conference schedule and program with abstracts - Horticulture ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

P-49 Y. Yang* and G-Y. Zhong Characterization of the grape GAI promoter in Arabidopsis USDA/ARS Grape Genetics Research Unit, Geneva, New York, USA *Corresponding author: yingzhen.yang@ars.usda.gov The GAI (GA insensitive) gene plays a central role in plant GA (gibberellin) signaling. Mutations in a GAI gene can result in changes of plant architecture and other traits, thus providing potential opportunities for crop improvement. As a step towards exploring GAI variants for the improvement of grapevine (Vitis vinifera), we cloned a 2 kb promoter region of the grape GAI gene (VvGAI) and characterized its activities in Arabidopsis thaliana along with that of a 2 kb Arabidopsis GAI promoter (AtGAI) and the 35S cauliflower mosaic virus promoter (35S). All three promoters were fused to the GUS reporter gene (ß-glucuronidase) (designated as pVv::GUS, pAt::GUS or p35S::GUS). GUS expression activity of the three constructs was visually examined at both seedling and reproductive stages in transgenic Arabidopsis plants. Our results demonstrated that both VvGAI and AtGAI promoters showed strong activities in actively growing tissues such as young shoots and new leaves, root tips, lateral root primordial, and young inflorescences. The GAI promoter activity was significantly reduced in older leaves and roots and stems. This suggests that there is a very tight developmental control of GAI expression in plants. Some subtle differences were observed between VvGAI and AtGAI promoters in the reporter expression activities in the stamen filaments of flowers. The pVv::GUS construct had much stronger expression in stamen filaments than pAt::GUS. This observation was interesting as it might suggest that the regulatory control system for the same gene could vary in different species. A major difference in expression activities between 35S and GAI promoters was found in roots. At seedling stages, strong reporter expression was observed for 35S::GUS in all root tissues including primary, lateral and tertiary roots, but there was almost no reporter expression in the primary roots of in either pVv::GUS or pAt::GUS plants. 127 
P-50 Estimation of protein spot variability in 2-D gels G.R. Cramer* 1 , L.G. Deluc 1,3 , K. Spreeman 1 , K. Schegg 1 , A.Y. Fennell 2 1 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA; 2 Dept. of Horticulture, Forestry, Landscape & Parks, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA; 3 Current address: Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon, USA *Corresponding author: cramer@unr.edu A common method for quantifying proteins is to separate them by two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (2-D PAGE) and quantify the intensity of the spots with image analysis software. Protein spot variability can be quite high averaging about 60 to 80% for three biological replicates. Gel to gel variability is quite high requiring the researcher to make many technical replicates and select from the best of the gels made. Our lab decided to determine where most of this variability came from. We designed an experiment to determine if the variability came from the biological replicates, protein extractions or the custom made 2-D PAGE gels. A total of 27 gels were run; there were 3 gels of 3 extractions of 3 biological replicates of Cabernet Sauvignon shoot tips. Nearly 500 common protein spots were quantified on all 27 gels. Variability was quantified with the coefficient of variation (CV). The average CV was highest for the gels and lowest for the biological replicates, averaging 55, 33 and 25% for gels, extractions and biological replicates, respectively. The CV ranged from 5 to 122% for some protein spots indicating that for many proteins it is difficult to get good quantitative data for comparative purposes. The variability of this method limits the number of proteins that can be quantified adequately and inflates the cost and labor due to the replacement of bad gels. A similar analysis was performed on buds of Seyval and Vitis riparia. The average CV of 861 spots was 68%. Difference Gel Electrophoresis (DIGE) is designed to reduce this variability and we tested DIGE on bud samples to determine if protein spot variability was significantly reduced. A comparison of the two methods will be discussed. 128 
Page 1 and 2:
Date Time Session Topic Sunday Augu
Page 3 and 4:
Monday August 2, 2010 Opening Plena
Page 5 and 6:
Topic: Adaptation to soils and clim
Page 7 and 8:
Tuesday August 3, 2010 Oral Session
Page 9 and 10:
Poster Session 2 1:30 PM-3:00 PM Po
Page 11 and 12:
P-105 Pathogen responsiveness and v
Page 13 and 14:
Table of Contents Keynote Presentat
Page 15 and 16:
K-2 Progress in grapevine breeding
Page 17 and 18:
K-4 Genetics and Genomics of Grapev
Page 19 and 20:
O-2 Additional homologs of the Ren1
Page 21 and 22:
O-4 Y. Xu and Y.Wang* Introduction
Page 23 and 24:
O-5 Identification of an R2R3 MYB t
Page 25 and 26:
O-7 Sequencing of the phylloxera re
Page 27 and 28:
O-9 Dissection of defense pathways
Page 29 and 30:
O-11 Recent trends and technologies
Page 31 and 32:
O-13 Brazilian Grape Breeding Progr
Page 33 and 34:
O-15 Development of rootstocks for
Page 35 and 36:
O-17 L. Wang* 1 , S. Li 1, 2 , P. F
Page 37 and 38:
O-19 Integrated analysis of transcr
Page 39 and 40:
O-20 Deciphering the chromosome str
Page 41 and 42:
O-22 Identification of table grapes
Page 43 and 44:
O-24 Metagenomic sequencing as a to
Page 45 and 46:
O-26 Regulation of bud fruitfulness
Page 47 and 48:
O-28 Haplotype structure and cluste
Page 49 and 50:
O-30 Annette Nassuth Function of Vi
Page 51 and 52:
10 to 25% of the chlorotic symptoms
Page 53 and 54:
O-34 Cloning and characterization o
Page 55 and 56:
O-36 New insight into the genetics
Page 57 and 58:
O-38 Co-Localization of QTLs for Se
Page 59 and 60:
O-40 Quantitative analysis of textu
Page 61 and 62:
O-42 Transcriptional changes in res
Page 63 and 64:
O-44 The Turkish grape (Vitis vinif
Page 65 and 66:
Association genetics in relation wi
Page 67 and 68:
O-47 Intravarietal variability of C
Page 69 and 70:
O-49 Molecular survey of Georgian t
Page 71 and 72:
O-51 Marker-assisted breeding: Iden
Page 73 and 74:
O-53 An Integrated approach to stud
Page 75 and 76: O-55 Characteristics of promising m
Page 77 and 78: P-2 PMEI and SPY: Two genes with po
Page 79 and 80: P-4 Gene-assisted selection for tab
Page 81 and 82: P-6 Polyphenolic potential of the r
Page 83 and 84: P-8 Monoterpene levels in different
Page 85 and 86: P-10 Usefulness of the SCC8 scar ma
Page 87 and 88: P-12 The onset of berry ripening is
Page 89 and 90: P-14 Morphological characteristics
Page 91 and 92: P-16 A genetic analysis of berry qu
Page 93 and 94: P-18 Use of molecular markers for s
Page 95 and 96: P-20 Characterization of key compon
Page 97 and 98: P-22 Expression of early light-indu
Page 99 and 100: P-24 The development of molecular m
Page 101 and 102: P-26 Identification of ABA inducibl
Page 103 and 104: P-28 In vitro selection of HYP tole
Page 105 and 106: P-30 In silico SNP detection for ge
Page 107 and 108: P-32 Vitis vinifera genome annotati
Page 109 and 110: P-34 Genome-wide identification of
Page 111 and 112: P-36 Looking for genetic polymorphi
Page 113 and 114: P-38 Characterization of a new horm
Page 115 and 116: P-40 Towards a characterization of
Page 117 and 118: the overall identified polymorphism
Page 119 and 120: P-43 Proteomic characterization of
Page 121 and 122: P-45 Preliminary observations on th
Page 123 and 124: grapevine which will eventually be
Page 125: P-48 ‘Cioutat’: a somatic varia
Page 129 and 130: glucosyltransferase, anthocyanidin
Page 131 and 132: P-53 Marker-free transgenic grapevi
Page 133 and 134: P-55 Agrobacterium rhizogenes-media
Page 135 and 136: P-57 Phenotypic evaluation of ‘Th
Page 137 and 138: P-59 Phenotypic divergence among gr
Page 139 and 140: P-61 Grepevine variety determinatio
Page 141 and 142: agricultural context. This network
Page 143 and 144: P-64 Genetic structure in a large r
Page 145 and 146: P-66 Analysis of grape rootstocks b
Page 147 and 148: P-68 Italian wild grapevine: a stat
Page 149 and 150: Rebula-Robola group were genotyped
Page 151 and 152: P-71 Viticultural performance of so
Page 153 and 154: P-73    Molecular characterizat
Page 155 and 156: P-75 Variation of berry polyphenoli
Page 157 and 158: P-77 Morphological and molecular id
Page 159 and 160: P-79 Studies on an excellent, early
Page 161 and 162: P-81 Effectiveness of different cul
Page 163 and 164: P-83 Some early maturing table grap
Page 165 and 166: P-85 New triploid seedless table gr
Page 167 and 168: P-87 Grape breeding and viticulture
Page 169 and 170: P-89 The usefulness of allotetraplo
Page 171 and 172: P-91 Drying rate of fresh berries f
Page 173 and 174: P-93 Development of table and raisi
Page 175 and 176: P-95 Reaction of grape rootstocks t
Page 177 and 178:
P-97 Genetic analysis of the resist
Page 179 and 180:
P-99 Berry cracking caused powdery
Page 181 and 182:
P-101 Elicitation of grapevine defe
Page 183 and 184:
P-103 The biological characteristic
Page 185 and 186:
P-105 Pathogen responsiveness and v
Page 187 and 188:
P-107 Screening grape hybrid famili
Page 189 and 190:
P-109 Characterization of an ankyri
Page 191 and 192:
P-112 Evaluation of grapevine germp
Page 193 and 194:
P-114 Evaluation of four new rootst
show all

conference schedule and program with abstracts - Horticulture ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?