Cited by 57Plant Molecular Biology ResearchCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringHorticultural and Viticultural Research

VvEPFL9-1 knock-out via CRISPR/Cas9 reduces stomatal density in grapevine

Open access
Clemens, Molly, Faralli, Michele, Lagreze, Jorge, Bontempo, Luana, Piazza, Stefano, Varotto, Claudio, Malnoy, Mickael, Oechel, Walter +2 more·2022·Frontiers in Plant Science

Abstract

Epidermal Patterning Factor Like 9 (EPFL9), also known as STOMAGEN, is a cysteine-rich peptide that induces stomata formation in vascular plants, acting antagonistically to other epidermal patterning factors (EPF1, EPF2). In grapevine there are two EPFL9 genes, EPFL9-1 and EPFL9-2 sharing 82% identity at protein level in the mature functional C-terminal domain. In this study, CRISPR/Cas9 system was applied to functionally characterize VvEPFL9-1 in ‘Sugraone’, a highly transformable genotype. A set of plants, regenerated after gene transfer in embryogenic calli via Agrobacterium tumefaciens, were selected for evaluation. For many lines, the editing profile in the target site displayed a range of mutations mainly causing frameshift in the coding sequence or affecting the second cysteine residue. The analysis of stomata density revealed that in edited plants the number of stomata was significantly reduced compared to control, demonstrating for the first time the role of EPFL9 in a perennial fruit crop. Three edited lines were then assessed for growth, photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and water use efficiency in experiments carried out at different environmental conditions. Intrinsic water-use efficiency was improved in edited lines compared to control, indicating possible advantages in reducing stomatal density under future environmental drier scenarios. Our results show the potential of manipulating stomatal density for optimizing grapevine adaptation under changing climate conditions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpls.2022.878001

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Regulating stomatal density by editing VvEPFL9-1 in grapevines results in improved water conservation and higher WUE under drought conditions.

    “In grapevines, regulating stomatal density by editing genes like VvEPFL9-1 has resulted in improved water conservation and higher WUE under drought conditions (Clemens et al., 2022).”

    From Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops (2025) · cites this paper as Clemens et al., 2022

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports lower transpiration in edited grapevines than in wild type under moderate water stress, supporting water conservation in that condition. But the water-stress Results (page unavailable) say intrinsic water-use efficiency (iWUE) was not significantly different between edited and wild-type plants. The claim overstates the evidence by saying editing resulted in higher WUE under drought conditions. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Delrot S. Grimplet J. Carbonell-bejerano P. Schwandner A. Bert P. Bavaresco L.. (2020). “ Genomic Designing of Climate-Smart Fruit Crops” in Genomic Designing of Climate-Smart Fruit Crops. ed. Kole C. (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing), 157– 270.
  2. INTEGRAPE Workshop (2021). In XIth International Symposium on Grapevine Physiology and Biotechnology. Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clemens, M., Faralli, M., Lagreze, J., Bontempo, L., Piazza, S., Varotto, C., Malnoy, M., Oechel, W., Rizzoli, A., & Dalla Costa, L.
Affiliations
  • Fondazione Edmund Mach (IT)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Faralli, Michele
Venue
Frontiers in Plant Science
Published
2022-05-17
Volume
13
Pages
878001-878001
ISSN
1664-462X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4280600624
Cited by
57
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 2
FWCI
6.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Plant Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (Fondazione Edmund Mach) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Autonomous Province of Trento
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Molecular Biology Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Horticultural and Viticultural Research
Keywords
stomatal density, grapevine, cysteine-rich peptides, gene knockout, CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, water use efficiency, stomatal conductance, photosynthesis, climate change adaptation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review