A complex reciprocal translocation underlies reduced bunch compactness in a grapevine somatic variant

A complex reciprocal translocation underlies reduced bunch compactness in a grapevine somatic variant | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article A complex reciprocal translocation underlies reduced bunch compactness in a grapevine somatic variant Noelia Alañón-Sánchez, Yolanda Ferradás, Ilja Bezrukov, Detlef Weigel, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7594260/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Plant Biology → Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Because grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars are highly heterozygous, they must be clonally propagated to preserve their varietal attributes. Over extended cultivar propagation histories, somatic mutations arise and can generate new phenotypes useful for intra-varietal improvement. Somatic variants with looser bunches – associated with more uniform berry ripening and reduced bunch rot incidence – are particularly valuable in compact-bunch cultivars. To understand the basis of this trait, we combined phenotyping, genomics, and genetic analyses to study VP11, a loose-bunch somatic variant clone of the wine grape cultivar ‘Tempranillo Tinto’. Results Pollen viability and the number of seeds per berry were reduced by ~50% in VP11 compared to a control clone of ‘Tempranillo Tinto’. Long-read whole-genome sequencing identified eleven large somatic structural variants (SVs) in VP11, including three inter-chromosomal events. These consisted of one fixed reciprocal translocation (Tra1-3), with duplications spanning tens of kilobases at the translocation breakpoints, and two segmental duplications (one fixed and one likely L2 meristem cell layer-restricted). All three SVs were molecularly validated, including the phasing and exchange of distal chromosome segments in Tra1-3. In VP11 self-cross progeny, pollen viability was significantly reduced among individuals carrying Tra1-3, and the two translocation chromosomes were always inherited together, indicating that gametes with an unbalanced chromosomal content are non-viable. Conclusions This study identifies reduced gamete viability caused by a heterozygous balanced reciprocal translocation as a mechanism underlying the loose-bunch trait in grapevine. We conclude that even if a genetic defect reduces gamete viability, it can still be useful to decrease seed and fruit set in vegetatively propagated crops where these traits are desirable. bunch compactness clonal variation gamete viability genome structural variation grapevine long-read sequencing reciprocal translocation somatic genome rearrangement Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 BACKGROUND Grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L. ) is one of the most important fruit crops, covering more than 7.3 million hectares worldwide [ 1 ]. Grapevine is the foremost basis of winemaking but also of table grapes, raisins and juices. Grapevine cultivars are vegetatively propagated to maintain their varietal attributes, and many cultivars have been cultivated for centuries. Throughout their history of cultivation, spontaneous somatic mutations have occurred, and these have been maintained in specific clonal lines during cycles of vegetative multiplication [ 2 ]. Some of the associated phenotypes improve traits of interest, offering opportunities for the improvement of traditional grape cultivars [ 3 – 5 ]. Unlike genetic crosses, which in highly heterozygous organisms like grapevine cultivars disrupt varietal identity, somatic variants allow variety improvement while preserving the agronomic and oenological characteristics of elite cultivars [ 5 ]. Somatic variants affecting quantitative traits, like bunch compactness, phenology or berry ripening parameters, can be fixed in new clones of the same cultivar for intra-varietal improvement [ 6 ]. Somatic variants that change qualitative traits such as berry color are considered new cultivars, such as the ‘Pinot Blanc’ or ‘Garnacha Blanca’ white varietals that derive from ‘Pinot Noir’ and ‘Garnacha Tinta’ red cultivars [ 4 ]. Bunch compactness, a trait that refers to the density and spatial arrangement of berries within a grape bunch [ 7 ], is agronomically important because it directly affects disease susceptibility and fruit quality. Compact bunches are more susceptible to pests and fungal diseases such as bunch rot caused by Botrytis cinerea [ 8 , 9 ]. In addition, berry ripening within compact bunches is more uneven due to the establishment of micro-environment variations between covered inner and exposed outer berries, affecting the uniformity of berry composition at harvest and wine quality [ 10 ]. On the other hand, very loose bunches, in addition to resulting in lower yield, may be less favorable for mechanical harvesting or less preferred by consumers [ 11 ]. Variation in grapevine bunch compactness mainly depends on rachis architecture, berry size and berry number per bunch, which together determine how tightly the berries are packed within the bunch [ 7 , 12 , 13 ]. The density of berries in the grapevine bunch is critically determined by the number of flowers per inflorescence and the fraction of flowers that become fruits [ 14 ], and both are genotype-dependent [ 15 ]. Fruit set rate is in turn affected by climatic conditions, the nutritional status of the plant, as well as by developmental factors including gamete viability [ 16 , 17 ]. In line with the different developmental processes involved, the genetic determination of bunch compactness is complex and governed by multiple loci [ 18 – 22 ]. The viability of male and female gametes in plants (pollen and ovule viability) plays a critical role in their reproductive success, influencing key outcomes such as fertilization efficiency, seed development, and fruit set. Reduced viability of male gametes is commonly associated with a concomitant decline in female fertility [ 23 – 25 ]. In various grapevine cultivars and clonal variants, limited pollen viability has often been associated with reduced fruit setting and looser bunches [ 13 , 24 , 26 – 28 ]. Given the strong influence of bunch compactness on fruit quality and susceptibility to disease, identifying and selecting naturally occurring somatic variants with looser bunches has become a promising strategy for improving cultivars with compact bunches, such as ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ [ 6 ]. Despite its potential relevance, the developmental and genetic basis of grapevine somatic variants in bunch compactness is known in only a few cases. The RRM somatic variant of the ‘Carignan’ cultivar develops larger and looser bunches due to an increased inflorescence rachis branching and growth, which is associated with a transposable element (TE) insertion that causes overexpression of a homolog of an important plant architecture regulator of the florigen family, the TFL1A gene [ 29 ]. Similarly, mutations that impair miR396 regulation of GRF4 , a homolog of important growth regulators in many plants, increase GRF4 expression, resulting in elongated berry pedicels and ultimately looser bunches in clones of ’Pinot Noir’ [ 30 ]. ‘Tempranillo Blanco’, a white-berried somatic variant of the ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ cultivar, carries large somatic deletions and translocations causing sub-haploid gamete lethality, which results in reduced fruit set rate and looser bunches [ 31 ]. The VP11 commercial clone of ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ was developed from a variant plant selected because of its loose bunch habitat favorable for quality wine production [ 32 ]. The development of loose bunches in VP11 is not related to variation in the bunch rachis architecture, but to reduced fruit and seed set and to much lower pollen viability [ 33 , 34 ]. While gene expression is clearly affected in VP11 developing flowers, an RNA-seq study did not identify clear candidate genes that might be specifically defective in this clone [ 35 ]. The reduced pollen viability and fruit set in VP11 resemble the phenotypes associated with the somatic loss of red fruit color in ’Tempranillo Blanco’ [ 31 ], suggesting that as in ‘Tempranillo Blanco’, genome rearrangements might underlie the loose bunch phenotype of VP11. To improve our understanding of the developmental and molecular mechanisms leading to variation in bunch compactness in grapevine, we investigated the genome of VP11. A phased genome structural variant (SV) calling using long-read sequencing with Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) detected three inter-chromosomal somatic SV events in VP11. Phenotype and SV segregation studies in a self-cross S 1 progeny of VP11 pinpointed one of the somatic SVs as causal for reduced gamete viability. Our findings indicate that heterozygous reciprocal translocations leading to meiosis pairing abnormalities can affect grapevine bunch architecture by their effects on gamete viability and ultimately on the rate of fruit set. METHODS Plant material V. vinifera cv. ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ (TT) clone VP11 was registered in 2006 by the commercial grapevine nursery Viveros Provedo S.A. (VP). The clone was developed by propagation of an old vine (70–80 years old) with loose bunches identified in 2000 in a vineyard located at Elvillar (Álava, Spain). The TT commercial clone RJ51, which was certified in 1990 by the public program of the Regional Government of La Rioja, was used as a control, given that it is one of the most cultivated TT clones in the Rioja DOCa appellation and that it has the type of compact bunches characteristic of TT cultivar. Young leaves of VP11 were collected from a plot of the VP nursery (Varea, La Rioja, Spain, 42.4649007,-2.3940206) as well as from the Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (ICVV) grapevine collection at Finca La Grajera (Logroño, La Rioja, Spain, 42.437448, -2.519582). These VP11 plots correspond, respectively, to two and three cycles of vegetative propagation and grafting from the originally prospected mutant plant. The RJ51 samples were collected from the same ICVV plot. All TT plants had been grafted on Richter 110 rootstocks, were trellised in a double cordon Royat system, and their cultivation was overall similar, following standard practices in the region for TT. Self-cross progenies (S 1 ) of VP11 and RJ51 were obtained in 2013 from bagged inflorescences in the VP plot. The 34 individuals of the VP11 S 1 as well as the 150 individuals of the RJ51 S 1 were self-rooted, grown in pots and planted in the field in 2017 in the ICVV experimental plot at Finca Valdegón (Agoncillo, La Rioja, Spain, 42.465017, -2.294807). All S 1 plants were trained in a single cordon system, with a spacing of 2.6 m between rows and 45 cm between consecutive plants in a row. Phenotyping Pollen viability The first inflorescence from randomly selected shoots of three plants of the parental clones, all 34 VP11 S 1 individuals and ten RJ51 S 1 individuals were sampled early in the morning at full bloom stage. Inflorescences from three VP11 and RJ51 plants, from all flowering individuals of the VP11 S 1 progeny, and from ten flowering individuals of RJ51 S 1 progeny were collected in years 2021, 2022 and 2023, at a time when 50% of flower caps had fallen (E-L 23 stage, [ 36 ]). Inflorescences were maintained at room temperature until analyzed on the same day in the laboratory. Closed flowers (from inflorescences with recently opened flowers) with erect stamen filaments and yellow anthers from the top, central and bottom sections of the inflorescence were collected and stained following with a modified Alexander’s stain [ 34 ], which differentiates between non-viable and viable grains depending on the integrity of the pollen cytoplasm. Five flowers from these three sections were gathered and immersed in 40 µL of staining solution and shaken vigorously for 15 secs to facilitate pollen grains release from the anthers. Afterwards, 20 µL of the solution were transferred onto a pre-heated microscope slide and examined under a Zeiss SteREO Discovery V20 stereo microscope. Photographs of stained pollen grains were obtained with a Zeiss AxioCam camera. Image contrast and saturation were adjusted with AxioVision software (v. 4.8, Zeiss) to facilitate the differentiation between viable (dark blue) and non-viable (light blue) pollen grains. For each sample, three replicates were prepared from independent staining of different flowers, counting an average of about 1,000 pollen grains in each one. Images were processed using the 'Pollen Counter' macro [ 34 ] in the Fiji (ImageJ) software [ 37 ]. Seed number per berry To determine the number of seeds per berry, three bunches per individual were harvested at maturity from at least 10 parental VP11 and RJ51 plants, as well as from all S 1 individuals with bunches in VP11 self-progeny and at least as many S 1 individuals in the RJ51 self-cross progeny in two consecutive years (2022 and 2023). From each bunch, ten berries were collected from various regions of a bunch (two berries from the top left, and two from the top right sides, two from the middle external and two from the middle internal faces, and two from the bottom position of the bunch). Grapes were opened using a scalpel. The number of seeds was counted and normalized by the sample size (10 berries) to estimate seed number per berry. Bunch compactness At harvest time in the years 2022 and 2023, bunch compactness was assessed by eye in ten VP11 and RJ51 plants as well as in all VP11 S 1 individuals producing bunches, and the same number of RJ51 S 1 individuals. Bunch compactness was graded by at least two trained inspectors according to the OIV 204 descriptor, which uses an odd-numbered scale with five different phenotype classes from 1 (very loose) to 9 (very compact) [ 38 ]. Flower sex type Flower sex was visually determined in 2021, 2022 and 2023 depending on the development of male and female sexual organs according to the OIV 151 descriptor [ 38 ] in all inflorescences of ten VP11 and RJ51 plants as well as all VP11 and RJ51 S 1 progenies. Genomic DNA extraction Young leaves were stored frozen at -80°C. Genomic DNA was extracted from frozen leaves using the NZY Plant/Fungi gDNA Isolation kit (NZYTech Genes & Enzymes, Lisbon, Portugal) following the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA was quantified with a Nanodrop 8000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, USA). For genotyping, DNA was diluted to 1 ng/µL and stored at -20°C. For whole-genome sequencing (WGS), genomic DNA was not diluted. SSR analysis The genetic origin of all VP11 and RJ51 S 1 individuals was confirmed with seven nuclear short sequence repeat (SSR) loci ( VVS2, VVMD5, VVMD7, VVMD27, VVMD32, VrZAG62 and VrZAG79) in a single multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) following an established protocol [ 39 ]. Flower type was genotyped with the VVIB23 marker, which is linked to the sex determination locus [ 40 ]. PCR products were mixed with 20 µl of highly deionized (Hi-Di) formamide and 0.2 µl of GeneScan-500 LIZ size standards (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), then denatured at 95°C for 5 mins. PCR fragments were separated on an ABI 3130XL genetic analyzer by capillary electrophoresis at the Centro de Investigación Biomédica de La Rioja (CIBIR). Fragment sizes were determined using GeneMapper v.4.1 (Applied Biosystems, Darmstadt, Germany). Each run included a TT positive control and a non-template sample as negative control. All S 1 individuals showed profiles compatible with selfing progeny of TT. Whole-genome sequencing with ONT long reads Genomic DNA from the VP11 clone was size-selected to enrich fragments longer than 10 kb using the PacBio Short Read Eliminator (SRE) kit (Pacific Biosciences of California, USA), following the manufacturer's protocol. As library input, 6 µg of size-selected DNA was used. The VP11 sequencing library was prepared through a ligation-based procedure, employing the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) SQK-LSK110 kit. The protocol included the NEBNext FFPE Repair Mix (NEB, M6630) and NEBNext Ultra II End Repair/dA-tailing Module (NEB #E7546) from the NEBNext Companion Module for ONT ligation sequencing (New England Biolabs, NEB) for DNA repair and end-preparation. Agencourt AMPure XP beads (Beckman Coulter #A63881) were used for cleanup during library prep. The Long Fragment Buffer from the ONT kit was used for cleanup after ligation. NEB Quick T4 DNA Ligase was used for ligation as described in the ONT protocol. DNA concentration was measured after every stage with a Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, USA). For sequencing, 750 ng of library were loaded in one R9.4.1 ONT Minion flow cell. VP11 WGS was carried out at ICVV with a MinION Mk1C sequencer (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Oxford, UK) following the manufacturer’s protocol. After 45 h, the flow cell was washed using an ONT Flow Cell Wash Kit (EXP-WSH004) and another 320 ng of the same library (that had been stored at 4°C) were loaded to complete a sequencing run that lasted in total 72 h. ONT reads were generated in a similar manner at the Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen using three SQK-SLK109 and two RAD004 library preps, and five ONT MinION R9.4.1 flow cells (raw reads under ENA accession number PRJEB97948). Structural variant (SV) analysis ONT raw signal was basecalled from VP11 and RJ51 samples using Guppy v5.0.7 in super-accurate mode with the config file “dna_r9.4.1_450bps_sup.cfg” ( https://community.nanoporetech.com/ ). Adaptor trimming was conducted using porechop v0.2.3 ( https://github.com/rrwick/Porechop ), with default settings. NanoFilt from the NanoPack package [ 41 ] was run to discard reads of length < 1 kb and Phred quality < 9 with options: -q 9 -l 1000. Read metrics were estimated using the NanoComp tool from NanoPack and seqkit v0.12.0 [ 42 ]. Trimmed ONT reads were mapped to the diploid ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ genome assembly ( https://figshare.com/s/c95fa53bb881c55cfefe ) [ 43 ], with haploid phases inherited from the paternal ‘Albillo Mayor’ and the maternal ‘Benedicto’ parent [ 44 ]. This haplotype-resolved reference is therefore suitable for the detection of phased structural variation in a highly heterozygous background. ONT reads were aligned to the TT diploid assembly using minimap2 [ 45 ] with options recommended for ONT reads to run sniffles : -a -x map-ont -Y --MD . The output of minimap2 was sorted and saved in bam format using samtools sort command [ 46 ]. Large SVs of ≥ 1 kb and supported by > 3 clipping reads were called using sniffles v1.0.12 [ 47 ] from the bam alignment files with options: -s 3 -l 1000 -d 1000 --max_num_splits 4 --genotype --min_het_af 0.25 --cluster --cluster_support 2 -q 20 -r 1000 . The VP11 and RJ51 corresponding VCF files from sniffles were compared using the merge tool of SURVIVOR v1.0.7 [ 48 ] to identify VP11-specific variants as somatic SVs. SV validation and segregation analysis Validation and segregation of SV breakpoints The translocation and duplication SV breakpoints identified with sniffles from ONT genome sequencing were corroborated by visual inspection of ONT read alignments to the TT genome assembly in the IGV v2.6.3 viewer [ 49 ]. Primer pairs were designed to amplify breakpoint fragments of about 1 kb. Additional primer pairs were designed to amplify similarly sized fragments of the ancestral chromosome sequences at the breakpoint (Tables S1 and S2). We used the Primer Designing Tool in Geneious Prime 2021.2 software (Dotmatics, California, USA) and Primer3 [ 50 , 51 ], accessed through NCBI. BLASTn (version 2.15.0+) [ 52 ] from the BLAST package for UNIX was used to select candidate primer sequences that correctly aligned to the intended haplotypes (Albillo Mayor’ and/or ‘Benedicto’) of the TT genome assembly. Fragments were amplified from the VP11 and RJ51 parents, the 34 VP11 S 1 individuals and 28 RJ51 S 1 individuals. PCR amplification was performed with NZYTaq II DNA polymerase Mix (NZYTech Genes & Enzymes, Lisbon, Portugal) following the standard protocol described in the NZYTaq II 2× Green Master Mix manual. The reactions included 10 µM of primer and 1 ng/µL of template DNA sample. The annealing temperatures were between 55°C and 59°C and 30 amplification cycles were carried out. PCR products were visualized by gel electrophoresis (1% w/v agarose), run at room temperature for 30–45 min under a constant voltage of 90 V, stained with GreenSafe Premium (MB132, NZYTech Genes & Enzymes, Lisbon, Portugal). Gels were imaged on a ChemiDocXRS + system and QuantityOne software was used to for acquire photos (BioRad, Hercules, CA, USA). PCR products were Sanger sequenced by Eurofins Genomics (Ebersberg, Germany) or by STABVida (Monte da Caparica, Portugal). The sequences were aligned against the TT genome assembly with Geneious Prime and BLASTN. Validation of Tra1-3 phasing About 1 kb from the translocation breakpoint, a deletion of 5.8 kb in the ‘Albillo Mayor’ allele compared to the ‘Benedicto’ allele on chromosome 3 was identified in the genome assembly of TT RJ51. This deletion was verified by visualization of ONT read mappings from both RJ51 and VP11 in the IGV viewer. The deletion is positioned within a region sufficiently close to the Tra1-3 breakpoint on chromosome 3 to design primers for an amplicon that includes both the Tra1-3 and the InDel breakpoints. In the ‘Benedicto’ haplotype, the 5.8 kb extra sequence prevents effective PCR amplification. Primers were designed and used for PCR genotyping of the InDel in VP11 and RJ51 as described above for SV breakpoints. SNP segregation analysis at Tra1-3 flanks to validate the reciprocal translocation To validate the exchange of distal portions of chromosomes 1 and 3 in the reciprocal translocation Tra1-3 of VP11, the segregation of heterozygous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of TT was assessed in amplicons targeting sequences far away from the translocation junctions. Tra1-3 individuals of the VP11 S 1 population were compared to RJ51 S 1 individuals. Primers were designed as described above to obtain amplicons from 1.0 to 1.6 kb that included TT SNPs. The two amplicons designed on chromosome 3 were separated by 6 Mb in the ‘Albillo Mayor’ haplophase assembly of TT, while 7 Mb separated the two amplicons designed on chromosome 1 in the ‘Benedicto’ haplophase (Tables S1 and S2). SNP-rich regions were identified by comparison of alignments of the ‘Albillo Mayor’ and ‘Benedicto’ haplophases of the TT assembly. PCR products were Sanger sequenced by STABVida (Monte da Caparica, Portugal) . The amplified sequences were verified using BLASTN as described above. SNPs in the amplicons were genotyped with Geneious Prime software to ascertain the haplotype/s inherited by each S 1 individual. Linkage between the pairs of fragments originally located on chromosomes 1 and 3 that are presumably now on the same translocation chromosome at a > 6 Mb distance after the Tra1-3 event was assessed by chi-square two-tailed s with the PCR results in VP11 S 1 individuals. Statistical analysis of phenotype data according to genotype groups The mean of each phenotypic trait (pollen viability, seed number and bunch compactness) was calculated from data across all available years for each individual in selfing populations and parental clones. For co-segregation analysis between each phenotypic trait and somatic genome rearrangements, VP11 S 1 individuals were classified according to the presence or absence of somatic SVs in the parental VP11 clone. All the genotype classes were pairwise compared using RStudio software version 2023.12.1.402, [ 53 ]. The ‘ ggplot2’ package was employed to create graphical representations of the collected data [ 54 ]. The function ‘ stat_compare_means’ function from the ggpubr package [ 55 ], which builds upon ggplot2 , was used for Student’s t-tests. Chi-squared tests were used to assess the fit of segregation ratios of SVs and other molecular markers in the VP11 and RJ51 S 1 populations. RESULTS Loose bunch development associates with reduced gamete viability in VP11 clone To determine whether the loose-bunch phenotype of the VP11 clone correlates with other reproductive features, we quantified pollen viability, seed number per berry and bunch compactness in VP11, and also in the control RJ51 clone that has compact bunches typical of TT (Fig. 1 A). Over three years, VP11 consistently had low bunch compactness ratings, which ranged from 1 to 3, based on the OIV descriptor 204 [ 38 ]. Control RJ51 plants had significantly greater bunch compactness ratings, which ranged from 7 to 9 (Student’s t-test, p = 2.3×10 − 8 ) (Fig. 1 B). Estimated average pollen viability was 58% in VP11, compared to 95.0% in the RJ51 control (Fig. 1 C, 1 D), confirming the significant reduction in pollen viability reported before for VP11 [ 34 ]. Relatively moderate reduction in pollen viability alone, as observed in VP11, would not normally compromise fertilization success in grapevine because several thousand pollen grains are produced per flower, which should be saturating to fertilize the small number of ovules developed per flower (usually four) [ 56 , 57 ]. As an indirect measure of female gamete viability, we therefore assessed also the number of seeds per berry. The VP11 clone had an average of only 1.1 seeds per berry, significantly fewer than the average of 2.8 seeds per berry in RJ51 (Student’s t-test, p < 2.2×10 − 16 ) (Fig. 1 E). The concurrent reduction of pollen viability and seed number in VP11 are symptoms of a global disruption in gamete development or functionality, which could underlie a reduction in fruit set success leading to looser bunches in VP11 [ 35 ]. VP11 has large somatic structural variants including a complex reciprocal translocation Long read genome sequencing and somatic SV detection While no candidate small somatic mutation was detected in VP11 from short-read WGS [ 58 ], earlier studies reported that large chromosome rearrangements can reduce gamete viability in grapevine somatic variants [ 31 ], as it does in other plants [ 59 , 60 ]. To evaluate whether large SVs may underlie the variant phenotype of VP11, whole-genome sequencing of the VP11 and RJ51 clones was performed using ONT long reads for somatic SV calling. About 50× depth read coverage of the haploid grapevine genome was produced from each clone, with clean (adapters removed, > 1 kb length and quality > 9) read length N50 values of 17.7 for VP11 and 21.1 kb for RJ51 (Table S3 ). For phased SV calling, the ONT reads from VP11 and RJ51 were aligned to the diploid RJ51 genome assembly, which includes two haplotypes, one from the ‘Albillo Mayor’ parent and the other from the ‘Benedicto’ parent of TT. Large SV (> 1kb) calling with sniffles and filtering with SURVIVOR identified 11 SV calls in VP11 that were missing in RJ51. Because of the length of the ONT reads and the alignment to the diploid assembly, we could readily identify the haplotype phase at each breakpoint. Reads with clipped alignments supporting the breakpoints involved only one haplophase per SV call (Figs. 2 and S1; Table 1 ), indicating that all VP11-specific SVs were heterozygous events as expected for somatic mutations. Five SVs were insertions or deletions of fragments ranging from 1 to 6 kb size. The other six SVs comprised translocation calls that are paired into three events (Table 1 ). Table 1 Somatic SV calls detected in the genome of VP11 clone. SV call (Bkpt1-Bkpt2) a Type b Length (bp) Junction Bkpt1 read support (%) c Bkpt2 read support (%) c Bkpt1 TE Bkpt2 TE Event d A_chr03:7132253-B_chr01:17440933 TRA - PRECISE 60 48 - TIR Tra1-3 A_chr03:7174027-B_chr01:17549291 TRA - IMPRECISE 37 45 - LTR gypsy Tra1-3 A_chr07:22370961-A_chr11:9266401 TRA - PRECISE 70 49 Unknown LTR Dup11to7 A_chr07:22370967-A_chr11:9244658 TRA - PRECISE 70 24 Unknown LTR Dup11to7 A_chr08:20030029-B_chr17:5123987 TRA - PRECISE 100 47 - LTR gypsy Dup17to8 A_chr08:20030036-B_chr17:5101192 TRA - PRECISE 100 34 - LTR gypsy Dup17to8 B_chr11:342167-B_chr11:342171 INS 1164 PRECISE 100 100 helitron helitron Ins11 A_chr15:4332126-A_chr15:4332133 INS 1842 PRECISE 40 40 Unknown Unknown Ins15 B_chr15:10239665-B_chr15:10241077 DEL -1412 PRECISE 100 100 Unknown Unknown Del15 A_chr16:121557-A_chr16:128089 DEL -6532 PRECISE 49 49 helitron helitron Del16 A_chr18:16547881-A_chr18:16547908 INS 1192 PRECISE 35 35 TIR TIR Ins18 a Breakpoints specific to VP11 compared to the control RJ51 clone were detected using Sniffles and Survivor tools from ONT reads aligned to the diploid assembly of 'Tempranillo Tinto'. Phased coordinates of joined breakpoints are indicated: A – Albillo Mayor haplophase; B – Benedicto haplophase. Bkpt – breakpoint. b TRA – translocation; INS – insertion; DEL – Deletion. c Percentage of clipping alignments supporting each SV breakpoint. d Grouping of SV calls in genome structural variation events. Tra – translocation; Dup – Duplication; Ins – insertion; Del – Deletion. One of the three inter-chromosomal events, Tra1-3, is a presumably balanced reciprocal translocation between the ‘Benedicto’-inherited haplotype of chromosome 1 (B_chr01) and the ‘Albillo Mayor’-inherited haplotype of chromosome 3 (A_chr03) (Fig. 3 A). Tra1-3 was a complex translocation, since two SV calls with 2-fold increased read alignment depth between them were detected at both chromosome fusion sides (Fig. 2 ; Table S4). These alignment and breakpoint patterns indicate the presence of large duplications at the translocation breakpoints (Fig. 3 A). On chromosome 1, a 109 kb fragment was duplicated: one copy remained in place (chromosome coordinates B_chr01:17,440,933 − 17,549,291) within the 17.5 Mb proximal (centromere-bearing) portion (B_chr01:1–17,549,291), and the other copy was joined to the chromosome 3 breakpoint (A_chr3:7,132,253) as part of the presumably translocated 6.3 Mb distal portion (B_chr01:17,440,933 − 23,766,831) (Fig. 3 A). Similarly, on chromosome 3, a 42 kb fragment (A_chr03:7,132,253-7,174,026) was duplicated: one copy remained in the 14.3 Mb proximal portion (A_chr03:7,132,253 − 21,447,870), and the other copy was joined to the chromosome 1 breakpoint (B_chr01:17,549,291) as part of the translocated 7.2 Mb distal portion (A_chr03:1–7,174,026). In the alignments to the diploid assembly, each Tra1-3 breakpoint showed an approximately 1:1 ratio of either soft-clipped reads supporting the breakpoint allele or unclipped reads of the ancestral haplotype supporting the duplication, and no ancestral or clipped read spanned both breakpoints delimiting duplicated fragments (Fig. 2 ; Table 1 ). Together with the twofold increase in read coverage of the duplicated haplotype (Table S4), these results indicate that Tra1-3 is fixed in both meristem cell layers (L1 and L2) of VP11, since the sequenced DNA was obtained from leaf cells that derive from both layers [ 4 ]. The breakpoints of the other two VP11-specific inter-chromosomal events, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8, also delimited duplicated fragments showing approximately twofold increased alignment depth (Table 1 ; Table S4). Soft-clipped alignments at both ends of reads mapping to these duplicated fragments supported the transposition of the duplicated copy to another chromosome (Fig. 3 ; Fig. S1 ). In Dup11to7, a 22 kb fragment from chromosome 11 of the Albillo Mayor haplophase was duplicated and inserted into chromosome 7, also of the Albillo Mayor haplophase (Fig. 3 B and Table 1 ). In Dup17to8, a 23 kb fragment of the Benedicto haplotype of chromosome 17 was duplicated and inserted into the Albillo Mayor haplotype of chromosome 8 (Fig. 3 C and Table 1 ). Every VP11 read mapping to the duplication-receiver haplophase of Dup17to8 at chromosome 8 had clipped alignments supporting the transposition (Table 1 ; Fig. S1 ), indicating that Dup17to8 is fixed in both the L1 and L2 cell layers. By contrast, 30% of the VP11 reads mapping to the chromosome 7 receiver breakpoint of Dup11to7 still supported the ancestral haplotype without the insertion (Table 1 ; Fig. S1 ), indicating that VP11 is chimeric for Dup11to7. As expected for somatic SVs, no soft-clipped reads supporting the breakpoints of the three inter-chromosomal events or increased mapping depth in the VP11 duplicated fragments, were detected in RJ51 (Fig. 2 ; Fig. S1 ). Regarding possible functional consequences of the 11 VP11 SVs, only the Dup17to8 breakpoint on Albillo Mayor chromosome 8 disrupts an annotated gene, TT_A_chr08g14410 (Fig. S1 B). This gene is the ortholog of the Vitvi05_01chr08g18520 PN40024 v5.1 grapevine reference gene [ 61 ], which is potentially involved in terpene metabolism [ 62 ]. The duplicated regions in the three VP11 SVs collectively include 12 annotated genes with increased dosage in VP11 (Fig. 2 ; Fig. S1 ; Table S4). Validation and sequence context of SV events in VP11 To confirm the presence of the bioinformatically detected inter-chromosomal SVs, we designed primers to target sequences flanking the Tra1-3, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 breakpoints. When combining primers against sequences from different chromosomes, they produced PCR amplicons with VP11 genomic DNA, but not with RJ51 genomic DNA (Figs. 3 D and S2A). Primers from the same chromosome, as present in the TT ancestor, produced PCR amplicons with genomic DNA from both VP11 and RJ51. The amplification of the ancestral TT allele was expected for the non-variant RJ51 clone, but also for VP11 because it is heterozygous for the SVs and harbors the ancestral and the rearranged sequence at SVs delimiting duplicated fragments (Fig. 2 ). Sanger sequencing of the amplicons confirmed the presence of recombinant sequences joining fragments that were originally on different chromosomes (Additional Dataset 1). The analysis of the breakpoint sequence context also identified microhomology of 16 bp and 2 bp at the translocation junctions of Tra1-3, as well as microhomology of the same 7 bp (CCTATGT) at the two transposition junctions of Dup11to7 (Additional Dataset 1). While no transposable element (TE)-related homology was identified between the sequences recombined in the three inter-chromosomal events, the fragments transposed in Dup11to7 and Dup17to9 involved LTR TE sequences, and several of the SVs with length < 7 kb were flanked by helitron or TIR DNA TEs (Fig. 2 ; Fig. S1 ; Table 1 ). Microhomology and TEs may therefore have facilitated some of the somatic SVs of VP11. Validation of Tra1-3 phasing To validate the haplophases involved in Tra1-3, we exploited a 5.8 kb InDel in chromosome 3 that is absent in the Albillo Mayor haplophase but present in the Benedicto haplophase (B_chr03:7,224,046 − 7,229,860). This 5.8 kb InDel is located 0.8 kb downstream of the Tra1-3 breakpoint (Fig. S3 A-B). A forward primer designed against sequences on chromosome 1 and a reverse primer designed against sequences to the right of the InDel on chromosome 3 were used to amplify a 1.5 kb fragment from VP11 genomic DNA (Figs. S2B and S3C). This result confirmed that Albillo Mayor was the haplotype of chromosome 3 involved in the Tra1-3 translocation, since a > 7 kb amplicon would have been expected if the Benedicto-inherited haplotype of chromosome 3 would have been involved. Inheritance of VP11 inter-chromosomal somatic SVs The inheritance of the somatic SV events detected in VP11 clone was assessed after germinating selfed seeds of VP11 and growing the plants own-rooted in the field. PCR analysis showed that of 34 VP11 S 1 individuals, 24 had inherited the Tra1-3 translocation (Table S5). This ratio corresponds to Tra1-3 behaving as a dominant allele with a 3:1 Mendelian segregation pattern (χ 2 = 0.55). The inheritance of Tra1-3 breakpoints confirm that the translocation was present in the L2 meristem cell layer of VP11, as gametes in flowering plants are derived from the L2. The inheritance rate also indicates that VP11 is heterozygous for this event. Notably, all VP11 S 1 individuals carried either both Tra1-3 chromosomes or neither, which indicates that the two translocation chromosomes can only be inherited together (Table S5). These segregation results, along with the decreased gamete viability and number of seed per berry, suggest that in VP11, the only viable gametes are those that inherit a balanced set of chromosomes, i.e., either two normal or two translocation chromosomes, with recombination in the distal parts between normal and translocation chromosomes being possible during meiosis. Nonetheless, this genotyping approach did not enable us to discriminate between heterozygous or homozygous VP11 S 1 individuals for the inheritance of Tra1-3 due to the duplicated flanks at both translocation breakpoints (primer pairs 1 + 2 and 3 + 4, Fig. 3 A). The somatic duplications Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 of VP11 were also inherited in VP11 S 1 progeny (Table S5). However, neither Dup11to7 nor Dup17to8 segregated from VP11 clone as expected for the dominant allele of a heterozygote, as these SVs were only inherited by around half of the progeny (χ 2 Dup11to7 = 0.003; χ 2 Dup17to8 = 5.2×10e − 06 for fit to a 3:1 ratio) (Table S5). All 18 VP11 S 1 individuals that were PCR positives for the presence of Dup11to7 also carried the ancestral allele without an insertion on chromosome 7 (primer pair 9 + 10, Table S5), suggesting that Dup11to7 was only inherited in a heterozygous state. Similarly, only one out of 14 individuals with Dup17to8 did not carry the ancestral allele without an insertion on chromosome 8 (primer pair 15 + 16, Table S5). The abnormal segregation ratios suggest that Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 are associated with recessive lethal or semi-lethal mutations. As expected, none of the SVs were detected in S 1 individuals of the RJ51 self-cross population, and all ancestral TT chromosome sequences were successfully amplified in all of them (Table S6). However, although all the VP11 S 1 individuals were expected to produce amplification for the amplicons of the ancestral chromosomes 1 and 3 at the Tra1-3 breakpoints (Fig. 3 ), unexpectedly, six out of ten Tra1-3 negatives and one out of 24 positives for Tra1-3 were also negatives for the amplification of one or more of the amplicons of the ancestral chromosomes without SVs (Table S5). Individuals such as S1-VP11-34, which did not produce amplification using primers for Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 but neither for any of the targeted fragments of the ancestral chromosomes involved (7, 11, 17 and 8) are striking. However, the same DNA sample of S1-VP11-34 amplified both alleles of the SSR markers VVMD7 and ZAG62 (located on chromosome 7) and of VVS2 (located on chromosome 11) (Table S7), indicating that there is no aneuploidy in this case, but that some phenomenon may be affecting the duplicated chromosome regions during meiosis. Validation of Tra1-3 as a reciprocal translocation To validate that Tra1-3 is a reciprocal translocation in which the distal portions of chromosome 1 and 3 have been exchanged, we evaluated the possible co-segregation of SNPs distinguishing the two TT haplotypes in regions that were at hundreds of kb from either side of the translocation breakpoints (Fig. S4). The 1UP and 1DOWN SNP-rich marker amplicons locate 1.2 Mb to the left and 5.2 Mb to the right of the Tra1-3 breakpoint located on chromosome 1 (Fig. S4A). Similarly, the 3UP and 3DOWN regions locate 5.1 Mb to the left and 0.9 Mb to the right of the Tra1-3 breakpoint in chromosome 3. The 1DOWN and 3UP markers thus locate towards the telomeric ends of the distal portions of the translocated chromosomes. We genotyped by Sanger sequencing of PCR amplicons these four marker regions in the VP11 S 1 population to test for linked inheritance of regions that were originally on different chromosomes. According to Chi-squared tests of independency, the segregation patterns in the RJ51 S 1 progeny showed the expected results, with significant linkage between the markers located on the same ancestral chromosomes (1UP-1DOWN χ 2 = 0.03 and 3UP-3DOWN χ 2 = 0.004), while the 1UP-3UP (χ 2 = 0.37) and 1DOWN-3DOWN (χ 2 = 0.18) combinations were not significant (Table S8). Chi-squared tests returned significant results in the Tra1-3 carrying VP11 S 1 subpopulation for the following marker pairs: 1UP-1DOWN (χ 2 = 0.005), 3UP-3DOWN (χ 2 = 0.007), 1UP-3UP (χ 2 = 0.001), 1DOWN-3DOWN (χ 2 = 0.030) (Table S9). These results indicate that the null hypothesis of independent segregation is rejected in VP11 not only for markers originally located on the same chromosome, but also for combinations of markers originally on different chromosomes that become linked due to the reciprocal translocation (Fig. 3 A and Fig. S4A). These results support that Tra1-3 is a reciprocal translocation. Tra1-3 associates with reduced gamete viability in VP11 progeny To search for potential causal relationships between somatic SVs and the reduced gamete viability and bunch compactness in VP11, we evaluated the co-segregation of these traits in the VP11 S 1 population. Because somatic InDels detected in VP11 did not affect genes, we focused on the three inter-chromosomal events. Pollen viability co-segregation analysis Over three years, only 28 of the 34 VP11 S 1 individuals produced flowers in at least one year, with average pollen viability being not different from the VP11 parent (Fig. 4 A; Table S5), but significantly lower than in RJ51 and its selfed progeny (Fig. 4 A; Table S6). In contrast, pollen viability was significantly higher in RJ51 than the average in RJ51 self-progeny (Fig. 4 A; Table S6). In the VP11 S 1 population, average pollen viability ranged from 26% to 94% (Fig. 4 A; Table S5), with pollen viability being significantly different between plants with and without Tra1-3 (Student’s t-test, p = 0.003). Pollen viability was on average above 70% in the 10 VP11 S 1 individuals without the translocation, but on average below 50% among the 24 S 1 individuals with Tra1-3 (Fig. 4 A). No significant effect on pollen viability was detected for the presence of Dup11to7 or Dup17to8 on VP11 progeny. Together, these results indicate that it is the specific presence of Tra1-3 that is associated with a reduction in pollen viability, despite the possible semi-lethal effects of the two duplications in their homozygous state. Seed number co-segregation analysis As a proxy of female gamete viability, we assessed the segregation of the number of seeds per berry. There was a trend towards lower seed number in VP11 S 1 individuals with Tra1-3, although this difference was not significant (Student’s t-test, p = 0.061 (Fig. 4 B; Table S5). The average number of seeds in the VP11 S 1 population (1.37 seeds/berry) was slightly higher than in the VP11 parent (1.07 seeds/berry) (Student’s t-test, p = 0.021 Fig. S5A), which might be due to VP11 S 1 individuals that are homozygous for Tra1-3 and therefore would not suffer from meiosis pairing defects. This might be the case of the individual S1-VP11-16 that carried Tra1-3 and had high pollen viability and high seed number (Table S4). In contrast, the average number of seeds per berry was lower in the RJ51 S 1 progeny than the RJ51 parents (1.44 versus 2.76 seeds/berry) (Fig. S5A; Table S6), potentially due to recessive deleterious mutations present in heterozygosity in TT that become homozygous in selfed individuals. No significant effect on seed number was observed for the presence or absence of Dup11to7 or Dup17to8 SVs in the VP11 S 1 population (Fig. S5A). Bunch compactness co-segregation analysis Average bunch compactness was significantly lower in VP11 than in the VP11 S 1 progeny (1.92 vs. 2.94 average compactness score, Student’s t-test p = 0.66). There was a tendency towards lower bunch compactness in S 1 progeny individuals of VP11 with Tra1-3 compared to S 1 siblings without Tra1-3 (2.86 vs. 3.33 average compactness score), but this difference was not significant (Fig. 4 C; Table S5), suggesting that other loci contribute to this trait. No significant effect on bunch compactness was observed for the presence or absence of Dup11to7 or Dup17to8 (Fig. S5B; Table S5). Bunch compactness was significantly lower in RJ51 S 1 progeny than in RJ51 parent (8.14 vs. 5.11 average compactness score), while it was significantly higher in RJ51 S 1 progeny than in VP11 S 1 progeny (Fig. S5B; Tables S5 and S6), suggesting that additional segregating variants like Tra1-3 may affect bunch compactness in VP11 progeny. Loss of flower sex type effect on bunch compactness in the VP11 genetic background Because TT is heterozygous for the flower sex locus (Tables S7 and S10), selfed progeny will segregate for flower sex type. In both VP11 and RJ51 S 1 populations, the flower sex marker VVIB23 and flower sex phenotype completely co-segregated, and the flower type showed a Mendelian segregation (3 hermaphrodite : 1 female) (S7 and S10), as expected from the known dominance of the hermaphrodite allele [ 63 ]. Among RJ51 S 1 progeny, female individuals had significantly lower bunch compactness than hermaphrodite individuals (average compactness scores 4.30 versus 5.57; Student’s t-test, p = 0.001) (Fig. S6; Table S6). However, no significant differences were found between individuals of the two flower sex types in VP11 S 1 progeny (average compactness scores 2.33 for females versus 3.27 for hermaphrodites, Student’s t-test, p = 0.15) (Fig. S6; Table S5). This result suggests that the segregation of the translocation Tra1-3 in the VP11 S 1 population may be partially masking the effect of flower sex on bunch compactness, which is normally apparent in self-crossed progeny of RJ51 and in progeny of other grapevine cultivars [ 22 , 64 ]. DISCUSSION Somatic variation in grapevine provides a powerful tool for intra-cultivar improvement of critical traits [ 2 , 3 , 29 ]. Among desirable traits, bunch compactness, which is under complex genetic control, is linked to grape production yield, quality, and harvest efficiency [ 13 , 22 ]. Compared with the large inter-varietal genetic diversity in grapevine, clonal variants carrying only a limited number of somatic mutations can help to identify the mechanisms that modulate this trait [ 15 , 29 ]. The VP11 clone, a somatic variant of the ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ cultivar, has a stable loose bunch phenotype that is associated with reduced gamete viability (Fig. 1 ), a condition known to decrease fruit set and bunch compactness in grapevine [ 26 , 35 ]. Here, we identify a reciprocal chromosomal translocation as the genetic cause of this phenotype syndrome in VP11 (Figs. 2 – 4 ). The developmental origin of reduced bunch compactness in VP11 is due to semi-sterility of both male and female gametes (Fig. 1 ), traits that are inherited by selfed progeny (Fig. 4 ; Fig. S5; Table S5). Reduced gamete viability is known to lower the number of fertilized flowers and thus of setting berries, thereby contributing to a looser bunch structure [ 16 ]. Concurrent reduction in male and female fertility has been reported in other species before, for instance in response to heat stress [ 65 , 66 ]. Male and female gamete viability are also genetically linked, as shown by the disruption of both ovule and pollen function by gametocidal genes in wheat, as well as by the effect of DEM genes that in Arabidopsis thaliana are essential for the viability in both male and female gametophytes [ 67 , 68 ]. Among less than a dozen somatic SVs detected in VP11 (Table 1 ), the reciprocal translocation Tra1-3 was a strong predictor of reduced pollen viability in the S 1 progeny of VP11 (Fig. 4 ; Table S5). The Tra1-3 breakpoints are inherited and thus not lethal for gametes themselves (Table S5). However, as a heterozygous reciprocal translocation, Tra1-3 should generate about 50% non-viable gametes because of the formation of quadrivalent configurations during meiosis, with adjacent segregation generating unbalanced gametes [ 69 , 70 ]. These unbalanced “sub-haploid” gametes typically lack essential genomic segments, making them inviable [ 71 ]. This mechanism along could explain the approximately 50% reduction in pollen viability and seed number in VP11 (Fig. 1 ). Somatic reciprocal translocations causing semi-sterility without major effects on vegetative development have been reported in several inter- and intra-specific hybrids. For example, F1 hybrids between watermelon cultivars and disease-resistant wild relatives exhibited markedly reduced pollen viability due to chromosomal divergence, resulting in meiotic pairing defects(McGregor & Waters, 2013). Notably, that the two translocated chromosomes were always inherited together in VP11 S 1 progeny (Table S5) supports the conclusion that unbalanced gametes inheriting only one of the two translocated chromosomes are non-viable. That there was no statistically significant effect of Tra1-3 on seed number or bunch compactness in VP11 S 1 progeny (Fig. 4 ) is likely due to Tra1-3 homozygotes not being expected to suffer from meiosis pairing defects [ 70 , 73 ], as well as to the influence of other segregating loci. For instance, the flower sex-determining locus explained a substantial proportion of the variation in bunch compactness in the RJ51 S 1 population (Fig. S5; Table S6), consistent with findings in other segregating grapevine populations [ 22 , 64 ]. This effect was weaker in VP11 S 1 progeny (Fig. S5; Table S5), suggesting that the joint segregation of Tra1-3 and sex type may dilute the effect of each individual locus on bunch compactness. Tra1-3 is a particularly complex translocation as it has large duplicated segments at both translocation breakpoints (Figs. 2 and 3 ). Replication-based mechanisms have been proposed to generate such configurations, particularly when DNA replication collapses at a replication bubble comprising two replication forks [ 74 ]. Similar duplications at translocation breakpoints have been reported in human cancer genomes, such as in multiple myeloma, where they are linked to genomic instability and DNA replication errors [ 75 ]. Consistent with the 16-bp microhomology found in one of the Tra1-3 breakpoint junctions (Additional Dataset 1), template switching resulting in duplications and translocations can be facilitated when the replication fork collapses in a DNA break at a sequence with microhomology to another chromosome region [ 76 ]. In addition to Tra1-3, ten other large (> 1 kb) somatic SVs were detected in VP11, totaling three inter-chromosomal events and another five InDels (Table 1 ). The small number of somatic SVs detected in VP11 is in line to what has been reported for two biotypes of the ‘Nebbiolo’ grapevine cultivar and the ‘Tempranillo Blanco’ white grape somatic variant [ 31 , 77 ]. In contrast, hundreds to thousands of events, often linked to activity of transposable elements (TEs), have been reported for ‘Zinfandel’ and ‘Pinot Noir’ clones, and for bud sports of other grapevine cultivars [ 78 – 81 ]. While technical factors may partly account for differences in these reported levels of somatic SV, the low number detected in VP11 when compared to RJ51 agrees with the recent selection of both TT clones at DOCa Rioja region vineyards. Supporting that both clones are clonally close and that there is a lack of small variants that could explain their phenotypic variation, a somatic single-nucleotide variant (SNV) analysis identified that both clones belong to the ancestral TT clonal genotype [ 58 ]. Because we had both ONT long reads and access to a phased diploid genome assembly of TT, the varietal genetic background of VP11, we could determine the specific TT haplotypes of the chromosome regions involved in all the called SVs (Figs. 2 and 3 ; Table 1 ). This phasing also facilitated the estimation of possible chimerism for the SVs detected in DNA obtained from VP11 leaves, which in grapevine contain epidermal and internal cells that respectively derive from the L1 and L2 meristem cell layers [ 4 ]. A 100% frequency of breakpoint reads aligned to the haplophase that is affected by the SV in VP11 at copy-neutral breakpoints, or a ~ 50% frequency at duplication breakpoints like in Tra1-3 (Table 1 ), indicated that four of the eight detected events were fixed in both the L1 and L2. This is consistent with the modest number of L1 versus L2 chimeric mutations detected with HiFi sequencing in ‘Merlot’ grapevine cultivar [ 82 ], but contrasts with > 90% layer-specific somatic mutations reported in apricot, where meristems comprise three distinct cell layers [ 83 ]. Because Dup11to7 is inherited by VP11 descendants and reads of the ancestral TT haplotype without the transposition insertion were detected in VP11 (Fig. S4; Table 1 ; Table S5), Dup11to7 should be a chimeric event restricted to the L2, the layer giving rise to gametes in grapevine [ 4 ]. The frequency of clipped reads aligned to the transposition-receiver breakpoint of Dup11to7 thus indicate that ~ 70% of cells in grapevine young leaves are L2-derived (Table 1 ). By contrast, Ins15 and Ins16 may be L1-specific SVs as they were each supported by ≤ 40% of read alignments (Table 1 ). These values are consistent with the ~ 60% contribution of L2-derived cells to adult oak leaves estimated from somatic mutation analysis [ 84 ]. The two duplications, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8, did not individually show significant effects on pollen viability, number of seeds per berry or bunch compactness in the VP11 S 1 progeny (Fig. 4 ; Fig. S5 and Table S5). Nevertheless, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 