Original research articles

Ampelographic and molecular characterisation of grapevine varieties in the gene bank of the experimental vineyard ‘Radmilovac’ – Serbia

Abstract

Characterisations of thirty grapevine varieties (Vitis vinifera L.) from the experimental vineyard ‘Radmilovac’ were conducted using a large number of OIV descriptors and eight highly polymorphic microsatellite loci. The ampelographic description contained 45 features. Molecular characterisation of selected microsatellite loci was performed using capillary electrophoresis fragment analysis. Dendrograms based on ampelographic and genetic data resulted in three groups of varieties. Qualitative ampelographic characteristics tended to manifest significant differences. The most common deviation among varieties within the group was in the characteristic OIV 051 (colouration of the upper side of a young leaf). Genetic characterisation of SSR markers through analyses of a large number of varieties contributes to better organisation of grapevine collections and simpler identification of varieties, as well as data exchange. When identifying the varieties, the results of the DNA analysis should be combined with the ampelographic descriptors, in order to select grapevine varieties with desirable viticultural and oenological traits. Integration of the obtained genetic data with the ampelographic data is of utmost importance for accurate identification of the varieties and offers a significant means for the preservation and use of the varieties.

Introduction

Grapevine is an important horticultural species that is grown all around the world in temperate and tropical climates (Nikolić et al., 2015, 2018b). Grapes are consumed in a number of ways, including fresh or dried, fermented into wine and distillates, and pressed for fresh juice and jam. The most represented varieties in Serbia are Cabernet-Sauvignon, Merlot, Chardonnay and Sauvignon blanc covering 61 % of the cultivated area, while the indigenous variety Prokupac accounts for only 2 % of vineyards (Jakšić et al., 2015).

Worldwide, a large number of varieties are grown for different purposes: an estimated 9,500 varieties for wine, nearly 4,500 varieties for fresh consumption, more than 1,200 varieties for both wine and fresh consumption, and about 110 varieties for drying (Töpfer et al., 2011). Despite the large number of varieties in many breeding programmes, new cultivars with higher yields and fruit quality are constantly being created (Nikolić et al., 2015). Hybridisation is the most suitable method for creating new varieties of grapevine, as well as for researching the mode of inheritance for certain traits (Milutinović et al., 2000; Nikolić et al., 2018a). Grapevine breeding is a long-term process (Nikolić et al., 2018b), and new crossings should be evaluated at least twenty-five years before being released to the public (Regner et al., 2004). In 1984, the Vitis International Variety Catalogue (VIVC) was founded (Alleweldt, 1988). According to Maul et al. (2014), VIVC is an encyclopaedic database containing nearly 23,000 primary names and 42,000 synonyms of various species and varieties/cultivars of vines. Additionally, the intergovernmental International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) has published a guide for identifying varieties (2009). Through these publications, a degree of coordination has been achieved in the descriptors adopted by the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), the Unión Internacional para la Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales (UPOV) and the OIV. The former Yugoslav Plant Genetic Resources Bank was created between 1989 and 1991. Through analysis of genetic material for the genus Vitis, a rich vine germplasm was established from a total of 13 collections in localities situated in temperate-continental and Mediterranean climates (Cindrić et al., 1997). This ensured the long-term and successful preservation of the gene pool ex situ-in vivo, with the primary goal of stopping ‘genetic erosion' and preserving local indigenous varieties (Avramov et al., 1997). The first gene bank for the genus Vitis is located at the experimental agricultural farm Radmilovac, was established in 1960 and is run by the University of Belgrade's Faculty of Agriculture (Avramov and Jelenković, 1960). A total of 363 samples were collected - including varieties, species and vine rootstocks - and characterised and evaluated based on 84 descriptors between 1991 and 1993 (Avramov et al., 1993). Today, there are three major ampelographic collections for the Vitis genus in the Serbian plant gene bank: i) Sremski Karlovci, an experimental vineyard within the University of Novi Sad's Faculty of Agriculture containing a total of 737 samples, ii) Radmilovac, an experimental vineyard within the University of Belgrade's Faculty of Agriculture containing a total of 659 samples, and iii) The Centre for Viticulture and Wine Production at Niš containing a total of 336 samples (Nikolić et al., 2021). Results obtained by several authors (Rakonjac et al., 2014; Štajner et al., 2014) have confirmed high levels of diversity among cultivated varieties.

According to Aradhya et al. (2003), the germplasm of cultivated grapevines represents a unique and complex gene pool, with its structure determined by artificial selection and its vegetative manner by grapevine propagation. It has been confirmed that grapevine diversity, especially for Vitis vinifera cultivars, can be determined via different levels of molecular markers. Microsatellites, or simple repeated sequences (SSRs), have proven to be the most effective markers for grapevine genotyping (Laucou et al., 2011; Jakše et al., 2013), having properties which allow them to be widely used - from variety identification to parent reconstruction and genome mapping (Sefc et al., 2001, Štajner, 2014).

Thomas and Scott (1993) were the first to use microsatellites for identifying grapevine varieties, showing them to be sequences which are ubiquitously present in the grapevine genome, thus providing a plethora of information necessary for identifying Vitis vinifera cultivars. Since many research groups around the world have become interested in the microsatellite genotyping of vines, a large number of these markers have been developed (Bowers et al., 1996; Bowers et al., 1999; Sefc et al., 1999; Adam-Blondon et al., 2004; Arroyo-Garcia and Martinez-Zapater, 2004; Di Gaspero et al., 2005; Merdinoglu et al., 2005; Goto-Yamamoto et al., 2006).

A defined set of six (VVS2, VVMD5, VVMD7, VVMD27, VrZAG62 and VrZAG7) or nine (the previous six combined with VVMD32, VVMD36 and VVMD25) highly polymorphic microsatellite markers is commonly used in grapevine genotyping studies, usually with the purpose of determining genetic variability between European grape varieties, which are highly polymorphic (Sefc et al., 2001; Žulj Mihaljević et al., 2013). The purpose of this study was to carry out the ampelographic characterisation, evaluation and microsatellite profiling of 30 vine varieties to find potential synonyms within this group, as well as to compare the obtained profiles with the available DNA profiles of grapevines from other regions in Europe.

Materials and methods

1. Ampelographic description

The examined material for this study came from the ampelographic collections at the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture's experimental vineyard Radmilovac. According to the regionalisation conducted in 2015, the Radmilovac vineyard belongs to the Belgrade region, Gročansko vinogorje (Ivanišević et al., 2015). The geographical position of the collection is located at 44°45'24.66"N, 20°34'54.50"E. The vineyard is arranged rectangularly, 3 × 1 m, and the training system is an asymmetrical cordon with mixed pruning. Ampelographic characterisation was performed on 30 varieties that belong to the noble Vitis vinifera L. (Table 1). Forty-five characteristics were monitored during two consecutive vegetation periods in 2016 and 2017 (OIV, 2009, Cost action FA1003-GRAPENET). The most important ampelographic characteristics to be monitored were the morphological characteristics of young shoots, young leaves, shoots, flowers, mature leaves, grapes and berries and grape yield per m2.

