Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul 31;10(8):1583.
doi: 10.3390/plants10081583.

Impact of Rootstock and Season on Red Blotch Disease Expression in Cabernet Sauvignon (V. vinifera)

Arran C Rumbaugh  1 , Raul C Girardello  1 , Monica L Cooper  2 , Cassandra Plank  1 , S Kaan Kurtural  1 , Anita Oberholster  1
Affiliations

Impact of Rootstock and Season on Red Blotch Disease Expression in Cabernet Sauvignon (V. vinifera)

Arran C Rumbaugh et al. Plants (Basel). .

Abstract

Grapevine red blotch virus (GRBV), the causative agent of grapevine red blotch disease, is widespread across the United States and causes a delay in ripening events in grapes. This study evaluates the effects of GRBV on Cabernet Sauvignon grape berry composition, grafted on two different rootstocks (110R and 420A) in two seasons (2016 and 2017). Total soluble solids, acidity, and anthocyanin concentrations were monitored through ripening and at harvest. Phenolic and volatile compounds were also analyzed at harvest to determine genotypic and environmental influences on disease outcome. Sugar accumulation through ripening was lower in diseased fruit (RB (+)) than healthy fruit across rootstock and season. GRBV impact was larger in 2016 than 2017, indicating a seasonal effect on disease expression. In general, anthocyanin levels and volatile compound accumulation was lower in RB (+) fruit than healthy fruit. Total phenolic composition and tannin content was higher in RB (+) fruit than healthy fruit in only 110R rootstock. Overall, GRBV impacted Cabernet Sauvignon grape composition crafted on rootstock 110R more than those crafted on rootstock 420A.

Keywords: disease expression; grape ripening; grapevine red blotch virus; rootstock; season.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sugar accumulation and anthocyanin content through ripening from pre-veraison to harvest for (a) sugar accumulation in 2016 (b) anthocyanin content in 2016 (c) sugar accumulation in 2017, (d) anthocyanin content in 2017 (n = 5), (e) cumulative growing degree days (>10 °C). CS = Cabernet Sauvignon, RB = red blotch, (−) = negative, and (+) = positive. Asterisks indicate a significant difference between RB (−) and RB (+) after an ANOVA (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The rate of sugar accumulation as °Brix through ripening for RB (−) and RB (+) data vines. (a) CS 110R in 2016, (b) CS 420A in 2016, (c) CS 110R in 2017, and (d) CS 420A in 2017 (n = 5). TA = Titratable Acidity, CS = Cabernet Sauvignon, RB = red blotch, (−) = negative, and (+) = positive.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Titratable acidity and pH values from pre-veraison to harvest for (a) CS 110R in 2016, (b) CS 420A in 2016, (c) CS 110R in 2017, and (d) CS 420A in 2017 (n = 5). TA = Titratable Acidity, CS = Cabernet Sauvignon, RB = red blotch, (−) = negative, and (+) = positive. Asterisks indicate a significant difference between RB (−) and RB (+) after an ANOVA (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Phenolic profile of whole berry extracts at harvest through protein precipitation analysis. (a) Total phenolic and total tannin composition from CS grapes on 110R and 420A rootstock in 2016, (b) total phenolic and total tannin composition from CS grapes on 110R and 420A rootstock in 2017, and (c) total anthocyanin concentrations in CS grapes in 2016 and 2017 (n = 5). CS = Cabernet Sauvignon, RB = red blotch, (−) = negative, and (+) = positive. Asterisks indicate a significant difference between RB (−) and RB (+) after an ANOVA (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Principal component analysis of significantly different volatile compounds in whole berry extracts from CS grapes on (a) 110R and (b) 420A rootstock from 2016 (n = 5). CS = Cabernet Sauvignon, RB = red blotch, (−) = negative, and (+) = positive.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Principal component analysis of significantly different volatile compounds in whole berry extracts from CS grapes on (a) 110R and (b) 420A rootstock from 2017 (n = 5). CS = Cabernet Sauvignon, RB = red blotch, (−) = negative, and (+) = positive.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Dolja V.V., Meng B., Martelli G.P. Evolutionary Aspects of Grapevine Virology. In: Meng B., Martelli G.P., Golino D.A., Fuchs M., editors. Grapevine Viruses: Molecular Biology, Diagnostics and Management. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2017. pp. 659–688.
    1. Calvi B.L. Master’s Thesis. University of California; Davis, CA, USA: 2011. Effects of Red-leaf Disease on Cabernet Sauvignon at the Oakville Experimental Vineyard and Mitigation By Harvest Delay And Crop Adjustment.
    1. Yepes L.M., Cieniewicz E., Krenz B., McLane H., Thompson J.R., Perry K.L., Fuchs M. Causative Role of Grapevine Red Blotch Virus in Red Blotch Disease. Phytopathology. 2018;108:902–909. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-12-17-0419-R. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Krenz B., Thompson J.R., Mclane H.L., Fuchs M., Perry K.L. Grapevine red blotch-associated virus Is Widespread in the United States. Phytopathology. 2014;104:1232–1240. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-02-14-0053-R. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Poojari S., Lowery D.T., Rott M., Schmidt A.M., Úrbez-Torres J.R. Incidence, distribution and genetic diversity of Grapevine red blotch virus in British Columbia. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2017;39:201–211. doi: 10.1080/07060661.2017.1312532. - DOI - PubMed