Next Article in Journal
Silicon Dioxide Nanoparticles Induce Innate Immune Responses and Activate Antioxidant Machinery in Wheat Against Rhizoctonia solani
Next Article in Special Issue
Genetic and Molecular Characterization of a Self-Compatible Brassica rapa Line Possessing a New Class II S Haplotype
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Outer Membrane Protein(s) Harboring SLH/OprB-Domains in Extracellular Vesicles’ Production in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803
Previous Article in Special Issue
Characterization of a Common S Haplotype BnS-6 in the Self-Incompatibility of Brassica napus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/plants10122755
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Grapevine Diversity and Genetic Relationships in Northeast Portugal Old Vineyards

by
Diana Augusto
1,
Javier Ibáñez
2,
Ana Lúcia Pinto-Sintra
3,
Virgílio Falco
4,
Fernanda Leal
3,
José Miguel Martínez-Zapater
2,
Ana Alexandra Oliveira
3 and
Isaura Castro
3,*
1
Department of Genetics and Biotechnology, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
Institute of Grapevine and Wine Sciences (ICVV), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), University of La Rioja and Government of La Rioja, 26007 Logroño, Spain
3
Centre for Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), Institute for Innovation, Capacity Building and Sustainability of Agri-Food Production (Inov4Agro), University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
4
Chemistry Research Centre, Vila Real (CQ-VR), University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(12), 2755; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10122755
Submission received: 31 October 2021 / Revised: 8 December 2021 / Accepted: 8 December 2021 / Published: 14 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Identification and Evaluation of Plant Genetic Resources for Eco-Friendly Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
More than 100 grapevine varieties are registered as suitable for wine production in “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” Protected Designations of Origin regions; however, only a few are actually used for winemaking. The identification of varieties cultivated in past times can be an important step to take advantage of all the potential of these regions grape biodiversity. The conservation of the vanishing genetic resources boosts greater product diversification, and it can be considered strategic in the valorisation of these wine regions. Hence, one goal of the present study was to prospect and characterise, through molecular markers, 310 plants of 11 old vineyards that constitute a broad representation of the grape genetic patrimony of “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” wine regions; 280 samples, grouped into 52 distinct known varieties, were identified through comparison of their genetic profiles generated via 6 nuclear SSR and 43 informative SNP loci amplification; the remaining 30 samples, accounting for 13 different genotypes, did not match with any profile in the consulted databases and were considered as new genotypes. This study also aimed at evaluating the population structure among the 65 non-redundant genotypes identified, which were grouped into two ancestral genetic groups. The mean probability of identity values of 0.072 and 0.510 (for the 6 SSR and 226 SNP sets, respectively) were determined. Minor differences were observed between frequencies of chlorotypes A and D within the non-redundant genotypes studied. Twenty-seven pedigrees were confirmed and nine new trios were established. Ancestors of eight genotypes remain unknown.

1. Introduction

The wine denominations “Douro”, the oldest demarcated and regulated winemaking region in the world, and “Trás-os-Montes”, represent approximately 29% of the Portuguese vineyard area for wine production (22 and 7%, respectively) [1]. These Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) situated in Northeast Portugal have an ancient and diverse viticulture history and they are characterised by their mountains with steep slopes and valleys propitious to the existence of distinct microclimates, which led to the evolutionary need of grapevine adaptation to different conditions [2]. In this sense, traditional viticultural practices and local climates were crucial to the high genetic diversity observed in these wine regions. On the other hand, the referred factors also led to the appearance of a large number of synonyms (different names for the same variety) and homonyms (common name for different varieties) among Portuguese grapevines, which make difficult the identification of true genotypes. Hence, accurate identification of true-to-type V. vinifera samples is the first prerequisite for the correct management of germplasm collections, selection of suitable parents for breeding programs, and clarification of synonyms, homonyms, and naming inaccuracies among grape varieties [3,4,5,6].
Identification of grape varieties has been generally based on the phenotypic traits of vegetative and reproductive structures, but morphological features are not sufficiently reliable for the classification of closely related varieties due to genotype–environment interactions [7]. Moreover, the global exchange of clonally propagated materials over time, across distinct geographic and edaphoclimatic regions has challenged the morphological identification of grape genotypes [8]. In this sense, molecular characterisation, mainly through microsatellites (or Simple Sequence Repeats, SSRs) and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), is the favoured way to characterise diversity within a germplasm repository for varietal identification [9,10,11,12,13].
SSR markers, because of their high degree of polymorphism, reproducibility, and co-dominant nature, have become the markers of choice for exchange of information concerning grapevine genetic resources [12]. Several studies report on the genetic diversity among Portuguese grape varieties based on nuclear and/ or chloroplastidial SSR loci (nSSR and cpSSR) [3,4,5,14,15,16,17,18]. Moreover, the combination of three cpSSR markers are informative enough to distinguish the four different major chloroplastidial haplotypes or chlorotypes (maternally inherited) in V. vinifera [19]. Chlorotypes have been useful to show the multiple origins of V. vinifera spp. sativa (cultivated grapevine), by analysing their distribution in local V. vinifera spp. sylvestris and sativa [13], and to follow the maternal line of any variety, including determining the female progenitor in a pedigree.
At the present time, SNP markers are considered one of the most powerful tools recently developed [10,13,20]. Although they have a biallelic nature, which reduces their information content when compared with SSR loci, SNPs are the most abundant DNA sequence polymorphisms widespread in a plant genome; thus, it is possible to multiplex hundreds or thousands of loci in one chip and, in a single analysis, to evaluate allelic variations throughout the entire genome. Locus availability and, consequently, the possibility to retrieve thousands or millions of SNP from genome sequences has revolutionised plant genomic research over the last decade. In addition, SNP data can be compared across different platforms and laboratories more easily than microsatellite data, since normalisation with reference varieties is not required; hence, this higher reproducibility facilitates the integration and interpretation of genotyping data throughout grape genebanks and databases [21]. Another advantage of SNP genotyping is its automatization, as sample analyses may be completely automated in high-throughput research programs [22].
The sequence of the grapevine reference genome is available [23,24] and can be used to draw information on genes of interest. Programmes of sequencing and resequencing of the grape genome have generated a database including an extensive number of SNPs, useful for setting up different genotyping SNP panels [7,25,26,27,28]. A reference SNP database is that of the Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (ICVV), which includes data from many cultivated and wild grapevine samples from diverse geographic regions, genotyped for 48 SNP markers that had been validated for varietal characterisation [29].
These SNP markers are used to investigate genetic variability, discriminating among wild and cultivated V. vinifera populations, to infer genetic structure, and to identify kinship relationships [7,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Characterisation studies of the Portuguese grapevine (V. vinifera subsp. vinifera and sylvestris) germplasm were also been undertaken, using the ICVV sets of 48 [6] and 261 SNPs [20]. Currently the Vitis International Variety Catalogue (VIVC, www.vivc.de; accessed on 2 July 2021) includes SNP data of 112 markers for many varieties [39].
As a result of changes in worldwide wine consumption and European Union incentives [40], radical transformations in European viticulture have occurred in the last decades, namely vineyard restructuring and conversion to commercially available clones from a reduced number of grape varieties. Consequently, crop vulnerability to several abiotic and biotic stresses has increased, producing a massive negative impact on the rich heritage in grape varieties, so crucial to an environmentally sustainable viticulture. A possible response towards these projected future stresses in vineyards in a world with high-demanding wine consumers is to preserve a wider range of grape varieties. This action thus demands a continuous grape varietal prospection for their conservation and putative exploitation in traditional winemaking locations, since they possess old genetic resources on the edge of extinction. In this sense, the main goals of this study were the: (i) molecular identification in old traditional vineyards of a broad representation of grapevine patrimony of “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” regions contributing to deepen the knowledge of Northeast Portugal grapevine gene pool. Varietal discrimination was carried out by using the set of six microsatellite markers recommended by OIV [41] and the 48 SNP set developed by Cabezas et al. [29] and comparing SSR and SNP profiles obtained with those of the VIVC database and the ICVV-SNP database, respectively; (ii) evaluation of genetic diversity and relationships among the grape genotypes detected, through SSR and SNP (240 SNP) markers; (iii) determination of chlorotypes and their frequencies through cpSSR and SNP loci amplification; and (iv) determination of first-order kinship relationships among grape varieties using the 240-SNP set.

2. Results and Discussion

A total of 310 grapevines were sampled in traditional vineyards throughout “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” PDO regions (Figure 1). These vines (older than 47 years) were located in old vineyards of wine-growing companies or in small vine parcels, such as the Vassal, Aguieiras, and Sendim sampling locations, belonging to local wine producers for self-consumption.
Samples were characterised using molecular markers, namely Simple Sequence Repeats (SSR) and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP), starting by varietal identification and followed by population structure, genetic diversity, and pedigree analyses with non-redundant genotypes.
All samples were initially analysed with six nuclear microsatellites (nSSR; approved as descriptors by the OIV [41]) and three chloroplastidial microsatellites (cpSSR) [19]. Microsatellite markers are most adapted for varietal identification (fast results, easy to assay, cost effective, and available databases). However, SSR genotyping is subject to technical variations that required calibration between laboratories [12].
An SNP array was first proposed as an alternative to SSR for varietal identification by Cabezas et al. [29]. These authors reported this 48-SNP set with a discrimination power similar to 14–16 microsatellite markers. Several research groups are currently using the 48-SNP set previously defined for that purpose [6,7,29,42]. Thus, non-redundant grape varieties identified and all non-identified samples, through SSR genotyping, were also profiled with the 48-SNP array selected by Cabezas et al. [29].
Non-redundant genotypes for the 48-SNP set were then genotyped with 192 additional SNP loci for subsequent analyses of population structure, genetic diversity, and parentage relationships. However, only 226 out of 240 SNP markers were informative; 14 SNPs were discarded, because data produced by 11 SNP were missing in at least 61% of the samples, and three SNP were monomorphic in the genotypes analysed.