Table 1. Investigated grapevine varieties and their basic characteristics.


Variety

Mean use

Colour of

Type of flower

Skin

Flesh

Alicante Henri Bouschet

W

N

S

Hermaphrodite

Babić veliki

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Blaufraenkisch

W/T

N

Hermaphrodite

Braghina rosie

W/T

Rs

Female

Bratkovina crna

W/T

N

Female

Cabernet-Sauvignon

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Cabernet-Sauvignon clon 10/32

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Cabernet-Sauvignon clon Radmilovac

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Cabernet franc clon 21/20

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Cot

W/T

N

Hermaphrodite

Dinka mirisava

W

Rg

Hermaphrodite

Gamay tenturier

W

N

S

Hermaphrodite

Lasina

W/T

N

Hermaphrodite

Kadarun

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Kadarka kek

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Koevidinka

W

Rs

Hermaphrodite

Krajinski bojadiser

W

N

S

Hermaphrodite

Noir hâtif de Marseille

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Pamid

W

Rs

Hermaphrodite

Piccola nera

W

Rs

Hermaphrodite

Pinot noir clon 658-12

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Plavina velika

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Plavina mala

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Prokupac

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Ruby Cabernet

W/T

N

Hermaphrodite

Rudežuša crna

W/T

N

Hermaphrodite

Srpski rubin

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Stanušina crna

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Vranac

W

N

Hermaphrodite

Župski bojadiser

W

N

S

Hermaphrodite

Mean use: Wine/Table; Colour of the berry epidermis: B = green-yellow; Rs = pink, rose; G = grey; N = dark blue; Rg = red; S = coloured mesocarp.

2. Extraction of DNA

For the extraction of total DNA, 150 mg of young fresh leaf tissue from the examined varieties was crushed to a fine powder with liquid nitrogen (Messer Tehnogas). Total DNA extraction was performed according to the ‘ZR Plant/Seed DNA MiniPrep (USA)’ protocol.

3. Measuring DNA concentration

DNA concentration was measured by spectrophotometry using ‘Implen NanoPhotometer P300’. After determining the concentration, the samples were stored at −20 C until further analysis.

4. PCR amplification of microsatellites and capillary electrophoresis

A PCR reaction of microsatellite DNA chain amplification (‘Polymerase Chain Reaction – PCR') was conducted as described by Štajner et al. (2011). The PCR mix was prepared in a total volume of 15 μl containing 20 ng of genomic DNA, 5× PCR buffer (Promega), 0.2 mM each of dNTPs (Sigma), 2 mM MgCl2 (Promega), 0.5 U of GoTaq® DNA Polymerase (Promega), and three different primers – 2 pmol of each reverse and forward primer, and 2.5 pmol of fluorescently labelled M13 (−21) tail primer (5′-TGTAAAACGACGGCCAGT-3′). The tail primer was labelled with 6-FAM, VIC, PET or NED fluorescent dye. The shortest locus specific primer was elongated for the TAIL sequence at the 5′ end, which allowed economic fluorescent labelling of PCR products and enabled visualisation of the amplified DNA fragments by capillary electrophoresis, allowing fluorescence detection (Schuelke, 2000). 8 microsatellite loci (VVS2, VVMD7, VVMD27, VrZAG62, VrZAG7, VVMD32, VVMD36 and VVMD25) were amplified using the following thermal profile: initial denaturation at 95 C for 2 min, followed by five touchdown cycles at 94 C for 30 s; 60–1.0 C/cycle for 45 s and 72 °C for 1min 30s, followed by 30 cycles at 94 °C for 30 s; 55 °C for 45 s and 72 °C for 1 min 30 s; and a final step of 8 min at 72 °C. The cycling profile included touchdown steps in order to improve primer binding specificity. Differing fluorescent dye PCR reactions were merged together by aliquoting 4 μl of each. One microliter of merged PCRs was added to 0.5 μl of LIZ 600 size standard and 8.5 μl of Hi-Di formamide. Separation and visualisation of the PCR products was conducted in the laboratory of the University of Ljubljana's Biotechnical Faculty using the capillary sequencer ‘ABI 3130XL Genetic Analyzer' (Applied Biosystems, US).

5. Data analysis

Amplified alleles were analysed and sized with GeneMapper software version 4.0 (Applied Biosystems, US). Genetic distances using the simple matching coefficient were calculated using DARwin 6.0.14 software (Leigh and Bryant, 2015) and used to draw a tree based on the weighted neighbour-joining clustering method, supported by bootstrap analysis.

The number of alleles per locus (No), the observed and expected heterozygosity (Ho and He), the polymorphic information content (PIC) and the frequency of null alleles (Fnull) were calculated with Cervus 3.0 software (Kalinowski et al., 2007). The identity analysis based on comparison among alleles of different studies/databases was performed with Cervus 3.0 software after standardisation of allele sizes using reference cultivars.

Results and discussion

The number of alleles per locus ranged from 4 (VVMD25) to 12 (VVMD28 and ZAG62), with a mean of 9 alleles, revealing a high level of variability in the sample set. The observed heterozygosity value (Ho) ranged from 0.64 (VVMD32 and VVMd7) to 0.85 (ZAG62) with a mean of 0.75, while the expected heterozygosity (He) ranged from 0.64 (VVMD25) to 0.90 (VVMD28) with a mean of 0.80. The observed heterozygosity showed higher values than the expected heterozygosity across two loci (VVS2 and VVMD25), and a slightly lower value than the expected heterozygosity for 6 loci out of 8. This observed heterozygosity deficiency may be related to the presence of null alleles, whose frequency values were positive for 5 of these loci (Table 2). The PIC (polymorphic information content) ranged from 0.58 (VVMD25) to 0.88 (VVMD28), with an average of 0.76. The loci with high PIC values (> 0.5) are classified as highly informative (Table 2).

Table 2. Statistical analysis of 8 SSR markers evaluated in 30 grapevine genotypes.


Locus

No

Ho

He

PIC

Fnull

PI

VVMD28

12

0.77

0.90

0.88

0.07

0.02

ZAG79

10

0.82

0.88

0.85

0.02

0.03

ZAG62

12

0.85

0.86

0.82

-0.02

0.04

VVMD32

9

0.64

0.85

0.82

0.12

0.05

VVMD27

8

0.76

0.80

0.76

0.03

0.07

VVS2

11

0.80

0.79

0.75

-0.01

0.07

VVMD7

9

0.64

0.71

0.65

0.04

0.14

VVMD25

4

0.68

0.64

0.58

-0.04

0.19

Mean

9

0.75

0.80

0.76

-

*2.1x10 -10

No = number of alleles. Ho = observed heterozygosity. He = expected heterozygosity. PIC = polymorphic information content. Fnull = estimated frequency of null alleles and PI = probability of identity; *cumulative PI.

