Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hydrogen cyanamide (HC) and pruning (P) have frequently been used to break dormancy in grapevine floral buds. However, the exact underlying mechanism remains elusive. This study aimed to address the early mode of action of these treatments on accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) and expression of related genes in the dormancy breaking buds of grapevine in the summer. RESULTS: The budbreak rates induced by pruning (P), hydrogen cyanamide (HC), pruning plus hydrogen cyanamide (PHC) and water (control) after 8 days were 33, 53, 95, and 0 %, respectively. Clearly, HC was more effective in stimulating grapevine budbreak and P further enhanced its potency. In situ staining of longitudinal bud sections after 12 h of treatments detected high levels of ROS and nitric oxide (NO) accumulated in the buds treated with PHC, compared with HC or P alone. The amounts of ROS and NO accumulated were highly correlated with the rates of budbreak among these treatments, highlighting the importance of a rapid, transient accumulation of sublethal levels of ROS and RNS in dormancy breaking. Microarray analysis revealed specific alterations in gene expression in dormancy breaking buds induced by P, HC and PHC after 24 h of treatment. Relative to control, PHC altered the expression of the largest number of genes, while P affected the expression of the least number of genes. PHC also exerted a greater intensity in transcriptional activation of these genes. Gene ontology (GO) analysis suggests that alteration in expression of ROS related genes is the major factor responsible for budbreak. qRT-PCR analysis revealed the transient expression dynamics of 12 specific genes related to ROS generation and scavenge during the 48 h treatment with PHC. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that rapid accumulation of ROS and NO at early stage is important for dormancy release in grapevine in the summer, and the identification of the commonly expressed specific genes among the treatments allowed the construction of the signal transduction pathway related to ROS/RNS metabolism during dormancy release. The rapid accumulation of a sublethal level of ROS/RNS subsequently induces cell wall loosening and expansion for bud sprouting.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning induced 33% grapevine budbreak after eight days.
VitisNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“budbreak rates induced by pruning (P), hydrogen cyanamide (HC), pruning plus hydrogen cyanamide (PHC) and water (control) after 8 days were 33, 53, 95, and 0 %, respectively”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Hydrogen cyanamide induced 53% budbreak after eight days.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“budbreak rates induced by pruning (P), hydrogen cyanamide (HC), pruning plus hydrogen cyanamide (PHC) and water (control) after 8 days were 33, 53, 95, and 0 %, respectively”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined pruning and hydrogen cyanamide induced 95% budbreak after eight days.
- Treatment
- pruning plus hydrogen cyanamide (PHC)e0
- Outcome
- budbreak ratese0
- Value
- 95e0
- Comparator
- water (control)e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“budbreak rates induced by pruning (P), hydrogen cyanamide (HC), pruning plus hydrogen cyanamide (PHC) and water (control) after 8 days were 33, 53, 95, and 0 %, respectively”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Water control showed zero budbreak after eight days.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“budbreak rates induced by pruning (P), hydrogen cyanamide (HC), pruning plus hydrogen cyanamide (PHC) and water (control) after 8 days were 33, 53, 95, and 0 %, respectively”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatment accumulated high ROS and nitric oxide in buds after 12 hours versus either treatment alone.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“high levels of ROS and nitric oxide (NO) accumulated in the buds treated with PHC, compared with HC or P alone”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
ROS and NO accumulation correlated strongly with budbreak rates.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The amounts of ROS and NO accumulated were highly correlated with the rates of budbreak among these treatments”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatment altered the largest number of genes relative to control.
- Treatment
- PHCe0
- Outcome
- expression of the largest number of genese0
- Direction
- largeste0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to control, PHC altered the expression of the largest number of genes”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning affected the fewest genes.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P affected the expression of the least number of genes”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatment produced greater transcriptional activation of the genes.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PHC also exerted a greater intensity in transcriptional activation of these genes”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Twelve ROS-related genes showed transient expression during 48 hours of combined treatment.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“transient expression dynamics of 12 specific genes related to ROS generation and scavenge during the 48 h treatment with PHC”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
ROS-related gene-expression changes were proposed as a major factor in budbreak.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“alteration in expression of ROS related genes is the major factor responsible for budbreak”
e1“buds of grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Early sublethal ROS/RNS accumulation was proposed to induce cell-wall loosening and expansion for sprouting.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rapid accumulation of a sublethal level of ROS/RNS subsequently induces cell wall loosening and expansion for bud sprouting”
e1“buds of grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
cyanamide · phenology · VitisPositive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →cyanamide · molecular: expression · VitisResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
pruning · phenology · VitisPositive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.