carrying individuals were underrepresented in the VP11 S 1 population (Table S5), suggesting a possible recessive deleterious effect on embryo or seedling development. This effect could have contributed to the poor germination and seedling establishment of VP11 S 1 seeds, which resulted in a small S 1 population (Table S5). In addition to segregation distortion, we detected loss of both ancestral and derived alleles in VP11 progeny at the breakpoints of the two duplications and of Tra1-3 (Table S5). These three events involved duplicated sequences on different chromosomes (Fig. 3 ; Table S4), a configuration that may facilitate non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) and thereby promote deletion of alleles and unequal crossing overs [ 76 ]. Other undetected genetic defects in VP11 may also contribute to the observed genome instability. The duplications and microhomology at the breakpoints of different SV events in VP11 (Figs. 3 and Additional Dataset 1) suggest that DNA replication or repair might be defective in this clone. In any case, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 do not affect the viability of haploid gametes, which can be inferred both from the inheritance of these SVs and from their lack of effect on pollen viability in the S 1 progeny of VP11 (Fig. 4 ; Table S5). These results are in line with Tra1-3 being the primary cause of the reduced gamete viability in VP11. Conclusions Apart from advancing our understanding of somatic variation for gamete viability and bunch compactness in grapevine, our study demonstrates the power of long-read sequencing combined with diploid genome assemblies to accurately detect SV in highly heterozygous organisms. The loose bunch VP11 clone of ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ cultivar provided an opportunity to investigate the consequences of reciprocal translocations, an event that has not been characterized in earlier grapevine SV studies that mostly focused on inter-varietal and inter-specific diversity [ 81 , 85 – 87 ]. Our findings illustrate that complex genome rearrangements that impair meiosis can decrease gamete viability and indirectly impact complex traits like bunch compactness. While long-range genome rearrangements compromising reproductive development would be purged in sexually propagated organisms, they can be selected for intra-varietal improvement and diversification in vegetatively propagated crops like grapevine. Heterozygous balanced reciprocal translocations provide a general strategy to reduce seed and fruit set rate without affecting vegetative growth. Abbreviations Dup11to7 Duplication of a chromosome 11 fragment inserted into chromosome 7 Dup17to8 Duplication of a chromosome 17 fragment inserted into chromosome 8 ONT Oxford Nanopore Technologies PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction RT Room Temperature S1 Self-cross progeny / Selfing progeny SNP Single Nucleotide Polymorphism SRE Short Read Eliminator SSR Short sequence repeat SV Structural variant TE Transposable element TT Tempranillo Tinto Tra1-3 Reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 1 and 3 VP Viveros Provedo WGS Whole-genome sequencing Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials ONT raw sequencing data for this study have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) at EMBL-EBI under accession number PRJEB97948. All other data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Competing interests D.W. holds equity in Computomics, which advises plant breeders. D.W. previously consulted for KWS SE, a globally active plant breeder and seed producer. All other authors declare no competing interests. Funding This work was supported by projects PID2020-120183RB-I00 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and PID2023-152513OB-I00 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF/EU. This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 797460 as well as by the Max Planck Society. Authors' contributions N.A.S. performed all phenotyping and molecular genotyping experiments, analyzed data, participated in the study design, and wrote the manuscript draft. Y.F. participated in experiments. I.B. participated in data processing and management. D.W. provided resources and inputs to the manuscript. P.C.B. conceptualized and supervised and the study, analyzed data, and participated in manuscript draft writing. J.I. conceptualized and supervised the study and provided resources and inputs to the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Ignacio Provedo from Viveros Provedo S.A. for selecting and providing VP11 samples. We are thankful to J. Tello for assisting as bunch compactness expert inspector, and S. Hernáiz, P. Sacristán, M. Angulo for their technical assistance. We thank the plant resources service from ICVV and the Regional Government of la Rioja for plant management. We also thank E. Domı́nguez-Garrido and J. Aguirre (Plataforma de Investigación Biomédica, CIBIR, Fundación Rioja Salud) for SSR marker genotyping. References OIV. Annual Assessment of the World Vine and Wine Sector in 2022 International Organisation of Vine and Wine Intergovernmental Organisation. 2023. This P, Lacombe T, Thomas MR. Historical origins and genetic diversity of wine grapes. Trends Genet. 2006;22:511–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2006.07.008 . Torregrosa L, Fernandez L, Bouquet A, Boursiquot J-M, Pelsy F, Martínez-Zapater JM. Origins and Consequences of Somatic Variation in Grapevine. Genetics, Genomics, and Breeding of Grapes. Science; 2011. pp. 68–92. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10948-4 . Carbonell-Bejerano P, Royo C, Mauri N, Ibáñez J, Miguel Martínez Zapater J. Somatic Variation and Cultivar Innovation in Grapevine. In: Advances in Grape and Wine Biotechnology. IntechOpen; 2019. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86443 Callipo P, Schmidt · Maximilian, Strack T, Robinson H, Vasudevan A, Voss-Fels KP. Harnessing clonal diversity in grapevine: from genomic insights to modern breeding applications. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 2025 138:8. 2025;138:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00122-025-04986-W Portu J, Baroja E, Rivacoba L, Martínez J, Ibáñez S, Tello J. Evaluation of the intra-varietal diversity of ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ clones prospected in the demarcated winemaking region of Rioja (Spain). Sci Hortic. 2024;329:113015. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCIENTA.2024.113015 . Tello J, Ibáñez J. What do we know about grapevine bunch compactness? A state-of-the-art review. Aust J Grape Wine Res. 2018;24:6–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12310 . Molitor D, Behr M, Hoffmann L, Evers D. Impact of grape cluster division on cluster morphology and bunch rot epidemic. Am J Enol Vitic. 2012;63:508–14. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2012.12041 . Hed B, Ngugi HK, Travis JW. Relationship between cluster compactness and bunch rot in Vignoles grapes. Plant Dis. 2009;93:1195–201. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-93-11-1195 . Pieri P, Zott K, Gomès É, Hibert G. Nested effects of berry half, berry and bunch microclimate on biochemical composition in grape. OENO One. 2016;50:23–33. https://doi.org/10.20870/OENO-ONE.2016.50.3.52 . Piernas J, Giménez MJ, Noguera-Artiaga L, García-Pastor ME, García-Martínez S, Zapata PJ. Influence of Bunch Compactness and Berry Thinning Methods on Wine Grape Quality and Sensory Attributes of Wine in Vitis vinifera L. cv. ‘Monastrell ’ Agron. 2022;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030680 . Bondada B, Covarrubias JI, Tessarin P, Boliani AC, Marodin G, Rombolà AD. Postveraison shoot trimming reduces cluster compactness without compromising fruit quality attributes in organically grown sangiovese grapevines. Am J Enol Vitic. 2016;67:206–11. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2016.15058 . Tello J, Aguirrezábal R, Hernáiz S, Larreina B, Montemayor MI, Vaquero E, et al. Multicultivar and multivariate study of the natural variation for grapevine bunch compactness. Aust J Grape Wine Res. 2015;21:277–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12121 . López-Miranda S, Yuste J. Influence of flowers per cluster, fruit-set and berry weight on cluster weight in Verdejo grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L). OENO One. 2004;38:41–7. https://doi.org/10.20870/OENO-ONE.2004.38.1.937 . Ibáñez J, Baroja E, Grimplet J, Ibáñez S. Cultivated Grapevine Displays a Great Diversity for Reproductive Performance Variables. Crop Breed Genet Genom. 2019;2. https://doi.org/10.20900/CBGG20200003 . Keller M, Scheele-Baldinger R, Ferguson JC, Tarara JM, Mills LJ. Inflorescence temperature influences fruit set, phenology, and sink strength of Cabernet Sauvignon grape berries. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:864892. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPLS.2022.864892/FULL . Pagay V, Collins C. Effects of timing and intensity of elevated temperatures on reproductive development of field-grown Shiraz grapevines. OENO One. 2017;51:409–21. https://doi.org/10.20870/OENO-ONE.2017.51.4.1066 . Correa J, Mamani M, Muñoz-Espinoza C, Laborie D, Muñoz C, Pinto M, et al. Heritability and identification of QTLs and underlying candidate genes associated with the architecture of the grapevine cluster (Vitis vinifera L). Theor Appl Genet. 2014;127:1143–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-014-2286-y . Sharma S, Munoz J, Torres-Lomas E, Lin J, Banayad H, Lupo Y et al. Leveraging foundation models to dissect the genetic basis of cluster compactness and yield in grapevine. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.02.646891 Tello J, Torres-Pérez R, Grimplet J, Ibáñez J. Association analysis of grapevine bunch traits using a comprehensive approach. Theor Appl Genet. 2016;129:227–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2623-9 . Meneses M, Muñoz-Espinoza C, Reyes-Impellizzeri S, Salazar E, Meneses C, Herzog K, et al. Characterization of Bunch Compactness in a Diverse Collection of Vitis vinifera L. Genotypes Enriched in Table Grape Cultivars Reveals New Candidate Genes Associated with Berry Number. Plants. 2025;14. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14091308 . Richter R, Gabriel D, Rist F, Töpfer R, Zyprian E. Identification of co-located QTLs and genomic regions affecting grapevine cluster architecture. Theor Appl Genet. 2019;132:1159–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-018-3269-1 . Tian S, Ge J, Ai G, Jiang J, Liu Q, Chen X, et al. A 2.09 Mb fragment translocation on chromosome 6 causes abnormalities during meiosis and leads to less seed watermelon. Hortic Res. 2021;8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-021-00687-9 . Baby T, Gilliham M, Tyerman SD, Collins C. Differential fruitset between grapevine cultivars is related to differences in pollen viability and amine concentration in flowers. Aust J Grape Wine Res. 2016;22:149–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/AJGW.12191 . Motomura K, Arae T, Araki-Uramoto H, Suzuki Y, Takeuchi H, Suzuki T, et al. AtNOT1 Is a Novel Regulator of Gene Expression during Pollen Development. Plant Cell Physiol. 2020;61:712–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/PCP/PCZ235 . Tello J, Royo C, Baroja E, García-Escudero E, Martínez-Zapater JM, Carbonell-Bejerano P. Reduced gamete viability associated to somatic genome rearrangements increases fruit set sensitivity to the environment in Tempranillo Blanco grapevine cultivar. Sci Hortic. 2021;290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110497 . Alva O, Roa-Roco RN, Pérez-Díaz R, Yánez M, Tapia J, Moreno Y, et al. Pollen Morphology and Boron Concentration in Floral Tissues as Factors Triggering Natural and GA-Induced Parthenocarpic Fruit Development in Grapevine. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0139503. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0139503 . Costantini L, Moreno-Sanz P, Nwafor CC, Lorenzi S, Marrano A, Cristofolini F, et al. Somatic variants for seed and fruit set in grapevine. BMC Plant Biol. 2021;21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-021-02865-2 . Fernandez L, Torregrosa L, Segura V, Bouquet A, Martinez-Zapater JM. Transposon-induced gene activation as a mechanism generating cluster shape somatic variation in grapevine. Plant J. 2010;61:545–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-313X.2009.04090.X . Rossmann S, Richter R, Sun H, Schneeberger K, Töpfer R, Zyprian E, et al. Mutations in the miR396 binding site of the growth-regulating factor gene VvGRF4 modulate inflorescence architecture in grapevine. Plant J. 2020;101:1234–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.14588 . Carbonell-Bejerano P, Royo C, Torres-Pérez R, Grimplet J, Fernandez L, Franco-Zorrilla JM, et al. Catastrophic unbalanced genome rearrangements cause somatic loss of berry color in grapevine. Plant Physiol. 2017;175:786–801. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.00715 . Eguía P, Valle Sánchez D, Merchán M, Viveros Provedo INTRODUCCIÓNDS. Selección clonal de tempranillo (1998–2006). Objetivo: aumentar la calidad mediante la selección de clones de menor peso de racimo y baya; 2007. Grimplet J, Tello J, Laguna N, Ibáñez J. Differences in flower transcriptome between grapevine clones are related to their cluster compactness, fruitfulness, and berry size. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:632. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPLS.2017.00632/FULL . Tello J, Montemayor MI, Forneck A, Ibáñez J. A new image-based tool for the high throughput phenotyping of pollen viability: Evaluation of inter- and intra-cultivar diversity in grapevine. Plant Methods. 2018;14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-017-0267-2 . Grimplet J, Ibáñez S, Baroja E, Tello J, Ibáñez J. Phenotypic, hormonal, and genomic variation among vitis vinifera clones with different cluster compactness and reproductive performance. Front Plant Sci. 2019;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01917 . Coombe BG. Adoption of a system for identifying grapevine growth stages. 1995. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: An open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9:676–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019 . OIV. 2nd Edition of the OIV descriptor list for grape varieties and vitis species. 2007. Tello J, Todić S, Ferradás Y, Nikolic M, Sabovljević A, Ivanišević D, et al. The genetic characterization of grapevines prospected in old Serbian vineyards reveals multiple relationships between traditional varieties of the Balkans. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1391679 . Battilana J, Lorenzi S, Moreira FM, Moreno-Sanz P, Failla O, Emanuelli F, et al. Linkage mapping and molecular diversity at the flower sex locus in wild and cultivated grapevine reveal a prominent ssr haplotype in hermaphrodite plants. Mol Biotechnol. 2013;54:1031–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-013-9657-5 . De Coster W, Rademakers R. NanoPack2: population-scale evaluation of long-read sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2023;39. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btad311 . Shen W, Le S, Li Y, Hu F, SeqKit. A cross-platform and ultrafast toolkit for FASTA/Q file manipulation. PLoS ONE. 2016;11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163962 . Carbonell-Bejerano P, Bezrukov I, Alañón-Sánchez N, Royo C, Ferradas Y, Lanz C et al. Clonal improvement-associated somatic mutations identified from diploid genome assembly in Tempranillo grapevine cultivar. 2021. Ibáñez J, Muñoz-Organero G, Hasna Zinelabidine L, Teresa de Andrés M, Cabello F, Martínez-Zapater JM. Genetic Origin of the Grapevine Cultivar Tempranillo. Am J Enol Vitic. 2012;63:549–53. https://doi.org/10.5344/AJEV.2012.12012 . Li H. Minimap2: Pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:3094–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191 . Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:2078–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 . Sedlazeck FJ, Rescheneder P, Smolka M, Fang H, Nattestad M, Von Haeseler A, et al. Accurate detection of complex structural variations using single-molecule sequencing. Nat Methods. 2018;15:461–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-018-0001-7 . Jeffares DC, Jolly C, Hoti M, Speed D, Shaw L, Rallis C, et al. Transient structural variations have strong effects on quantitative traits and reproductive isolation in fission yeast. Nat Commun. 2017;8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14061 . Robinson JT, Thorvaldsdóttir H, Wenger AM, Zehir A, Mesirov JP. Variant review with the integrative genomics viewer. Cancer Res. 2017;77:e31–4. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0337 . Koressaar T, Remm M. Enhancements and modifications of primer design program Primer3. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:1289–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm091 . Untergasser A, Cutcutache I, Koressaar T, Ye J, Faircloth BC, Remm M, et al. Primer3-new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks596 . Altschup SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic Local Alignment Search Tool. 1990. Posit team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software. Boston, MA: PBC; 2024. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Second Edition. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 Kassambara A, ggpubr. ggplot2 Based Publication Ready Plots [R package ggpubr version 0.6.1]. CRAN: Contributed Packages. 2025. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.PACKAGE.GGPUBR Kowalczyk BA, Bieniasz M, Kostecka-Gugała A. Flowering Biology of Selected Hybrid Grape Cultivars under Temperate Climate Conditions. Agriculture 2022, Vol 12, Page 655. 2022;12:655. https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRICULTURE12050655 Stout AB. Seedlessness in Grapes. New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin. Geneva, NY: New York State Agricultural Experiment Station; 1936. p. 68. Tello J, Carbonell-Bejerano P, Torres-Pérez R, Ferradás Y, Royo C, Portu J, et al. Genome resequencing and custom genotyping elucidates the origin and dissemination history of an emblematic grapevine cultivar. ‘Tempranillo Tinto ’ Hortic Res. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhaf237 . De Storme N, Mason A. Plant speciation through chromosome instability and ploidy change: Cellular mechanisms, molecular factors and evolutionary relevance. Curr Plant Biology. 2014;1:10–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpb.2014.09.002 . Gaeta RT, Pires JC, Iniguez-Luy F, Leon E, Osborn TC. Genomic changes in resynthesized Brassica napus and their effect on gene expression and phenotype. Plant Cell. 2007;19:3403–17. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.107.054346 . Navarro-Payá D, Santiago A, Orduña L, Zhang C, Amato A, D’Inca E, et al. The Grape Gene Reference Catalogue as a Standard Resource for Gene Selection and Genetic Improvement. Front Plant Sci. 2022;12:803977. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPLS.2021.803977/BIBTEX . Ilc T, Arista G, Tavares R, Navrot N, Duchêne E, Velt A, et al. Annotation, classification, genomic organization and expression of the Vitis vinifera CYPome. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0199902. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0199902 . Massonnet M, Cochetel N, Minio A, Vondras AM, Lin J, Muyle A, et al. The genetic basis of sex determination in grapes. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16700-z . Marguerit E, Boury C, Manicki A, Donnart M, Butterlin G, Némorin A, et al. Genetic dissection of sex determinism, inflorescence morphology and downy mildew resistance in grapevine. Theor Appl Genet. 2009;118:1261–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00122-009-0979-4/TABLES/6 . Jiang Y, Lahlali R, Karunakaran C, Warkentin TD, Davis AR, Bueckert RA. Pollen, ovules, and pollination in pea: Success, failure, and resilience in heat. Plant Cell Environ. 2019;42:354–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/PCE.13427 . Barros JRA, dos Santos TC, Silva EGF, da Silva WO, Guimarães MJM, Angelotti F. Pollen Viability, and the Photosynthetic and Enzymatic Responses of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp., Fabaceae) in the Face of Rising Air Temperature: A Problem for Food Safety. Agronomy 2024, Vol 14, Page 463. 2024;14:463. https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRONOMY14030463 Said M, Gaál E, Farkas A, Molnár I, Bartoš J, Doležel J, et al. Gametocidal genes: from a discovery to the application in wheat breeding. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1396553. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPLS.2024.1396553/XML . Lee CH, Hawker NP, Peters JR, Lonhienne TGA, Gursanscky NR, Matthew L, et al. DEFECTIVE EMBRYO AND MERISTEMS genes are required for cell division and gamete viability in Arabidopsis. PLoS Genet. 2021;17:e1009561. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PGEN.1009561 . Curtis MJ, Belcram K, Bollmann SR, Tominey CM, Hoffman PD, Mercier R, et al. Reciprocal chromosome translocation associated with TDNA-insertion mutation in Arabidopsis: genetic and cytological analyses of consequences for gametophyte development and for construction of doubly mutant lines. Planta. 2008;229:731. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00425-008-0868-0 . Xie Z, Zheng H, Cheng S, Yu H, Yu X, Wang C, et al. Chromosomal translocations are a significant driver of hybrid sterility in rice. Genetics. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1093/GENETICS/IYAF126 . Curtis MJ, Belcram K, Bollmann SR, Tominey CM, Hoffman PD, Mercier R, et al. Reciprocal chromosome translocation associated with TDNA-insertion mutation in Arabidopsis: Genetic and cytological analyses of consequences for gametophyte development and for construction of doubly mutant lines. Planta. 2009;229:731–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-008-0868-0 . McGregor CE, Waters V. Pollen Viability of F1 Hybrids between Watermelon Cultivars and Disease-resistant. Infraspecific Crop Wild Relatives HortScience. 2013;48:1428–32. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.48.12.1428 . Clark KA, Krysan PJ. Chromosomal translocations are a common phenomenon in Arabidopsis thaliana T-DNA insertion lines. Plant J. 2010;64:990–1001. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04386.x . Howarth KD, Pole JCM, Beavis JC, Batty EM, Newman S, Bignell GR, et al. Large duplications at reciprocal translocation breakpoints that might be the counterpart of large deletions and could arise from stalled replication bubbles. Genome Res. 2011;21:525–34. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.114116.110 . Demchenko Y, Roschke A, Chen WD, Asmann Y, Bergsagel PL, Kuehl WM. Frequent occurrence of large duplications at reciprocal genomic rearrangement breakpoints in multiple myeloma and other tumors. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:8189–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw527 . Burssed B, Zamariolli M, Bellucco FT, Melaragno MI. Mechanisms of structural chromosomal rearrangement formation. Mol Cytogenet. 2022;15:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13039-022-00600-6 . Maestri S, Gambino G, Lopatriello G, Minio A, Perrone I, Cosentino E, et al. Nebbiolo’ genome assembly allows surveying the occurrence and functional implications of genomic structural variations in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L). BMC Genomics. 2022;23:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12864-022-08389-9/FIGURES/3 . Pei MS, Liu HN, Wei TL, Yu YH, Guo DL. Detection and characterization of genome-wide genetic variation associated with the early-ripening phenotype of grape mutants. Sci Hortic. 2021;285:110195. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCIENTA.2021.110195 . Ritter EJ, Cousins P, Quigley M, Kile A, Kenchanmane Raju SK, Chitwood DH, et al. From buds to shoots: insights into grapevine development from the Witch’s Broom bud sport. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24:283. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12870-024-04992-Y . Carrier G, Le Cunff L, Dereeper A, Legrand D, Sabot F, Bouchez O, et al. Transposable Elements Are a Major Cause of Somatic Polymorphism in Vitis vinifera L. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e32973. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0032973 . Vondras AM, Minio A, Blanco-Ulate B, Figueroa-Balderas R, Penn MA, Zhou Y, et al. The genomic diversification of grapevine clones. BMC Genomics. 2019;20:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12864-019-6211-2/FIGURES/6 . Sichel V, Sarah G, Girollet N, Laucou V, Roux C, Roques M, et al. Chimeras in Merlot grapevine revealed by phased assembly. BMC Genomics. 2023;24:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12864-023-09453-8/FIGURES/5 . Goel M, Campoy JA, Krause K, Baus LC, Sahu A, Sun H, et al. The vast majority of somatic mutations in plants are layer-specific. Genome Biol. 2024;25:194. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13059-024-03337-0 . Xian W, Carbonell-Bejerano P, Rabanal FA, Bezrukov I, Reymond P, Weigel D. Minimizing detection bias of somatic mutations in a highly heterozygous oak genome. G3: Genes |. Genomes | Genet. 2025;15:jkaf143. https://doi.org/10.1093/G3JOURNAL/JKAF143 . Zhou Y, Minio A, Massonnet M, Solares E, Lv Y, Beridze T, et al. The population genetics of structural variants in grapevine domestication. Nat Plants. 2019;5:965–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0507-8 . Xiao H, Wang Y, Liu W, Shi X, Huang S, Cao S, et al. Impacts of reproductive systems on grapevine genome and breeding. Nat Commun. 2025;16:2031. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41467-025-56817-7 . Liu Z, Wang N, Su Y, Long Q, Peng Y, Shangguan L, et al. Grapevine pangenome facilitates trait genetics and genomic breeding. Nat Genet. 2024;56:2804–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41588-024-01967-5 . Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. D.W. holds equity in Computomics, which advises plant breeders. DW previously consulted for KWS SE, a globally active plant breeder and seed producer. All other authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files SupplementaryTablesAlanonSanchezetal.xlsx Supplementary Table S1. Primer sequences. Supplementary Table S2. PCR primer combinations and expected amplicon sizes. Supplementary Table S3. Long-read whole-genome sequencing summary. Supplementary Table S4. Read mapping depth supporting somatic duplications in VP11. Supplementary Table S5. Segregation of structural variation breakpoints and reproductive-related phenotypes in VP11 and VP11 S 1 progeny. Supplementary Table S6. Lack of segregation of structural variation breakpoints and segregation of reproductive-related phenotypes in RJ51 and RJ51 S 1 progeny. Supplementary Table S7. SSR marker segregation in the VP11 S 1 population. Supplementary Table S8. Analysis of co-segregation between chromosomes 1 and 3 by PCR genotyping in the RJ51 S 1 population. Supplementary Table S9. Analysis of co-segregation between chromosomes 1 and 3 by PCR genotyping in the VP11 S 1 individuals carrying the Tra1-3 translocation. Supplementary Table S10. SSR marker segregation in the RJ51 S 1 population. SupplementaryFiguresAlanonSanchezetal20250919.pdf Supplementary Figure S1. IGV visualization of ONT read alignments supporting Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 interspersed duplications specific to VP11 clone. Supplementary Figure S2. Uncropped images of the DNA electrophoresis gels used for molecular validation of structural variants. Supplementary Figure S3. Validation of Tra1-3 phasing by genotyping a 5.8 kb insertion polymorphism at the Tra1-3 breakpoint region in chromosome 3. Supplementary Figure S4. Design of PCR-based analysis of co-segregation between chromosome 1 and 3 proximal and distal segments resulting from Tra1-3 translocation. Supplementary Figure S5. Co-segregation analysis between the presence or absence of VP11 structural variation events and reproductive-related phenotypes in VP11 self-cross progeny. Supplementary Figure S6. Effect of flower sex type on bunch compactness in VP11 and RJ51 self-cross populations. SupplementaryDataset1AlanonSanchezetal.docx Additional Dataset 1. Sanger sequences of VP11 breakpoint join amplicons. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Plant Biology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 24 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 10 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 08 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 23 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 23 Sep, 2025 Editor invited by journal 23 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 22 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 21 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7594260","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":524627065,"identity":"3cdc5335-995f-42f6-a64d-259d54750c32","order_by":0,"name":"Noelia Alañón-Sánchez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (ICVV; CSIC, Universidad de La Rioja)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Noelia","middleName":"","lastName":"Alañón-Sánchez","suffix":""},{"id":524627066,"identity":"8300bfa9-2a65-43a7-860c-e00d2f925d25","order_by":1,"name":"Yolanda Ferradás","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (ICVV; CSIC, Universidad de La Rioja)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yolanda","middleName":"","lastName":"Ferradás","suffix":""},{"id":524627067,"identity":"0d9d1051-8ca4-45d3-b486-85d05ca913c4","order_by":2,"name":"Ilja Bezrukov","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ilja","middleName":"","lastName":"Bezrukov","suffix":""},{"id":524627068,"identity":"ca69b447-5345-4f74-bd3a-099dedbfc774","order_by":3,"name":"Detlef Weigel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Detlef","middleName":"","lastName":"Weigel","suffix":""},{"id":524627069,"identity":"5539ec3b-219d-4a4a-bb40-f9e1d8a781d2","order_by":4,"name":"Pablo Carbonell-Bejerano","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (ICVV; CSIC, Universidad de La Rioja)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pablo","middleName":"","lastName":"Carbonell-Bejerano","suffix":""},{"id":524627070,"identity":"206bc885-90a1-48ac-9f9d-20d1aaf3ce77","order_by":5,"name":"Javier Ibáñez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (ICVV; CSIC, Universidad de La Rioja)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Javier","middleName":"","lastName":"Ibáñez","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-11 18:08:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7594260/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7594260/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-026-08212-7","type":"published","date":"2026-01-27T15:58:57+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92855314,"identity":"20659bf9-02b6-45d9-977e-a471a3f47331","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":2695228,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AlanonSanchezVP11Manuscript20250921.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/ac0b1dbfa722d89e3e50863d.docx"},{"id":92855310,"identity":"1ea072d9-166c-4e9a-83d1-660ac56f8548","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8961,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"272367794fbf4175877931f312a4905c.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/85d606ed50ae2ecb05ad69e9.json"},{"id":92855313,"identity":"185039ba-7420-43be-ae4a-b5c994ae50a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":531241,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryDataset1AlanonSanchezetal.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/324368e2feb80b29642f23f9.docx"},{"id":92855319,"identity":"b2f4eaca-2012-4fb4-99f2-23ed689c0a8f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"pdf","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3213487,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFiguresAlanonSanchezetal20250919.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/61ea6bf4337339dc13a1ab52.pdf"},{"id":92856326,"identity":"49c0e49a-ee17-4afa-aaf3-24a8881af455","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:36:16","extension":"xlsx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":83166,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTablesAlanonSanchezetal.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/499587e1ae9eaa8bfa0333c4.xlsx"},{"id":92856145,"identity":"ba87b38d-c300-478a-869f-12afc84973fa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:28:16","extension":"xml","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":232411,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"272367794fbf4175877931f312a4905c1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/212ca7d410592b9117c9e843.xml"},{"id":92855325,"identity":"8fa5da1e-9d55-4cf4-96d0-478996064700","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":633722,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/4cb27a216be8265803852930.png"},{"id":92856150,"identity":"198e792c-6826-47a9-8f10-09e42eff488d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:28:16","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":475321,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/0ef1cdffd255edb5e84aa930.png"},{"id":92856148,"identity":"dc337864-b8cb-4a8b-a39d-5e5fe1a9a23c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:28:16","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":685871,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/8fce7ce2ad77c4edcf289a76.png"},{"id":92855322,"identity":"a1f7b431-51a0-47de-8c3d-c4050062ad04","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":102188,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/0fced2da69ab4b5c6e0ed389.png"},{"id":92855323,"identity":"8196a2c9-78a1-4d4f-8f64-916f3dab24b0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":93431,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/8effc1d03071910e63acb11e.png"},{"id":92855317,"identity":"489448b4-1029-40b1-a4ff-a940c8496224","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":80826,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/b5e5eb669b175b1faff479d4.png"},{"id":92855326,"identity":"8c077713-8156-44d6-b3ac-5ef68e39a208","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":111118,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/bc715b6f6515869ff47f7587.png"},{"id":92856149,"identity":"c48a70c9-18e9-4b28-99f8-01459b7b2d2e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:28:16","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":21981,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/de2b5c400d6a29e6f202ec27.png"},{"id":92855321,"identity":"2c0b062c-208e-4d9b-80eb-dcfd7dd72e10","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"xml","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":230130,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"272367794fbf4175877931f312a4905c1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/cb323cb8040bdaf5b4547f2e.xml"},{"id":92855327,"identity":"647d26b6-cd7c-4d3f-9558-06b685c8fac0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"html","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":244301,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/b148b437810dfb8ea466a683.html"},{"id":92855309,"identity":"95237c8f-6a67-412b-9917-02e792e6662c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":633722,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhenotypic comparison of VP11 (loose bunch) and RJ51 (compact bunch) ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ clones. \u003c/strong\u003eA) Images of characteristic VP11 and RJ51 bunches at maturity.\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eB) Bunch compactness ratings visually estimated according to the OIV descriptor 204. C) Alexander staining of pollen grains. Viable pollen grains are dark blue-stained and non-viable are cyan-stained. D) Pollen viability quantification. Viability was analyzed along three years using three replicates of approximately 1000 pollen grains each on each genotype and year. E) Seed number per berry. Ten berries per bunch were collected to estimate seed number. For bunch compactness and seed number quantification, bunches were collected at maturity, with three bunch replicates per plant in at least 10 plants per genotype for two consecutive years. In box plots, the horizontal black line represents the sample median value, the colored interval indicates the interquartile range showing the middle 50% of scores, and the bars represent lower and upper quartiles. T-tests were used to determine statistical differences between clones.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/2c95307482db5d8bb4d38501.png"},{"id":92855311,"identity":"75510104-520e-45bd-9ca3-30620a40425d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":475321,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIGV visualization of ONT read alignments supporting Tra1-3 structural variation event specific to VP11 clone. \u003c/strong\u003eReads from VP11 and RJ51 clones aligned to the diploid genome assembly of TT cultivar are shown. Soft-clipped ONT reads specific to the VP11 clone support the precise positions of the breakpoints. The structural variation Tra1-3 corresponds to a balanced constitutional reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 1-‘Benedicto’ haplotype and 3-‘Albillo Mayor’ haplotype, with duplications flanking both breakpoint ends. Duplicated fragments are supported by increased mapping depth in VP11, but not in RJ51, as shown in the upper IGV coverage panel. Annotated genes and transposable elements are represented as blue rectangles in the lower section of the image.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/06fba3c3edd2fcd0ab08a119.png"},{"id":92855312,"identity":"ed0ac289-a946-4d90-b70a-1573709faffc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:16","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":685871,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhased somatic inter-chromosomal structural variation detected in VP11 and PCR validation. \u003c/strong\u003eSchematic representation the rearranged chromosomes in VP11 and normal chromosomes in RJ51 for A) the translocation Tra1-3, B) the duplication Dup11to7, and C) the duplication Dup17to8. These structural variation events specific to the VP11 clone were inferred from breakpoint detection using Sniffles tool on ONT genome sequencing reads aligned to the ‘Tempranillo Tinto’ diploid genome assembly. Chromosome numbers and haplotypes (A, ‘Albillo Mayor’; B, ‘Benedicto’; chr, chromosome) are shown on the left for both the wild-type configuration (clone RJ51) and the heterozygous configuration containing the SVs (clone VP11). Lower case letters within the chromosomes indicate different fragments, inversions are denoted by inverted labels. Encircled numbers represent PCR primer positions, which are also inverted if located within inverted fragments. D) Electrophoresis gel of PCR amplicons generated using primer combinations designed to validate the presence of structural variation breakpoints and the corresponding ancestral chromosomes without breakpoints in VP11 and RJ51 clones. Blank: PCR negative control (no template). The uncropped images of the DNA electrophoresis gels shown in Fig. 3C are presented in Fig. S2A.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/2ad8de1144f6994891eaca6a.png"},{"id":92855332,"identity":"a0b36af3-9f4d-40c8-a69a-f6f289514fe1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:22","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":102188,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCo-segregation analysis between the presence or absence of Tra1-3 and reproductive phenotypes in VP11 self-cross progeny.\u003c/strong\u003e A) Co-segregation analysis of pollen viability with VP11 SV events in VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny and comparison to average values in VP11 and RJ51 clones, as well as to RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny.\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eB) Comparison between VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals inheriting and lacking Tra1-3 for the phenotypes of B) seed number per berry and C) bunch compactness. For both traits, bunches were collected at maturity, with three bunch replicates per plant. For the S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progenies, data represents single individuals per genotype. In contrast, for the parental clones VP11 and RJ51, at least 10 plants per clone were analyzed, ideally collecting three bunches per plant. In all box plots, the horizontal black line indicates the median value, the colored box indicates the interquartile range (middle 50% of values), and the bars represent lower and upper quartiles. Statistical differences between groups were assessed using t-tests.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/b2cb6b885e991f88688fd93d.png"},{"id":101690631,"identity":"a1dd6570-ec5d-4422-b884-abce9d7ad4c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-02 16:06:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3594526,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/b5bec21a-abef-4320-aef2-bc7ed6ca4a4b.pdf"},{"id":92855330,"identity":"aea968d4-d73c-42de-a687-651c9ed816f5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:17","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":83166,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S1. Primer sequences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S2. PCR primer combinations and expected amplicon sizes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S3. Long-read whole-genome sequencing summary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S4. Read mapping depth supporting somatic duplications in VP11.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S5. Segregation of structural variation breakpoints and reproductive-related phenotypes in VP11 and VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S6. Lack of segregation of structural variation breakpoints and segregation of reproductive-related phenotypes in RJ51 and RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S7. SSR marker segregation in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S8. Analysis of co-segregation between chromosomes 1 and 3 by PCR genotyping in the RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S9. Analysis of co-segregation between chromosomes 1 and 3 by PCR genotyping in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals carrying the Tra1-3 translocation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Table S10. SSR marker segregation in the RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTablesAlanonSanchezetal.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/2ffb462340df32738adf1d33.xlsx"},{"id":92855333,"identity":"46e06ca9-db5e-41c6-a42f-79fd476762fe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:20:23","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":3213487,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Figure S1. IGV visualization of ONT read alignments supporting Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 interspersed duplications specific to VP11 clone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Figure S2. Uncropped images of the DNA electrophoresis gels used for molecular validation of structural variants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Figure S3. Validation of Tra1-3 phasing by genotyping a 5.8 kb insertion polymorphism at the Tra1-3 breakpoint region in chromosome 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Figure S4. Design of PCR-based analysis of co-segregation between chromosome 1 and 3 proximal and distal segments resulting from Tra1-3 translocation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Figure S5. Co-segregation analysis between the presence or absence of VP11 structural variation events and reproductive-related phenotypes in VP11 self-cross progeny.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Figure S6. Effect of flower sex type on bunch compactness in VP11 and RJ51 self-cross populations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFiguresAlanonSanchezetal20250919.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/d7eaceee486b41f124a585f8.pdf"},{"id":92856147,"identity":"b8d62804-73de-440c-addb-44ee7858cbf6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 11:28:16","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":531241,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAdditional Dataset 1. Sanger sequences of VP11 breakpoint join amplicons.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryDataset1AlanonSanchezetal.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7594260/v1/8bb6a9ed504fb0d3b0c1497d.docx"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. D.W. holds equity in Computomics, which advises plant breeders. DW previously consulted for KWS SE, a globally active plant breeder and seed producer. All other authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"A complex reciprocal translocation underlies reduced bunch compactness in a grapevine somatic variant","fulltext":[{"header":"BACKGROUND","content":"\u003cp\u003eGrapevine (\u003cem\u003eVitis vinifera L.\u003c/em\u003e) is one of the most important fruit crops, covering more than 7.3\u0026nbsp;million hectares worldwide [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Grapevine is the foremost basis of winemaking but also of table grapes, raisins and juices. Grapevine cultivars are vegetatively propagated to maintain their varietal attributes, and many cultivars have been cultivated for centuries. Throughout their history of cultivation, spontaneous somatic mutations have occurred, and these have been maintained in specific clonal lines during cycles of vegetative multiplication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Some of the associated phenotypes improve traits of interest, offering opportunities for the improvement of traditional grape cultivars [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR4\" citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Unlike genetic crosses, which in highly heterozygous organisms like grapevine cultivars disrupt varietal identity, somatic variants allow variety improvement while preserving the agronomic and oenological characteristics of elite cultivars [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Somatic variants affecting quantitative traits, like bunch compactness, phenology or berry ripening parameters, can be fixed in new clones of the same cultivar for intra-varietal improvement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Somatic variants that change qualitative traits such as berry color are considered new cultivars, such as the \u0026lsquo;Pinot Blanc\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;Garnacha Blanca\u0026rsquo; white varietals that derive from \u0026lsquo;Pinot Noir\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;Garnacha Tinta\u0026rsquo; red cultivars [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBunch compactness, a trait that refers to the density and spatial arrangement of berries within a grape bunch [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], is agronomically important because it directly affects disease susceptibility and fruit quality. Compact bunches are more susceptible to pests and fungal diseases such as bunch rot caused by \u003cem\u003eBotrytis\u003c/em\u003e cinerea [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. In addition, berry ripening within compact bunches is more uneven due to the establishment of micro-environment variations between covered inner and exposed outer berries, affecting the uniformity of berry composition at harvest and wine quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. On the other hand, very loose bunches, in addition to resulting in lower yield, may be less favorable for mechanical harvesting or less preferred by consumers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariation in grapevine bunch compactness mainly depends on rachis architecture, berry size and berry number per bunch, which together determine how tightly the berries are packed within the bunch [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. The density of berries in the grapevine bunch is critically determined by the number of flowers per inflorescence and the fraction of flowers that become fruits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], and both are genotype-dependent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Fruit set rate is in turn affected by climatic conditions, the nutritional status of the plant, as well as by developmental factors including gamete viability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. In line with the different developmental processes involved, the genetic determination of bunch compactness is complex and governed by multiple loci [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR19 CR20 CR21\" citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe viability of male and female gametes in plants (pollen and ovule viability) plays a critical role in their reproductive success, influencing key outcomes such as fertilization efficiency, seed development, and fruit set. Reduced viability of male gametes is commonly associated with a concomitant decline in female fertility [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR24\" citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. In various grapevine cultivars and clonal variants, limited pollen viability has often been associated with reduced fruit setting and looser bunches [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR27\" citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven the strong influence of bunch compactness on fruit quality and susceptibility to disease, identifying and selecting naturally occurring somatic variants with looser bunches has become a promising strategy for improving cultivars with compact bunches, such as \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Tinto\u0026rsquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite its potential relevance, the developmental and genetic basis of grapevine somatic variants in bunch compactness is known in only a few cases. The RRM somatic variant of the \u0026lsquo;Carignan\u0026rsquo; cultivar develops larger and looser bunches due to an increased inflorescence rachis branching and growth, which is associated with a transposable element (TE) insertion that causes overexpression of a homolog of an important plant architecture regulator of the florigen family, the \u003cem\u003eTFL1A\u003c/em\u003e gene [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, mutations that impair miR396 regulation of \u003cem\u003eGRF4\u003c/em\u003e, a homolog of important growth regulators in many plants, increase \u003cem\u003eGRF4\u003c/em\u003e expression, resulting in elongated berry pedicels and ultimately looser bunches in clones of \u0026rsquo;Pinot Noir\u0026rsquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Blanco\u0026rsquo;, a white-berried somatic variant of the \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Tinto\u0026rsquo; cultivar, carries large somatic deletions and translocations causing sub-haploid gamete lethality, which results in reduced fruit set rate and looser bunches [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe VP11 commercial clone of \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Tinto\u0026rsquo; was developed from a variant plant selected because of its loose bunch habitat favorable for quality wine production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. The development of loose bunches in VP11 is not related to variation in the bunch rachis architecture, but to reduced fruit and seed set and to much lower pollen viability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. While gene expression is clearly affected in VP11 developing flowers, an RNA-seq study did not identify clear candidate genes that might be specifically defective in this clone [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. The reduced pollen viability and fruit set in VP11 resemble the phenotypes associated with the somatic loss of red fruit color in \u0026rsquo;Tempranillo Blanco\u0026rsquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], suggesting that as in \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Blanco\u0026rsquo;, genome rearrangements might underlie the loose bunch phenotype of VP11.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo improve our understanding of the developmental and molecular mechanisms leading to variation in bunch compactness in grapevine, we investigated the genome of VP11. A phased genome structural variant (SV) calling using long-read sequencing with Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) detected three inter-chromosomal somatic SV events in VP11. Phenotype and SV segregation studies in a self-cross S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny of VP11 pinpointed one of the somatic SVs as causal for reduced gamete viability. Our findings indicate that heterozygous reciprocal translocations leading to meiosis pairing abnormalities can affect grapevine bunch architecture by their effects on gamete viability and ultimately on the rate of fruit set.