The results of the ampelographic description (OIV codes) analysis are presented in Table 3 and the molecular characterisation in Table 4. While the examined varieties exhibited the same values for some ampelographic traits, differences were found in certain characteristics. The same assessment of all varieties was obtained for codes OIV 016 and OIV 241. For codes OIV 080, OIV 081-1*, OIV 081-2*, OIV 083-2*, OIV 151, OIV 209, OIV 220, OIV 221, OIV 235, OIV 236 and OIV 503, only two assessments/categories for the examined varieties were determined. For all other OIV codes, three or more categories were established for the examined varieties, which indicates greater divergences for the given traits.

Table 3. Ampelographic characteristics of investigated grapevine varieties (Part 1/3).


Variety

OIV

001

OIV

003

OIV

004

OIV

006

OIV

007

OIV

008

OIV

016

OIV

051

OIV

053

OIV

067

OIV

068

OIV

070

OIV

072

OIV

074

OIV

075

OIV

076

OIV

079

Alicante Henri Bouschet

5

3

7

7

1

2

1

1

7

3

2

1

1

4

1

3

3

Babić veliki

5

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

3

4

3

1

5

3

3

4

7

Braghina rosie

5

3

7

3

3

1

1

4

7

3

3

3

5

5

1

4

3

Bratkovina crna

5

5

3

3

1

2

1

2

3

3

3

3

5

1

5

3

3

Cabernet franc clon 21/20

5

3

3

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

3

2

5

Cabernet- Sauvignon

5

7

5

1

1

1

1

3

3

4

4

3

3

1

3

3

3

Cabernet- Sauvignon clon 10/32

5

7

5

1

1

1

1

3

3

4

4

3

3

1

1

3

3

Cabernet- Sauvignon clon Radmilovac

5

5

7

1

1

1

1

3

3

4

4

1

3

1

3

3

3

Koevidinka

5

5

5

1

2

3

1

1

1

2

1

3

5

1

5

2

3

Dinka mirisava

5

3

3

1

1

3

1

1

1

4

1

3

5

5

3

3

3

Blaufraenkisch

5

3

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

1

2

7

2

5

3

3

Gamay tenturier

5

7

3

3

3

2

1

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

3

3

Kadarun

5

3

5

5

3

1

1

2

5

3

3

3

7

5

3

3

7

Krajinski bojadiser

5

7

3

3

3

2

1

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

5

3

3

Lasina

5

3

3

3

2

1

1

2

3

3

3

2

1

2

1

3

3

Cot

5

5

3

3

1

2

1

3

3

4

4

3

3

1

3

3

3

Noir hâtif de Marseille

5

5

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

3

2

7

3

3

2

3

Piccola nera

5

3

3

3

1

2

1

2

3

3

3

1

1

5

3

4

7

Pinot noir clon 658-12

5

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

1

1

5

3

3

Plavina mala

5

3

5

5

3

1

1

3

5

3

3

2

1

1

1

4

7

Plavina velika

5

3

7

7

3

1

1

2

7

4

4

3

3

5

3

4

7

Pamid

5

3

3

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

5

5

5

4

5

Prokupac

5

5

7

7

2

1

1

2

7

3

2

3

1

2

7

3

3

Ruby Cabernet

5

5

7

3

1

2

1

3

7

3

3

2

7

5

7

3

3

Rudežuša crna

5

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

3

3

1

1

5

5

3

3

3

Kadarka kek

5

3

3

3

1

2

1

3

3

3

3

2

5

5

5

4

3

Srpski rubin

5

5

3

3

1

2

1

1

3

3

3

1

9

2

3

3

3

Stanušina crna

5

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

3

2

2

2

1

2

5

2

3

Vranac

5

3

3

3

1

2

1

2

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

3

5

Župski bojadiser

5

7

7

7

3

2

1

2

7

3

3

3

1

2

3

2

3

Table 3. Ampelographic characteristics of investigated grapevine varieties (Part 2/3).


Variety

OIV

080

OIV081-

1*

OIV081-2*

OIV

083-

2*

OIV

084

OIV

087

OIV

094

OIV

151

OIV

155

OIV

202

OIV

204

OIV

206

OIV

208

OIV

209

OIV

220

Alicante Henri Bouschet

1

1

1

1

5

5

3

3

9

5

5

5

2

3

3

Babić veliki

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

9

5

3

3

2

3

3

Braghina rosie

3

1

1

1

5

5

5

4

5

5

5

3

1

3

5

Bratkovina crna

1

1

1

1

3

3

9

4

9

5

5

5

2

3

3

Cabernet franc clon 21/20

1

1

1

9

1

3

3

3

3

5

5

5

3

3

3

Cabernet-Sauvignon

1

1

2

1

3

3

7

3

5

5

5

3

2

2

3

Cabernet-Sauvignon clon 10/32

1

1

2

1

3

3

5

3

5

3

5

3

2

2

3

Cabernet-Sauvignon clon Radmilovac

1

1

2

1

3

5

3

3

5

5

3

3

2

2

3

Koevidinka

1

1

1

9

5

5

3

3

9

5

3

3

2

3

3

Dinka mirisava

1

9

1

1

3

5

3

3

9

5

3

1

1

3

3

Blaufraenkisch

3

1

1

1

3

3

5

3

5

3

5

3

1

3

5

Gamay Tenturier

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

9

3

5

3

2

3

3

Kadarun

1

1

1

1

3

5

5

3

9

5

9

3

3

3

5

Krajinski bojadiser

1

1

1

9

3

3

3

3

9

5

5

3

1

3

5

Lasina

1

1

1

1

1

3

5

3

9

5

3

3

1

3

5

Cot

3

1

1

1

3

3

5

3

9

5

3

3

1

3

3

Noir hâtif de Marseille

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

5

5

5

3

1

3

3

Piccola nera

1

1

1

1

1

3

5

3

9

3

5

3

1

3

3

Pinot noir clon 658-12

1

1

1

1

5

1

3

3

9

3

7

3

1

2

3

Plavina mala

1

1

1

1

5

3

5

3

9

5

5

3

3

3

3

Plavina velika

1

1

1

1

5

3

5

3

9

5

5

5

3

3

5

Pamid

1

1

1

1

5

3

5

3

9

5

5

3

1

3

3

Prokupac

3

1

1

1

5

5

5

3

9

5

5

3

2

3

5

Ruby Cabernet

1

1

1

1

5

1

3

3

7

7

5

5

2

3

5

Rudežuša crna

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

3

9

5

5

3

1

3

5

Kadarka Kek

1

1

1

1

5

3

3

3

5

5

5

3

1

3

5

Srpski rubin

3

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

9

5

5

1

1

3

3

Stanušina crna

3

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

9

5

7

3

2

3

5

Vranac

1

1

1

1

3

1

7

3

5

5

3

1

2

2

3

Župski bojadiser

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

9

5

5

5

1

3

3

Table 3. Ampelographic characteristics of investigated grapevine varieties (Part 3/3).