2.1. Genetic Identification Based on nSSR and SNP Markers

Two hundred and eighty samples were identified through comparison of their genetic profiles generated via six nuclear SSR and 43 informative SNP loci amplifications. The SSR and SNP profiles were compared to those stored in the VIVC and ICVV-SNP databases, respectively. The VIVC database includes 5424 genetic profiles [39] and the ICVV-SNP database more than 2800 non-redundant genotypes for 48 SNPs of diverse genetic and geographic origins. Fifty-two distinct grapevine varieties were detected, from which 37 were described as autochthonous to Portugal (Table 1; Figure 2; Supplementary Tables S1–S4) [3,4,6,17,20]. The SSR and SNP profiles also allowed the identification of 15 foreign genotypes, which corresponded to varieties from Spain (‘Hebén’, ‘Jeronimo’, ‘Montua’, ‘Mouratón’, ‘Palomino Fino’, ‘Parraleta’, and ‘Tempranillo’), France (‘Chasselas’, ‘Grand Noir’, ‘Grec Rouge’, and ‘Trousseau Noir’), Georgia (‘Dodrelyabi’), Lebanon (‘Afus Ali’), and the United States of America (‘Black Monnuka’ and ‘Perlette’). According to VIVC data, the varieties ‘Hebén’, ‘Mouratón’, ‘Montua’, ‘Tempranillo’, ‘Palomino‘, ’Parraleta’, ‘Grec Rouge’, and ‘Trousseau Noir’ are synonyms of the Portuguese varieties ‘Mourisco Branco’, ‘Tinta Gorda’, ‘Diagalves’, ‘Aragonez’, ‘Malvasia Rei’, ’Tinta Caiada’, ‘Rabigato Francês’, and ‘Bastardo’, respectively (Table 1). Portuguese grapevine germplasm has been recently referred as the main route for gene flow from Iberian Peninsula to Western and Central Europe [43]. The variety ‘Hebén’ (syn. ‘Mourisco Branco’ in Portugal and with great importance in the genetic network of Iberian Peninsula grapevine varieties [20]) is one of the few evidences of the presence of Iberian varieties in Italy, specifically, in the island of Sardinia, being the genitor of three local varieties [44].
The remaining 30 samples, accounting for 13 different SSR and SNP genetic profiles, did not match with any profile stored in the VIVC and ICVV-SNP databases, respectively, and are being further studied (Table 1; Figure 2; Supplementary Tables S3 and S4). Their discovery uncovers once again the richness of the Portuguese gene pool as already highlighted by Cunha et al. [6]. Most likely, these unique genotypes correspond to minor autochthonous varieties from Portugal, since the lack of profile matching with international databases, and the fact that each genotype (even with more than one sample identified) has been found in a single sampling location (Table 1). Maraš et al. [38] used the term “proto-varieties” to designate plants that have been only cultivated by local grape growers, i.e., plants that directly grow from seeds, or have been multiplied through cuttings just once, from the place where the seed germinated to the orchard. Eventually, they could be multiplied and distributed, becoming varieties. This is how most of the varieties were originated in the past, but these traditional techniques are not used anymore in Western European regions.
The most commonly observed genotype among the 280 identified grapevine samples corresponded to the variety ‘Trincadeira’, which was found 28 times, followed by ‘Casculho’ (23), ‘Mouratón’ and ‘Síria’ (17), ‘Roseira’ (16), ‘Marufo’ (13), ‘Tempranillo’ (13), ‘Camarate Tinto’, ‘Carrega Branco’, and ‘Malvasia Preta’ (11), and ‘Trousseau Noir’ (10). These most commonly found genotypes across the sampled old vineyards may reflect their relevance in the past century.
Sixteen identified genotypes (‘Afus Ali’, ‘Alfrocheiro’, ‘Alvarelhão Ceitão’, ‘Baga’, ‘Carrega Tinto’, ‘Cidadelhe’, ‘Grand Noir’, ‘Grec Rouge’, ‘Jeronimo’, ‘Malvasia Fina’, ‘Molar’, ‘Parraleta’, ‘Rufete’, ‘Samarrinho’, ‘Tamarez’, and ‘Tinta Mesquita’) and eight non-identified genotypes (NG002, NG003, NG004, NG005, NG006, NG010, NG011, and NG012) were found only once in the study (Table 1; Supplementary Table S1).
The selection of plants was based on the difficulty of their morphological identification by ampelographers, where only 31 out of 310 samples were previously named but mainly with local names (Supplementary Table S2). Microsatellite and SNP loci amplification allowed the confirmation of the varietal identity of six samples (‘Roseira’, ‘Trousseau Noir’ syn. ‘Bastardo‘, ’Casculho’, ‘Tinta Francisca’, ‘Grand Noir’ and ‘Rufete’). On the other hand, samples with different names but which fully matched at the genotyped nSSR and SNP loci were also found and they were considered synonyms or misnomers. The ’Verdelheira’ sample was identified as the Portuguese variety ‘Gouveio’; this variety is known as ‘Verdelho’ in the Dão wine region [6] and it has ‘Godello’ (or ‘Verdello2′) as synonyms in Galicia [45]. Other synonyms were established, namely ‘Tinta Amarela Antiga’, ‘Sousão’, and ‘Rabigato Francês’ samples whose genetic profiles match with those of ‘Trincadeira’, ‘Vinhão’, and ‘Grec Rouge’ varieties, respectively (Supplementary Table S2).
Moreover, ‘Mourisco’ and ‘Bastardinho’ samples share the same nSSR and SNP profiles, but were revealed to be the ‘Mouratón’ (syn. ‘Tinta Gorda’) genotype described by Cunha et al. [6]. ‘Mourisco de Semente’, ‘Mesquita’, ‘Tinta Carvalha’, and ‘Cornifesto’ samples also produced identical genetic profiles, which were found to match with the ‘Roseira’ variety profile and represent misnaming cases (Supplementary Table S2). The ‘Tinta Grossa’ sample revealed a different genetic profile from the official variety ‘Carrega Tinto’ but matched with that of the Portuguese variety ‘Casculho’. ‘Tinta do Bragão’ sample had an identical genotype to ‘Tinta Mesquita’ variety; hence, this sample was misnamed, since it is different from its official variety name ‘Barreto’ [3,6]. Other cases of wrong denominations are those of ‘Preto Martinho’, ‘Touriga Fêmea’, ‘Tinta Bairrada’, ‘Barca’, ‘Moreto’, and ‘Tinta Malandra’ samples, whose genetic profiles matched to the ‘Cidadelhe’, ‘Touriga Nacional’, ‘Baga’, ‘Marufo’, ‘Camarate Tinto’, and ‘Touriga Franca’ genetic profiles, respectively (Supplementary Table S2). Despite ‘Juan García’ being described as a ‘Mouratón’ variety in Martín et al. [46] and Díaz-Losada et al. [47], the ‘João Garcia’ sample was revealed to be the ‘Touriga Franca’ variety (Supplementary Table S2). The ‘Loulela’ and ‘Polita’ samples were identified as ‘Folha de Figueira’ and ‘Síria’ varieties, respectively; there is no reference in the literature to these local names being synonyms with the referred grape varieties.
The genetic profiles of ‘Mourisco’, ‘Mourisco de Semente’, ‘Lázaro’, and ‘Rosada’ samples, generated through nSSR and SNP analyses, did not match with any sample profile included in the VIVC and ICVV-SNP databases. This fact led to the conclusion that the two first samples were incorrectly named, but further analysis of the other two samples is needed to clarify if they are a situation of naming inaccuracy. Nevertheless, all four samples were considered as new genotypes (Supplementary Table S2).
Regarding the use of the berry, 36 out of the 52 genotypes with varietal identification corresponded to wine varieties (69.3%), one to a table variety (1.9%), 14 to varieties with a double wine/table use (26.9%), and one to a variety with double table/raisin use (1.9%; Table 1).
There are 343 authorised varieties for wine production in Portugal [48]. All varieties detected in this work are included on the list of varieties authorised for winemaking, except ‘Afus Ali’, ‘Black Monukka’, ‘Dodrelyabi’, ‘Jeronimo’, and ‘Perlette’. More particularly, 42 out of the identified 47 grape varieties authorised for winemaking in Portugal are also approved for red and white wine production under PDO “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” (Table 1) [1,49,50]. Not on the lists of grape varieties suitable for the production of wine in these PDO regions are three autochthonous (‘Camarate Tinto’, ‘Donzelinho Roxo’, and ‘Molar’) and six foreign (‘Afus Ali’, ‘Black Monukka’, ‘Dodrelyabi’, ‘Grec Rouge’, ‘Jeronimo’, and ’Perlette’) varieties. Nonetheless, the varietal diversity found in the study is not entirely exploited, since only 39.35% of the Portuguese native and foreign varieties found are widely cultivated in these PDO wine regions (Figure 2) [1].
Another fact to take into account was that seven red varieties (‘Cornifesto’, ‘Marufo’, ‘Rufete’, ‘Tinta Barroca’, ‘Tinta Francisca’, ‘Tinto Cão’, and ‘Vinhão’) and five white (‘Diagalves’, ‘Gouveio’, ‘Malvasia Rei’, ‘Samarrinho’, and ‘Síria’) listed as suitable for production of PDO wines are described as late-maturing ones [51,52]. Hence, high quality PDO wines from late-maturing grape varieties will likely need to be considered under a future warmer climate, to cope with the extreme hot temperatures and precipitation deficits registered worldwide, and especially in Portugal.