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePlant material\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eV. vinifera\u003c/em\u003e cv. \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Tinto\u0026rsquo; (TT) clone VP11 was registered in 2006 by the commercial grapevine nursery Viveros Provedo S.A. (VP). The clone was developed by propagation of an old vine (70\u0026ndash;80 years old) with loose bunches identified in 2000 in a vineyard located at Elvillar (\u0026Aacute;lava, Spain). The TT commercial clone RJ51, which was certified in 1990 by the public program of the Regional Government of La Rioja, was used as a control, given that it is one of the most cultivated TT clones in the Rioja DOCa appellation and that it has the type of compact bunches characteristic of TT cultivar. Young leaves of VP11 were collected from a plot of the VP nursery (Varea, La Rioja, Spain, 42.4649007,-2.3940206) as well as from the Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (ICVV) grapevine collection at Finca La Grajera (Logro\u0026ntilde;o, La Rioja, Spain, 42.437448, -2.519582). These VP11 plots correspond, respectively, to two and three cycles of vegetative propagation and grafting from the originally prospected mutant plant. The RJ51 samples were collected from the same ICVV plot. All TT plants had been grafted on Richter 110 rootstocks, were trellised in a double cordon Royat system, and their cultivation was overall similar, following standard practices in the region for TT. Self-cross progenies (S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) of VP11 and RJ51 were obtained in 2013 from bagged inflorescences in the VP plot. The 34 individuals of the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e as well as the 150 individuals of the RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e were self-rooted, grown in pots and planted in the field in 2017 in the ICVV experimental plot at Finca Valdeg\u0026oacute;n (Agoncillo, La Rioja, Spain, 42.465017, -2.294807). All S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e plants were trained in a single cordon system, with a spacing of 2.6 m between rows and 45 cm between consecutive plants in a row.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhenotyping\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePollen viability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first inflorescence from randomly selected shoots of three plants of the parental clones, all 34 VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals and ten RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals were sampled early in the morning at full bloom stage. Inflorescences from three VP11 and RJ51 plants, from all flowering individuals of the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny, and from ten flowering individuals of RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny were collected in years 2021, 2022 and 2023, at a time when 50% of flower caps had fallen (E-L 23 stage, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]). Inflorescences were maintained at room temperature until analyzed on the same day in the laboratory. Closed flowers (from inflorescences with recently opened flowers) with erect stamen filaments and yellow anthers from the top, central and bottom sections of the inflorescence were collected and stained following with a modified Alexander\u0026rsquo;s stain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], which differentiates between non-viable and viable grains depending on the integrity of the pollen cytoplasm. Five flowers from these three sections were gathered and immersed in 40 \u0026micro;L of staining solution and shaken vigorously for 15 secs to facilitate pollen grains release from the anthers. Afterwards, 20 \u0026micro;L of the solution were transferred onto a pre-heated microscope slide and examined under a Zeiss SteREO Discovery V20 stereo microscope. Photographs of stained pollen grains were obtained with a Zeiss AxioCam camera. Image contrast and saturation were adjusted with AxioVision software (v. 4.8, Zeiss) to facilitate the differentiation between viable (dark blue) and non-viable (light blue) pollen grains. For each sample, three replicates were prepared from independent staining of different flowers, counting an average of about 1,000 pollen grains in each one. Images were processed using the \u003cem\u003e'Pollen Counter'\u003c/em\u003e macro [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] in the Fiji (ImageJ) software [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSeed number per berry\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo determine the number of seeds per berry, three bunches per individual were harvested at maturity from at least 10 parental VP11 and RJ51 plants, as well as from all S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals with bunches in VP11 self-progeny and at least as many S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals in the RJ51 self-cross progeny in two consecutive years (2022 and 2023). From each bunch, ten berries were collected from various regions of a bunch (two berries from the top left, and two from the top right sides, two from the middle external and two from the middle internal faces, and two from the bottom position of the bunch). Grapes were opened using a scalpel. The number of seeds was counted and normalized by the sample size (10 berries) to estimate seed number per berry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBunch compactness\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt harvest time in the years 2022 and 2023, bunch compactness was assessed by eye in ten VP11 and RJ51 plants as well as in all VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals producing bunches, and the same number of RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals. Bunch compactness was graded by at least two trained inspectors according to the OIV 204 descriptor, which uses an odd-numbered scale with five different phenotype classes from 1 (very loose) to 9 (very compact) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFlower sex type\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFlower sex was visually determined in 2021, 2022 and 2023 depending on the development of male and female sexual organs according to the OIV 151 descriptor [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] in all inflorescences of ten VP11 and RJ51 plants as well as all VP11 and RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progenies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGenomic DNA extraction\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYoung leaves were stored frozen at -80\u0026deg;C. Genomic DNA was extracted from frozen leaves using the NZY Plant/Fungi gDNA Isolation kit (NZYTech Genes \u0026amp; Enzymes, Lisbon, Portugal) following the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions. DNA was quantified with a Nanodrop 8000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, USA). For genotyping, DNA was diluted to 1 ng/\u0026micro;L and stored at -20\u0026deg;C. For whole-genome sequencing (WGS), genomic DNA was not diluted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSSR analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe genetic origin of all VP11 and RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals was confirmed with seven nuclear short sequence repeat (SSR) loci (\u003cem\u003eVVS2, VVMD5, VVMD7, VVMD27, VVMD32, VrZAG62 and VrZAG79)\u003c/em\u003e in a single multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) following an established protocol [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Flower type was genotyped with the \u003cem\u003eVVIB23\u003c/em\u003e marker, which is linked to the sex determination locus [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePCR products were mixed with 20 \u0026micro;l of highly deionized (Hi-Di) formamide and 0.2 \u0026micro;l of GeneScan-500 LIZ size standards (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), then denatured at 95\u0026deg;C for 5 mins. PCR fragments were separated on an ABI 3130XL genetic analyzer by capillary electrophoresis at the Centro de Investigaci\u0026oacute;n Biom\u0026eacute;dica de La Rioja (CIBIR). Fragment sizes were determined using GeneMapper v.4.1 (Applied Biosystems, Darmstadt, Germany). Each run included a TT positive control and a non-template sample as negative control. All S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals showed profiles compatible with selfing progeny of TT.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eWhole-genome sequencing with ONT long reads\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eGenomic DNA from the VP11 clone was size-selected to enrich fragments longer than 10 kb using the PacBio Short Read Eliminator (SRE) kit (Pacific Biosciences of California, USA), following the manufacturer's protocol. As library input, 6 \u0026micro;g of size-selected DNA was used. The VP11 sequencing library was prepared through a ligation-based procedure, employing the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) SQK-LSK110 kit. The protocol included the NEBNext FFPE Repair Mix (NEB, M6630) and NEBNext Ultra II End Repair/dA-tailing Module (NEB #E7546) from the NEBNext Companion Module for ONT ligation sequencing (New England Biolabs, NEB) for DNA repair and end-preparation. Agencourt AMPure XP beads (Beckman Coulter #A63881) were used for cleanup during library prep. The Long Fragment Buffer from the ONT kit was used for cleanup after ligation. NEB Quick T4 DNA Ligase was used for ligation as described in the ONT protocol.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDNA concentration was measured after every stage with a Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, USA). For sequencing, 750 ng of library were loaded in one R9.4.1 ONT Minion flow cell. VP11 WGS was carried out at ICVV with a MinION Mk1C sequencer (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Oxford, UK) following the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s protocol. After 45 h, the flow cell was washed using an ONT Flow Cell Wash Kit (EXP-WSH004) and another 320 ng of the same library (that had been stored at 4\u0026deg;C) were loaded to complete a sequencing run that lasted in total 72 h. ONT reads were generated in a similar manner at the Max Planck Institute for Biology T\u0026uuml;bingen using three SQK-SLK109 and two RAD004 library preps, and five ONT MinION R9.4.1 flow cells (raw reads under ENA accession number PRJEB97948).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStructural variant (SV) analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eONT raw signal was basecalled from VP11 and RJ51 samples using Guppy v5.0.7 in super-accurate mode with the config file \u0026ldquo;dna_r9.4.1_450bps_sup.cfg\u0026rdquo; (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://community.nanoporetech.com/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://community.nanoporetech.com/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). Adaptor trimming was conducted using porechop v0.2.3 (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://github.com/rrwick/Porechop\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://github.com/rrwick/Porechop\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e), with default settings. NanoFilt from the NanoPack package [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] was run to discard reads of length\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1 kb and Phred quality\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;9 with options: -q 9 -l 1000. Read metrics were estimated using the NanoComp tool from NanoPack and seqkit v0.12.0 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrimmed ONT reads were mapped to the diploid \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Tinto\u0026rsquo; genome assembly (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://figshare.com/s/c95fa53bb881c55cfefe\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://figshare.com/s/c95fa53bb881c55cfefe\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e], with haploid phases inherited from the paternal \u0026lsquo;Albillo Mayor\u0026rsquo; and the maternal \u0026lsquo;Benedicto\u0026rsquo; parent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. This haplotype-resolved reference is therefore suitable for the detection of phased structural variation in a highly heterozygous background. ONT reads were aligned to the TT diploid assembly using \u003cem\u003eminimap2\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] with options recommended for ONT reads to run \u003cem\u003esniffles\u003c/em\u003e: \u003cem\u003e-a -x map-ont -Y --MD\u003c/em\u003e. The output of \u003cem\u003eminimap2\u003c/em\u003e was sorted and saved in bam format using \u003cem\u003esamtools sort\u003c/em\u003e command [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. Large SVs of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;1 kb and supported by \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3 clipping reads were called using \u003cem\u003esniffles\u003c/em\u003e v1.0.12 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e] from the bam alignment files with options: \u003cem\u003e-s 3 -l 1000 -d 1000 --max_num_splits 4 --genotype --min_het_af 0.25 --cluster --cluster_support 2 -q 20 -r 1000\u003c/em\u003e. The VP11 and RJ51 corresponding VCF files from \u003cem\u003esniffles\u003c/em\u003e were compared using the \u003cem\u003emerge\u003c/em\u003e tool of \u003cem\u003eSURVIVOR\u003c/em\u003e v1.0.7 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e] to identify VP11-specific variants as somatic SVs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSV validation and segregation analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eValidation and segregation of SV breakpoints\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe translocation and duplication SV breakpoints identified with \u003cem\u003esniffles\u003c/em\u003e from ONT genome sequencing were corroborated by visual inspection of ONT read alignments to the TT genome assembly in the IGV v2.6.3 viewer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. Primer pairs were designed to amplify breakpoint fragments of about 1 kb. Additional primer pairs were designed to amplify similarly sized fragments of the ancestral chromosome sequences at the breakpoint (Tables S1 and S2). We used the Primer Designing Tool in Geneious Prime 2021.2 software (Dotmatics, California, USA) and Primer3 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], accessed through NCBI. BLASTn (version 2.15.0+) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e] from the BLAST package for UNIX was used to select candidate primer sequences that correctly aligned to the intended haplotypes (Albillo Mayor\u0026rsquo; and/or \u0026lsquo;Benedicto\u0026rsquo;) of the TT genome assembly. Fragments were amplified from the VP11 and RJ51 parents, the 34 VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals and 28 RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePCR amplification was performed with NZYTaq II DNA polymerase Mix (NZYTech Genes \u0026amp; Enzymes, Lisbon, Portugal) following the standard protocol described in the NZYTaq II 2\u0026times; Green Master Mix manual. The reactions included 10 \u0026micro;M of primer and 1 ng/\u0026micro;L of template DNA sample. The annealing temperatures were between 55\u0026deg;C and 59\u0026deg;C and 30 amplification cycles were carried out. PCR products were visualized by gel electrophoresis (1% w/v agarose), run at room temperature for 30\u0026ndash;45 min under a constant voltage of 90 V, stained with GreenSafe Premium (MB132, NZYTech Genes \u0026amp; Enzymes, Lisbon, Portugal). Gels were imaged on a ChemiDocXRS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;system and QuantityOne software was used to for acquire photos (BioRad, Hercules, CA, USA).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePCR products were Sanger sequenced by Eurofins Genomics (Ebersberg, Germany) or by STABVida (Monte da Caparica, Portugal). The sequences were aligned against the TT genome assembly with Geneious Prime and BLASTN.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eValidation of Tra1-3 phasing\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbout 1 kb from the translocation breakpoint, a deletion of 5.8 kb in the \u0026lsquo;Albillo Mayor\u0026rsquo; allele compared to the \u0026lsquo;Benedicto\u0026rsquo; allele on chromosome 3 was identified in the genome assembly of TT RJ51. This deletion was verified by visualization of ONT read mappings from both RJ51 and VP11 in the IGV viewer. The deletion is positioned within a region sufficiently close to the Tra1-3 breakpoint on chromosome 3 to design primers for an amplicon that includes both the Tra1-3 and the InDel breakpoints. In the \u0026lsquo;Benedicto\u0026rsquo; haplotype, the 5.8 kb extra sequence prevents effective PCR amplification. Primers were designed and used for PCR genotyping of the InDel in VP11 and RJ51 as described above for SV breakpoints.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSNP segregation analysis at Tra1-3 flanks to validate the reciprocal translocation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo validate the exchange of distal portions of chromosomes 1 and 3 in the reciprocal translocation Tra1-3 of VP11, the segregation of heterozygous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of TT was assessed in amplicons targeting sequences far away from the translocation junctions. Tra1-3 individuals of the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population were compared to RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals. Primers were designed as described above to obtain amplicons from 1.0 to 1.6 kb that included TT SNPs. The two amplicons designed on chromosome 3 were separated by 6 Mb in the \u0026lsquo;Albillo Mayor\u0026rsquo; haplophase assembly of TT, while 7 Mb separated the two amplicons designed on chromosome 1 in the \u0026lsquo;Benedicto\u0026rsquo; haplophase (Tables S1 and S2). SNP-rich regions were identified by comparison of alignments of the \u0026lsquo;Albillo Mayor\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;Benedicto\u0026rsquo; haplophases of the TT assembly. PCR products were Sanger sequenced by STABVida (Monte da Caparica, Portugal) .\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe amplified sequences were verified using BLASTN as described above. SNPs in the amplicons were genotyped with Geneious Prime software to ascertain the haplotype/s inherited by each S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individual. Linkage between the pairs of fragments originally located on chromosomes 1 and 3 that are presumably now on the same translocation chromosome at a\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;6 Mb distance after the Tra1-3 event was assessed by chi-square two-tailed s with the PCR results in VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis of phenotype data according to genotype groups\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe mean of each phenotypic trait (pollen viability, seed number and bunch compactness) was calculated from data across all available years for each individual in selfing populations and parental clones. For co-segregation analysis between each phenotypic trait and somatic genome rearrangements, VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals were classified according to the presence or absence of somatic SVs in the parental VP11 clone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll the genotype classes were pairwise compared using RStudio software version 2023.12.1.402, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. The \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eggplot2\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e package was employed to create graphical representations of the collected data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. The function \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003estat_compare_means\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e function from the \u003cem\u003eggpubr\u003c/em\u003e package [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e], which builds upon \u003cem\u003eggplot2\u003c/em\u003e, was used for Student\u0026rsquo;s t-tests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChi-squared tests were used to assess the fit of segregation ratios of SVs and other molecular markers in the VP11 and RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e populations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLoose bunch development associates with reduced gamete viability in VP11 clone\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo determine whether the loose-bunch phenotype of the VP11 clone correlates with other reproductive features, we quantified pollen viability, seed number per berry and bunch compactness in VP11, and also in the control RJ51 clone that has compact bunches typical of TT (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver three years, VP11 consistently had low bunch compactness ratings, which ranged from 1 to 3, based on the OIV descriptor 204 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. Control RJ51 plants had significantly greater bunch compactness ratings, which ranged from 7 to 9 (Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.3\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;8\u003c/sup\u003e) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB). Estimated average pollen viability was 58% in VP11, compared to 95.0% in the RJ51 control (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eC, \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eD), confirming the significant reduction in pollen viability reported before for VP11 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelatively moderate reduction in pollen viability alone, as observed in VP11, would not normally compromise fertilization success in grapevine because several thousand pollen grains are produced per flower, which should be saturating to fertilize the small number of ovules developed per flower (usually four) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e]. As an indirect measure of female gamete viability, we therefore assessed also the number of seeds per berry. The VP11 clone had an average of only 1.1 seeds per berry, significantly fewer than the average of 2.8 seeds per berry in RJ51 (Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2.2\u0026times;10\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;16\u003c/sup\u003e) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eE). The concurrent reduction of pollen viability and seed number in VP11 are symptoms of a global disruption in gamete development or functionality, which could underlie a reduction in fruit set success leading to looser bunches in VP11 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eVP11 has large somatic structural variants including a complex reciprocal translocation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLong read genome sequencing and somatic SV detection\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile no candidate small somatic mutation was detected in VP11 from short-read WGS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e], earlier studies reported that large chromosome rearrangements can reduce gamete viability in grapevine somatic variants [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], as it does in other plants [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]. To evaluate whether large SVs may underlie the variant phenotype of VP11, whole-genome sequencing of the VP11 and RJ51 clones was performed using ONT long reads for somatic SV calling. About 50\u0026times; depth read coverage of the haploid grapevine genome was produced from each clone, with clean (adapters removed, \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1 kb length and quality\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;9) read length N50 values of 17.7 for VP11 and 21.1 kb for RJ51 (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor phased SV calling, the ONT reads from VP11 and RJ51 were aligned to the diploid RJ51 genome assembly, which includes two haplotypes, one from the \u0026lsquo;Albillo Mayor\u0026rsquo; parent and the other from the \u0026lsquo;Benedicto\u0026rsquo; parent of TT. Large SV (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1kb) calling with \u003cem\u003esniffles\u003c/em\u003e and filtering with \u003cem\u003eSURVIVOR\u003c/em\u003e identified 11 SV calls in VP11 that were missing in RJ51. Because of the length of the ONT reads and the alignment to the diploid assembly, we could readily identify the haplotype phase at each breakpoint. Reads with clipped alignments supporting the breakpoints involved only one haplophase per SV call (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and S1; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), indicating that all VP11-specific SVs were heterozygous events as expected for somatic mutations. Five SVs were insertions or deletions of fragments ranging from 1 to 6 kb size. The other six SVs comprised translocation calls that are paired into three events (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSomatic SV calls detected in the genome of VP11 clone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSV call (Bkpt1-Bkpt2) \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLength (bp)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJunction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBkpt1 read support (%) \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBkpt2 read support (%) \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBkpt1 TE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBkpt2 TE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvent \u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA_chr03:7132253-B_chr01:17440933\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTRA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTIR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTra1-3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA_chr03:7174027-B_chr01:17549291\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTRA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIMPRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLTR gypsy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTra1-3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA_chr07:22370961-A_chr11:9266401\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTRA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnknown\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLTR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDup11to7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA_chr07:22370967-A_chr11:9244658\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTRA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnknown\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLTR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDup11to7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA_chr08:20030029-B_chr17:5123987\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTRA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLTR gypsy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDup17to8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA_chr08:20030036-B_chr17:5101192\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTRA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLTR gypsy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDup17to8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB_chr11:342167-B_chr11:342171\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eINS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1164\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ehelitron\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ehelitron\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIns11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA_chr15:4332126-A_chr15:4332133\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eINS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1842\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnknown\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnknown\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIns15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB_chr15:10239665-B_chr15:10241077\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDEL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1412\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnknown\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnknown\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDel15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA_chr16:121557-A_chr16:128089\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDEL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-6532\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ehelitron\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ehelitron\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDel16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA_chr18:16547881-A_chr18:16547908\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eINS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1192\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRECISE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTIR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTIR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIns18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Breakpoints specific to VP11 compared to the control RJ51 clone were detected using Sniffles and Survivor tools from ONT reads aligned to the diploid assembly of 'Tempranillo Tinto'. Phased coordinates of joined breakpoints are indicated: A \u0026ndash; Albillo Mayor haplophase; B \u0026ndash; Benedicto haplophase. Bkpt \u0026ndash; breakpoint.