Variety

OIV

221

OIV

223

OIV

225

OIV

231

OIV

235

OIV

236

OIV

241

OIV

301

OIV

303

OIV

351

OIV

502

OIV

503

OIV

504

Alicante Henri Bouschet

5

2

6

7

1

1

3

3

5

3

5

3

5

Babić veliki

3

4

6

3

1

1

3

3

5

3

3

3

3

Braghina rosie

3

2

2

1

1

4

3

3

5

5

3

3

3

Bratkovina crna

3

2

6

1

1

1

3

3

5

3

3

3

3

Cabernet franc clon 21/20

3

2

6

1

1

1

3

5

7

3

3

3

3

Cabernet-Sauvignon

3

2

6

1

1

4

3

5

7

3

3

3

1

Cabernet-Sauvignon clon 10/32

5

2

6

1

1

4

3

5

5

3

3

3

1

Cabernet-Sauvignon clon Radmilovac

3

2

6

1

1

4

3

5

5

3

3

3

3

Koevidinka

3

2

2

1

1

4

3

5

5

3

3

3

7

Dinka mirisava

5

2

3

1

1

1

3

5

5

3

3

3

5

Blaufraenkisch

3

2

6

1

1

1

3

3

5

5

3

3

3

Gamay Tenturier

3

2

6

7

1

4

3

3

3

5

3

3

3

Kadarun

3

2

6

1

1

1

3

3

3

5

3

3

9

Krajinski bojadiser

3

2

6

7

1

1

3

5

5

3

3

5

7

Lasina

3

3

6

1

1

4

3

3

5

5

3

3

3

Cot

3

2

6

3

1

4

3

3

5

3

3

3

5

Noir Hâtif de Marseille

3

3

6

1

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Piccola nera

3

2

6

3

1

1

3

3

5

5

3

3

5

Pinot noir clon 658-12

3

3

6

1

1

4

3

3

3

5

3

3

3

Plavina mala

3

2

6

1

1

1

3

3

5

3

3

3

3

Plavina veliki

3

2

6

1

1

1

3

3

5

5

3

3

5

Pamid

3

4

5

1

1

4

3

3

5

7

3

3

3

Prokupac

3

2

6

1

2

1

3

3

7

5

3

3

9

Ruby Cabernet

3

5

5

1

2

1

3

5

5

3

5

3

3

Rudežuša crna

3

2

6

1

1

1

3

1

5

3

3

3

5

Kadarka Kek

3

2

6

1

1

1

3

3

5

3

3

3

7

Srpski rubin

3

3

6

1

1

4

3

5

5

5

3

3

5

Stanušina crna

3

4

6

1

1

4

3

3

5

3

3

3

7

Vranac

3

3

6

1

1

4

3

3

5

5

7

3

7

Župski bojadiser

3

2

6

7

1

1

3

3

5

3

3

3

5

Table 4. Allelic profiles of investigated grapevine varieties analysed at 8 microsatellite loci.


Individual ID

VVS2

VVS2

VVMD28

VVMD28

VVMD7

VVMD7

ZAG79

ZAG79

VICVVMD27

VICVVMD27

VVMD25

VVMD25

VVMD32

VVMD32

ZAG62

ZAG62

Alicante Henry Bouschet

139

141

235

247

259

273

260

264

194

197

259

273

266

266

205

205

Babić veliki

139

150

243

247

255

265

272

272

194

194

257

259

266

278

207

207

Blaufraenkische

/

/

233

245

255

265

250

250

194

210

267

267

/

/

211

222

Braghina rosie

129

131

233

233

255

263

250

272

197

197

257

257

272

286

205

222

Bratkovina crna

/

/

245

245

255

255

256

264

194

197

257

267

284

286

205

214

Cabernet franc clon 21/20

135

143

227

234

255

279

260

272

197

205

257

273

253

272

211

222

Cabernet-Sauvignon

135

147

233

235

255

255

260

260

191

205

257

267

254

254

205

211

Cabernet-Sauvignon clon 10/32

/

/

233

233

/

/

/

/

190

197

257

257

/

/

/

/

Cabernet-Sauvignon clon Radmilovac

/

/

233

235

255

255

260

260

191

205

257

267

253

253

205

212

Koevidinka

129

129

/

/

255

265

256

264

197

205

257

267

253

253

211

222

Dinka mirisava

129

139

235

244

255

257

264

268

194

194

257

259

278

286

204

205

Gamay tenturier

141

145

243

243

255

265

252

270

201

210

259

267

264

286

204

205

Krajinski bojadiser

141

145

243

243

255

273

252

270

201

210

259

267

264

264

203

205

Lasina

129

129

235

244

249

255

250

262

197

197

257

257

/

/

214

214

Cot

129

147

233

266

255

279

258

272

205

207

257

267

254

266

205

220

Noir hâtif de Marseille

129

133

217

256

259

265

258

268

194

205

257

259

266

286

204

205

Piccola nera

129

129

/

/

255

265

256

272

197

197

257

257

270

286

214

222

Pinot noir clon 658-12

133

148

217

235

255

259

252

258

201

205

257

267

254

286

205

211

Plavina mala

129

139

247

256

265

265

250

256

194

205

257

257

266

278

206

218

Plavina velika

129

139

247

256

265

265

250

256

194

205

257

257

278

278

205

211

Pamid

129

129

244

244

255

255

256

264

194

197

257

257

286

286

206

214

Prokupac

139

141

244

258

265

265

256

264

197

201

259

273

286

286

211

218

Rubi Cabernet

129

131

/

/

255

255

256

258

194

201

/

/

/

/

/

/

Rudežuša crna

129

139

227

233

255

269

264

272

197

197

257

273

264

266

205

218

Kadarka Kek

129

131

233

258

265

269

256

272

201

205

257

273

266

286

209

218

Srpski rubin

129

139

245

258

265

265

256

264

197

201

257

273

253

286

211

211

Stanušina crna

129

131

235

243

255

265

256

272

197

201

257

257

264

286

205

212

Vranac

129

129

235

247

263

265

272

272

197

197

257

259

270

270

211

218

Župski bojadiser

133

141

217

258

265

265

258

270

205

210

257

259

264

286

205

222

/ not amplified.