2.2. Nuclear SSR and SNP Diversity

SNP and SSR profiles were compared to assess the genetic diversity of the 65 non-redundant genotypes and these results are summarised in Table 2 (and Supplementary Table S5). A total of 57 alleles were obtained at the OIV set of six microsatellite loci ranging from 7 (VVMD27) to 12 (VVS2) and with an average of 9.5 alleles per locus. The level of polymorphism found was comparable with that reported for other V. vinifera germplasm diversity studies assessed with SSR markers. An analysis of 51 varieties using the six OIV loci described a range of 7 (VVMD27) to 11 (VVS2) alleles, with an average of 8.2 [17]. The nuclear microsatellite diversity study of 57 grape varieties reported by Cunha et al. [53] showed a total of 53 alleles scored across the six loci, 13 alleles for the VVS2 locus, and 8 for all the others, with an average of 8.8 alleles per locus. Moreover, an analysis of 39 Portuguese varieties described by Castro et al. [4], also using the OIV set of six loci, showed that the allele number ranged from 6 (VVMD27) to 10 (VVMD5 and VVS2), with a mean value of 8.3 alleles per locus.
The allele size varied between 132 (VVS2) and 263 bp (VVMD7). VVMD7-239 and ssrVrZAG62-191 alleles were the most frequent, with over 43% of frequency. On the other hand, 25 alleles (43.86%) showed a frequency lower than 5%, eight of them being unique alleles (Supplementary Table S5). Specific alleles were identified in ‘Grand Noir’ (VVS2-138), ‘Baga’ (VVS2-154), ‘NG012’ (VVMD7-237), ’Dodrelyabi’ (VVMD7-255), ‘NG011’ (VrZAG62-205), ‘Grec Rouge’ (VrZAG79-237), ‘NG013’ (VrZAG79-247), and ‘Perlette’ (VrZAG79-253); (Supplementary Table S5).
Allele frequencies and genetic parameters were also determined for the 226 SNP set (Table 2). The minor allele frequency (MAF) was analysed, since it is a measure of the discriminating ability of the markers. In the case of biallelic markers, the closer MAF is to 0.5, the better [29]. In the present study, the average MAF among the 226 SNPs was 0.244, with seven SNP showing a MAF between 0.4 and 0.5 but also 33 SNP with MAF below 0.1. The minimum MAF registered was 0.023 at SNP1045_291, SNP1419_186, SNP217_190, and Vvi_3947 loci; whereas, the maximum MAF observed was 0.492 at SNP1335_204, SNP575_128, SNP663_578, and SNP855_103 loci. The average MAF was slightly lower than V. vinifera spp. sativa germplasm studied by Emanuelli et al. [7] (MAF = 0.258).
The observed number of effective alleles (Ne) differed from 3.928 (VVMD7) to 6.995 (VVMD5), and an average number of 4.962 effective alleles was obtained for nSSR markers, similar to the mean Ne value (4.658) attained by Castro et al. [4]. For SNP markers, Ne ranged from 1.016 (SNP625_278) to 1.999 (SNP1327_56), with an average of 1.604, which is consistent with other reports on the genetic diversity of cultivated grape varieties (Table 2; Ne = 1.593 in [20]; Ne = 1.58 in [38]).
Differences between SNPs and SSRs were also observed with respect to heterozygosity. The observed heterozygosity (Ho) varied between 0.785 (VVMD7 and VrZAG62) and 0.954 (VVMD5); the lowest expected heterozygosity (He) was detected at VVMD7 locus with 0.745 and the highest one at VVS2 locus with 0.820 (Table 2). The level of heterozygosity observed in this study (Ho = 0.859 and He = 0.790) was similar to that observed for other sets of grape varieties analysed with SSR markers (Ho = 0.833 and He = 0.767 in [53] and Ho = 0.833 and He = 0.769 in [4]). This high level of heterozygosity is in agreement with the natural breeding system of the species and could be a consequence of both natural and human selection against homozygosity in these plants [10,21,54]. Tests for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) revealed no significant deviations (p < 0.05) from HWE at the six SSR loci analysed.
As expected, SSR loci, due to the SSR multiallelic nature and high level of polymorphism, exhibited a significantly higher heterozygosity than biallelic SNP loci. This trend was observed by Emanuelli et al. [7]. On average, SNPs displayed lower observed (Ho = 0.378) and expected (He = 0.351) heterozygosity values than SSRs (Table 2). For 196 SNP loci, no difference (p < 0.05) between Ho and He values was found. However, deviation from the HWE (p < 0.05) was observed for 13.27% of the SNP markers; for 23 SNPs (10.18%), Ho was significantly higher than He, whereas Ho was significantly lower than He in the remaining seven SNPs (3.09%).
The genotype level of polymorphism was assessed by calculating the PIC values for each of the six nSSR and 226 SNP loci. VVMD7 and VVMD5 markers displayed the minimum (0.736) and maximum (0.844) PIC values, respectively (Table 2 and Table S5). The nSSR loci were highly polymorphic and showed a mean PIC value of 0.773. This was in agreement with findings in other studies on Portuguese native grape genotypes (PIC = 0.738 in [53]; PIC = 0.741 in [4]). PIC values estimated for SNP loci, with an average of 0.280, varied between 0.006 (SNP817_209) and 0.492 (SNP853_312; Table 2). One hundred and sixty-nine SNPs displayed PIC values comprised between 0.2 and 0.5, and the remaining 57 showed PIC values below 0.2. These values indicate that the majority of SNP loci analysed had a very high discriminating capacity for grape varieties. Similar mean PIC values have been also reported in genetic diversity studies on V. vinifera varieties (PIC = 0.253 in [25]; PIC = 0.315 in [29]; PIC = 0.280 in [42]). PIC values for SNP were lower than for SSR markers due to the SNP bi-allelic nature and a maximum PIC value of 0.50 is usually expected for a specified SNP locus [7]. However, this can be resolved either by using a larger set of SNP markers [55] or by considering SNPs as multiallelic molecular markers [25].
The global probability of identity (PI) obtained for the six SSR set (1.0 × 10−7) was considerably higher than that determined for the 226 SNP set (1.4 × 10−70; Table 2), with the 226 SNP set having an equivalent discriminating power as a 61 SSR set. Moreover, even the 43 SNP loci (6.8 × 10−16) used for the varietal identification would give a similar identification power as 14 microsatellites.

2.3. Chlorotype Diversity

The chlorotype (chl) of the 65 non-redundant genotypes was determined using ccmp3, ccmp5, and ccmp10 loci, which were considered the three most polymorphic chloroplastidial microsatellite (cpSSR) loci in grapevine [18,19].
Chlorotype diversity found in the present research work is shown in Table 3 (and Supplementary Tables S3 and S4). At least two allele variants were detected per cpSSR locus: two different size variants were found at the ccmp3 and ccmp5 loci (106 and 107 bp and 102 and 103 bp, respectively); and three different size variants at the ccmp10 locus (114, 115 and 116 bp; Table 3). The combination of alleles from these cpSSRs enabled distinguishing the main grape chl, designated A, B, C, and D, according to Arroyo-García et al. [19]. Chlorotype were also confirmed through SNP_NG_C_001 (C/T), SNP_NG_C_003 (C/T), and SNP_NG_D_003 (A/G) loci amplification. Using the same nomination, CCG, CTG, TTG, and CCA nucleotide combinations were found in A, B, C, and D chlorotypes, respectively (Supplementary Table S4).
Chl A was the most frequent (observed in 50.77% of the grape varieties), but a high percentage of chl D was also detected (46.15%; Table 3). Chl B and chl C were only present in the foreign varieties ‘Dodrelyabi’ and ‘Black Monukka’, respectively (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4). Chl A characterises the Iberian Peninsula varieties, which is referred to as a secondary centre of domestication of V. vinifera L. ssp. Vinifera; whereas, chl D is more commonly observed in eastern European grape varieties [13,18,44,56]. In this sense, the existence of 16 varieties and 12 new genotypes presumably autochthonous to Portugal with chl D (24.46 and 18.46%, respectively) could be a consequence of crosses between non-Iberian introduced varieties and Portuguese native germplasm. Chlorotypes of ‘Carrega Branco’, ‘Nevoeira’, ‘Roseira’, and the 13 new genotypes identified were determined for the first time in this work, as no previous references were found in the literature or databases used. Most of these genotypes bear chl D, except ‘Nevoeira’ and ‘NG013’ (both chl A; Supplementary Tables S3 and S4).

2.4. Population Structure Analysis

The genetic stratification in the set of 65 non-redundant grape genotypes was tested through a STRUCTURE analysis, using 226 SNP profiles. The delta K criterion (ΔK) [57] suggested K = 2 as the optimal uppermost hierarchical level of structure (Supplementary Figure S1); in this sense, genotypes divided into two major genetic groups were the best representation. Bar plot representation of the obtained structure is shown in Figure 3.
A membership coefficient (q-value) threshold of 0.7 for genetic group assignment was considered. Twenty (30.77%) and 18 (27.69%) genotypes were assigned to SNP-group 1 and SNP-group 2, respectively. The percentage of admixed genotypes was 41.54% (27 genotypes; Figure 3; Supplementary Table S6). SNP-group 1 is composed of Iberian varieties, including ‘Alfrocheiro’ and ‘Hebén’ that are progenitors of the majority of varieties also established in this genetic group. SNP-group 2 includes genotypes considered autochthonous to Portugal (except ‘Chasselas’), including ‘Marufo’ and ‘Touriga Nacional’ that are progenitors of the majority of varieties and five new genotypes also found in this ancestry group.
Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) was performed to infer the distribution of genetic relationships among structure groups as revealed by 226 SNP loci (Figure 4A). The first two PCos described 13.09% of the total variation. Ancestral groups (SNP-groups 1 and 2) were discriminated by this analysis, as both were separated along the PCo1. Admixed genotypes were generally placed in between the genotypes of each genetic group (Figure 4A). Some differences were found between PCoA (Figure 4A) and structure analysis (Figure 3). ‘NG001’ and ‘NG007’ assigned to SNP-group 1 with membership coefficients above 0.7 (0.96 and 0.71, respectively) appeared in the left part of the PCoA plot, which included genotypes from the SNP-group 2. On the contrary, ‘Donzelinho Roxo’, ‘Mourisco de Semente’, and ‘Chasselas’ assigned to SNP-group 2 with membership coefficients equal or above 0.7 (0.70, 0.74, and 0.76, respectively) appeared in the right part of the PCoA plot, which included genotypes from the SNP-group 1 (Figure 4A). These differences could be explained by the fact that the membership coefficient of all these genotypes, excluding that of ‘NG001’, is in the threshold of 0.7 attributed to genetic group assignment in population structure analysis. Nevertheless, these results highlight the risk of overinterpretation of particular data in the PCoA plot, which is based on only two coordinates explaining a limited percentage of the total variation.
An Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean (UPGMA) distance tree was constructed to investigate the genetic relationship among the 65 non-redundant genotypes from genetic distance matrices (226-SNP data; Figure 4B). Genotypes displayed different levels of similarity, ranging from 83 to 92%. Five clusters (I to V; ‘NG010’ as an outlier) were considered (Figure 4B). Clusters I and II included genotypes belonging mainly to the structure SNP-group 2, and the Clusters IV and V were mainly genotypes assigned to structure SNP-group 1. Cluster III was composed with genotypes considered admixtures (excluding ‘Hebén’ that was assigned to SNP-group 1). Hence, genotypes were clustered according to their ancestral group, but the following differences were verified: the ‘Donzelinho Roxo’ that was grouped in Cluster IV but assigned to structure SNP-group 2; and ‘NG001’ and ‘NG007’ situated in Cluster I but allocated to structure SNP-group 1 (Figure 4B). Clustering results for ‘Donzelinho Roxo’, ’NG001’, and ‘NG007’ were also supported by the PCoA (Figure 4B). Interestingly, all the new genotypes along with Marufo were included in Cluster I.

