AJEV
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 44:3:266-274 (1993)
Copyright © 1993 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BOWERS, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by MEREDITH, C. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by BOWERS, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by MEREDITH, C. P.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by BOWERS, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by MEREDITH, C. P.

DNA Fingerprint Characterization of Some Wine Grape Cultivars

JOHN E. BOWERS 1, ELIZABETH B. BANDMAN 1, and CAROLE P. MEREDITH 1

1 Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8749.

In order to develop an objective and reliable method of grape identification, a DNA fingerprinting strategy similar in concept to that used to identify human beings was applied to a diverse group of cultivars, including the most important California wine grapes. DNA was extracted from young leaves and shoot tips of 43 accessions, digested with Hind III or Eco RV and probed with five low-copy number DNA clones selected from a grape genomic DNA library. Restriction length polymorphism analysis revealed unique patterns for all accessions presumed to be distinct cultivars. The probability that two different cultivars would share the same pattern was calculated to be 5.64 x 10-8. Identical banding patterns were produced by Zinfandel and Primitivo, supporting the hypothesis that these are synonyms for a single cultivar. Similarly, the pattern of the accession now designated as Pinot noir 19 (previously known as Gamay Beaujolais in California) was identical to that of Pinot noir 1, supporting ampelographic opinion that the former is in fact a form of Pinot noir and not a distinct cultivar. Pinot gris, widely held to be a berry color mutant of Pinot noir, also had the Pinot noir pattern. By contrast, identical patterns were not observed for single accessions of Petite Sirah and of Durif, thought by some to be synonymous. While the method described here does not detect intra-cultivar variation (clones and bud sports), the results obtained in this survey strongly suggest that this approach will be able to uniquely characterize additional grape cultivars and will serve as a valuable adjunct to ampelography.

Key words: restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, RFLP, DNA fingerprinting, grape varieties, Vitis vinifera

Submitted on September 9, 1992




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.Home page
H. Letaief, L. Rolle, and V. Gerbi
Mechanical Behavior of Winegrapes under Compression Tests
Am. J. Enol. Vitic., September 1, 2008; 59(3): 323 - 329.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ScienceHome page
J. Bowers, J. Boursiquot, P. This, K. Chu, H. Johansson, and C. Meredith
Historical Genetics: The Parentage of Chardonnay, Gamay, and Other Wine Grapes of Northeastern France
Science, September 3, 1999; 285(5433): 1562 - 1565.
[Abstract] [Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.