The dendrogram shown in Figure 1 is based on ampelographic characteristics and shows three groups, comprising approximately the same number of varieties within each group. Group A comprises 10 varieties, with 4 subgroups. The first subgroup within group A consists of the following varieties: Župski bojadiser, Alicante Henri Bouschet and Prokupac. Out of a total of 45 descriptors, Župski bojadiser and Alicante Henri Bouschet share 32 similar characteristics. The similarities between Župski bojadiser (Alicante Henri Bouschet × Gamay noir) (Sivčev and Žunić, 2001) and Alicante Henri Bouschet (Petit Bouschet × Grenache) (Cabezas et al., 2003) are explained by the fact that Alicante Henri Bouschet is the ‘mother variety'. They are joined by Prokupac with 22 similar characteristics referring to young shoots. Differences can be perceived in the characteristics of young leaves and, when it comes to mature leaves, in the number of clippings in the anthocyanin pigment on the front of the leaf, the cross section shape of the mature leaf, the shape of the margin teeth, the shape of the base petiole sinus, upright density, the lying hairs of the mature leaf, the length of the petiole, the shape of the cluster, the length and width of the berry, the anthocyanin pigment and firmness of the berry flesh, the phenology and yield per m2.

In the second subgroup, the Plavina velika variety is more similar to the Kadarun variety than to the Plavina mala variety. The differences between Plavina velika and Plavina mala can be detected in the characteristics of the young shoots (OIV 004, OIV 006), young leaves (OIV 051, OIV 053) and mature leaves (OIV 067, OIV 068, OIV 070, OIV 072, OIV 074, OIV 075). In the VIVC database (www.vivc.de), the Plavina crna variety is listed as a synonym of Plavina mala, and the origin of Plavina crna has been confirmed (Primitivo × Lagorthi) (Štajner et al., 2015). The molecular analysis of this study, based on 8 microsatellite markers, also confirmed the same genetic profile for Plavina crna and Plavina mala. Our study resulted in in difference for one allele between the two genotypes, Plavina crna and Plavina mala (Table 5).

In the third subgroup, the varieties Ruby Cabernet (Carignan × Cabernet-Sauvignon) (https://worldsbestwines.eu/grapes/ruby-cabernet/) and Braghina rosie differ significantly in type of flower, but are similar across 21 characteristics. Based on the SSR markers, these two varieties belong to different groups (Table 3, Figure 2).

The last subgroup consists of the varieties Pamid and Bratkovina crna, which share 30 similar characteristics, but only Pamid can produce extremely high yields (OIV 351). The similarities were confirmed with SSR markers. These two varieties differ by only two out of 14 compared alleles, and form a subgroup within group E.

Figure 1. Dendrogram of ampelographic characteristics of the investigated grapevine varieties.

Figure 2. Dendrogram based on the SSR markers of the investigated grapevine varieties, using the simple matching dissimilarity coefficient and the weighted neighbour-joining clustering method. The numbers on the branches indicate the percentage of bootstrap values (1000).

Group B unites 8 varieties, divided into three subgroups. In the first subgroup, Noir hâtif de Marseille and Blaufränkisch stand out, joined by the variety Srpski rubin. The variety Dinka mirisava differs significantly from the three aforementioned varieties, based on ampelographic characteristics (Figure 1). It is important to point out that Dinka mirisava is not in the VIVC database (www.vivc.de), but has been attached to this subgroup, as it can be significantly differentiated from the others by the colour of the young shoots, the characteristics of the mature leaf, clusters and berries, and its phenology. However, based on the SSR markers, Dinka mirisava and Noir hâtif de Marseille (Muscat Rouge de Madere × Pinot) are distant (Table 3, Figure 2). The first subgroup of varieties (Blaufränkisch, Noir hâtif de Marseille and Srpski rubin) within group B were created by spontaneous hybridisation, but there are significant deviations in the ampelographic characteristics of the shoot tips and the mature leaves. The second subgroup of group B consists of the varieties Kadarka Kek and Rudežuša crna. In the VIVC database (www.vivc.de), the primary name of the variety Skadarka is Kadarka Kek, originating in Hungary, while Rudežuša crna originates in the former Yugoslavia. These two varieties share 33 characteristics, but differ in young shoot colour, most leaf characteristics, basal bud fertility and phenology. The distance between the varieties of Kadarka Kek and Rudežuša crna was also confirmed with SSR markers (Table 4, Figure 2). The third subgroup within group B consists of the varieties Piccola nera and Babić veliki. They are similar in 33 characteristics, differing in the characteristics of young shoots, mature leaves, epidermis colour and fertility. In the VIVC database (www.vivc.de), one of the synonyms for Babić veliki is Babić crni, which is its primary name. Based on the SSR markers, Babić veliki and Vranac belong to different groups (Figure 2).

Group C consists of 12 varieties, with five subgroups. The first subgroup within group C consists of the varieties Vranac and Lasina, which share 31 similar ampelographic characteristics. Based on DNA analysis (i.e., the eight SSR markers), Vranac and Lasina belong to the same group (Figure 2). The second subgroup consists of the Côt and Gamay Tenturier varieties, which also share 31 similar characteristics. Differences were found in shoot colour, the back of the internode and mature leaf characteristics, as well as in phenology.

The third subgroup of group C consists of Cabernet-Sauvignon, Cabernet-Sauvignon clone 10/32 and Cabernet-Sauvignon clone Radmilovac, which share 33 characteristics and differ in young shoots, the back of the internode, the characteristics of the mature leaves and phenology. The fourth subgroup consists of the Cabernet franc clone 21/20, Koevidinka and Krajinski bojadiser (Gamay noir × Gamay Tenturier), which share 19 characteristics and differ in young shoots, mature leaves and phenology. The last subgroup in group C consists of the varieties Stanušina crna and Pinot noir clone 658-12. They are similar across 28 characteristics, with differences in the young leaf (i.e., the pigment of the upper side of the front of the leaf – the fourth leaf), the cross-sectional shape of the mature leaf, the anthocyanin colouration of the main nerves on the front of the leaf, cluster and berry length and shape, phenology and yield per m2. In the Kadarun variety, alleles were not collected from 8 loci, which means that the DNA was probably weak, so it was removed from the dendrogram. The VVMD5 locus was also rejected, as the amplification was very weak and, therefore, the alleles could not be 100 % identified.

According to Nastev (1967), Lisičina is the wrong synonym for the variety Plovdina (Pamid). In VIVC (www.vivc.de), only one variety was recorded under number VIVC 9557 and the name Plavina crna. The parents of Plavina crna were found to be the varieties Primitivo and Lagorthi. An important difference between the varieties Braghina rosie, Dinka crvena and Dinka mirisava was found to be in flower type: both varieties with the prefix ‘dinka’ have a hermaphrodite flower, while the Braghina rosie has a functionally female flower. In VIVC (www.vivc.de), Braghina rosie has 60 synonyms, including several containing ‘dinka'. Pamid is a variety that is traditionally grown together with Prokupac in the same vineyards (Bešlić et al., 2012). Prokupac has a long history of red wine production, but has been neglected for decades due to the introduction of international varieties known for their potential to produce high quality wines.