2.5. Pedigree Analysis

The 240 SNP-profiles of 65 non-redundant grape genotypes, including those of the 13 unique genotypes identified in the present work, were merged with those stored in the ICVV-SNP database completing a total of about 2500 genotypes, for a wide search of possible first-order kinship relationships.
Portuguese grape germplasm consisted of a very large number of varieties, and in most cases their ancestors remain largely unknown. Recently, Cunha et al. [20] reported the existence of first-degree relationships among several Portuguese varieties.
All reliable trios (both parents and offspring) and duos (parent—offspring pairs) involving genotypes analysed and the corresponding LOD values and the number of mismatching loci are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. The most relevant parentage relationships are also shown in Figure 5.
Pedigree results revealed 36 compatible trios, with high LOD values, ranging from 52.20 to 101.40, using a maximum of two mismatching loci as threshold, with the confirmation of 27 already reported trios (see Table 4 for references). The case of ‘Marufo’ and ‘Borraça’ as parents of ‘Mourisco de Semente’ was also considered reliable, despite the detection of four mismatching loci, since this trio was confirmed by Lacombe et al. [58] with 20 SSR markers. Pedigree analysis also allowed the discovery of the probable genetic origins of 9 out of 13 new genotypes (LOD values above 52; Table 4; Figure 5).
Several grape varieties have been previously reported to have an important role in the establishment of local genetic networks, such as ‘Hebén’, ‘Alfrocheiro’, and ‘Marufo’ in the Iberian Peninsula [20,59,60]. In fact, data analysis showed the significant contribution of ‘Marufo’ and ‘Alfrocheiro’ in the generation of Portuguese grapevine diversity, being involved as progenitors in 16 and 8 pedigrees, respectively.
Unlike hermaphrodite grape varieties, female progenitors, such as ‘Marufo’ (chl D) and ‘Hebén’ (chl A) need to cross-pollinate to produce descendants, a process that increases genetic diversity and increases hybrid plant vigour, which could have favoured their selection as seed donors by early farmers to ensure grape production [20].
Hence, ‘Marufo’, described as from Northeast Portugal, was found to be the mother in eight trios, which was consistent with other studies [4,20,59]. For example, pedigree data confirmed the participation of ‘Marufo’ and ‘Touriga Nacional’ (chl A), a variety classified by Lacerda Lobo [64] as being from “Douro” and “Beiras” wine subregions, in four known trios (Table 4; Figure 5). On the other hand, eight new descendants were also found, all bearing chl D as the female progenitor ‘Marufo’ and obtained from hybridisation events between the referred variety and seven different Portuguese (six) and French (one) varieties (Figure 5; Table 4). ‘NG004’, along with ‘Donzelinho Roxo’, are offspring of ‘Marufo’ and ‘Gouveio’ (chl A), an old variety from Douro wine region. ‘NG006’, ‘NG007’, ‘NG008’, and ‘NG003’ resulted from the cross between ‘Marufo’ and, respectively, ‘Tinto Cão’, ‘Camarate Tinto’, ‘Folha de Figueira’, and ‘Trousseau Noir’ (all male progenitors with chl A). Moreover, two new pedigrees were proposed as a result of crosses between ‘Marufo’ and ‘Trincadeira’ (‘NG009’ and ‘NG011’ as progenies). The participation of ‘Marufo’ and ‘Vinhão’ (chl A) as genitors of ‘Tinta Mesquita’ and ‘NG012’ was also observed (Table 4; Figure 5).
As previously mentioned, ’Marufo as well as ‘Tinto Cão’ and ‘Vinhão’ are late-maturing varieties. ‘Tinto Cão’ has been described in the Douro region since the XVIIl century [64]. ‘Vinhão’ is originated from North Portugal, and according to the French ampelographer Paul Truel, was introduced in Douro from the Minho region in 1790, to improve the colour of Douro wines (cited in [65]).
‘Alfrocheiro’ (chl A) was found to be a parent in eight trios previously described, two of them together with ‘Hebén’ (chl A), and six with ‘Cayetana Blanca’ (syn. ‘Sarigo’, with chl A) [20,59,60].
In some cases, the fact that genotypes were considered admixture (assuming a threshold q-value > 0.7 for group assignment) could be explained by parentage analysis. For example, both ‘Touriga Fêmea’ and ‘NG007’ were determined as admixture genotypes; ‘Touriga Fêmea’ is a progeny derived from ‘Malvasia Fina’ and ‘Touriga Nacional’ (assigned to SNP-group 1 and SNP-group 2, respectively), whereas ‘NG007’ is a reliable result of a cross between ‘Marufo’ and ‘Camarate Tinto’ (allocated to SNP-group 2 and SNP-group 1, respectively; Figure 3; Figure 5; Table 4).
Although several compatible duos were also identified, the existence of a compatible duo may not mean necessarily a parent–offspring relationship; since some are siblings or close-related varieties, they are compatible for most of the molecular markers used. In this sense, only duos more consistent (with LOD scores above 25.00 and a maximum of one mismatching loci) were considered. Five reliable duos were detected and summarised in Table 5.
However, no reliable trios or duos within the ICVV-SNP database were found for other genotypes, mainly the Iberian ones: ‘Tamarez’, ‘Tinta Francisca’, ‘NG005’, and ‘NG013’. Since the ICVV-SNP database includes a high number of Iberian profiles and even so no parentage relationships were established, most likely progenitors of the referred genotypes are extinct or close to. Their extinction, as proposed by Cunha et al. [20], may be due to: the appearance in the 19th century of different disease-causing agents (e.g., mildews and grape phylloxera pests) that massively annihilated cultivated and wild grapevines throughout Europe; or they were minor varieties (or individual plants) lost along the evolution of viticulture due to other causes.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sampling and DNA Extraction

To analyse the ancient genetic diversity of V. vinifera in “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” PDO regions, 310 plants were sampled across 11 different old mixed variety vineyards, all predating the 1970s (Figure 1; Supplementary Table S1). The selection of plants was based on the difficulty of their morphological identification by ampelographers; the identity of 279 grape samples was unknown and had no names, whereas 31 were named mainly with local names (Supplementary Table S2).
All plants were labelled in the vineyards and young leaves were collected in several exploration trips between 2016 and 2019. Samples were kept on ice until storage at −80 °C for DNA isolation and genotyping.
Genomic DNA was extracted according to Doyle & Doyle [66], with some modifications. Total purified DNA was detected by 1.0% (w/v) agarose gel electrophoresis containing Gel-GreenTM Nucleic Acid Gel Stain 0.5x (Biotium, Fremont, CA, USA) and stored at −20 °C until use. The final concentration was confirmed using a NanoDrop® ND-1000 UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

3.2. Genotyping and Varietal Identification through SSR and SNP Markers

3.2.1. SSR Markers

Samples were analysed with the set of six nuclear microsatellite (nSSR) loci recommended by OIV [41] for Vitis characterisation—VVS2, VVMD5, VVMD7, VVMD27, ssrVrZAG62, and ssrVrZAG79. The forward primer of each pair was fluorescently labelled with 6-FAM (VVMD5 and VVMD27), VIC (VVMD7 and ssrVrZAG62), or NED (VVS2 and ssrVrZAG79). Two multiplex PCRs (A and B) were carried out as previously described by Castro et al. [4], with 0.75 μM BSA added to each 20-μL reaction mixture. Amplifications were carried out in a TProfessional basic thermocycler (Biometra) initially set at 95 °C for 5 min., followed by 40 cycles of 94 °C/45 s, 50 °C/60 s, and 72 °C/90s, and with a final extension at 72 °C for 15 min.
The chlorotype was determined using the three chloroplastidial microsatellite (cpSSR) loci designed by Weising & Gardner [67]: ccmp3, ccmp5, and ccmp10 loci were amplified for all distinct genotypes, according to Castro et al. [68]. The forward primer of each pair was fluorescently labelled with 6-FAM (ccmp3), VIC (ccmp5), or NED (ccmp10). The PCR programme comprised an initial denaturation step at 94 °C for 3 min, followed by 30 cycles of 94 °C/45 s, 50 °C (ccmp10) or 55 °C (ccmp3 and ccmp5)/45 s, and 72 °C/60 s, and with a final extension at 72 °C for 5 min.
All PCR products were visualised by electrophoresis on 2.0% agarose gels (w/v) containing Gel-GreenTM Nucleic Acid Gel Stain 0.5x (Biotium). Fluorescently labelled cp and nSSR products were separated by capillary electrophoresis using the ABI PRISM® 3130 automated sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Life Technologies, Foster City, CA, USA) and GeneScanTM 500 LIZ® (Applied Biosystems, Life Technologies, Foster City, CA, USA) as the internal lane size standard. Data produced were analysed by Peak Scanner v1.0 software (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). The sizes of the amplicons were scored in base pairs (bp) based on the relative migration of the internal size standard.
The varietal identification was achieved by comparing the obtained nSSR profiles with those on literature data and the VIVC database, with 5424 profiles [39].

3.2.2. SNP Markers

DNA samples from non-redundant genetic profiles (previously identified through nSSR profiles/VIVC database), and samples that produced nSSR profiles that did not match with those of the VIVC database were also genotyped for a set of 240 SNP markers previously identified by Lijavetzky et al. [25] and Cabezas et al. [29]. Three ctSNP (SNP_NG_C_001, SNP_NG_C_003 and SNP_NG_D_003) loci were used for chlorotype determination.
The SNP genotyping was carried out as recently described in Cunha et al. [20] and Maraš et al. [38], through the Fluidigm (San Francisco, CA, USA) technology. Genotyping services were provided by the Sequencing and Genotyping Unit of the University of the Basque Country. SNP profiles obtained for the 240 SNPs were pairwise compared with those of the ICVV-SNP database for varietal identification.

3.3. Data Analyses

Data obtained with the nSSR loci were scored based on the molecular size (in bp) of alleles. For SNP data, numerical values were assigned to each nucleotide (missing data = 0; A = 1, C = 2, G = 3, T = 4).
Non-redundant grapevine genotypes with genetic profiles for 6 nSSR and 48 SNP loci were used for grape variety identification. Genetic profiles for 240 SNP loci were used for population structure and genetic diversity analyses.

3.3.1. Genetic Diversity Analysis

To compare SSR and SNP results, genetic parameters of polymorphism, such as the average number of different alleles per locus (Na), the average number of effective alleles (Ne), observed heterozygosity (Ho) and gene diversity or expected heterozygosity (He) were calculated through the GenAlEx software (version 6.5) [69]. They were determined from single-locus values. The same software was also used to test for deviation from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) across all loci for each population.
Polymorphism information content (PIC) [70] of each nSSR marker was determined using an online tool [71]. For SNP markers, PIC was calculated as follows: PIC = He − (2 × MAF2 × (1-MAF)2), where MAF was the minor allele frequency.

3.3.2. Population Structure Analysis

Structure analyses were performed using the STRUCTURE software (version 2.3.4) [72,73,74,75], using 240-SNP data. This model was carried out to evaluate the number of inferred genetic population clusters (K) and to assign individuals to their likely population of origin, using no prior information. An initial burn-in of 20,000 steps was used to minimise the effect of the starting configuration, followed by 100,000 Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) steps, as recommended by Falush et al. [74] and Ghaffari et al. [21], under the admixture model and independent allele frequencies. Ten replicate runs per K value were set up, with K ranging from 1 to 10. To identify the number of K clusters explaining the observed genetic structure, the log-probability of the data (LnP(D)) in STRUCTURE output as well as the delta K values were obtained, using the online available program STRUCTURE HARVESTER (web version 0.6.94) [76], and based on the Evanno et al. [57] method. Samples were assigned probabilistically to genetic groups according to their membership coefficient (q-value).
To assess the relationship among the non-redundant genotypes, the pairwise genetic distance matrix was computed based on SNP data, through the ‘Genetic Distance’ procedure in the GenAlEx software (version 6.5) [69], for subsequent analyses. Principal coordinate analyses (PCoA) were performed using the same software for SNP distance matrices, conducted on individual multilocus genotypes and with covariance standardised. The clustering was inferred using the Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean (UPGMA) [77]. The optimal circular trees obtained for SNP markers were plotted using MEGA X software [78]. A tree was drawn to scale, with branch lengths in the same units as those of the evolutionary distances used to infer the phenetic tree.

