Abstract
Abstract The quality of planting materials is the foundation for productivity, longevity, and berry quality of perennial grapevines with a long lifespan. Manipulating the nursery light spectrum may speed up the production of healthy and high-quality planting vines but the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. Herein, the effects of different monochromatic lights (green, blue, and red) on grapevine growth, leaf photosynthesis, whole-plant carbon allocation, and transcriptome reprograming were investigated with white light as control. Results showed that blue and red lights were favorable for plantlet growth in comparison with white light. Blue light repressed excessive growth, significantly increased the maximum net photosynthetic rate (Pn) of leaves by 39.58% and leaf specific weight by 38.29%. Red light increased the dry weight of the stem by 53.60%, the starch content of the leaf by 53.63%, and the sucrose content of the stem by 230%. Green light reduced all photosynthetic indexes of the grape plantlet. Photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD)/Ci–Pn curves indicated that blue light affected photosynthetic rate depending on the light intensity and CO2 concentration. RNA-seq analysis of different organs (leaf, stem, and root) revealed a systematic transcriptome remodeling and VvCOP1 (CONSTITUTIVELY PHOTOMORPHOGENIC 1), VvHY5 (ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL5), VvHYH (HY5 HOMOLOG), VvELIP (early light-induced protein) and VvPIF3 (PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR 3) may play important roles in this shoot-to-root signaling. Furthermore, the correlation network between differential expression genes and physiological traits indicated that VvpsbS (photosystem II subunit S), Vvpsb28 (photosystem II subunit 28), VvHYH, VvSUS4 (sucrose synthase 4), and VvALDA (fructose-bisphosphate aldolase) were pertinent candidate genes in responses to different light qualities. Our results provide a foundation for optimizing the light recipe of grape plantlets and strengthen the understanding of light signaling and carbon metabolism under different monochromatic lights.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Blue and red lights favoured grapevine plantlet growth compared with white light.
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e1“blue and red lights were favorable for plantlet growth in comparison with white light”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light repressed excessive grapevine plantlet growth compared with white light.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e4“Blue light repressed excessive growth, significantly increased the maximum net photosynthetic rate (Pn) of leaves by 39.58% and leaf specific weight by 38.29%”
e0“were investigated with white light as control”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light significantly increased the maximum net photosynthetic rate of leaves by 39.58% relative to white light.
- Organ / stage
- leavese4
- Treatment
- Blue lighte4
- Outcome
- maximum net photosynthetic rate (Pn) of leavese4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 39.58%e4
- Comparator
- white lighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e4“Blue light repressed excessive growth, significantly increased the maximum net photosynthetic rate (Pn) of leaves by 39.58% and leaf specific weight by 38.29%”
e0“were investigated with white light as control”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light significantly increased leaf specific weight by 38.29% relative to white light.
- Treatment
- Blue lighte4
- Outcome
- leaf specific weighte4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 38.29%e4
- Comparator
- white lighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e4“Blue light repressed excessive growth, significantly increased the maximum net photosynthetic rate (Pn) of leaves by 39.58% and leaf specific weight by 38.29%”
e0“were investigated with white light as control”
Claim · model-written summary
Red light increased stem dry weight by 53.60% relative to white light.
- Organ / stage
- steme5
- Treatment
- Red lighte5
- Outcome
- dry weight of the steme5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 53.60%e5
- Comparator
- white lighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e5“Red light increased the dry weight of the stem by 53.60%, the starch content of the leaf by 53.63%, and the sucrose content of the stem by 230%”
e0“were investigated with white light as control”
Claim · model-written summary
Red light increased leaf starch content by 53.63% relative to white light.
- Organ / stage
- leafe5
- Treatment
- Red lighte5
- Outcome
- starch contente5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 53.63%e5
- Comparator
- white lighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e5“Red light increased the dry weight of the stem by 53.60%, the starch content of the leaf by 53.63%, and the sucrose content of the stem by 230%”
e0“were investigated with white light as control”
Claim · model-written summary
Red light increased stem sucrose content by 230% relative to white light.
- Organ / stage
- steme5
- Treatment
- Red lighte5
- Outcome
- sucrose contente5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 230%e5
- Comparator
- white lighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e5“Red light increased the dry weight of the stem by 53.60%, the starch content of the leaf by 53.63%, and the sucrose content of the stem by 230%”
e0“were investigated with white light as control”
Claim · model-written summary
Green light reduced all photosynthetic indexes of grapevine plantlets relative to white light.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e6“Green light reduced all photosynthetic indexes of the grape plantlet”
e0“were investigated with white light as control”
Claim · model-written summary
RNA-seq of leaf, stem and root revealed systematic transcriptome remodeling in grapevine plantlets.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e6“RNA-seq analysis of different organs (leaf, stem, and root) revealed a systematic transcriptome remodeling”
Claim · model-written summary
VvCOP1 may play an important role in shoot-to-root light signalling in grapevine.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e5“VvCOP1 (CONSTITUTIVELY PHOTOMORPHOGENIC 1), VvHY5 (ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL5), VvHYH (HY5 HOMOLOG), VvELIP (early light-induced protein) and VvPIF3 (PHYTOCHROME INTERACTING FACTOR 3) may play important roles in this shoot-to-root signaling”
Claim · model-written summary
VvpsbS is a candidate gene in grapevine responses to different light qualities.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine plantlets respond to different monochromatic lights”
e4“the correlation network between differential expression genes and physiological traits indicated that VvpsbS (photosystem II subunit S), Vvpsb28 (photosystem II subunit 28), VvHYH, VvSUS4 (sucrose synthase 4), and VvALDA (fructose-bisphosphate aldolase) were pertinent candidate genes in responses to different light qualities”
The same questions in other papers
light · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →light · physiology: photosynthesis · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →light · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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.