Am I seeing double, or have they sequenced the wine genome again? - December 19, 2007
At last we may start see some real world benefits of all this genome sequencing we’re doing: better wine at better prices. An international team is announcing the second genome sequence of the pinot noir grape.
“This description of the grape genome presents an opportunity to direct genetic improvement or disease resistance,” says Brian Dilkes, academic editor of the paper in PLOS One (press release). “The genome sequence simultaneously identified hundreds of genes, which correspond to enzymes that produce flavor and aroma compounds. This will allow breeding for diseases resistance to proceed without disturbing the biochemistry of taste and grape quality. When I told sommelier Andrew Meadows about this recently, his reaction was, ‘Good! I would love to offer a decent Pinot for less than $30’.”
The Pinot Noir grape has already been sequenced and published – in Nature earlier this year (paper, news coverage). But as Reuters notes, the new team have catalogued the single nucleotide polymorphisms – where a single nucleotide differs between species.
These SNPs could now act as a library of variation, allowing researchers to unpick which genes influence which characteristics. “It is a treasure trove,” says Dilkes.
I guess genome sequences are like wine bottles at Christmas time – you can never have too many. Raise a glass to both research teams.
Image: Getty
Comments
I thought Pinot Noir was in fact a group of similar strains, with varying properties. At least that was the view I picked up while living in Oregon, where it thrives.
Posted by: David Martin | December 19, 2007 09:20 PM
I do not think you are seeing double. A mirror image perhaps. The two papers propose different evolutionary histories for the grape genome and make different suggestions about the ancestral state of the common ancestor of grape, poplar, and arabidopsis. In addition, the authors of the Nature paper state quite clearly that they did not sequence Pinot Noir, but rather only one haplotype of an inbred derived from Pinot Noir crossed (perhaps inadvertently) to an unknown variety.
Ultimately shouldn't science be about what questions are addressed, which hypotheses are tested, and what further experiments will provide deeper insight into the natural world? Differences between the two manuscripts abound. Taken together they provide an embarrassing quantity of data and alternative intellectual contributions to our current understanding of grapes. If even more genome sequence from wine grapes is generated and this permits testing or synthesis of the two alternative evolutionary models proposed in the two manuscripts, it too should be introduced into the literature. There are multiple opportunities for further research using the Grape genome and no draft genome assembly should be regarded as the last word on the subject. It is my hope that a synthesis of the two data sets and reanalysis of the structure of the grape genome is underway. I also hope that while the future of European wine production was being debated in Belgium, that support for further research into grape biology was included in the compromise.
Posted by: Brian Dilkes | December 21, 2007 07:50 PM