agroalimentaires, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse - Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan, Université de Toulouse Toulouse, France.
Elodie JudicEquipe Agrophysiologie et Agromolécules, Département des Sciences Agronomiques et Agroalimentaires, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse - Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan, Université de Toulouse Toulouse, France.
Stéphane CompantAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Bioresources Unit, Health and Environment Department Tulln, Austria.
Alban JacquesEquipe Agrophysiologie et Agromolécules, Département des Sciences Agronomiques et Agroalimentaires, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse - Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan, Université de Toulouse Toulouse, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Defense mechanisms in woody tissue are poorly understood, especially in vine colonized by trunk pathogens. However, several investigations suggest that molecular mechanisms in the central tissue of Vitis vinifera L. may be involved in trunk-defense reactions. In this work, the perception of Phaeoacremonium aleophilum and Phaeomoniella chlamydospora alone or together were investigated in cuttings of Cabernet Sauvignon trunks. Plant responses were analyzed at the tissue level via optical microscopy and at the cellular level via plant-gene expression. The microscopy results revealed that, 6 weeks after pathogen inoculation, newly formed vascular tissue is less developed in plants inoculated with P. chlamydospora than in plants inoculated with P. aleophilum. Co-inoculation with both pathogens resulted in an intermediate phenotype. Further analysis showed the relative expression of the following grapevine genes: PAL, PR10.3, TL, TLb, Vv17.3, STS, STS8, CWinv, PIN, CAM, LOX at 10, 24, 48, and 120 h post-inoculation (hpi). The gene set was induced by wounding before inoculation with the different pathogens, except for the genes CAM and LOX. This response generated significant noise, but the expression of the grapevine genes (PAL, PR10.3, TL, TLb, Vv17.3, STS, STS8, CWinv, and PIN) still differed due to perception of mycelium by the plant. Furthermore, at 48 hpi, the induction of PAL and STS8 differs depending on the pathogen, and a specific pattern emerges from the different inductions associated with the different treatments. Based on these results, we conclude that V. vinifera L. trunk perceives the presence of pathogens differently depending on the inoculated pathogen or even on the combination of co-inoculated pathogens, suggesting a defense orchestration in the perennial organs of woody plants.

Indexed as

escagrapevineplant perceptiontrunk diseaseswood gene expression

Identifiers

PMID27014294
PMCPMC4786745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.