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e TRA \u0026ndash; translocation; INS \u0026ndash; insertion; DEL \u0026ndash; Deletion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Percentage of clipping alignments supporting each SV breakpoint.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Grouping of SV calls in genome structural variation events. Tra \u0026ndash; translocation; Dup \u0026ndash; Duplication; Ins \u0026ndash; insertion; Del \u0026ndash; Deletion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the three inter-chromosomal events, Tra1-3, is a presumably balanced reciprocal translocation between the \u0026lsquo;Benedicto\u0026rsquo;-inherited haplotype of chromosome 1 (B_chr01) and the \u0026lsquo;Albillo Mayor\u0026rsquo;-inherited haplotype of chromosome 3 (A_chr03) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). Tra1-3 was a complex translocation, since two SV calls with 2-fold increased read alignment depth between them were detected at both chromosome fusion sides (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; Table S4). These alignment and breakpoint patterns indicate the presence of large duplications at the translocation breakpoints (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). On chromosome 1, a 109 kb fragment was duplicated: one copy remained in place (chromosome coordinates B_chr01:17,440,933\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;17,549,291) within the 17.5 Mb proximal (centromere-bearing) portion (B_chr01:1\u0026ndash;17,549,291), and the other copy was joined to the chromosome 3 breakpoint (A_chr3:7,132,253) as part of the presumably translocated 6.3 Mb distal portion (B_chr01:17,440,933\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;23,766,831) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). Similarly, on chromosome 3, a 42 kb fragment (A_chr03:7,132,253-7,174,026) was duplicated: one copy remained in the 14.3 Mb proximal portion (A_chr03:7,132,253\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;21,447,870), and the other copy was joined to the chromosome 1 breakpoint (B_chr01:17,549,291) as part of the translocated 7.2 Mb distal portion (A_chr03:1\u0026ndash;7,174,026). In the alignments to the diploid assembly, each Tra1-3 breakpoint showed an approximately 1:1 ratio of either soft-clipped reads supporting the breakpoint allele or unclipped reads of the ancestral haplotype supporting the duplication, and no ancestral or clipped read spanned both breakpoints delimiting duplicated fragments (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Together with the twofold increase in read coverage of the duplicated haplotype (Table S4), these results indicate that Tra1-3 is fixed in both meristem cell layers (L1 and L2) of VP11, since the sequenced DNA was obtained from leaf cells that derive from both layers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe breakpoints of the other two VP11-specific inter-chromosomal events, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8, also delimited duplicated fragments showing approximately twofold increased alignment depth (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Table S4). Soft-clipped alignments at both ends of reads mapping to these duplicated fragments supported the transposition of the duplicated copy to another chromosome (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e). In Dup11to7, a 22 kb fragment from chromosome 11 of the Albillo Mayor haplophase was duplicated and inserted into chromosome 7, also of the Albillo Mayor haplophase (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). In Dup17to8, a 23 kb fragment of the Benedicto haplotype of chromosome 17 was duplicated and inserted into the Albillo Mayor haplotype of chromosome 8 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eC and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Every VP11 read mapping to the duplication-receiver haplophase of Dup17to8 at chromosome 8 had clipped alignments supporting the transposition (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e), indicating that Dup17to8 is fixed in both the L1 and L2 cell layers. By contrast, 30% of the VP11 reads mapping to the chromosome 7 receiver breakpoint of Dup11to7 still supported the ancestral haplotype without the insertion (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e), indicating that VP11 is chimeric for Dup11to7. As expected for somatic SVs, no soft-clipped reads supporting the breakpoints of the three inter-chromosomal events or increased mapping depth in the VP11 duplicated fragments, were detected in RJ51 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding possible functional consequences of the 11 VP11 SVs, only the Dup17to8 breakpoint on Albillo Mayor chromosome 8 disrupts an annotated gene, \u003cem\u003eTT_A_chr08g14410\u003c/em\u003e (Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003eB). This gene is the ortholog of the \u003cem\u003eVitvi05_01chr08g18520\u003c/em\u003e PN40024 v5.1 grapevine reference gene [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e], which is potentially involved in terpene metabolism [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. The duplicated regions in the three VP11 SVs collectively include 12 annotated genes with increased dosage in VP11 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e; Table S4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eValidation and sequence context of SV events in VP11\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo confirm the presence of the bioinformatically detected inter-chromosomal SVs, we designed primers to target sequences flanking the Tra1-3, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 breakpoints. When combining primers against sequences from different chromosomes, they produced PCR amplicons with VP11 genomic DNA, but not with RJ51 genomic DNA (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eD and S2A). Primers from the same chromosome, as present in the TT ancestor, produced PCR amplicons with genomic DNA from both VP11 and RJ51. The amplification of the ancestral TT allele was expected for the non-variant RJ51 clone, but also for VP11 because it is heterozygous for the SVs and harbors the ancestral and the rearranged sequence at SVs delimiting duplicated fragments (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Sanger sequencing of the amplicons confirmed the presence of recombinant sequences joining fragments that were originally on different chromosomes (Additional Dataset 1).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the breakpoint sequence context also identified microhomology of 16 bp and 2 bp at the translocation junctions of Tra1-3, as well as microhomology of the same 7 bp (CCTATGT) at the two transposition junctions of Dup11to7 (Additional Dataset 1). While no transposable element (TE)-related homology was identified between the sequences recombined in the three inter-chromosomal events, the fragments transposed in Dup11to7 and Dup17to9 involved LTR TE sequences, and several of the SVs with length\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;7 kb were flanked by helitron or TIR DNA TEs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Microhomology and TEs may therefore have facilitated some of the somatic SVs of VP11.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eValidation of Tra1-3 phasing\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo validate the haplophases involved in Tra1-3, we exploited a 5.8 kb InDel in chromosome 3 that is absent in the Albillo Mayor haplophase but present in the Benedicto haplophase (B_chr03:7,224,046\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;7,229,860). This 5.8 kb InDel is located 0.8 kb downstream of the Tra1-3 breakpoint (Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS3\u003c/span\u003eA-B). A forward primer designed against sequences on chromosome 1 and a reverse primer designed against sequences to the right of the InDel on chromosome 3 were used to amplify a 1.5 kb fragment from VP11 genomic DNA (Figs. S2B and S3C). This result confirmed that Albillo Mayor was the haplotype of chromosome 3 involved in the Tra1-3 translocation, since a\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;7 kb amplicon would have been expected if the Benedicto-inherited haplotype of chromosome 3 would have been involved.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eInheritance of VP11 inter-chromosomal somatic SVs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe inheritance of the somatic SV events detected in VP11 clone was assessed after germinating selfed seeds of VP11 and growing the plants own-rooted in the field. PCR analysis showed that of 34 VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals, 24 had inherited the Tra1-3 translocation (Table S5). This ratio corresponds to Tra1-3 behaving as a dominant allele with a 3:1 Mendelian segregation pattern (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.55). The inheritance of Tra1-3 breakpoints confirm that the translocation was present in the L2 meristem cell layer of VP11, as gametes in flowering plants are derived from the L2. The inheritance rate also indicates that VP11 is heterozygous for this event. Notably, all VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals carried either both Tra1-3 chromosomes or neither, which indicates that the two translocation chromosomes can only be inherited together (Table S5). These segregation results, along with the decreased gamete viability and number of seed per berry, suggest that in VP11, the only viable gametes are those that inherit a balanced set of chromosomes, i.e., either two normal or two translocation chromosomes, with recombination in the distal parts between normal and translocation chromosomes being possible during meiosis. Nonetheless, this genotyping approach did not enable us to discriminate between heterozygous or homozygous VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals for the inheritance of Tra1-3 due to the duplicated flanks at both translocation breakpoints (primer pairs 1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;2 and 3\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;4, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe somatic duplications Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 of VP11 were also inherited in VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny (Table S5). However, neither Dup11to7 nor Dup17to8 segregated from VP11 clone as expected for the dominant allele of a heterozygote, as these SVs were only inherited by around half of the progeny (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e Dup11to7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003; χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e Dup17to8\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.2\u0026times;10e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;06\u003c/sup\u003e for fit to a 3:1 ratio) (Table S5). All 18 VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals that were PCR positives for the presence of Dup11to7 also carried the ancestral allele without an insertion on chromosome 7 (primer pair 9\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;10, Table S5), suggesting that Dup11to7 was only inherited in a heterozygous state. Similarly, only one out of 14 individuals with Dup17to8 did not carry the ancestral allele without an insertion on chromosome 8 (primer pair 15\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;16, Table S5). The abnormal segregation ratios suggest that Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 are associated with recessive lethal or semi-lethal mutations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs expected, none of the SVs were detected in S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals of the RJ51 self-cross population, and all ancestral TT chromosome sequences were successfully amplified in all of them (Table S6). However, although all the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals were expected to produce amplification for the amplicons of the ancestral chromosomes 1 and 3 at the Tra1-3 breakpoints (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), unexpectedly, six out of ten Tra1-3 negatives and one out of 24 positives for Tra1-3 were also negatives for the amplification of one or more of the amplicons of the ancestral chromosomes without SVs (Table S5). Individuals such as S1-VP11-34, which did not produce amplification using primers for Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 but neither for any of the targeted fragments of the ancestral chromosomes involved (7, 11, 17 and 8) are striking. However, the same DNA sample of S1-VP11-34 amplified both alleles of the SSR markers VVMD7 and ZAG62 (located on chromosome 7) and of VVS2 (located on chromosome 11) (Table S7), indicating that there is no aneuploidy in this case, but that some phenomenon may be affecting the duplicated chromosome regions during meiosis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eValidation of Tra1-3 as a reciprocal translocation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo validate that Tra1-3 is a reciprocal translocation in which the distal portions of chromosome 1 and 3 have been exchanged, we evaluated the possible co-segregation of SNPs distinguishing the two TT haplotypes in regions that were at hundreds of kb from either side of the translocation breakpoints (Fig. S4). The 1UP and 1DOWN SNP-rich marker amplicons locate 1.2 Mb to the left and 5.2 Mb to the right of the Tra1-3 breakpoint located on chromosome 1 (Fig. S4A). Similarly, the 3UP and 3DOWN regions locate 5.1 Mb to the left and 0.9 Mb to the right of the Tra1-3 breakpoint in chromosome 3. The 1DOWN and 3UP markers thus locate towards the telomeric ends of the distal portions of the translocated chromosomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe genotyped by Sanger sequencing of PCR amplicons these four marker regions in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population to test for linked inheritance of regions that were originally on different chromosomes. According to Chi-squared tests of independency, the segregation patterns in the RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny showed the expected results, with significant linkage between the markers located on the same ancestral chromosomes (1UP-1DOWN χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03 and 3UP-3DOWN χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004), while the 1UP-3UP (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.37) and 1DOWN-3DOWN (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.18) combinations were not significant (Table S8). Chi-squared tests returned significant results in the Tra1-3 carrying VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e subpopulation for the following marker pairs: 1UP-1DOWN (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.005), 3UP-3DOWN (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.007), 1UP-3UP (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001), 1DOWN-3DOWN (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.030) (Table S9). These results indicate that the null hypothesis of independent segregation is rejected in VP11 not only for markers originally located on the same chromosome, but also for combinations of markers originally on different chromosomes that become linked due to the reciprocal translocation (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA and Fig. S4A). These results support that Tra1-3 is a reciprocal translocation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTra1-3 associates with reduced gamete viability in VP11 progeny\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo search for potential causal relationships between somatic SVs and the reduced gamete viability and bunch compactness in VP11, we evaluated the co-segregation of these traits in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population. Because somatic InDels detected in VP11 did not affect genes, we focused on the three inter-chromosomal events.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePollen viability co-segregation analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver three years, only 28 of the 34 VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals produced flowers in at least one year, with average pollen viability being not different from the VP11 parent (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA; Table S5), but significantly lower than in RJ51 and its selfed progeny (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA; Table S6). In contrast, pollen viability was significantly higher in RJ51 than the average in RJ51 self-progeny (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA; Table S6). In the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population, average pollen viability ranged from 26% to 94% (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA; Table S5), with pollen viability being significantly different between plants with and without Tra1-3 (Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003). Pollen viability was on average above 70% in the 10 VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals without the translocation, but on average below 50% among the 24 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals with Tra1-3 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA). No significant effect on pollen viability was detected for the presence of Dup11to7 or Dup17to8 on VP11 progeny. Together, these results indicate that it is the specific presence of Tra1-3 that is associated with a reduction in pollen viability, despite the possible semi-lethal effects of the two duplications in their homozygous state.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSeed number co-segregation analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a proxy of female gamete viability, we assessed the segregation of the number of seeds per berry. There was a trend towards lower seed number in VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals with Tra1-3, although this difference was not significant (Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.061 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB; Table S5). The average number of seeds in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population (1.37 seeds/berry) was slightly higher than in the VP11 parent (1.07 seeds/berry) (Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.021 Fig. S5A), which might be due to VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e individuals that are homozygous for Tra1-3 and therefore would not suffer from meiosis pairing defects. This might be the case of the individual S1-VP11-16 that carried Tra1-3 and had high pollen viability and high seed number (Table S4). In contrast, the average number of seeds per berry was lower in the RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny than the RJ51 parents (1.44 versus 2.76 seeds/berry) (Fig. S5A; Table S6), potentially due to recessive deleterious mutations present in heterozygosity in TT that become homozygous in selfed individuals. No significant effect on seed number was observed for the presence or absence of Dup11to7 or Dup17to8 SVs in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population (Fig. S5A).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBunch compactness co-segregation analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage bunch compactness was significantly lower in VP11 than in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny (1.92 vs. 2.94 average compactness score, Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.66). There was a tendency towards lower bunch compactness in S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny individuals of VP11 with Tra1-3 compared to S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e siblings without Tra1-3 (2.86 vs. 3.33 average compactness score), but this difference was not significant (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eC; Table S5), suggesting that other loci contribute to this trait. No significant effect on bunch compactness was observed for the presence or absence of Dup11to7 or Dup17to8 (Fig. S5B; Table S5). Bunch compactness was significantly lower in RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny than in RJ51 parent (8.14 vs. 5.11 average compactness score), while it was significantly higher in RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny than in VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny (Fig. S5B; Tables S5 and S6), suggesting that additional segregating variants like Tra1-3 may affect bunch compactness in VP11 progeny.