The dendrogram, which was created based on molecular markers (Figure 2), consists of three groups: group D, the most numerous with 18 varieties; group E with 9 varieties; and group F with only two varieties. Most of the mentioned varieties from these groups belong to the eco-geographical group convar. occidentalis.

From comparing ampelographic features (Figure 1) and molecular markers (Figure 2), it can be observed that there are three groups of varieties within each dendrogram. The similar number of varieties in each group is shown on an ampelographic dendrogram, and this concordance is based on 31-32 features out of a total of 45. Results from a two-year study by Garcia-Muñoz et al. (2011) showed that qualitative ampelographic characteristics manifested significant differences; namely, the characteristic OIV 051 (colouration of the upper side of the young leaf) significantly deviates in both years of testing in 27 monitored varieties. The varieties covered by this research, a total of 30, originate from several countries around the world. The results confirm a high level of diversity for this group, in accordance with previous research (Laucou et al., 2011; Štajner et al., 2014), which is most likely due to the trade routes that existed in the once unified state of Yugoslavia. Bešlić et al. (2012) came to similar conclusions. Bacillieri et al. (2013) reported the genetic structure of varieties with 2,096 genotypes and using 20 microsatellite markers; they showed that there are three main genetic groups of cultivated grapevine varieties related to nationality and geography – Western European, Balkan and Eastern European – and groups in which the table varieties of the Eastern Mediterranean, Caucasus, Middle East and Far East predominate. The combination of molecular and morphological characterisations has led to good management of grapevine genetic resources (Balda et al., 2014; Maul and Töpfer, 2015; Ferreira et al., 2015).

Identity analysis and comparison among microsatellite alleles for 6 loci was done based on datasets from Štajner et al. (2014), Lacombe et al. (2013) and VIVC database (Maul et al. 2021). The data in Table 5 show microsatellite alleles obtained in our analysis and those from other studies. Alleles of the same loci that differ by 1 bp are expected to be the same. Alleles from our analysis that differ from those obtained by other studies are marked in bold. For 5 groups of varieties (Cabernet, Vranac, Plavina, Prokupac and Stanusina) we confirmed identical allelic profiles in all compared loci. The genotypes Plavina velika, Plavina mala and Plavina crna that differ in 1-2 alleles can be considered as near synonyms. For the two groups of genotypes (Bagrina and Lasina) mutations resulting in difference of 2 bp for only 1 allele may be the consequence of clonal variation. Within group of genotypes Babić differences were observed in a few loci, but 1 allele of each loci was shared among genotypes, meaning that these genotypes may have a parent-offspring relationship. The samples called Bratkovina, Plovidna and Alicante are probably misnomers as they show different allelic profiles from reference data and their “true-to-type” identity was not confirmed.

Table 5. Differences in SSR markers between varieties from this study and from other researchers.


Sample name/SSR loci

VVS2

VVMD7

VVMD25

VVMD27

VVMD28

VVMD32

Reference

KABERNE_SOVINJON_POPULACIJA

137

149

239

239

238

248

172

186

233

235

239

239

our data

Cabernet-Sauvignon(#322)

137

149

239

239

238

248

172

186

233

235

239

239

Lacombe et al. (2013)

VRANAC

131

131

247

249

238

240

178

178

235

247

255

255

our data

Vranac_BIH

131

131

247

247

238

240

178

178

235

247

255

255

Štajner et al. (2014)

Vranac_MNE

131

131

247

247

238

240

178

178

235

247

255

255

Štajner et al. (2014)

PIKOLA_NERA

131

131

239

249

238

238

178

178

/

/

255

271

our data

Plavina-maločrn

131

131

239

249

238

238

178

178

/

/

255

271

Štajner et al. (2014)

Maločrn

131

131

239

249

238

238

178

178

/

/

255

271

Štajner et al. (2014)

PROKUPAC

141

143

249

249

240

254

178

182

244

258

271

271

our data

Prokupac(#1630)

141

143

249

249

240

254

178

182

245

259

271

271

Lacombe et al. (2013)

Prokupac_BIH

141

143

249

249

240

254

178

182

245

259

271

271

Štajner et al. (2014)

STANUŠINA_CRNA

131

133

239

249

238

238

178

182

235

243

249

271

our data

STANUSINA_CRNA_RNM

131

133

239

249

238

238

178

182

235

243

249

271

VIVC database

PLAVINA VELIKA

131

141

249

249

238

238

175

186

247

256

263

263

our data

PLAVINA MALA

131

141

249

249

238

238

175

186

247

256

251

263

our data

Plavina Crna_CRO (Primitivo)

131

141

239

249

238

238

176

186

247

257

251

263

VIVC database

BAGRINA_UREZANOG_LISTA

131

133

239

247

238

238

178

178

233

233

257

271

our data

Bagrina_SRB

131

133

239

247

238

238

176

178

233

233

257

271

Štajner et al. (2014)

LASINA

131

131

233

239

238

238

178

178

235

244

/

/

our data

LASINA_CRO

131

131

233

239

238

238

176

178

235

245

239

255

VIVC database

Lasina(#1642)

131

131

233

239

238

238

176

178

235

245

239

255

Lacombe et al. (2013)

BABIĆ_VELIKI

141

152

239

249

238

240

175

175

243

247

251

263

our data

Babic_CRO

141

149

247

249

238

238

176

176

243

247

239

251

VIVC database

BabicBIH

141

149

247

249

238

238

176

176

243

247

239

251

Štajner et al. (2014)

BRATKOVINA_CRNA

/

/

239

239

238

248

175

178

245

245

269

271

our data

Bratkovina_crna_CRO

131

133

239

239

238

254

178

191

235

235

263

271

VIVC database

Bratkovina_crna(#1856)

131

133

239

239

238

254

178

191

235

235

263

271

Lacombe et al. (2013)

PLOVDINA_CRNA

131

131

239

239

238

238

175

178

244

244

271

271

our data

PlovdinaCrna_SRB

141

141

239

255

254

254

178

178

227

245

263

271

Štajner et al. (2014)

ALIKANT_BUŠE

141

143

243

257

240

254

175

178

235

247

251

251

our data

AlicanteHenriBouschet(#514)

131

143

239

243

240

240

178

191

243

259

249

271

Lacombe et al. (2013)

AlicanteHenriBouschet_FRA

131

143

239

243

240

240

178

191

243

259

249

271

VIVC database

/ not amplified.