3.3.3. Pedigree Analysis

Data from the 240 SNP set were also used to identify possible first-order kinship relationships—trios (mother–father–offspring) and duos (possible parent–offspring pairs)—among the non-redundant grape genotypes in the study, since their SNP profiles merged with those of the ICVV-SNP database. The likelihood-based method in the CERVUS software was used (version 3.0) [79]. The likelihood of each detected trio and duo detected was determined based on the natural logarithm of the overall likelihood ratio—logarithm-of-odds (LOD) score—and a maximum number of mismatching loci of 1 or 4 SNPs for duos and trios, respectively. Where possible, chlorotypes were used to infer which of the putative parents was the maternal progenitor in each trio [13,19].

4. Conclusions

SSR and SNP analyses were very useful in the identification and characterisation of the plants analysed and overcame the ampelography difficulties in grapevine prospections to contribute to the ultimate goal of conserving grape varietal legacy in Northeast Portugal. Further morphological, agronomical, and oenological analyses are being undertaken to complement the molecular data reported in this study.
In the present work, 280 plants in the “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” PDO regions were identified and grouped into 52 different grape varieties. Thirteen additional unique genotypes were also detected from the study of other 30 vines, which were clustered, along with cv. Marufo (mother of the majority of these new genotypes), in an exclusive independent cluster, accordingly to UPGMA data. Some of these 13 new genotypes could be considered minor neglected Portuguese grape varieties, while others, found only in plants belonging to a single local vine grower still using traditional techniques for grapevine propagation, are probably individual grapevines that emerged as seedlings and can be the initial steps of the establishing of local grape varieties as it occurred in the past. Altogether, their discovery highlights once more the huge patrimony of the Portuguese grape germplasm.
The aforementioned observations emphasise the constant demand for prospection and identification of old grape material in traditional vineyards, to enlarge the knowledge about the still existing varietal diversity for its conservation, characterisation, and eventual exploitation. The broader the knowledge, the greater the chances to overcome biotic and abiotic stresses affecting the vineyards today.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants10122755/s1, Table S1. List of Vitis vinifera L. cultivars (52) and new genotypes (13) identified and corresponding sample codes; Table S2. List of 31 grape samples with local names and SSR and SNP identifications according to the legal cultivar name in Portugal; Table S3. List of the 65 grape genotypes detected at 6 nSSR and 3 cpSSR loci analysed; Table S4. List of the 65 non-redundant grape genotypes detected at 46 polymorphic SNP loci; Table S5. Genetic parameters, allele sizes, and frequencies over 6 microsatellite loci in the 65 non-redundant genotypes analysed in this study; Table S6. Structure results at K = 2 based on 226 SNP markers. Genotypes with membership coefficients (q-values) below the threshold of 0.7 for genetic group assignment were admixed; Figure S1. Delta K plots obtained from STRUCTURE HARVESTER to set the most likely number of genetic groups within the 65 non-redundant grape population identified in the present study, based on 226-SNP data.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.O. and I.C.; data curation, D.A. and J.I.; funding acquisition, A.L.P.-S., V.F., F.L., A.A.O. and I.C.; investigation, D.A. and J.I., methodology, D.A., J.I. and I.C.; project administration, A.L.P.-S., V.F., F.L., A.A.O. and I.C.; Resources, J.I., A.L.P.-S., J.M.M.-Z., A.A.O. and I.C.; supervision, A.L.P.-S., F.L. and I.C.; writing—original draft, D.A.; writing—review and editing, J.I., J.M.M.-Z. and I.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the project INNOVINE&WINE—Vineyard and Wine Innovation Plat-form—NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000038, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the Norte2020 (Northern Regional Operational Programme 2014/2020) and National Funds by FCT—Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project UID/AGR/04033/2020.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article and supplementary file.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Joana Pinto for SSR genotyping of the Quinta das Carvalhas samples and to Comissão Vitivinícola Regional de Trás-os-Montes (CVRTM), Taylor’s, Sogrape Vinhos, Real Companhia Velha, Quinta dos Lagares, and Quinta do Portal for kindly allowing the sampling of plant material.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IVV. Anuario de Vinhos e Aguardentes de Portugal; Instituto da Vinha e do Vinho: Lisbon, Portugal, 2018; pp. 111–121.
  2. Graca, A. Conservar a Biodiversidade da Vitis vinifera em Portugal: Um suporte estratégico da exportação dos vinhos portugueses. ENOLOGIA Assoc. Portug. Enol. 2012, 59–60, 3–8. [Google Scholar]
  3. Veloso, M.M.; Almadanim, M.C.; Baleiras-Couto, M.; Pereira, H.S.; Carneiro, L.C.; Fevereiro, P.; Eiras-Dias, J.E. Microsatellite database of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars used for wine production in Portugal. Cien. Tecn. Vitivinic. 2010, 25, 53–61. [Google Scholar]
  4. Castro, I.; Martín, J.P.; Ortiz, J.M.; Pinto-Carnide, O. Varietal discrimination and genetic relationships of Vitis vinifera L. cultivars from two major Controlled Appellation (DOC) regions in Portugal. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 127, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ferreira, V.; Pinto-Carnide, O.; Mota, T.; Martín, J.P.; Ortiz, J.M.; Castro, I. Identification of minority grapevine cultivars from Vinhos Verdes Portuguese DOC Region. Vitis 2015, 54, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cunha, J.; Ibáñez, J.; Teixeira-Santos, M.; Brazão, J.; Fevereiro, P.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M.; Eiras-Dias, J.E. Characterisation of the Portuguese grapevine germplasm with 48 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2016, 22, 504–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Emanuelli, F.; Lorenzi, S.; Grzeskowiak, L.; Catalano, V.; Stefanini, M.; Troggio, M.; Myles, S.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M.; Zyprian, E.; Moreira, F.M.; et al. Genetic diversity and population structure assessed by SSR and SNP markers in large germplasm collection of grape. BMC Plant Biol. 2013, 13, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Pelsy, F. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of diversity within grapevine varieties. Heredity 2010, 104, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cervera, M.; Cabezas, J.; Sancha, J.; De Toda, F.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M. Application of AFLPs to the characterization of grapevine Vitis vinifera L. genetic resources. A case study with accessions from Rioja (Spain). Theor. Appl. Genet. 1998, 97, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sefc, K.M.; Lopes, M.S.; Lefort, F.; Botta, R.; Roubelakis-Angelakis, K.A.; Ibáñez, J.; Pejic, I.; Wagner, H.W.; Glössl, J.; Steinkellner, H. Microsatellite variability in grapevine cultivars from different European regions and evaluation of assignment testing to assess the geographic origin of cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 100, 498–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sefc, K.M.; Regner, F.; Turetschek, E.; Glössl, J.; Steinkellner, H. Identification of microsatellite sequences in Vitis riparia and their applicability of genotyping of different Vitis species. Genome 1999, 42, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. This, P.; Jung, A.; Boccacci, P.; Borrego, J.; Botta, R.; Costantini, L.; Crespan, M.; Dangl, G.S.; Eisenheld, C.; Ferreira-Monteiro, F.; et al. Development of a standard set of microsatellite reference alleles for identification of grape cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2004, 109, 1448–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Arroyo-García, R.; Ruiz-García, L.; Bolling, L.; Ocete, R.; López, M.A.; Arnold, C.A.; Ergul, A.; Söylemezoglu, G.; Uzun, H.I.; Cabello, F.; et al. Multiple origins of cultivated grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. sativa) based on chloroplast DNA polymorphisms. Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15, 3707–3714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Lopes, M.S.; Sefc, K.M.; Eiras-Dias, J.E.; Steinkellner, H.; Laimer da Câmara Machado, M.; Câmara Machado, A. The use of microsatellites for germplasm management in a Portuguese grapevine collection. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1999, 99, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lopes, M.S.; Rodrigues dos Santos, M.; Eiras-Dias, J.E.; Mendonça, D.; Câmara Machado, A. Discrimination of Portuguese grapevines based on microsatellite markers. J. Biotech. 2006, 127, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Baleiras-Couto, M.M.; Eiras-Dias, J.E. Detection and identification of grape varieties in must and wine using nuclear and chloroplast microsatellite markers. Anal. Chim. Acta 2006, 563, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Almadanim, M.C.; Baleiras-Couto, M.M.; Pereira, H.S.; Carneiro, L.C.; Fevereiro, P.; Eiras-Dias, J.E.; Morais-Cecílio, L.; Viegas, W.; Veloso, M.M. Genetic diversity of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars most utilized for wine production in Portugal. Vitis 2007, 46, 116–119. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cunha, J.; Teixeira-Santos, M.; Carneiro, L.C.; Fevereiro, P.; Eiras-Dias, J.E. Portuguese traditional grapevine cultivars and wild vines (Vitis vinifera L.) share morphological and genetic traits. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 2009, 56, 975–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Arroyo-García, R.; LeFort, F.; de Andrés, M.T.; Ibáñez, J.; Borrego, J.; Jouve, N.; Cabello, F.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M. Chloroplast microsatellite polymorphisms in Vitis species. Genome 2002, 45, 1142–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Cunha, J.; Ibáñez, J.; Teixeira-Santos, M.; Brazão, J.; Fevereiro, P.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M.; Eiras-Dias, J.E. Genetic relationships among Portuguese cultivated and wild Vitis vinifera L. germplasm. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ghaffari, S.; Hasnaoui, N.; Zinelabidine, L.H.; Ferchichi, A.