Back

Stress-dependent responses of grapevine wood and fungal pathogen activity under esca and drought

Chambard, M.; Cantu, D.; Bortolami, G.; Dell'Acqua, N.; Ferrer, N.; Gambetta, G.; Garcia, J.; Gastou, P.; Massonnet, M.; Moretti, S.; Rochepeau, A.; Petriacq, P.; Foulongne-Oriol, M.; Delmas, C. E. L.

2025-08-07 plant biology
10.1101/2025.08.05.668645 bioRxiv
Show abstract

O_LIBiotic and abiotic stresses alter the physiology of perennial plants, with consequences for fungal endophytes and disease expression. In grapevine, one of the worlds most valuable crops, drought inhibits esca disease expression, but the underlying molecular interactions between plant and fungi are unknown. C_LIO_LIWe combined wood metatranscriptomics, metabolomics, and metabarcoding to investigate these interactions in 30-year-old grapevines and eight wood-pathogenic fungi under conditions of drought or esca leaf symptom expression. C_LIO_LIBoth esca and drought decreased grapevine transpiration, but with different transcriptomic and metabolic signatures. Similar pathways were also activated, including the phenylpropanoid and stilbenoid synthesis pathways. These stress responses could potentially confer cross-tolerance, and elicit different fungal molecular responses. The levels of putative fungal virulence factors increased significantly under both stresses. Under drought, only the relative abundance of Phaeomoniella chlamydospora and gene expression involved in anti-oxidative mechanisms, growth, and reproduction increased. Under esca expression conditions, only the relative abundance of Fomitiporia mediterranea and gene expression involved in wood degradation, competition, detoxification, and growth increased. C_LIO_LIThe grapevine defense mechanisms induced by drought coupled with a low transpiration rate and a low abundance and virulence of F. mediterranea may account for esca leaf symptom inhibition upon water deficit. C_LI

Published in Physiologia Plantarum (predicted rank #6) · training set

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.