Conclusion

Among the examined varieties, a large variability in ampelographic characteristics was found. The dendrogram was constructed based on the ampelographic characteristics of three groups, with approximately the same number of varieties within each group.

The dendrogram was created based on the molecular markers of the three groups, of which the first group – the most numerous – consisted of 18 varieties, the second group of nine varieties and third group of only two varieties.

The integration of the ampelographic data with the genetic data is of utmost importance for accurate identification of the varieties, offering a significant means for the preservation and use of the varieties. The integration of the ampelographic data with the genetic data is of utmost importance for the accurate identification of varieties, offering a significant means of variety preservation and use.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (Contract number: 451-03-68/2020-14/200116), the Slovenian Research Agency grant P4-0077 and the COST Action CA 17111 INTEGRAPE.

References

  • Adam-Blondon, A.F., Roux, C., Claux, D., Butterlin, G., Merdinoglu, D., & This, P. (2004). Mapping 245 SSR markers on the Vitis vinifera genome: a tool for grape genetics. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 109(5), 1017-1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1704-y
  • Alleweldt, G. (1988). The genetic resources of Vitis. World list of grapevine collection. 1st edition. Institut für Rebenzüchtung Geiweilerhof-Siebeldingen, Germany.
  • Aradhya, M.K., Dangl, G.S., Prin, B.H., Boursiquot, J.M., Walker, M.A., Meredith, C.P., & Simon, C.J. (2003). Genetic structure and differentiation in cultivated grape, Vitis vinifera L. Genetics Research, 81, 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672303006177
  • Arroyo-Garcia, R., & Martinez-Zapater, J.M. (2004). Development and characterization of new microsatellite markers for grape. Vitis, 43(4), 175-178.
  • Avramov, L., & Jelenković, G. (1960). Formiranje centra za selekciju vinove loze. Poljoprivreda, 10/11/12, 39-46.
  • Avramov, L., Pavlović, K., Sivčev, B., Gašić, N., & Žunić, D. (1993). Description ampelographique du 363 cepages spec. Vitis. Ofice International de la Vigne et du Vin. Paris, 1-370.
  • Avramov, L., Žunić, D., Sivčev, B., Gašić, N., Živković, T., & Pandilović, S. (1997). Genofond sejanaca vinove loze poljoprivrednog fakulteta u Zemunu. Savremena Poljoprivreda, XX (3-4), 99-105.
  • Balda, P., Ibáñez, J., Sancha, J.C., & Martínez de Toda, F. (2014). Characterization and identification of minority red grape varieties recovered in Rioja, Spain. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 65, 148-152. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2013.13050
  • Bešlić, Z., Todić, S., Korać, N., Lorenz, F., Emanuelli, M., & Grando, S. (2012). Genetic characterization and relationships of traditional grape cultivars from Serbia. Vitis, 51, 183-189.
  • Bowers, J.E., Vignani, R., & Meredith, C.P. (1996). Isolation and characterization of new polymorphic simple sequence repeat loci in grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Genome, 39, 628-633. https://doi.org/10.1139/g96-080
  • Bowers, J.E., Dangl, G.S., & Meredith, C.P. (1999). Development and characterization of additional microsatellite DNA markers for grape. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 50, 243-246.
  • Cabezas, J.A., Cervera, M.T., Arroyo-García, R., Ibáñez, J., Rodríguez-Torres, I., Borrego, J., Cabello, F., & Martínez-Zapater, J.M. (2003). Garnacha and Garnacha Tintorera: Genetic Relationships and the Origin of Teinturier Varieties Cultivated in Spain. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 54. 237-245.
  • Cindrić, P., Avramov, L., Korać, N., & Pejović, Lj. (1997). Genetički resursi vinove loze Jugoslavije. Savremena Poljoprivreda, 46(1-2), 175-184.
  • Di Gaspero, G., Cipriani, G., Marrazzo, M.T., Andreetta, D., Castro, M.J.P., Peterlunger, E., & Testolin, R. (2005). Isolation of (AC)n-microsatellites in Vitis vinifera L and analysis of genetic background in grapevines under marker assisted selection. Molecular Breeding, 15, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-004-1362-4
  • Ferreira, V., Pinto-Carnide, O., Mota, T., Martín, J.P., Ortiz, J.M., & Castro, I. (2015). Identification of minority grapevine cultivars from Vinhos Verdes Portuguese DOC Region. Vitis, 54, 53-58.
  • Garcia-Muñoz, S., Muñoz-Organero, G., & Andrés María de Teresa, F.C. (2011). Ampelography – An old technique with future uses: The case of minor varieties of Vitis vinifera L. from the Balearic Islands. Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, 45(3), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2011.45.3.1497
  • Goto-Yamamoto, N., Mouri, H., Azumi, M., & Edwards, K.J. (2006). Development of grape microsatellite markers and microsatellite analysis including oriental cultivars. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 57, 105-108.
  • Ivanišević, D., Jakšić, D., & Korać, N. (2015). Popis poljoprivrede (2012). Poljoprivreda u Republici Srbiji. Vinogradarski atlas. Republički zavod za statistiku, Beograd.
  • Jakšić, D., Ivanišević, D., Đokić, V., & Brbaklić, Tepavac, M. (2015). Vinski atlas. Republički zavod za statistiku, Beograd.
  • Jakše, J., Štajner, N., Tomić, L., & Javornik, B. (2013). Application of microsatellite markers in grapevine and olives. In: B. Sladonja & D. Poljuha (Eds.), The Mediterranean Genetic Code – Grapevine and Olive, 25-41. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/53411
  • Kalinowski, S., Taper, M., & Marshall, T. (2007): Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol., 16, 1099-1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x
  • Lacombe, T., Boursiquot, J.-M., Laucou, V., Di Vecchi-Staraz, M., Peros, J.-P., & This, P. (2013). Large-scale parentage analysis in an extended set of grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 126, 401-414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-012-1988-2
  • Laucou, V., Lacombe, T., Dechesne, F., Siret, R., Bruno, J.P., Dessup, M., Dessup, T., Ortigosa, P., Parra, P., Roux, C., Santoni, S., Varès, D., Péros, J.P., Boursiquot, J.M., & This, P. (2011). High throughput analysis of grape genetic diversity as a tool for germplasm collection management. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 122(6), 1233-1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-010-1527-y
  • Leigh, J., & Bryant, D. (2015). Popart: full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 1110-1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12410
  • Maul et al. (2021): Vitis International Variety Catalogue, www.vivc.de
  • Maul, E., & Töpfer, R. (2015). Vitis International Variety Catalogue (VIVC). A cultivar database references by genetic profiles and morphology. BIO Web of Conferences, 5, 01009. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20150501009