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M.; Ibáñez, J. Genetic diversity and parentage of Tunisian wild and cultivated grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) as revealed by single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. Tree Genet. Genomes 2014, 10, 1103–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Lorenzis, G.; Mercati, F.; Bergamini, C.; Cardone, M.F.; Lupini, A.; Mauceri, A.; Caputo, A.R.; Abbate, L.; Barbagallo, M.G.; Antonacci, D.; et al. SNP genotyping elucidates the genetic diversity of Magna Graecia grapevine germplasm and its historical origin and dissemination. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Jaillon, O.; Aury, J.M.; Noel, B.; Policriti, A.; Clepet, C.; Casagrande, A.; Choisne, N.; Aubourg, S.; Vitulo, N.; Jubin, C.; et al. French-Italian public consortium for grapevine genome characterization. The grapevine genome sequence suggests ancestral hexaploidization in major angiosperm phyla. Nature 2007, 449, 463–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Velasco, R.; Zharkikh, A.; Troggio, M.; Cartwright, D.A.; Cestaro, A.; Pruss, D.; Pindo, M.; FitzGerald, L.M.; Vezzulli, S.; Reid, J.; et al. A High quality draft consensus sequence of the genome of a heterozygous grapevine variety. PLoS ONE 2007, 2, e1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Lijavetzky, D.; Cabezas, J.A.; Ibáñez, A.; Rodríguez, V.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M. High throughput SNP discovery and genotyping in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) by combining a re-sequencing approach and SNPlex technology. BMC Genom. 2007, 8, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Myles, S.; Chia, J.-M.; Hurwitz, B.; Simon, C.; Zhong, G.Y.; Buckler, E.; Ware, D. Rapid genomic characterization of the genus Vitis. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e8219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Myles, S.; Boyko, A.R.; Owens, C.L.; Brown, P.J.; Grassi, F.; Aradhya, M.K.; Prins, B.; Reynolds, A.; Chia, J.-M.; Ware, D.; et al. Genetic structure and domestication history of the grape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 3530–3535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Le Paslier, M.-C.; Choisne, N.; Bacilieri, R.; Bounon, R.; Boursiquot, J.-M.; Bras, M.; Brunel, D.; Di Gaspero, G.; Hausmann, L.; Lacombe, T.; et al. The GrapeReSeq 18k Vitis Genotyping Chip. In Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Grapevine Physiology and Biotechnology, La Serena, Chile, 21–26 April 2013; p. 23. Available online: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02811055 (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  29. Cabezas, J.A.; Ibáñez, J.; Lijavetzky, D.; Vélez, D.; Bravo, G.; Rodríguez, V.; Carreño, I.; Jermakow, A.M.; Carreño, J.; Ruiz-García, L.; et al. A 48 SNP set for grapevine cultivar identification. BMC Plant Biol. 2011, 11, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Marrano, A.; Birolo, G.; Prazzoli, M.L.; Lorenzi, S.; Valle, G.; Grando, M.S. SNP-discovery by RAD-sequencing in a germplasm collection of wild and cultivated grapevines (V. vinifera L.). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e1070655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Degu, A.; Morcia, C.; Tumino, G.; Hochberg, U.; Toubiana, D.; Mattivi, F.; Schneider, A.; Bosca, P.; Cattivelli, L.; Terzi, V.; et al. Metabolite profiling elucidates communalities and differences in the polyphenol biosynthetic pathways of red and white Muscat genotypes. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 86, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. De Lorenzis, G.; Chipashvili, R.; Failla, O.; Maghradze, D. Study of genetic variability in Vitis vinifera L. germplasm by high-throughput Vitis18kSNP array: The case of Georgian genetic resources. BMC Plant Biol. 2015, 5, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. De Lorenzis, G.; Squadrito, M.; Rossoni, M.; Simone Di Lorenzo, G.; Brancadoro, L.; Scienza, A. Study of intra-varietal diversity in biotypes of Aglianico and Muscat of Alexandria (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2017, 23, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mercati, F.; De Lorenzis, G.; Brancadoro, L.; Lupini, A.; Abenavoli, M.R.; Barbagallo, M.G.; Di Lorenzo, R.; Scienza, A.; Sunseri, F. High-throughput 18K SNP array to assess genetic variability of the main grapevine cultivars from Sicily. Tree Genet. Genomes 2016, 12, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Ruffa, P.; Raimondi, S.; Boccacci, P.; Abbà, S.; Schneider, A. The key role of “Moscato bianco” and “Malvasia aromatica di Parma” in the parentage of traditional aromatic grape varieties. Tree Genet. Genomes 2016, 12, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sunseri, F.; Lupini, A.; Mauceri, A.; De Lorenzis, G.; Araniti, F.; Brancadoro, L.; Dattola, A.; Gullo, G.; Zappia, R.; Mercati, F. Single nucleotide polymorphism profiles reveal an admixture genetic structure of grapevine germplasm from Calabria, Italy, uncovering its key role for the diversification of cultivars in the Mediterranean Basin. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2018, 24, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Laucou, V.; Launay, A.; Bacilieri, R.; Lacombe, T.; Adam-Blondon, A.-F.; Bérard, A.; De Andrés, M.T.; Hausmann, L.; Ibáñez, J.; Le Paslier, M.-C.; et al. Extended diversity analysis of cultivated grapevine Vitis vinifera with 10K genome-wide SNPs. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Maraš, V.; Tello, J.; Gazivoda, A.; Mugoša, M.; Perišić, M.; Raičević, J.; Štajner, N.; Ocete, R.; Bozovic, V.; Popović, T.; et al. Population genetic analysis in old Montenegrin vineyards reveals ancient ways currently active to generate diversity in Vitis vinifera. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Maul, E.; Töpfer, R.; Röckel, F.; Brühl, U.; Hundemer, M.; Mahler-Ries, A.; Walk, M.; Kecke, S.; Wolck, A.; Ganesch, A. Vitis International Variety Catalogue. 2021. Available online: www.vivc.de (accessed on 2 July 2021).
  40. European Union. European Court of Auditors Special Report No. 09—Is the EU Investment and Promotion Support to the Wine Sector Well Managed and are its Results on the Competitiveness of EU Wines Demonstrated? Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2014; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  41. OIV. Liste Internationale des Variétés de Vigne et de leurs Synonymes; OIV: Paris, France, 2013.
  42. Ebadi, A.; Ghaderi, N.; Vafaee, Y. Genetic diversity of Iranian and some European grapes as revealed by nuclear and chloroplast microsatellite and SNP molecular markers. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotech. 2019, 94, 599–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mercati, F.; De Lorenzis, G.; Mauceri, A.; Zerbo, M.; Brancadoro, L.; D’Onofrio, C.; Morcia, C.; Barbagallo, M.G.; Bignami, C.; Gardiman, M.; et al. Integrated Bayesian Approaches Shed Light on the Dissemination Routes of the Eurasian Grapevine Germplasm. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 692661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. D’Onofrio, C.; Tumino, G.; Gardiman, M.; Crespan, M.; Bignami, C.; de Palma, L.; Barbagallo, M.G.; Muganu, M.; Morcia, C.; Novello, V.; et al. Parentage Atlas of Italian Grapevine Varieties as Inferred from SNP Genotyping. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 605934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Díaz-Losada, E.; Salgado, A.; Ignacio, O.; Ramos-Cabrer, A.; Pereira-Lorenzo, S. New Synonyms and Homonyms for Cultivars from Northwestern Spain. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2013, 64, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Martín, J.P.; Santiago, J.L.; Pinto-Carnide, O.; Leal, F.; Martínez, M.C.; Ortiz, J.M. Determination of relationships among autochthonous grapevine varieties (Vitis vinifera L.) in the Northwest of the Iberian Peninsula by using microsatellite markers. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2005, 53, 1255–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Díaz-Losada, E.; Salgado, A.; Ramos-Cabrer, A.; Segade, S.; Diéguez, S.; Pereira-Lorenzo, S. Twenty microsatellites (SSRs) reveal two main origins of variability in grapevine cultivars from Northwestern Spain. Vitis 2010, 49, 55–62. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ministério da Agricultura. Partaria N° 380/2012, de 22 de Novembro. Ministério da Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território (MAMAOT); Diário da República, 1.a Série—N.° 226; Ministério da Agricultura: Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
  49. Ministério da Agricultura. Partaria N° 1204/2006, de 9 de Novembro. Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas (MADRP); Diário da República, 1.a Série— N.° 216; Ministério da Agricultura: Lisbon, Portugal, 2006.
  50. Ministério da Agricultura. Partaria N° 383/2017, de 20 de Dezembro. Agricultura, Florestas e Desenvolvimento Rural (AFDR); Diário da República, 1.a Série— N.° 243; Ministério da Agricultura: Lisbon, Portugal, 2017.
  51. Cardoso, M.R. Casa do Douro, 2nd ed.; Peso da Régua, Portugal, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  52. Böhm, J.; Antunes, M.T.; Andrade, R.; Barroso, J.M.; Cabrita, M.J.; Cardoso, H.; Eiras-Dias, J.E.; Fernandes, L.; Fevereiro, P.; Figueiredo, A.; et al. Portugal Vitícola, o Grande Livro das Castas: Enciclopédia dos Vinhos de Portugal, 2nd ed.; Chaves Ferreira Publicações: Lisbon, Portugal, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cunha, J.; Teixeira-Santos, M.; Veloso, M.M.; Carneiro, L.; Eiras-Dias, J.E.; Fevereiro, P. The Portuguese Vitis vinifera L. Germplasm: Genetic Relations between Wild and Cultivated Vines. Cienc. E Tec. Vitivinic. 2010, 25, 25–37. [Google Scholar]
