Abstract
Proline has been shown to accumulate in plants in response to biotic and abiotic stresses. Exogenous proline has thus been used for improving some plant cryopreservation protocols. Further enhancement of cryopreservation efficiency for in vitro grapevines could be expected if stresses linked to cryopreservation procedures could be reduced. We therefore studied the possible beneficial effect of proline in grapevine cryopreservation. Single-node explants from in vitro grown grapevine plantlets (Vitis vinifera L. cv Portan) were cultured on shooting media (half-strength MS + 1 μM BAP) containing no proline (control) or 50, 500, or 2000 μM filter-sterilized L-proline. Shoot tips excised from these microshoots were subjected to a PVS2-based droplet-vitrification procedure. Control and rewarmed explants were grown on a recovery medium containing 1 μM BAP. Shoot development on control medium and lower proline concentrations did not notably differ whereas the highest concentration of proline inhibited shoot development. Carry-over effects were observed since lower survival and regrowth were obtained both for non-frozen or LN-treated explants excised from micro-shoots obtained on the 2000 μM proline medium. No significant differences in survival and regrowth were observed for non-frozen explants subjected to pretreatment without LN exposure. A slightly enhancing effect (although non-significant) on post-cryopreservation survival was observed for explants derived from shoots developed on 50 or 500 μM proline, but no significant improvement of regrowth percentage was observed for these two conditions. Although a slight increase in survival could be observed, no significant beneficial effect of proline pretreatment on post-cryoconservation regrowth could be evidenced in our conditions. However, the 2-week period before explant excision could have allowed at least partial metabolism and catabolism of exogenous proline; the results observed could thus have been the consequence of complex interactions. Shorter proline treatments applied closer to the actual LN exposure step might produce different results and allow for clearer interpretation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
The highest proline concentration inhibited grapevine shoot development.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest concentration of proline inhibited shoot development”
e1“2000 μM proline medium”
t0“Grapevine Shoot-Tip”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower proline concentrations did not notably change shoot development relative to control.
- Treatment
- lower proline concentrationse0
- Outcome
- Shoot developmente0
- Direction
- did not notably differe0
- Comparator
- control mediume0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shoot development on control medium and lower proline concentrations did not notably differ”
t0“Grapevine Shoot-Tip”
Claim · model-written summary
Explants from 2000 μM proline medium had lower survival after excision, with or without liquid nitrogen treatment.
- Treatment
- 2000 μM proline mediume0
- Outcome
- survivale0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- both for non-frozen or LN-treated explantse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lower survival and regrowth were obtained both for non-frozen or LN-treated explants excised from micro-shoots obtained on the 2000 μM proline medium”
t0“Grapevine Shoot-Tip”
Claim · model-written summary
Explants from 2000 μM proline medium had lower regrowth after excision, with or without liquid nitrogen treatment.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lower survival and regrowth were obtained both for non-frozen or LN-treated explants excised from micro-shoots obtained on the 2000 μM proline medium”
t0“Grapevine Shoot-Tip”
Claim · model-written summary
Pretreatment without liquid nitrogen exposure did not significantly affect survival and regrowth.
- Treatment
- pretreatment without LN exposuree0
- Outcome
- survival and regrowthe0
- Direction
- No significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant differences in survival and regrowth were observed for non-frozen explants subjected to pretreatment without LN exposure”
t0“Grapevine Shoot-Tip”
Claim · model-written summary
Pretreatment at 50 or 500 μM proline slightly enhanced post-cryopreservation survival, without significance.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A slightly enhancing effect (although non-significant) on post-cryopreservation survival was observed for explants derived from shoots developed on 50 or 500 μM proline”
t0“Grapevine Shoot-Tip”
Claim · model-written summary
Pretreatment at 50 or 500 μM proline did not significantly improve regrowth percentage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant improvement of regrowth percentage was observed for these two conditions”
e1“50 or 500 μM proline”
t0“Grapevine Shoot-Tip”
The same questions in other papers
proline · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
in vitro · survival · VitisPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
in vitro · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.