  • Maul, E., Sudharma, K.N., Ganesh, A., Hundemer, M., Kecke, S. Marx, G. Schreiber, T., Walk, M., vom Weg, S., Mahler-Ries, A., Brühl, U., & Töpfer, R. (2014). 30 Years VIVC - Vitis International Variety Catalogue (www.vivc.de). XI International Conference on Grapevine Breeding and Genetics, Yanqing, Beijing, China, July 28 - August 2, 2014
  • Merdinoglu, D., Butterlin, G., Bevilacqua, L., Chiquet, V., Adam-Blondon, A.F., & Decroocq, S. (2005). Development and characterization of a large set of microsatellite markers in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) suitable for multiplex PCR. Molecular Breeding, 15(4), 349-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-004-7651-0
  • Milutinović, M., Nikolić, D., Avramov, L., & Rakonjac, V. (2000). Recombination of some characteristics in F1 generation of grapevine. Acta Horticulturae, 528(2), 641-644. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2000.528.95
  • Nastev, D. (1967). Specijano Lozarstvo (Particular viticulture). Izdanie na Universitetot vo Skopje, Skopje.
  • Nikolić, D., Ranković-Vasić, Z., & Atanacković, Z. (2015). New Serbian grapevine genotypes for red wine production. Vitis, 54, 165-168.
  • Nikolić, D., Miljković, J., Rakonjac, V., Radojević, I., & Ranković-Vasić, Z. (2018a). Inheritance and phenotypic correlations of agronomic traits in grapevine offsprings. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Hortorum Cultus, 17(5), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.24326/asphc.2018.5.8
  • Nikolić, D., Banjanin, T., & Ranković-Vasić, Z. (2018b). Variability and heredity of some qualitative and quantitative grapevine characteristics. Genetika, 50(2), 549-560. https://doi.org/10.2298/GENSR1802549N
  • Nikolić, D., Korać, N., Todić, S., Jakšić, D., & Ivanišević, D. (2021). Grapevine genetic diversity in Serbia. First International Conference on Vranac and other Montenegrin Indigenous Sorts of Grapevine, Podgorica, Montenegro, 20-22 November (2017, Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts, Scientific Meetings Volume 159, The Section of Natural Sciences Volume 22, 157-172.
  • OIV (2009). OIV Descriptor list for grape varieties and Vitis species, 2nd edition. Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin, Paris, France.
  • Rakonjac, V., Korać, N., Todić, S., Medić, M., Beslić, Z., Kuljanić, I., Ivanisević, D., & Popov, M. (2014). Genetic diversity of a Serbian grapevine germplasm collection based on morphoagronomic characteristics. Genetika, 46(3), 719-730. https://doi.org/10.2298/GENSR1403719R
  • Regner, F., Hack, R., & Eisenheld, C. (2004). Traditional and innovative grapevine breeding. Bulletin OIV, 77(885-886), 811-819.
  • Schuelke, M. (2000). An economic method for the fluorescent labelling of PCR fragments. Nat. Biotechnol., 18, 233-234. https://doi.org/10.1038/72708
  • Sefc, K.M., Regner, F., Turetschek, E., Glössl, J., & Steinkellner, H. (1999). Identification of microsatellite sequences in Vitis riparia and the irapplicability for genotyping of different Vitis species. Genome, 42, 367-373. https://doi.org/10.1139/g98-168
  • Sefc, K.M., Lefort, F., Grando, M.S., Scott, K., Steinkellner, H., & Thomas, M.R. (2001). Microsatellite markers for grapevine: A state of the art. In: K.A. Roubelakis-Angelakis (Ed.), Molecular Biology and Biotechnology of Grapevine (pp. 407–438). Amsterdam, Kluwer Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2308-4_17
  • Sivčev, B., & Žunić, D. (2001). Ampelographic characteristics of new wine varieties created at the experimental station 'Radmilovac'. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 46(2), 105-116.
  • Štajner, N., Rusjan, D., Korošec-Koruza, Z., & Javornik, B. (2011). Genetic characterization of old Slovenian grapevine varieties of Vitis vinifera L. by microsatellite genotyping. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 62(2), 250-255. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2011.10011
  • Štajner, N., Tomić, L., Ivanišević, D., Korać, N., Cvetković-Jovanović, T., Beleski, K., Angelova, E., Maraš, V., & Javornik, B. (2014). Microsatellite inferred genetic diversity and structure of Western Balkan grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.), Tree Genetics & Genomes, 10, 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-013-0670-4
  • Štajner, N., Tomić, L., Progar, V., Pokorn, T., Lacombe, T., Laucou, V., Boursiquot, J.M., Javornik, B., & Bacilieri, R. (2015). Genetic clustering and parentage analysis of Western Balkan grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) Vitis, 54 (Special Issue), 67-72.
  • Thomas, M.R., & Scott, N. (1993). Microsatellite repeats in grapevine reveal DNA polymorphisms when analysed as sequence-tagged sites (STSs). Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 86, 985-990. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00211051
  • Töpfer, R., Hausmann, L., & Eibach, R. (2011). Molecular breeding. In: Adam-Blondon A., Martinez-Zapater J., & C. Kole (Eds.), Genetic, genomics and breeding of grapes, 160-185. CRC Press.
  • VIVC (2007). Vitis International Variety Catalogue. http://www.vivc.de/index.php.
  • Žulj Mihaljević, M., Šimon, S., Pejić, I., Carka, F., Sevo, R., Kojić, A., Gaši, F., Tomić, L., Jovanović Cvetković, T., Maletić, E., Preiner, D., Božinović, Z., Savin, G., Cornea, V., Maraš, V., Tomić Mugoša, M., Botu, M., Popa, A., & Beleski, K. (2013). Molecular characterization of old local grapevine varieties from South East European countries. Vitis, 52(2), 69-76.

Authors


Kristina Milišić

kiki.valjevo9@gmail.com

ORCID iD

Affiliation : Directorate for Agricultural Land, Gračanička 8, 11000 Belgrade

Country : Serbia


Branislava Sivčev

ORCID iD

Affiliation : University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade-Zemun

Country : Serbia


Nataša Štajner

ORCID iD

Affiliation : University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Jamnikarjeva cesta 101, Ljubljana

Country : Slovenia


Jernej Jakše

ORCID iD

Affiliation : University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Jamnikarjeva cesta 101, Ljubljana

Country : Slovenia


Saša Matijašević

Affiliation : University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade-Zemun

Country : Serbia


Dragan Nikolić

ORCID iD

Affiliation : University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade-Zemun

Country : Serbia


Tatjana Popović

ORCID iD

Affiliation : University of Montenegro Faculty of Biotechnology, Mihaila Lalića 1, 81000 Podgorica

Country : Montenegro


Zorica Ranković-Vasić

Affiliation : University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade-Zemun

Country : Serbia

Attachments

No supporting information for this article

Article statistics

Views: 283

Downloads

PDF: 48

XML: 5

Citations

PlumX