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLoss of flower sex type effect on bunch compactness in the VP11 genetic background\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBecause TT is heterozygous for the flower sex locus (Tables S7 and S10), selfed progeny will segregate for flower sex type. In both VP11 and RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e populations, the flower sex marker VVIB23 and flower sex phenotype completely co-segregated, and the flower type showed a Mendelian segregation (3 hermaphrodite : 1 female) (S7 and S10), as expected from the known dominance of the hermaphrodite allele [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e]. Among RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny, female individuals had significantly lower bunch compactness than hermaphrodite individuals (average compactness scores 4.30 versus 5.57; Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001) (Fig. S6; Table S6). However, no significant differences were found between individuals of the two flower sex types in VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny (average compactness scores 2.33 for females versus 3.27 for hermaphrodites, Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15) (Fig. S6; Table S5). This result suggests that the segregation of the translocation Tra1-3 in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population may be partially masking the effect of flower sex on bunch compactness, which is normally apparent in self-crossed progeny of RJ51 and in progeny of other grapevine cultivars [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eSomatic variation in grapevine provides a powerful tool for intra-cultivar improvement of critical traits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Among desirable traits, bunch compactness, which is under complex genetic control, is linked to grape production yield, quality, and harvest efficiency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Compared with the large inter-varietal genetic diversity in grapevine, clonal variants carrying only a limited number of somatic mutations can help to identify the mechanisms that modulate this trait [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. The VP11 clone, a somatic variant of the \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Tinto\u0026rsquo; cultivar, has a stable loose bunch phenotype that is associated with reduced gamete viability (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), a condition known to decrease fruit set and bunch compactness in grapevine [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Here, we identify a reciprocal chromosomal translocation as the genetic cause of this phenotype syndrome in VP11 (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe developmental origin of reduced bunch compactness in VP11 is due to semi-sterility of both male and female gametes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), traits that are inherited by selfed progeny (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig. S5; Table S5). Reduced gamete viability is known to lower the number of fertilized flowers and thus of setting berries, thereby contributing to a looser bunch structure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Concurrent reduction in male and female fertility has been reported in other species before, for instance in response to heat stress [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e]. Male and female gamete viability are also genetically linked, as shown by the disruption of both ovule and pollen function by gametocidal genes in wheat, as well as by the effect of DEM genes that in \u003cem\u003eArabidopsis thaliana\u003c/em\u003e are essential for the viability in both male and female gametophytes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong less than a dozen somatic SVs detected in VP11 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), the reciprocal translocation Tra1-3 was a strong predictor of reduced pollen viability in the S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny of VP11 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Table S5). The Tra1-3 breakpoints are inherited and thus not lethal for gametes themselves (Table S5). However, as a heterozygous reciprocal translocation, Tra1-3 should generate about 50% non-viable gametes because of the formation of quadrivalent configurations during meiosis, with adjacent segregation generating unbalanced gametes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e]. These unbalanced \u0026ldquo;sub-haploid\u0026rdquo; gametes typically lack essential genomic segments, making them inviable [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e]. This mechanism along could explain the approximately 50% reduction in pollen viability and seed number in VP11 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Somatic reciprocal translocations causing semi-sterility without major effects on vegetative development have been reported in several inter- and intra-specific hybrids. For example, F1 hybrids between watermelon cultivars and disease-resistant wild relatives exhibited markedly reduced pollen viability due to chromosomal divergence, resulting in meiotic pairing defects(McGregor \u0026amp; Waters, 2013). Notably, that the two translocated chromosomes were always inherited together in VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny (Table S5) supports the conclusion that unbalanced gametes inheriting only one of the two translocated chromosomes are non-viable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat there was no statistically significant effect of Tra1-3 on seed number or bunch compactness in VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) is likely due to Tra1-3 homozygotes not being expected to suffer from meiosis pairing defects [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e], as well as to the influence of other segregating loci. For instance, the flower sex-determining locus explained a substantial proportion of the variation in bunch compactness in the RJ51 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population (Fig. S5; Table S6), consistent with findings in other segregating grapevine populations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e]. This effect was weaker in VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny (Fig. S5; Table S5), suggesting that the joint segregation of Tra1-3 and sex type may dilute the effect of each individual locus on bunch compactness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTra1-3 is a particularly complex translocation as it has large duplicated segments at both translocation breakpoints (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Replication-based mechanisms have been proposed to generate such configurations, particularly when DNA replication collapses at a replication bubble comprising two replication forks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e]. Similar duplications at translocation breakpoints have been reported in human cancer genomes, such as in multiple myeloma, where they are linked to genomic instability and DNA replication errors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e]. Consistent with the 16-bp microhomology found in one of the Tra1-3 breakpoint junctions (Additional Dataset 1), template switching resulting in duplications and translocations can be facilitated when the replication fork collapses in a DNA break at a sequence with microhomology to another chromosome region [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to Tra1-3, ten other large (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1 kb) somatic SVs were detected in VP11, totaling three inter-chromosomal events and another five InDels (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The small number of somatic SVs detected in VP11 is in line to what has been reported for two biotypes of the \u0026lsquo;Nebbiolo\u0026rsquo; grapevine cultivar and the \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Blanco\u0026rsquo; white grape somatic variant [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, hundreds to thousands of events, often linked to activity of transposable elements (TEs), have been reported for \u0026lsquo;Zinfandel\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;Pinot Noir\u0026rsquo; clones, and for bud sports of other grapevine cultivars [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR79 CR80\" citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e]. While technical factors may partly account for differences in these reported levels of somatic SV, the low number detected in VP11 when compared to RJ51 agrees with the recent selection of both TT clones at DOCa Rioja region vineyards. Supporting that both clones are clonally close and that there is a lack of small variants that could explain their phenotypic variation, a somatic single-nucleotide variant (SNV) analysis identified that both clones belong to the ancestral TT clonal genotype [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBecause we had both ONT long reads and access to a phased diploid genome assembly of TT, the varietal genetic background of VP11, we could determine the specific TT haplotypes of the chromosome regions involved in all the called SVs (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). This phasing also facilitated the estimation of possible chimerism for the SVs detected in DNA obtained from VP11 leaves, which in grapevine contain epidermal and internal cells that respectively derive from the L1 and L2 meristem cell layers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. A 100% frequency of breakpoint reads aligned to the haplophase that is affected by the SV in VP11 at copy-neutral breakpoints, or a\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;50% frequency at duplication breakpoints like in Tra1-3 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), indicated that four of the eight detected events were fixed in both the L1 and L2. This is consistent with the modest number of L1 versus L2 chimeric mutations detected with HiFi sequencing in \u0026lsquo;Merlot\u0026rsquo; grapevine cultivar [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e], but contrasts with \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;90% layer-specific somatic mutations reported in apricot, where meristems comprise three distinct cell layers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e]. Because Dup11to7 is inherited by VP11 descendants and reads of the ancestral TT haplotype without the transposition insertion were detected in VP11 (Fig. S4; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; Table S5), Dup11to7 should be a chimeric event restricted to the L2, the layer giving rise to gametes in grapevine [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. The frequency of clipped reads aligned to the transposition-receiver breakpoint of Dup11to7 thus indicate that ~\u0026thinsp;70% of cells in grapevine young leaves are L2-derived (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). By contrast, Ins15 and Ins16 may be L1-specific SVs as they were each supported by \u0026le;\u0026thinsp;40% of read alignments (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). These values are consistent with the ~\u0026thinsp;60% contribution of L2-derived cells to adult oak leaves estimated from somatic mutation analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe two duplications, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8, did not individually show significant effects on pollen viability, number of seeds per berry or bunch compactness in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig. S5 and Table S5). Nevertheless, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 carrying individuals were underrepresented in the VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population (Table S5), suggesting a possible recessive deleterious effect on embryo or seedling development. This effect could have contributed to the poor germination and seedling establishment of VP11 S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e seeds, which resulted in a small S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e population (Table S5). In addition to segregation distortion, we detected loss of both ancestral and derived alleles in VP11 progeny at the breakpoints of the two duplications and of Tra1-3 (Table S5). These three events involved duplicated sequences on different chromosomes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Table S4), a configuration that may facilitate non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) and thereby promote deletion of alleles and unequal crossing overs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e]. Other undetected genetic defects in VP11 may also contribute to the observed genome instability. The duplications and microhomology at the breakpoints of different SV events in VP11 (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e and Additional Dataset 1) suggest that DNA replication or repair might be defective in this clone. In any case, Dup11to7 and Dup17to8 do not affect the viability of haploid gametes, which can be inferred both from the inheritance of these SVs and from their lack of effect on pollen viability in the S\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e progeny of VP11 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Table S5). These results are in line with Tra1-3 being the primary cause of the reduced gamete viability in VP11.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eApart from advancing our understanding of somatic variation for gamete viability and bunch compactness in grapevine, our study demonstrates the power of long-read sequencing combined with diploid genome assemblies to accurately detect SV in highly heterozygous organisms. The loose bunch VP11 clone of \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Tinto\u0026rsquo; cultivar provided an opportunity to investigate the consequences of reciprocal translocations, an event that has not been characterized in earlier grapevine SV studies that mostly focused on inter-varietal and inter-specific diversity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR86\" citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e87\u003c/span\u003e]. Our findings illustrate that complex genome rearrangements that impair meiosis can decrease gamete viability and indirectly impact complex traits like bunch compactness. While long-range genome rearrangements compromising reproductive development would be purged in sexually propagated organisms, they can be selected for intra-varietal improvement and diversification in vegetatively propagated crops like grapevine. Heterozygous balanced reciprocal translocations provide a general strategy to reduce seed and fruit set rate without affecting vegetative growth.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eDup11to7\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Duplication of a chromosome 11 fragment inserted into chromosome 7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDup17to8\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Duplication of a chromosome 17 fragment inserted into chromosome 8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eONT\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Oxford Nanopore Technologies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePCR\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Polymerase Chain Reaction\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRT\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Room Temperature\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eS1\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Self-cross progeny / Selfing progeny\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSNP\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Single Nucleotide Polymorphism\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSRE\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Short Read Eliminator\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSSR\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Short sequence repeat\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSV\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Structural variant\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTE\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Transposable element\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTT\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Tempranillo Tinto\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTra1-3\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 1 and 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVP\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Viveros Provedo\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWGS \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Whole-genome sequencing\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eONT raw sequencing data for this study have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) at EMBL-EBI under accession number PRJEB97948. All other data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eD.W. holds equity in Computomics, which advises plant breeders. D.W. previously consulted for KWS SE, a globally active plant breeder and seed producer. All other authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by projects\u0026nbsp;PID2020-120183RB-I00 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and PID2023-152513OB-I00 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF/EU. This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 797460 as well as by the Max Planck Society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthors' contributions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eN.A.S. performed all phenotyping and molecular genotyping experiments, analyzed data, participated in the study design, and wrote the manuscript draft. Y.F. participated in experiments. I.B. participated in data processing and management. D.W. provided resources and inputs to the manuscript. P.C.B. conceptualized and supervised and the study, analyzed data, and participated in manuscript draft writing. J.I. conceptualized and supervised the study and provided resources and inputs to the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are grateful to Ignacio Provedo from Viveros Provedo S.A. for selecting and providing VP11 samples. We are thankful to J. Tello for assisting as bunch compactness expert inspector, and S. Hernáiz, P. Sacristán, M. Angulo for their technical assistance. We thank the plant resources service from ICVV and the Regional Government of la Rioja for plant management. We also thank E. Domı́nguez-Garrido and J. Aguirre (Plataforma de Investigación Biomédica, CIBIR, Fundación Rioja Salud) for SSR marker genotyping.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOIV. Annual Assessment of the World Vine and Wine Sector in 2022 International Organisation of Vine and Wine Intergovernmental Organisation. 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis P, Lacombe T, Thomas MR. Historical origins and genetic diversity of wine grapes. Trends Genet. 2006;22:511\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2006.07.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tig.2006.07.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorregrosa L, Fernandez L, Bouquet A, Boursiquot J-M, Pelsy F, Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Zapater JM. Origins and Consequences of Somatic Variation in Grapevine. Genetics, Genomics, and Breeding of Grapes. Science; 2011. pp. 68\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1201/b10948-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1201/b10948-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarbonell-Bejerano P, Royo C, Mauri N, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez J, Miguel Mart\u0026iacute;nez Zapater J. Somatic Variation and Cultivar Innovation in Grapevine. In: Advances in Grape and Wine Biotechnology. IntechOpen; 2019. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86443\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5772/intechopen.86443\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCallipo P, Schmidt \u0026middot; Maximilian, Strack T, Robinson H, Vasudevan A, Voss-Fels KP. Harnessing clonal diversity in grapevine: from genomic insights to modern breeding applications. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 2025 138:8. 2025;138:1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S00122-025-04986-W\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S00122-025-04986-W\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePortu J, Baroja E, Rivacoba L, Mart\u0026iacute;nez J, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez S, Tello J. Evaluation of the intra-varietal diversity of \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Tinto\u0026rsquo; clones prospected in the demarcated winemaking region of Rioja (Spain). Sci Hortic. 2024;329:113015. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCIENTA.2024.113015\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.SCIENTA.2024.113015\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTello J, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez J. What do we know about grapevine bunch compactness? A state-of-the-art review. Aust J Grape Wine Res. 2018;24:6\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12310\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ajgw.12310\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMolitor D, Behr M, Hoffmann L, Evers D. Impact of grape cluster division on cluster morphology and bunch rot epidemic. Am J Enol Vitic. 2012;63:508\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2012.12041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5344/ajev.2012.12041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHed B, Ngugi HK, Travis JW. Relationship between cluster compactness and bunch rot in Vignoles grapes. Plant Dis. 2009;93:1195\u0026ndash;201. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-93-11-1195\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1094/PDIS-93-11-1195\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePieri P, Zott K, Gom\u0026egrave;s \u0026Eacute;, Hibert G. Nested effects of berry half, berry and bunch microclimate on biochemical composition in grape. OENO One. 2016;50:23\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20870/OENO-ONE.2016.50.3.52\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20870/OENO-ONE.2016.50.3.52\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiernas J, Gim\u0026eacute;nez MJ, Noguera-Artiaga L, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Pastor ME, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Mart\u0026iacute;nez S, Zapata PJ. Influence of Bunch Compactness and Berry Thinning Methods on Wine Grape Quality and Sensory Attributes of Wine in Vitis vinifera L. cv. \u0026lsquo;Monastrell \u0026rsquo; Agron. 2022;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030680\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/agronomy12030680\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBondada B, Covarrubias JI, Tessarin P, Boliani AC, Marodin G, Rombol\u0026agrave; AD. Postveraison shoot trimming reduces cluster compactness without compromising fruit quality attributes in organically grown sangiovese grapevines. Am J Enol Vitic. 2016;67:206\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2016.15058\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5344/ajev.2016.15058\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTello J, Aguirrez\u0026aacute;bal R, Hern\u0026aacute;iz S, Larreina B, Montemayor MI, Vaquero E, et al. Multicultivar and multivariate study of the natural variation for grapevine bunch compactness. Aust J Grape Wine Res. 2015;21:277\u0026ndash;89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12121\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ajgw.12121\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez-Miranda S, Yuste J. Influence of flowers per cluster, fruit-set and berry weight on cluster weight in Verdejo grapevine (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;em\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;Vitis vinifera\u0026thinsp;L). OENO One. 2004;38:41\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20870/OENO-ONE.2004.38.1.937\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20870/OENO-ONE.2004.38.1.937\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIb\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez J, Baroja E, Grimplet J, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez S. Cultivated Grapevine Displays a Great Diversity for Reproductive Performance Variables. Crop Breed Genet Genom. 2019;2. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20900/CBGG20200003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20900/CBGG20200003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeller M, Scheele-Baldinger R, Ferguson JC, Tarara JM, Mills LJ. Inflorescence temperature influences fruit set, phenology, and sink strength of Cabernet Sauvignon grape berries. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:864892. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/FPLS.2022.864892/FULL\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/FPLS.2022.864892/FULL\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePagay V, Collins C. Effects of timing and intensity of elevated temperatures on reproductive development of field-grown Shiraz grapevines. OENO One. 2017;51:409\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20870/OENO-ONE.2017.51.4.1066\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20870/OENO-ONE.2017.51.4.1066\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCorrea J, Mamani M, Mu\u0026ntilde;oz-Espinoza C, Laborie D, Mu\u0026ntilde;oz C, Pinto M, et al. Heritability and identification of QTLs and underlying candidate genes associated with the architecture of the grapevine cluster (Vitis vinifera L). Theor Appl Genet. 2014;127:1143\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-014-2286-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00122-014-2286-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharma S, Munoz J, Torres-Lomas E, Lin J, Banayad H, Lupo Y et al. Leveraging foundation models to dissect the genetic basis of cluster compactness and yield in grapevine. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.02.646891\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1101/2025.04.02.646891\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTello J, Torres-P\u0026eacute;rez R, Grimplet J, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez J. Association analysis of grapevine bunch traits using a comprehensive approach. Theor Appl Genet. 2016;129:227\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2623-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00122-015-2623-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeneses M, Mu\u0026ntilde;oz-Espinoza C, Reyes-Impellizzeri S, Salazar E, Meneses C, Herzog K, et al. Characterization of Bunch Compactness in a Diverse Collection of Vitis vinifera L. Genotypes Enriched in Table Grape Cultivars Reveals New Candidate Genes Associated with Berry Number. Plants. 2025;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/plants14091308\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/plants14091308\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichter R, Gabriel D, Rist F, T\u0026ouml;pfer R, Zyprian E. Identification of co-located QTLs and genomic regions affecting grapevine cluster architecture. Theor Appl Genet. 2019;132:1159\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-018-3269-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00122-018-3269-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTian S, Ge J, Ai G, Jiang J, Liu Q, Chen X, et al. A 2.09 Mb fragment translocation on chromosome 6 causes abnormalities during meiosis and leads to less seed watermelon. Hortic Res. 2021;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-021-00687-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41438-021-00687-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaby T, Gilliham M, Tyerman SD, Collins C. Differential fruitset between grapevine cultivars is related to differences in pollen viability and amine concentration in flowers. Aust J Grape Wine Res. 2016;22:149\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/AJGW.12191\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/AJGW.12191\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMotomura K, Arae T, Araki-Uramoto H, Suzuki Y, Takeuchi H, Suzuki T, et al. AtNOT1 Is a Novel Regulator of Gene Expression during Pollen Development. Plant Cell Physiol. 2020;61:712\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/PCP/PCZ235\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/PCP/PCZ235\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTello J, Royo C, Baroja E, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Escudero E, Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Zapater JM, Carbonell-Bejerano P. Reduced gamete viability associated to somatic genome rearrangements increases fruit set sensitivity to the environment in Tempranillo Blanco grapevine cultivar. Sci Hortic. 2021;290. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110497\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110497\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlva O, Roa-Roco RN, P\u0026eacute;rez-D\u0026iacute;az R, Y\u0026aacute;nez M, Tapia J, Moreno Y, et al. Pollen Morphology and Boron Concentration in Floral Tissues as Factors Triggering Natural and GA-Induced Parthenocarpic Fruit Development in Grapevine. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0139503. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0139503\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0139503\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCostantini L, Moreno-Sanz P, Nwafor CC, Lorenzi S, Marrano A, Cristofolini F, et al. Somatic variants for seed and fruit set in grapevine. BMC Plant Biol. 2021;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-021-02865-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12870-021-02865-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFernandez L, Torregrosa L, Segura V, Bouquet A, Martinez-Zapater JM. Transposon-induced gene activation as a mechanism generating cluster shape somatic variation in grapevine. Plant J. 2010;61:545\u0026ndash;57. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-313X.2009.04090.X\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/J.1365-313X.2009.04090.X\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRossmann S, Richter R, Sun H, Schneeberger K, T\u0026ouml;pfer R, Zyprian E, et al. Mutations in the miR396 binding site of the growth-regulating factor gene VvGRF4 modulate inflorescence architecture in grapevine. Plant J. 2020;101:1234\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.14588\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/tpj.14588\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarbonell-Bejerano P, Royo C, Torres-P\u0026eacute;rez R, Grimplet J, Fernandez L, Franco-Zorrilla JM, et al. Catastrophic unbalanced genome rearrangements cause somatic loss of berry color in grapevine. Plant Physiol. 2017;175:786\u0026ndash;801. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.00715\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1104/pp.17.00715\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEgu\u0026iacute;a P, Valle S\u0026aacute;nchez D, Merch\u0026aacute;n M, Viveros Provedo INTRODUCCI\u0026Oacute;NDS. Selecci\u0026oacute;n clonal de tempranillo (1998\u0026ndash;2006). Objetivo: aumentar la calidad mediante la selecci\u0026oacute;n de clones de menor peso de racimo y baya; 2007.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrimplet J, Tello J, Laguna N, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez J. Differences in flower transcriptome between grapevine clones are related to their cluster compactness, fruitfulness, and berry size. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:632. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/FPLS.2017.00632/FULL\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/FPLS.2017.00632/FULL\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTello J, Montemayor MI, Forneck A, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez J. A new image-based tool for the high throughput phenotyping of pollen viability: Evaluation of inter- and intra-cultivar diversity in grapevine. Plant Methods. 2018;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-017-0267-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s13007-017-0267-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrimplet J, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez S, Baroja E, Tello J, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez J. Phenotypic, hormonal, and genomic variation among vitis vinifera clones with different cluster compactness and reproductive performance. Front Plant Sci. 2019;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01917\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpls.2018.01917\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoombe BG. Adoption of a system for identifying grapevine growth stages. 1995.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: An open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9:676\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/nmeth.2019\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOIV. 2nd Edition of the OIV descriptor list for grape varieties and vitis species. 2007.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTello J, Todić S, Ferrad\u0026aacute;s Y, Nikolic M, Sabovljević A, Ivanišević D, et al. The genetic characterization of grapevines prospected in old Serbian vineyards reveals multiple relationships between traditional varieties of the Balkans. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1391679\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpls.2024.1391679\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBattilana J, Lorenzi S, Moreira FM, Moreno-Sanz P, Failla O, Emanuelli F, et al. Linkage mapping and molecular diversity at the flower sex locus in wild and cultivated grapevine reveal a prominent ssr haplotype in hermaphrodite plants. Mol Biotechnol. 2013;54:1031\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-013-9657-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12033-013-9657-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Coster W, Rademakers R. NanoPack2: population-scale evaluation of long-read sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2023;39. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btad311\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/bioinformatics/btad311\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen W, Le S, Li Y, Hu F, SeqKit. A cross-platform and ultrafast toolkit for FASTA/Q file manipulation. PLoS ONE. 2016;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163962\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0163962\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarbonell-Bejerano P, Bezrukov I, Ala\u0026ntilde;\u0026oacute;n-S\u0026aacute;nchez N, Royo C, Ferradas Y, Lanz C et al. Clonal improvement-associated somatic mutations identified from diploid genome assembly in Tempranillo grapevine cultivar. 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIb\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez J, Mu\u0026ntilde;oz-Organero G, Hasna Zinelabidine L, Teresa de Andr\u0026eacute;s M, Cabello F, Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Zapater JM. Genetic Origin of the Grapevine Cultivar Tempranillo. Am J Enol Vitic. 2012;63:549\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5344/AJEV.2012.12012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5344/AJEV.2012.12012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi H. Minimap2: Pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:3094\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/bioinformatics/bty191\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:2078\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSedlazeck FJ, Rescheneder P, Smolka M, Fang H, Nattestad M, Von Haeseler A, et al. Accurate detection of complex structural variations using single-molecule sequencing. Nat Methods. 2018;15:461\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-018-0001-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41592-018-0001-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJeffares DC, Jolly C, Hoti M, Speed D, Shaw L, Rallis C, et al. Transient structural variations have strong effects on quantitative traits and reproductive isolation in fission yeast. Nat Commun. 2017;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14061\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/ncomms14061\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobinson JT, Thorvaldsd\u0026oacute;ttir H, Wenger AM, Zehir A, Mesirov JP. Variant review with the integrative genomics viewer. Cancer Res. 2017;77:e31\u0026ndash;4. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0337\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0337\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoressaar T, Remm M. Enhancements and modifications of primer design program Primer3. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:1289\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btm091\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/bioinformatics/btm091\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUntergasser A, Cutcutache I, Koressaar T, Ye J, Faircloth BC, Remm M, et al. Primer3-new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks596\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gks596\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltschup SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic Local Alignment Search Tool. 1990.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePosit team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software. Boston, MA: PBC; 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Second Edition. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKassambara A, ggpubr. ggplot2 Based Publication Ready Plots [R package ggpubr version 0.6.1]. CRAN: Contributed Packages. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.PACKAGE.GGPUBR\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32614/CRAN.PACKAGE.GGPUBR\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKowalczyk BA, Bieniasz M, Kostecka-Gugała A. Flowering Biology of Selected Hybrid Grape Cultivars under Temperate Climate Conditions. Agriculture 2022, Vol 12, Page 655. 2022;12:655. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/AGRICULTURE12050655\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/AGRICULTURE12050655\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStout AB. Seedlessness in Grapes. New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin. Geneva, NY: New York State Agricultural Experiment Station; 1936. p. 68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTello J, Carbonell-Bejerano P, Torres-P\u0026eacute;rez R, Ferrad\u0026aacute;s Y, Royo C, Portu J, et al. Genome resequencing and custom genotyping elucidates the origin and dissemination history of an emblematic grapevine cultivar. \u0026lsquo;Tempranillo Tinto \u0026rsquo; Hortic Res. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhaf237\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/hr/uhaf237\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Storme N, Mason A. Plant speciation through chromosome instability and ploidy change: Cellular mechanisms, molecular factors and evolutionary relevance. Curr Plant Biology. 2014;1:10\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpb.2014.09.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cpb.2014.09.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaeta RT, Pires JC, Iniguez-Luy F, Leon E, Osborn TC. Genomic changes in resynthesized Brassica napus and their effect on gene expression and phenotype. Plant Cell. 2007;19:3403\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.107.054346\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1105/tpc.107.054346\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNavarro-Pay\u0026aacute; D, Santiago A, Ordu\u0026ntilde;a L, Zhang C, Amato A, D\u0026rsquo;Inca E, et al. The Grape Gene Reference Catalogue as a Standard Resource for Gene Selection and Genetic Improvement. Front Plant Sci. 2022;12:803977. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/FPLS.2021.803977/BIBTEX\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/FPLS.2021.803977/BIBTEX\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIlc T, Arista G, Tavares R, Navrot N, Duch\u0026ecirc;ne E, Velt A, et al. Annotation, classification, genomic organization and expression of the Vitis vinifera CYPome. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0199902. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0199902\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0199902\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMassonnet M, Cochetel N, Minio A, Vondras AM, Lin J, Muyle A, et al. The genetic basis of sex determination in grapes. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16700-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41467-020-16700-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarguerit E, Boury C, Manicki A, Donnart M, Butterlin G, N\u0026eacute;morin A, et al. Genetic dissection of sex determinism, inflorescence morphology and downy mildew resistance in grapevine. Theor Appl Genet. 2009;118:1261\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S00122-009-0979-4/TABLES/6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S00122-009-0979-4/TABLES/6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang Y, Lahlali R, Karunakaran C, Warkentin TD, Davis AR, Bueckert RA. Pollen, ovules, and pollination in pea: Success, failure, and resilience in heat. Plant Cell Environ. 2019;42:354\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/PCE.13427\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/PCE.13427\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarros JRA, dos Santos TC, Silva EGF, da Silva WO, Guimar\u0026atilde;es MJM, Angelotti F. Pollen Viability, and the Photosynthetic and Enzymatic Responses of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp., Fabaceae) in the Face of Rising Air Temperature: A Problem for Food Safety. Agronomy 2024, Vol 14, Page 463. 2024;14:463. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/AGRONOMY14030463\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/AGRONOMY14030463\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaid M, Ga\u0026aacute;l E, Farkas A, Moln\u0026aacute;r I, Bartoš J, Doležel J, et al. Gametocidal genes: from a discovery to the application in wheat breeding. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1396553. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/FPLS.2024.1396553/XML\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/FPLS.2024.1396553/XML\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee CH, Hawker NP, Peters JR, Lonhienne TGA, Gursanscky NR, Matthew L, et al. DEFECTIVE EMBRYO AND MERISTEMS genes are required for cell division and gamete viability in Arabidopsis. PLoS Genet. 2021;17:e1009561. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PGEN.1009561\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/JOURNAL.PGEN.1009561\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCurtis MJ, Belcram K, Bollmann SR, Tominey CM, Hoffman PD, Mercier R, et al. Reciprocal chromosome translocation associated with TDNA-insertion mutation in Arabidopsis: genetic and cytological analyses of consequences for gametophyte development and for construction of doubly mutant lines. Planta. 2008;229:731. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S00425-008-0868-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S00425-008-0868-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie Z, Zheng H, Cheng S, Yu H, Yu X, Wang C, et al. Chromosomal translocations are a significant driver of hybrid sterility in rice. Genetics. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/GENETICS/IYAF126\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/GENETICS/IYAF126\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCurtis MJ, Belcram K, Bollmann SR, Tominey CM, Hoffman PD, Mercier R, et al. Reciprocal chromosome translocation associated with TDNA-insertion mutation in Arabidopsis: Genetic and cytological analyses of consequences for gametophyte development and for construction of doubly mutant lines. Planta. 2009;229:731\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-008-0868-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00425-008-0868-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGregor CE, Waters V. Pollen Viability of F1 Hybrids between Watermelon Cultivars and Disease-resistant. Infraspecific Crop Wild Relatives HortScience. 2013;48:1428\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.48.12.1428\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21273/HORTSCI.48.12.1428\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClark KA, Krysan PJ. Chromosomal translocations are a common phenomenon in Arabidopsis thaliana T-DNA insertion lines. Plant J. 2010;64:990\u0026ndash;1001. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04386.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04386.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHowarth KD, Pole JCM, Beavis JC, Batty EM, Newman S, Bignell GR, et al. Large duplications at reciprocal translocation breakpoints that might be the counterpart of large deletions and could arise from stalled replication bubbles. Genome Res. 2011;21:525\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1101/gr.114116.110\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1101/gr.114116.110\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemchenko Y, Roschke A, Chen WD, Asmann Y, Bergsagel PL, Kuehl WM. Frequent occurrence of large duplications at reciprocal genomic rearrangement breakpoints in multiple myeloma and other tumors. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:8189\u0026ndash;98. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw527\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gkw527\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurssed B, Zamariolli M, Bellucco FT, Melaragno MI. Mechanisms of structural chromosomal rearrangement formation. Mol Cytogenet. 2022;15:23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/S13039-022-00600-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/S13039-022-00600-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaestri S, Gambino G, Lopatriello G, Minio A, Perrone I, Cosentino E, et al. Nebbiolo\u0026rsquo; genome assembly allows surveying the occurrence and functional implications of genomic structural variations in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L). BMC Genomics. 2022;23:1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/S12864-022-08389-9/FIGURES/3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/S12864-022-08389-9/FIGURES/3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePei MS, Liu HN, Wei TL, Yu YH, Guo DL. Detection and characterization of genome-wide genetic variation associated with the early-ripening phenotype of grape mutants. Sci Hortic. 2021;285:110195. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCIENTA.2021.110195\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.SCIENTA.2021.110195\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRitter EJ, Cousins P, Quigley M, Kile A, Kenchanmane Raju SK, Chitwood DH, et al. From buds to shoots: insights into grapevine development from the Witch\u0026rsquo;s Broom bud sport. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24:283. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/S12870-024-04992-Y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/S12870-024-04992-Y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarrier G, Le Cunff L, Dereeper A, Legrand D, Sabot F, Bouchez O, et al. Transposable Elements Are a Major Cause of Somatic Polymorphism in Vitis vinifera L. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e32973. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0032973\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0032973\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVondras AM, Minio A, Blanco-Ulate B, Figueroa-Balderas R, Penn MA, Zhou Y, et al. The genomic diversification of grapevine clones. BMC Genomics. 2019;20:1\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/S12864-019-6211-2/FIGURES/6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/S12864-019-6211-2/FIGURES/6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSichel V, Sarah G, Girollet N, Laucou V, Roux C, Roques M, et al. Chimeras in Merlot grapevine revealed by phased assembly. BMC Genomics. 2023;24:1\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/S12864-023-09453-8/FIGURES/5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/S12864-023-09453-8/FIGURES/5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoel M, Campoy JA, Krause K, Baus LC, Sahu A, Sun H, et al. The vast majority of somatic mutations in plants are layer-specific. Genome Biol. 2024;25:194. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/S13059-024-03337-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/S13059-024-03337-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXian W, Carbonell-Bejerano P, Rabanal FA, Bezrukov I, Reymond P, Weigel D. Minimizing detection bias of somatic mutations in a highly heterozygous oak genome. G3: Genes |. Genomes | Genet. 2025;15:jkaf143. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/G3JOURNAL/JKAF143\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/G3JOURNAL/JKAF143\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou Y, Minio A, Massonnet M, Solares E, Lv Y, Beridze T, et al. The population genetics of structural variants in grapevine domestication. Nat Plants. 2019;5:965\u0026ndash;79. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0507-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41477-019-0507-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXiao H, Wang Y, Liu W, Shi X, Huang S, Cao S, et al. Impacts of reproductive systems on grapevine genome and breeding. Nat Commun. 2025;16:2031. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/S41467-025-56817-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/S41467-025-56817-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu Z, Wang N, Su Y, Long Q, Peng Y, Shangguan L, et al. Grapevine pangenome facilitates trait genetics and genomic breeding. Nat Genet. 2024;56:2804\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/S41588-024-01967-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/S41588-024-01967-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-plant-biology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pbio","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Plant Biology](http://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbio/default.aspx","title":"BMC Plant Biology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"bunch compactness, clonal variation, gamete viability, genome structural variation, grapevine, long-read sequencing, reciprocal translocation, somatic genome rearrangement","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7594260/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7594260/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBecause grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars are highly heterozygous, they must be clonally propagated to preserve their varietal attributes. Over extended cultivar propagation histories, somatic mutations arise and can generate new phenotypes useful for intra-varietal improvement. Somatic variants with looser bunches – associated with more uniform berry ripening and reduced bunch rot incidence – are particularly valuable in compact-bunch cultivars. To understand the basis of this trait, we combined phenotyping, genomics, and genetic analyses to study VP11, a loose-bunch somatic variant clone of the wine grape cultivar ‘Tempranillo Tinto’.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePollen viability and the number of seeds per berry were reduced by ~50% in VP11 compared to a control clone of ‘Tempranillo Tinto’. Long-read whole-genome sequencing identified eleven large somatic structural variants (SVs) in VP11, including three inter-chromosomal events. These consisted of one fixed reciprocal translocation (Tra1-3), with duplications spanning tens of kilobases at the translocation breakpoints, and two segmental duplications (one fixed and one likely L2 meristem cell layer-restricted). All three SVs were molecularly validated, including the phasing and exchange of distal chromosome segments in Tra1-3. In VP11 self-cross progeny, pollen viability was significantly reduced among individuals carrying Tra1-3, and the two translocation chromosomes were always inherited together, indicating that gametes with an unbalanced chromosomal content are non-viable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study identifies reduced gamete viability caused by a heterozygous balanced reciprocal translocation as a mechanism underlying the loose-bunch trait in grapevine. We conclude that even if a genetic defect reduces gamete viability, it can still be useful to decrease seed and fruit set in vegetatively propagated crops where these traits are desirable.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A complex reciprocal translocation underlies reduced bunch compactness in a grapevine somatic variant","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-06 11:20:11","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7594260/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-11-24T22:05:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-10T16:45:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"67224517317084128568444133900854687958","date":"2025-10-23T09:50:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"169989660400384147578603730661236492611","date":"2025-10-23T06:37:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-09T03:12:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"161403019854345481832808338242702241006","date":"2025-10-01T09:11:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"313166031079643053597696119124968661905","date":"2025-09-30T03:34:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-23T06:13:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-23T05:48:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-23T04:50:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-22T18:50:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Plant Biology","date":"2025-09-21T18:29:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-plant-biology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pbio","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Plant Biology](http://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbio/default.aspx","title":"BMC Plant Biology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"f8e3b81f-00e2-43a4-9198-1a82de8e162b","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 6th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-02T16:02:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7594260","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-026-08212-7","journal":{"identity":"bmc-plant-biology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Plant Biology"},"publishedOn":"2026-01-27 15:58:57","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 27th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-06 11:20:11","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12870-026-08212-7","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-026-08212-7","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7594260","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7594260","identity":"rs-7594260","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}