  54. Bowers, J.E.; Dangl, G.S.; Vignani, R.; Meredith, C.P. Isolation and characterization of new polymorphic simple sequence repeat loci in grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Genome 1996, 39, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Singh, N.; Choudhury, D.R.; Singh, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Srinivasan, K.; Tyagi, R.K.; Singh, N.K.; Singh, R. Comparison of SSR and SNP markers in estimation of genetic diversity and population structure of Indian rice varieties. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e84136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Moita Maçanita, A.; Santos, R.; Gomes, A.C.; Santos, A. Unravelling the origin of Vitis vinifera L. Verdelho. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2018, 24, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Evanno, G.; Regnaut, S.; Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 2611–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Lacombe, T.; Boursiquot, J.; Laucou, V.; Vecchi-Staraz, M.; Péros, J.; This, P. Large-scale parentage analysis in an extended set of grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2013, 126, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Zinelabidine, L.H.; Haddioui, A.; Rodriguez, V.; Cabello, F.; Eiras-Dias, J.E.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M.; Ibáñez, J. Identification by SNP Analysis of a Major Role for “Cayetana Blanca” in the Genetic Network of Iberian Peninsula Grapevine Varieties. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2012, 63, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Cunha, J.; Zinelabidine, L.H.; Teixeira-Santos, M.; Brazão, J.; Fevereiro, P.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M.; Ibáñez, J.; Eiras-Dias, J.E. Grapevine cultivar ‘Alfrocheiro’ or ‘Brunal’ plays a primary role in the relationship among Iberian grapevines. Vitis 2015, 54, 59–65. [Google Scholar]
  61. Cipriani, G.; Spadotto, A.; Jurman, I.; Di Gaspero, G.; Crespan, M.; Meneghetti, S.; Frare, E.; Vignani, R.; Cresti, M.; Morgante, M.; et al. The SSR-based molecular profile of 1005 grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) accessions uncovers new synonymy and parentages, and reveals a large admixture amongst varieties of different geographic origin. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2010, 121, 1569–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Ibáñez, J.; Vélez, M.; De Andrés, M.T.; Borrego, J. Molecular markers for establishing distinctness in vegetatively propagated crops: A case study in grapevine. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2009, 119, 1213–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ibáñez, J.; Muñoz-Organero, G.; Zinelabidine, L.H.; De Andrés, M.T.; Cabello, F.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M. Genetic origin of the grapevine cultivar Tempranillo. Am. J. Enol.Vitic. 2012, 63, 549–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lacerda Lobo, C. Memória sobre a cultura das vinhas de Portugal. In Memórias Económicas da Academia Real das Ciências de Lisboa, para o Adiantamento da Agricultura, das Artes, e da Indústria de Portugal, e Suas Conquistas (1789–1815); Academia Real das Ciências de Lisboa: Lisbon, Portugal, 1790; Volume II. [Google Scholar]
  65. Antunes, M.T.; Lehmann, J.; Eiras-Dias, J.E.; Böhm, J. Atlas das Castas da Península Ibérica: História, Terroir, Ampelografia; Daniel Gouveia, D., Iglésias, A.M.G., Eds.; Dinalivro: Lisbon, Portugal, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  66. Doyle, J.J.; Doyle, J.L. Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 1990, 12, 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  67. Weising, K.; Gardner, R.C. A set of conserved PCR primers for the analysis of simple sequence repeat polymorphisms in chloroplast genomes of dicotyledonous angiosperms. Genome 1999, 42, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Castro, I.; Pinto-Carnide, O.; Ortiz, J.M.; Martín, J.P. Chloroplast genome diversity in Portuguese grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Mol. Biotechnol. 2013, 54, 528–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Peakall, R.; Smouse, P.E. GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 2537–2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Botstein, D.; White, R.L.; Skalnick, M.H.; Davies, R.W. Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphism. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1980, 32, 314–331. [Google Scholar]
  71. Bińkowski, J.; Miks, S. Gene-Calc. 2018. Available online: www.gene-calc.pl. (accessed on 8 February 2021).
  72. Pritchard, J.K.; Stephens, M.; Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 2000, 155, 945–959. [Google Scholar]
  73. Falush, D.; Stephens, M.; Pritchard, J.K. Inference of population structure: Extensions to linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 2003, 164, 1567–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Falush, D.; Stephens, M.; Pritchard, J.K. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: Dominant markers and null alleles. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2007, 7, 574–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Hubisz, M.; Falush, D.; Stephens, M.; Pritchard, J.K. Inferring weak population structure with the assistance of sample group information. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2009, 9, 1322–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Earl, D.A.; von Holdt, B.M. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 2012, 4, 359–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sneath, P.H.A.; Sokal, R.R. Numerical Taxonomy; Freeman: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  78. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Kalinowski, S.T.; Taper, M.L.; Marshall, T.C. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16, 1099–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plants 10 02755 g001a 550Plants 10 02755 g001b 550
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of 310 samples in 11 locations of “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” PDO regions in Northeast Portugal and the age of vineyards (created with Map Chart).
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of 310 samples in 11 locations of “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” PDO regions in Northeast Portugal and the age of vineyards (created with Map Chart).
Plants 10 02755 g001aPlants 10 02755 g001b
Plants 10 02755 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution of the studied grapevine varieties in PDO “Douro” and PDO “Trás-os-Montes”, according to their vineyard Table 1. Fifty-two genotypes were identified belonging to either the most cultivated varieties in Portugal (which means a representation superior to 1% of total area) or to the minority varieties group. Thirteen new genotypes were also detected.
Figure 2. Distribution of the studied grapevine varieties in PDO “Douro” and PDO “Trás-os-Montes”, according to their vineyard Table 1. Fifty-two genotypes were identified belonging to either the most cultivated varieties in Portugal (which means a representation superior to 1% of total area) or to the minority varieties group. Thirteen new genotypes were also detected.
Plants 10 02755 g002
Plants 10 02755 g003 550
Figure 3. Non-redundant genotypes identified throughout “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” PDO regions, using 226-SNP profiles. The number of genetic groups (K = 2) was set up considering the ΔK criterion [57]. Every non-redundant genotype is shown as a vertical line, with colour segment lengths proportional to their inferred ancestry: genetic groups 1 and 2 are reported in red and green, respectively. Considering a critical ancestry coefficient of q ≥ 0.70, 20 and 18 genotypes were assigned to SNP-group 1 and SNP-group 2, respectively (with 27 admixed genotypes).
Figure 3. Non-redundant genotypes identified throughout “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” PDO regions, using 226-SNP profiles. The number of genetic groups (K = 2) was set up considering the ΔK criterion [57]. Every non-redundant genotype is shown as a vertical line, with colour segment lengths proportional to their inferred ancestry: genetic groups 1 and 2 are reported in red and green, respectively. Considering a critical ancestry coefficient of q ≥ 0.70, 20 and 18 genotypes were assigned to SNP-group 1 and SNP-group 2, respectively (with 27 admixed genotypes).
Plants 10 02755 g003
Plants 10 02755 g004 550
Figure 4. Principal coordinate analysis (A) and UPGMA clustering (B) obtained from a dissimilarity matrix calculated in GenAlEx, using 226 SNP markers from the 65 non-redundant genotypes. Genotypes assigned to ancestral genetic groups 1 and 2 are represented by red and green dots, respectively. Genotypes considered as admixtures are shown as grey (A) or blank (B) dots. In (A), the variance explained by the PCoA1 and PCoA2 is indicated as a percentage. In (B), the UPGMA clustering produced 5 major clusters (I to V).
Figure 4. Principal coordinate analysis (A) and UPGMA clustering (B) obtained from a dissimilarity matrix calculated in GenAlEx, using 226 SNP markers from the 65 non-redundant genotypes. Genotypes assigned to ancestral genetic groups 1 and 2 are represented by red and green dots, respectively. Genotypes considered as admixtures are shown as grey (A) or blank (B) dots. In (A), the variance explained by the PCoA1 and PCoA2 is indicated as a percentage. In (B), the UPGMA clustering produced 5 major clusters (I to V).
Plants 10 02755 g004
Plants 10 02755 g005 550
Figure 5. First-order genetic relationships (trios and duos) detected for grape varieties sampled in “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” PDO regions. These kinship relationships were obtained with the likelihood-based method implemented in CERVUS software for parentage analysis, based on 226 SNP data. Ancestral genetic groups are indicated with distinct colours (red and green) according to STRUCTURE analysis. Chlorotypes (A, B, C or D) are indicated with different colour borders, according to the inserted code. Unique genotypes in the ICVV-SNP database are shown in boxes with broken borders.
Figure 5. First-order genetic relationships (trios and duos) detected for grape varieties sampled in “Douro” and “Trás-os-Montes” PDO regions. These kinship relationships were obtained with the likelihood-based method implemented in CERVUS software for parentage analysis, based on 226 SNP data. Ancestral genetic groups are indicated with distinct colours (red and green) according to STRUCTURE analysis. Chlorotypes (A, B, C or D) are indicated with different colour borders, according to the inserted code. Unique genotypes in the ICVV-SNP database are shown in boxes with broken borders.
Plants 10 02755 g005
Table
Table 1. List of the 65 Vitis vinifera L. genotypes identified and respective sample origin, genotype code numbers in international databases, synonymies, berry colour, and grape utilisation.
Table 1. List of the 65 Vitis vinifera L. genotypes identified and respective sample origin, genotype code numbers in international databases, synonymies, berry colour, and grape utilisation.
Sample Origin 1
(Number of Samples Analysed)		Cultivar Prime Name 2VIVC Variety No.ICVV-SNP Genotype No.Synonymies in PortugalColour of Berry Skin 3Grape Use
QC (1)Afus Ali122GEN_DNA_2036 BWine/Table
J (1)Alfrocheiro (D) *277GEN_DNA_2173Tinta BastardinhaNWine
QSI (1)Alvarelhão Ceitão (D) *368GEN_DNA_2837 RWine
Qs (1)Baga (D,T) *885GEN_DNA_1267 NWine
QC (1), M (1)Barca (D) *17359GEN_DNA_3010 NWine
QSI (1), Vs (1)Black Monukka17452GEN_DNA_2127 NTable
V (2), Qs (1), QC (6), J (1)Camarate Tinto *2018GEN_DNA_0634 NWine
Ag (2), Sd (9)Carrega Branco (D,T) *2124GEN_DNA_2199 BWine
R (1)Carrega Tinto (D) *2125GEN_DNA_1270Tinta GrossaNWine
Sd (13), Qs (1), QC (9)Casculho (D) *14149GEN_DNA_2976 NWine
V (1), QC (1)Castelão (D,T) *2324GEN_DNA_1168 NWine/Table
Vs (1), QSI (1)Chasselas (D)2473GEN_DNA_2055 BWine/Table
Qs (1)Cidadelhe (D) *12476GEN_DNA_2997 NWine
Sd (1), QC (1), J (1)Cornifesto (D,T) *2846GEN_DNA_1229 NWine
QSI (4)Dodrelyabi3616GEN_DNA_0984 NWine/Table
Vs (2)Donzelinho Roxo *17677GEN_DNA_2964 RWine
Ag (1), V (1)Folha de Figueira (D) *14142GEN_DNA_3002Dona BrancaBWine/Table
Ag (2), Sd (2)Gouveio (D,T) *12953GEN_DNA_1133 BWine
Qs (1)Grand Noir (D)5012GEN_DNA_1110 NWine
J (1)Grec Rouge4962GEN_DNA_1212Rabigato FrancoRWine/Table
QSI (2)Hebén (D)5335GEN_DNA_1258Mourisco BrancoBWine/Table
Vs (1)Jeronimo5692GEN_DNA_2236 NWine/Table
M (3), J (2)Malandra (D) *12487GEN_DNA_2967 NWine
QC (1)Malvasia Fina (D,T) *715GEN_DNA_2245 BWine
QC (11)Malvasia Preta (D,T) *15647GEN_DNA_2347 NWine
Ag (1), Vs (4), QSI (1), Sd (1), V (2), Qs (1), QC (3)Marufo (D,T) *8086GEN_DNA_1205 NWine/Table
Ag (1)Molar *15678GEN_DNA_2128Tinta NegraNWine/Table
Vs (2)Montua (D)2520GEN_DNA_0621DiagalvesBWine/Table
Ag (1), Vs (3), Sd (12), Qs (1)Mouratón (T)8082GEN_DNA_2201Tinta GordaNWine
QC (7)Mourisco de Semente (D) *12471GEN_DNA_2999 NWine
QC (6)Nevoeira (D) *8504GEN_DNA_3008 NWine
QSI (6)Palomino Fino (D)8888GEN_DNA_1063Malvasia ReiBWine/Table
QC (1)Parraleta (D)8951GEN_DNA_1003Tinta CaiadaNWine
Sd (2)Perlette9168GEN_DNA_0148 BTable/Raisin
Qs (6), QC (10)Roseira (D) *12497GEN_DNA_2971 NWine
Qs (1)Rufete (D,T) *10331GEN_DNA_2106Tinta PinheiraNWine
Vs (1)Samarrinho (D,T) *15684GEN_DNA_0856BudelhoBWine
Vs (2), QSI (7), Sd (8)Síria (D,T) *2742GEN_DNA_1154Roupeiro, CódegaBWine/Table
R (1)Tamarez (D) *12231GEN_DNA_2224MolinhaBWine
Vs (1), Sd (2), V (8), QC (2)Tempranillo (D,T)12350GEN_DNA_1316Aragonez, Tinta RorizNWine/Table
V (1), C (1)Tinta Aguiar (D) *12459GEN_DNA_2968 NWine
Sd (1), QC (1)Tinta Barroca (D,T) *12462GEN_DNA_1167 NWine
Vs (2), V (2), QC (2), M (1)Tinta Carvalha (D,T) *12467GEN_DNA_1123 NWine
V (4), Qs (1), QC (2)Tinta Francisca (D) *15686GEN_DNA_2348 NWine
C (1)Tinta Mesquita (D) *12489GEN_DNA_3215 NWine
Vs (1), Sd (1), QC (2)Tinto Cão (D,T) *12500GEN_DNA_0651 NWine
QC (4)Touriga Fêmea (D) *12592GEN_DNA_2969Touriga BrasileiraNWine
Sd (1), QC (5), M (1)Touriga Franca (D,T) *12593GEN_DNA_0493 NWine
V (2), Qs (1), QC (3)Touriga Nacional (D,T) *12594GEN_DNA_0760 NWine
Vs (2), QSI (9), Sd (4), V (8), QC (2), J (3)Trincadeira (D,T) *15685GEN_DNA_1239Tinta Amarela, Trincadeira PretaNWine
Vs (1), QSI (3), Sd (4), Qs (1)Trousseau Noir (D,T)12668GEN_DNA_2156BastardoNWine
Qs (1), QC (2)Vinhão (D,T) *13100GEN_DNA_2240SousãoNWine
Ag (3)NG001 GEN_DNA_4342 BWine
Ag (1)NG002 GEN_DNA_4343 BWine
Ag (1)NG003 GEN_DNA_4344 NWine
Ag (1)NG004 GEN_DNA_4345 RWine
Sd (1)NG005 GEN_DNA_4346 BWine
QC (4)NG006 GEN_DNA_4347 NWine
QC (4)NG007 GEN_DNA_4335 NWine
QC (4)NG008 GEN_DNA_4336 NWine
QC (4)NG009 GEN_DNA_4337 NWine
QC (1)NG010 GEN_DNA_4348 NWine
Qs (1)NG011 GEN_DNA_4349 BWine
C (1)NG012 GEN_DNA_4350 NWine
J (7)NG013 GEN_DNA_4338 NWine
1 Ag—Aguieiras; C—Quinta do Cruzeiro; J—Quinta do Junco; M—Quinta dos Muros; QC—Quinta das Carvalhas; Qs—Quinta do Seixo; QSI—Quinta de Santa Isabel; Sd—Sendim; V—Quinta dos Lagares; Vs—Vassal; R—Quinta da Roêda. 2 Varieties presumably autochthonous to Portugal were marked by an asterisk and those authorised in ‘Douro’ and/or ‘Trás-os-Montes’ PDO regions with (D) and/or (T), respectively. 3 N—Noir; R—Rouge; B—Blanc.
Table
Table 2. Genetic parameters estimated for nSSR and SNP profiles from the 65 grape genotypes studied.
Table 2. Genetic parameters estimated for nSSR and SNP profiles from the 65 grape genotypes studied.
6 nSSR Markers226 SNP Markers
MinimumMaximumMean ± SEMinimumMaximumMean ± SE
Na7
(VVMD7)		12
(VVS2)		9.500 ± 0.671--2.000
Ne3.928
(VVMD7)		6.995
(VVMD5)		4.962 ± 0.4801.016
(SNP625_278)		1.999 (SNP1327_56)1.604 ± 0.020
Ho0.785
(VVMD7; VrZAG62)		0.954 (VVMD5)0.859 ± 0.0270.016
(SNP625_278)		0.714
(SNP251_159)		0.378 ± 0.011
He0.745
(VVMD7)		0.820
(VVS2)		0.790 ± 0.0180.016
(SNP625_278)		0.499
(SNP895_382; VMFT_595; Vvi_1187; Vvi_10992)		0.351 ± 0.009
PIC0.736
(VVMD7)		0.844
(VVMD5)		0.773 ± 0.0150.006
(SNP817_209)		0.492
(SNP853_312)		0.280 ± 0.009
PI0.037
(VVMD5))		0.095
(VrZAG79)		0.072 ± 0.0220.375
(SNP1495_148)		0.969
(SNP625_278)		0.510 ± 0.152
Na—Average number of different alleles per locus; Ne—number of effective alleles; Ho—observed heterozygosity; He—expected heterozygosity; PIC—Polymorphism information content; PI—Probability of identity.
Table
Table 3. List of allele sizes (in bp, x represents presence of the allele) and their frequency of each chloroplastidial microsatellite loci analysed. The corresponding chlorotype and their frequency observed in the 52 grape varieties and 13 new genotypes are also shown.
Table 3. List of allele sizes (in bp, x represents presence of the allele) and their frequency of each chloroplastidial microsatellite loci analysed. The corresponding chlorotype and their frequency observed in the 52 grape varieties and 13 new genotypes are also shown.
ChlorotypeLociCcmp3Ccmp5Ccmp10Frequency (%)
Allele Sizes (bp)105106103102110111112
ACombination of ccmp allelesx x x 50.77
Bx x x 1.54
Cx x x1.54
D x x x 46.15
Frequency (%)53.8546.1553.8546.1550.7747.691.54
Table
Table 4. List of trios (parents–offspring) identified in this study using 226 SNP data. Genotypes for which a pedigree has been confirmed with molecular markers for the first time are highlighted in bold.
Table 4. List of trios (parents–offspring) identified in this study using 226 SNP data. Genotypes for which a pedigree has been confirmed with molecular markers for the first time are highlighted in bold.
OffspringParent 1Parent 2Trio Loci ComparedM 2Trio LOD ScoreReferences
ICVV-SNP Genotype NumberVIVC NumberChl1Variety/New Genotype NameICVV-SNP Genotype NumberVIVC NumberChl1Variety NameICVV-SNP Genotype NumberVIVC NumberChl1Variety Name
2837368AAlvarelhão Ceitão12585335AHebén8151650AAlvarelhão225077.42[20]
301017359DBarca12058086DMarufo76012594ATouriga Nacional216078.02[20,58]
212717452CBlack Monukka212612051CSultanina4635477CIchkimar228281.71[58]
6342018ACamarate Tinto10895648ACayetana Blanca2173277AAlfrocheiro230083.17[20,58,59,60]
12702125ACarrega Tinto12585335AHebén2173277AAlfrocheiro226081.29[20,59,60]
297614149ACasculho10895648ACayetana Blanca2173277AAlfrocheiro218174.67[20,60]
11682324ACastelão10895648ACayetana Blanca2173277AAlfrocheiro236094.09[20,58,59,60]
299712476DCidadelhe12058086DMarufo296023126ACasteloa217166.16[20]
12292846ACornifesto10895648ACayetana Blanca2173277AAlfrocheiro230075.51[20,58,59,60]
296417677DDonzelinho Roxo12058086DMarufo113312953AGouveio220168.57[20]
113312953AGouveio239740016ACastellana Blanca209917636DSavagnin = Traminer234065.72[20,58]
11105012AGrand Noir13214935AGraciano22041619ABouschet Petit232079.31[58]
2245715AMalvasia Fina12585335AHebén2173277AAlfrocheiro238177.80[20,58,59,60]
234715647AMalvasia Preta10895648ACayetana Blanca2173277AAlfrocheiro236090.48[20,58,59,60]
212815678AMolar9399694APrieto Picudo Tinto209917636DSavagnin = Traminer233156.90[20]
6212520AMontua12585335AHebén230614842CDedo de Dama2380101.41[20,58,59]
22018082AMouratón10895648ACayetana Blanca2158277AAlfrocheiro236183.62[20,59,60]
299912471DMourisco de Semente12058086DMarufo8961564ABorraçal220454.53[20,58]
1489168APerlette20356350AKoenigin der Weingaerten212612051CSultanina223178.13[59,61,62]
210610331ARufete212815678AMolar396021437APerepinhão Portalegre237077.41[20,58]
131612350ATempranillo24101131ABenedicto222812581AAlbillo Mayor2340100.00[20,63]
296812459DTinta Aguiar12058086DMarufo76012594ATouriga Nacional219068.59[20]
116712462DTinta Barroca12058086DMarufo76012594ATouriga Nacional236075.72[20,58]
112312467DTinta Carvalha308826692DCainho da Terra10895648ACayetana Blanca222159.15[20]
321512489DTinta Mesquita12058086DMarufo224013100AVinhão225161.44[20]
296912592ATouriga Fêmea2245715AMalvasia Fina76012594ATouriga Nacional215164.23[20,58]
49312593DTouriga Franca12058086DMarufo76012594ATouriga Nacional236169.51[4,20]
4344 DNG00312058086DMarufo215612668ATrousseau Noir213252.20this study
4345 DNG00412058086DMarufo113312953AGouveio210158.71this study
4347 DNG00612058086DMarufo65112500ATinto Cão212258.39this study
4335 DNG00712058086DMarufo6342018ACamarate Tinto210064.63this study
4336 DNG00812058086DMarufo300214142AFolha de Figueira213276.00this study
4337 DNG00912058086DMarufo123915685DTrincadeira213158.54this study
4348 DNG010297112497DRoseira49312593DTouriga Franca162058.91this study
4349 DNG01112058086DMarufo123915685DTrincadeira213167.72this study
4350 DNG01212058086DMarufo224013100AVinhão212165.43this study
1 Chl—Chlorotype. 2 M—Trio loci mismatching.
Table
Table 5. Possible duos (parent–offspring relationship) found in a parentage analyses from 5 genotypes.
Table 5. Possible duos (parent–offspring relationship) found in a parentage analyses from 5 genotypes.
OffspringParent 1Pair Loci ComparedPair Loci MismatchingPair LOD Score
ICVV-SNP Genotype NumberChlorotypeGenotype NameLoci TypedICVV-SNP Genotype NumberChlorotypeGenotype NameLoci Typed
4342DNG0012131089ACayetana Blanca235210033.50
4343DNG0022121133AGouveio236210130.71
2199DCarrega Branco2181089ACayetana Blanca 215030.77
2967DMalandra2142450ACuelga 210028.40
3008ANevoeira2303002AFolha de Figueira 221025.86
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Augusto, D.; Ibáñez, J.; Pinto-Sintra, A.L.; Falco, V.; Leal, F.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M.; Oliveira, A.A.; Castro, I. Grapevine Diversity and Genetic Relationships in Northeast Portugal Old Vineyards. Plants 2021, 10, 2755. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10122755

AMA Style

Augusto D, Ibáñez J, Pinto-Sintra AL, Falco V, Leal F, Martínez-Zapater JM, Oliveira AA, Castro I. Grapevine Diversity and Genetic Relationships in Northeast Portugal Old Vineyards. Plants. 2021; 10(12):2755. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10122755

Chicago/Turabian Style

Augusto, Diana, Javier Ibáñez, Ana Lúcia Pinto-Sintra, Virgílio Falco, Fernanda Leal, José Miguel Martínez-Zapater, Ana Alexandra Oliveira, and Isaura Castro. 2021. "Grapevine Diversity and Genetic Relationships in Northeast Portugal Old Vineyards" Plants 10, no. 12: 2755. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10122755

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop