From the cradle of grapevine domestication: molecular overview and description of Georgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) germplasm Seren Imazio, David Maghradze, Grabriella de Lorenzis, Roberto Bacilieri, Valerie Laucou, Patrice This, Attilio Scienza, Osvaldo Failla

To cite this version:

Seren Imazio, David Maghradze, Grabriella de Lorenzis, Roberto Bacilieri, Valerie Laucou, et al.. From the cradle of grapevine domestication: molecular overview and description of Georgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) germplasm. Tree Genetics and Genomes, Springer Verlag, 2013, 9 (3), pp.641-658. ￿10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9￿. ￿hal-01268000￿

HAL Id: hal-01268000 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01268000 Submitted on 29 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Version preprint .D Lorenzis De G. Georgia 0159, Tbilisi Ave., Gelovani Marshal Oenology, 6 and Viticulture Horticulture, of Institute Maghradze D. [email protected] e-mail: Italy 42122, Besta, Emilia Padiglione Reggio 2, Amendola Modena Via di Emilia, Università Reggio Biogest, Siteia Interdipartimentale Centro ( Imazio S. Italy 42122, Emilia Besta, Reggio Reggio Padiglione e 2, Modena Amendola di Via Università Emilia, Vita, della Scienze di Dipartimento Imazio S. users. authorized to available is which material, supplementary contains (doi:10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9) material supplementary Electronic Vendramin G. G. by Communicated its of product importance wine the its and and with viticulture countries combined western domestication, from of of distance center hypothesis a The being consumption. char- Georgia human with for varieties of suitable acters development and ( selection form subsequent wild its from South ( tication grapevine the for cradle in a Georgia, as Caucasus, point findings palaeobotanical Abstract 2013 January 2 /Accepted: 2012 September 5 /Revised: # 2012 February 9 Received: Scienza Attilio Bacilieri Roberto Imazio Serena grapevine ( Georgian of description molecular and domestication: overview grapevine of cradle the From lc il,Mnplir300 France 34060, Montpellier Viala, DAVEM, Place Equipe AGAP, 2 UMR SupAgro, Montpellier INRA 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 DOI Genomes & Genetics Tree el td iMln,VaClra2 iao213 Italy Bacilieri 20133, R. Milano 2, Celoria Via Milano, Università di Ambientali, Studi e degli Agrarie Scienze di Dipartimento ii vinifera Vitis Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, PNO PAPER OPINION molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree pigrVra elnHiebr 2013 Heidelberg Berlin Springer-Verlag V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: * : Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 itrclifrainadacaooia and archaeological and information Historical .Laucou V. ) : .Scienza A. & & ai Maghradze David sad Failla Osvaldo & aéi Laucou Valérie : .This P. : . germplasm L.) .Failla O. .vnfr silvestris vinifera V. o,mk eringrape Georgian make ion, h nievrino hsarticle this of version online The Comment citer cedocument: ii vinifera Vitis & & arel eLorenzis De Gabriella arc This Patrice

ek)and Beck.) . domes- L.) & & pnaeu rwn lns( plants growing spontaneous ( sativa accessions vinifera grapevine Georgian loci 112 genotype microsatellite to nuclear used Twenty were view. of under point investigated genetic be the to interesting particularly germplasm ae hscutyago addt oadesquestions address conservation. to an candidate domestication good regarding a compartment wild country the this with makes relatedness pool close its gene with grapevine cultivated together Georgian of the use. aspects of and Uniqueness applied management resources to genetic a grapevine contribution provides Georgian new work This significant varieties. highly compart- cultivated wild some the with of ment overlapping special identified also has (PCA) analysis in component Principal than regions. cultivars European local other with distances genetic environments smaller natural present Georgian wild the of in individuals doubtful preserved sparse still some grapevine or in populations origin addition, of In place cases. real countries, the Caucasian identify neighboring to helping with Western with and varieties ones Georgian few European the evidenced linking has cases viticulture interesting foreign relationships and for search Georgian the between of Moreover, viticulture. originality this and of traits uniqueness highlighting in represented countries, poorly or other germ- absent Georgian and wild) the and in (cultivated plasm represented well loci, identified overall have Results alleles, country. the traditional of to regions linked production wine breeding still local and of varieties characteristics foreign conserve international, of distinctive that arrival maintained despite shows has traits analysis germplasm Data grapevine France. Georgian international in large a collection to them cultivar compare to and conditions wild in ek)fo emls olcin n 8from 18 and collections germplasm from Beck.) .vnfr silvestris vinifera V. rpvn eei resource genetic grapevine d ek)found Beck.) V. Version preprint ae ntesxht h it ilnimB r ls to close are BC millennium fifth the to sixth the in dated dfo h ieo hlvr ilg (McGovern village Shulaveri of site collect- the remains from ed seed grape and of Morphological characteristics Kachaghana). Didi morphometric and Khramis Arukhlo, Sopeli, prov- Shulaveri, Tsiteli Katli of Gora, (Kvemo) (sites to Georgia Lower (sixth of the ince culture in BC) tepe millennium Shulaveri-Shomu fourth so-called of ence Rusishvili h it n it ilnimB D Pasquale (Di BC millennium fifth and sixth the 2012 otniie al. et Costantini 2000 grapevine cultivated of domestication and (Hehn theory this supporting argumentations additional infor- give toponimical mation activities. and winemaking religious, and ethnographical, viticultural Historical, with linked are gion sativa Vavilov Rusishvili 2004 (Rusishvili grapevine cultivated modern Horf and Keywords ed JprdeadJavakhishvili and (Japaridze seeds com- (Tianeti ( of remains Badaani ( by witnessed of wheat is mon site province) (fourth Kartli the of Age in district Bronze farming the BC), the During to millennium fourth BC. the millennium from culture second (Kura)-Araks Mtkvari the by al. et (This examples winemaking earliest of the with viticulture for place birth long the a as time for considered been has Anatolia, eastern with together abroad. varieties from domesticated imported (3) locally grapes and and countries; among progenitor; among crossing wild (1) material the possible plant to of of area due exchange distribution (2) the unknown all d or in putative persed questionable several still of existence is them of subsp. ( Grapevine Introduction Grapevine ,0 cesosaercre sidvda varieties individual as Possingham recorded and (Alleweldt are accessions Horf 6,000 and (Zohary Europe silvestris rtcmcarthlicum Triticum Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree rhebtncladacaooia aa aigbc to back dating data, archaeological and Archaeobotanical h ot acss(zrajn rei,adGeorgia), and Armenia, (Azerbaijan, Caucasus South The ;Forni Ramishvili ; Ramishvili ; V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: ek,snemn rhelgclfnig fti re- this of findings archaeological many since Beck., 1870 sativa 1926 ek)oiial ipre rmwsenAi to Asia western from dispersed originally Beck.) 2000 Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 2010 2010 ii vinifera Vitis SSRs ;DeCandolle 2012 rtcmaestivum Triticum .Gogai osdrdacal o h origin the for cradle a considered is Georgia ). ;Olmo ek)adwl om ( forms wild and Beck.) .Ohrgaeseswr icvrdi a in discovered were seeds grape Other ). Licheli ; on n Failla and Forni ; 2005 2001 . 2001 Domestication e.,mlioe aly n grapevine and barley, multirowed Nev.), 20;Ckatsvl n Maghradze and Chkhartishvili /2006; ;McGovern 1995 .TeSuhCuau a covered was Caucasus South The ). . opie utvtd( cultivated comprises L.) 2007 2006 1883 ;Levadoux 2000 1988 McGovern ; ,spoteiec fpres- of evidence support ), .e hl) esa wheat Persian Thell), em L. Vavilov ; .Nwdy,mr than more Nowadays, ). msiaincnes dis- centers, omestication Comment citer cedocument: . 2010 2003a 1971 oeua fingerprint Molecular .Teoii fmost of origin The ). ). 1956 Rushishvili ; .vinifera V. .viifra fer ini v V. Chilashvili ; 2010 1931 2003a ;Negrul Kokrashvili ; ;Kighuradze

2003b , .vinifera V. b .subsp. L. ;Zohary subsp. 2010 2004 1938 1990 and ) . ; ; ; ; nht it etre C,blnigt ohsubspecies both sev- and to belonging district, BC), (Ochamchire centuries sixth Gienos to and enth BC), seventh centuries district, sixth (Zugdidi millennium Ergeta to second from grapevine the of of from seeds part stems BC), second vine district, by: (Senaki witnessed also Nosiri As winemaking Georgia. Herodotus BC), in to century prospered (first According Strabon and world. BC) ancient century devel- (fifth the highly in of the BC cultures with ties 1500 oped close around evidencing zenith Georgia, its Eastern reached and BC millennium a n ftems motn ciiis(Licheli activities important most the Ages, winemaking of and Middle one crop was leading the a as During considered was Georgia. grapevine in churches Christian remains. seed archaeological periods, gr previous for for reported irriga- terraces as well systems, as excavated tion were for care tools wine agricultural and winemaking other and Satsnakheli, jars named crushers wine with (Kvevri wineries, Kvevri named many of AD). findings century fourth Archaeological the since Georgia (in epoch Christian the Sokhumi and district) (Zugdidi Anaklia (Dzidziguri from seeds grape h meorpyo h oitUin(1949 Union while Soviet the information, of basic Ampelography the with country. varieties this autochthonous al. for autoch- 525 et of wine) (Ketskhoveli number Georgia and exact of table Ampelography the (both determine to varieties easy thonous so not is It platform Ampelographical census. 1985 the vineyards to of according Union % Soviet 42.7 former covered the Tavkveri,of Mtsvane Saperavi, Kakhuri Rkatsiteli, and named Chinuri, cultivars Georgian Five wine ha. 134,300 local to up enlarged was surface vineyard agric Georgian in fields leading reached vineyard to ha. dedicated market 70,309 the surface meet the to 1879, century In nineteenth demand. the of since part constructed second were new the factories and brandy Russia, and in spirit, capitalism wineries, of strict development the the of with link benefited winemaking and viticulture Georgian history Recent (Licheli BC 2800 2007 to back dating Kvatskhelebi, of settlement r atclryueu,poiigamorphological a providing useful, books particularly ampelographic local are other with together varieties. works native These Georgian 414 of description ampelographic h raeicluehseovdi h is ato h second the of part first the in evolved has culture Trialeti The rpvn lnsbcm n ftemi raet for ornaments main the of one became plants Grapevine during continued development winemaking and Viticulture uigteSve eid iiutr n ieaigwere winemaking and viticulture period, Soviet the During silvestris ;Rusishvili 1995 (Rushishvili ). 2010 ). 01http://kvevri.org/ 2011 1990 lua ciiisadi 93 the 1973, in and activities ultural pvn utvto,adas and cultivation, apevine Rusishvili ; reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree 2010 Glonti ; – 1960 90 reports 1970) )aswellas 2007 reports ) 2010 sativa ). ), Version preprint ahaz tal. et Maghradze olt drs hs sus si a hw yprevious by shown was it as issues, these address powerful a to offers markers tool microsatellite molecular of nuclear advent The using markers. worldwide vari- grapevine distributed grapevine representative eties Georgian of selection the a within and germplasm both relationships and sity al. et (Chkhartishvili project vines wild mul- of and tiplication investigation description, inventory, an in of involved institute recently The was Tbilisi collections. of field Oenology and Viticulture, Horticulture, situ ex in them organizing genotypes 400 about collected and regions all almost surveyed (1956 century twentieth the of half insatdi h ideo h ieenhcnuyas century ( nineteenth Kolenati by the of of work the middle by the witnessed in started tion (Sharden country this in diseases. and pests, expansion, activity century human nineteenth to the due suf- since population erosion, genetic grapevine important wild fered All individuals. single (Ramishvili even m 1,200 of re- elevation woody an 1988 all to almost up Georgia, of in component gions a and is Caucasus plant of flora This the Georgia. of representative typical a is Beck., grapevine cultivated the of ancestor 2010 tal. et al. et (Vouillamoz programs scientific various involved in is germplasm grapevine Georgian the conservation, aiir tal. et Bacilieri dtaiinlvreisadtewl eepo (Bacilieri pool gene wild the and varieties traditional ed Azerbaijan, long-term (Armenia, of ensure maintenance to region Ukraine) and the Russia, Moldova, of Georgia, capacity strength- at the aiming ening region Sea Black Northern and of Caucasus frame ( sustain- grapevine the of and use in conservation able on made projects was research progress international significant 2010, and salse ntecuty(Maghradze country the in established were collections grapevine many century twentieth the (StaroselskiDuring century nineteenth the Middle since started plasm Europe, East countries. Caucasian in Mtsvane other cultivated and and Asia, also Tavkveri, are Saperavi, Kakhuri Rkatsiteli, like having varieties ties (Census autochthonous cultivated value are main high-market the Georgia present, in At Abkhazeti, varieties Meskheti. Racha, Adjara, Imereti, and Kartli, Guria, Saingilo, re- Kakheti, Samegrelo, most as putative such Lechkhumi, the old origin, for the of varieties, defining, gions grape also Georgian and important plants the of description Genomes & Genetics Tree Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree hspprrprsterslso td fgntcdiver- genetic of study a of results the reports paper This e eivlrfrne eoteitneo idgrapevine wild of existence report references medieval Few grapevine Wild wrns fcnevto o Georgian for conservation of Awareness ye tal. et Myles ; .Nwdy,i rw nsas ml ouain or populations small sparse in grows it Nowadays, ). V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: 2006 ahaz tal. et Maghradze ; Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 2010 Vitis 2006a 2011 .vinifera V. eei eore,icuigtecultivat- the including resources, genetic ahaz n Turok and Maghradze ; .vinifera V. , ). b 1711 ). 2009a subsp. .Tefrtsinii investiga- scientific first The ). 2004 . eei eore nthe in resources genetic L.) Comment citer cedocument: – , ,wietebs varie- best the while ), 98,Rmsvl ( Ramishvili 1988), 2010 silvestris .vinifera V. 2008 1846 , 2012 .vinifera V. .Bten2003 Between ). .I h second the In ). ek,tewild the Beck., 2012 ;Schaaletal. 2006 subsp.

.Beside ). ;Imazio 1893 sativa germ- 1988 2005 2008 ). ) ; ; ok ngae Aahae al. et (Aradhya grapes on works rohrpatseis(atre al. et (Harter species plant other or npeiu ok Mgrdee al. et (Maghradze works basing previous selected on were varieties cultivated twelve hundred One accessions Cultivated materials Plant methods and Materials renewed and new represent a could for viticulture. that combinations efficient genotypes genetic an local valuable to old contribute of in to Georgia preservation by and played their role domestication con- as the to of grapevine well definition aims better paper as a this to cultivars world, tribute the viticulture the of with concordant history relations are known groupings the genetic with local whether checking al. France). INRA et Laucou ( that collection Vassal set same the ( choose we reference, larger de- et (Doligez was chromosome equilibrium per locus linkage al. one in least markers at selecting 20 fined, of set a analysis, 2005 ihentu idgaeie eeas nlddi the flora. in spontaneous the included in selected also were them were of All grapevines analysis. wild true Eighteen accessions Wild considered were work. varieties this type in to true the only reason, this and for characterization molecular Georgian and ampelographic most lack complete collections, germplasm but in present exhaustive ones considered the even varieties, be the ampelography). of can't Russian to amount it and total Thus, (according Georgian the varieties of mentioned % already grape 21 sam- Georgian of The representative traditional Vassal. grape is de Institut set (INRA) Domaine the ple Agronomique of in repository Recherche available germplasm la also de are National varieties Gorizia Georgian in repository identified 22 germplasm and Italy) region, grape (Friuli-Venezia Giulia province a in maintained are accessions All germplasm. grapevine native Georgian of tives igtegntcsrcueo ouain Sf tal. et (Sefc al. populations et of Grassi structure genetic infer- and the kinship; ring solving and synonymy, individuals; homonymy, of genotyping problems for utilized prevalently 2011 ycmiighsoia n oeua approaches, molecular and historical combining By ocryotpeieadunbias and precise out carry To 2006 abi tal. et Hamblin ; sdt hrceie233dfeetcliaso the of cultivars different 2,323 characterize to used ) .T eal ocmaetelclgrpamwt a with germplasm local the compare to able be To ). 2003a iraie al. et Cipriani ; http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/vassal/ 2007 .Aogtee S stemost the is SSR these, Among ). 2003 dsrcueadparentage and structure ed 2010 2009a 2004 acue al. et Laucou ; ). ioru tal. et Vigouroux ; , b srepresenta- as ) 2011 2000 ) ; , Version preprint ihtodcmlpeiin fe inn fallswith alleles of binning pair After base precision. in decimal recorded two were Life with sizes allele Biosystems, and (Applied Technologies) scored 3.10 were GeneMapper Alleles Life USA). using PRISM® CA, Biosystems, City, ABI (Applied Foster automated Technologies, Analyzer an ( Genetic al. on et detected 310 Doligez were of loci work grapevine These quality, the 19 on their the based for across chromosomes selected distribution were and kit. loci polymorphism, commercial SSR was Plant nuclear DNA DNeasy Twenty greenhouse. Qiagen the using or in collection extracted cuttings field woody the rooted in seasons accession from each growing for active collected the were during leaves young of Samples genotyping SSR Online in reported silvestris is accessions cultivated character- resource other and as wild well for as attribution istics wild Sex ratio. of allowed sex and sex wild) calculate the to define in detectable to always not is useful (which samples particularly charac- was and This survey greenhouse terization. morphological University continued Milano allow are the to at and facilities pots propagated in vegetatively cultivation were under samples wild hermaphro- are general, All grapevines in dites. wild are, varieties structure: cultivated flower dis- while dioecious and the interesting is most character was The tinctive match kin. nor no identities and neither collection found, Germplasm Vassal the in served oa f5 ape eogn odifferent to belonging samples 53 of in total performed a data same the other with compared were fingerprints anaplgahcldsrposadshmso efand leaf (Larrea on the flower schemes observing and out descriptors carried ampelographical was main America North from ones exotic differenti hybrids, interspecific (Arnold was distances km long the 10 that of considering decided distance vinifera was minimum measure a This collection, considered. of of definition site the in and each account, into taken were vineyards vated GrapeGen06 European accueil.php the of ( frame project the in defined subspeciesprinciples two the differentiate di- (Anzanietal. seed which and shape, berry, and leaf, mension vineyards as typical such from for characteristics far checked be morphological be should plants should and ones) sampling abandoned of (even of kind area this avoid the To mistakes, cultivation. from escaped that inter- accessions of subgroup ( this to hybrids attribution specific false of avoidance is vines Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree h anpolmi apigo wild of sampling in problem main The V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: Vitis olngano eimwih sntal ocvrvery cover to able not is weight medium of grain pollen 1a olcinstsi ie nOln resource Online in given is sites collection http://www1.montpellier. pce.Te1 idacsin eecmae with compared were accessions wild 18 The species. Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 ,tedsacsbtenwl cesosadculti- and accessions wild between distances the ), nadto,fwifrainrgrigeooyof ecology regarding information few addition, In . 1978 1990 .vinifera V. ct tal. et Ocete ; ;Grassietal. 2002 × .T vi h iko collecting of risk the avoid To ). Vitis to ewe elwl ie and vines wild real between ation 2006 pce)o feral or species) Comment citer cedocument: 2003b ;i diin h SSR the addition, in ); inra.fr/grapegen06/ .Acrigt the to According ). .silvestris V. Vitis pce con- species

1b .vinifera V. . 2006 grape- V. ). atdt.Fsaitc CcehmadWeir permutations. 100,000 and with (Cockerham performed codomi- F-statistics our for data. variance computed nant values molecular Fst of on basing analysis (AMOVA) hierarchical by estimated (PI). ( identity alleles of null of frequency Sefc the and estimate soft- (Wagner The 1.0 (He). IDENTITY heterozygosity ware average coeffi- expected the and inbreeding (Ho), diversity heterozygosity the gene observed (Na), the locus (Fis), number per cients average alleles the observed excluded, of were genotypes software Smouse redundant the and using (Peakall performed GenAlEx were analyses Diversity analysis Data made be could comparison the datasets. collection sizes so among the varieties to reference standardized were of sizes allele Excel, Microsoft ae n epromda both performed in we obtained from and frequencies cases samples allele the in compared we way reason, same the ( in Georgia represented were loci culti- grape worldwide varieties. the vated of representative dif- repository as selected grapevine of Vassal was platforms The ampelographical countries. viticul- European of Georgian ferent definition by the played in role ture the or comprehension the collection Vassal samples and grapevine Georgian between Comparison components. principal two first plotted their were on elements based matrix distance between dataRelationships codominant Peakall for distance and genetic (Smouse of out matrix carried the was the on based PCA visualize accessions, To between 1.6.6. distances TreeView genetic with displayed was gram (Felsenstein package PHYLIP neighbor-joining by a obtain tree to processed was GD Nei's on based eciSaa tal. et al. Staraz Vecchi et (Gerber software FaMoz described. previously fashion the same using the in calculated ( were index from countries Nei's grapevines other among and distances Georgia the a Genetic among distances perform groups. of to four representation used spatial fre- a also allele giving were on PCA frequencies based Allele accessions of quencies. groups together linking hp (parent ships eei ifrnito mn ruso niiul was individuals of groups among differentiation Genetic is fal ewr neetdi vlaigi h 0SSR 20 the if evaluating in interested were we all, of First matrix distance a samples, these of structure the describe To ial,aprnaeaayi a are u,wt the with out, carried was analysis parentage a Finally, sativa – 1978 fsrn P) afo ulsbig)among siblings) full or half (PO), offspring and n egbrjiigte a drawn was tree neighbor-joining a and ) 2007 hspr ftewr a eoe to devoted was work the of part This silvestris 1999 ovrf osbegntcrelation- genetic possible verify to ) χ n sn eAE software. GenAlEx using and ) 2 etta eue oda tree a draw to used we that test n te onre;frthis for countries; other and ) 2003 2006 dpe ogae(Di grape to adapted ) reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree 1989 r n h probability the and ) oetmt,once estimate, to ) 1999 n h dendro- the and ) a sdto used was ) 1983 )was Version preprint in r akdntbigtu otypes. to acces- true the being both the not and the marked In possible with are not repository. sions was it Vassal this comparing the Djineschi, of Badagi in case of present select type accession to to able Badagi were true two we putative the and a cases, coincident not both were In accessions collections. c both germplasm accessions but Georgian two Gorizia by in and represented collected Badagi were of exception that repre- the with was Djineschi variety, was accession single Each a screening by fingerprints. a sented common the repository, several verify Vassal to of the made existence in the (22) to accessions due colle but were collection, Database. samples Vitis European the nu- the in 20 All inserted with and genotyped loci SSRs were clear accessions Georgian 130 The accessions) wild (cultivated and germplasm Georgian of structure Genetic Results potential the displayed also scores. of allele are LOD ratio one pairs the likelihood parent least with a likely at on Most with share relationship. based locus) individuals each and both at parent that one fact the only including (relationship work. pair our >8 in parent scores valid LOD potential with as pairs considered a only were this, assessing on Based for SSRs. 20 8 with of threshold simu score 100,000 through mined, markers al. SSR 20 et of the (Laucou set the among with probed characterized cultivars were 2,323 thresholds significance and scores are data. zero the than to significance greater statistical value giving a computed, with relation- pair) parentage potential (parent/parent off- being any ship individuals given for these a scores of LOD of likelihood unrelated. of the parents) pair by (or divided (or parent spring individual the an being score), of (LOD individuals) likelihood ratio the odds of determining log by ratio, likelihood the of rithm markers. 20 of set a with ratio, likelihood to fixed was al. entire et loci (Hoffman the two mistakes of possible and allow discrepancy varieties A sampled collection. of Vassal group Georgian the Genomes & Genetics Tree u ftolc,promdwt ao itpn f10 of mistyping FaMoz maxi- with a performed loci, on two incompatibilities) of mum (or includ- mismatches relationships possible searching ing account, into taken also was al. et (Riaz mutations Avise or and (Dakin alleles null of Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree nprna otlkl eainhp r presented are relationships likely most Uniparental (LOD) odds of logarithm by determined parents Possible loga- the of calculation involves method software The V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 2011 .D eciSaa ta.( al. et Staraz Vecchi Di ). 2002 tdi h aegermplasm same the in cted .Teefc fsoigerrors scoring of effect The ). mn rmtodifferent two from oming ae aetpis LOD a pairs, parent lated 2004 Comment citer cedocument: anre al. et Wagner ; 2005 ,tepresence the ), 2007

deter- ) 2006 − ), 7 Georgian gro among locations. variability geographical to due is n eefo ewe h w useis(ieaiieet (Zinelabidine subspecies two domestication the al. grapevine between flow regarding gene obtained works and ones recent the other with compared in (Table were computed values resulting was the estimate Fst pairwise ulation h utvtdcmateti ih ifrn ra ftradi- of areas (Fig. different cultivation eight tional in compartment cultivated the ugs httelretpr fdfeetainhst be con- to when (Fig. subspecies both has two groups, the differentiation the sidering of within differences part to largest attributed the Results AMOVA. that hierarchical suggest by estimated was partments 0. from different significantly were not dataset and total the close for very values and compartment Fis each mean for loci The over germplasm. alleles grape null undetected Georgian the or affecting in inbreeding of 11 SSR absence the for 20 indicate and the compartment of cultivated out silvestris eight the locus; for in each scored markers at were estimated values was negative (Fis) and coefficient cultivated inbreeding the across patterns samples cultivated the samples. wild for heterozy- the lower for observed slightly than the was while also (Ho) groups, was gosity both (He) in diversity similar gene very the the or diversity, within allelic heterozygosity of frequency results expected the relevant with agreement a identifies In at sample. number occurring effective alleles the those of sampled, size and germplasm the complexity While the the cases. on depends both largely in wild number similar allele allele quite and effective was cultivated their that (Ne) increase the number significantly in However, not numbers 8.750). did vs. allele samples (14.450 in one increase wild the cultivated the the in in higher than was by dataset (Na) resource locus locus per Online alleles calculated of in number were presented (PI) and ( identity locus frequencies of alleles probability null index and coefficient, fixation inbreeding the diversity, or gene (Fis) Nei's or (He) erozygosity e' eei itne eecmue mn h nine the among computed were country, distances the of genetic regions Nei's different relation- and a both accessions of among existence by ship the differentiated verify To were components. subsets principal different principal and two ability, first their on (Fig. between components basing relationships genetic plotted of The were matrix data. genotypes the codominant on for based distance computed acces- between was distances PCA genetic sions, the visualize to side, other ovrf h ossec ftegn lwfo the from flow gene the of consistency the verify To eei ifrnito mn utvtdadwl com- wild and cultivated among differentiation Genetic Figure het- expected heterozygosity, observed frequency, Allele 2010 ye tal. et Myles ; ust h i auscluae o ahlocus each for calculated values Fis The subset. silvestris 1 ie rpia ersnaino h allelic the of representation graphical a gives 3 oprmn othe to compartment ,acutn o 82 fttlvari- total of % 48.21 for accounting ), 2011 2b ,wieol o1 fvariation of % 10 to 6 only while ), eAdé tal. et Andrés De ; 2a p n mn different among and ups n lowe splitting when also and ) silvestris sativa 2 h average The . 2012 ie,apop- a vines, rus The groups. .O the On ). 1 and ) r ), Version preprint eoye sn h ae2 ula S.The SSR. nuclear 20 same the collection repository using Vassal genotyped the of cultivars 2,323 examined ut icse yLuo ta.( al. et Laucou by discussed sults silvestris i.2a 2 Fig. Georgian in obtained frequencies allele The repository Vassal accessions with comparison and analysis to Parentage it compare to and of (Fig. groups representation ones graphical among geographical a distances give genetic to the built was cultivation genet- distance, Nei's major on ic based their dendrogram, to neighbor-joining A according area. accessions of groups groups. two the 1 Fig. ( hno nomto index information Shannon alleles, effective of number 0.5, than higher frequency with alleles of number detected, alleles cesosdsrbtdi thei in distributed accessions silvestris Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: lei atrsacross patterns Allelic , and b ruswr nlzdi oprsnwt h re- the with comparison in analyzed were groups nlsso oeua aine eie ihtopopulations two with defined variance: molecular of Analysis Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 sativa Na Na )( 5% >5 ubrof number a n mn iepp ( pops nine among and ) Ne ih rvnac ein)( regions) proveniance eight r I 4 ). Comment citer cedocument: 2011 silvestris ,sneti work this since ), n h cultivated the and b )

χ sativa 2 distance and mn h rus edormdanbsdo h re- the on based drawn the of dendrogram sults distances A the groups. verify to the frequencies among allele on applied was test eotdi h attreclmso nieresource Online of columns three last Fig. SSR the in in each shown reported at representation allele PCA the each describing for loci, coefficients the in and proposed computed, is wild) and cultivated Fig. Vassal wild; and vated au 06±.3.Ti eutwsqieuepce,con- of unexpected, lower number quite a higher was the performed result sidering work This cited (0.62±0.13). previously value samples the wild the in ( while al. detected et (0.76±0.12), Laucou of samples work cultivated the for in detected one the with ble .3 o h utvtdcmatetado 0.777±0.023 of and the compartment for cultivated 0.786± of the was for (He) 0.031 heterozygosity ( expected al. of performed be value et loci mean Laucou to and of out work alleles the turned of in number analyses, the our with at in comparable respectively, 27, VMC4f3 to and four from VVIn16 varying alleles, of Number et (Aradhya grapevine wild and al. cultivated in detected ones and Caucasus b South al. et the tradi- (Vouillamoz of from Anatolia study cultivars the grapevine to devoted tional works ones previous the with in comparable evidenced almost were hetero- loci expected each and for observed, zygosity detected, alleles of Number conservation and structure germplasm Georgian Discussion work. this for sampled repository relationships accessions PO Vassal likely the most explore among and detect to used was Fig. in presented (Ward Ward A dataset itory. vari- the a cultivated all Georgian in and for eties calculated data SSR was combining diversity obtained genetic varieties, foreign Nei's other the and grapevines cultivated Georgian 2004 rr tal. et Frare ; ovrf h ikadpsil eainhp among relationships possible and link the verify To 2003 5 ieaiiee al. et Zinelabidine ; ae nall rqece,aPAaayi was analysis PCA a frequencies, allele on Based . silvestris Ibà ; χ ň 2 se al. et es 2011 etaogtefu rus(erin culti- (Georgian: groups four the among test sativa ru.Tecliae au a compara- was value cultivated The group. 7 n r ngnrlareetwt the with agreement general in are and ) ial,alklho-ae approach likelihood-based a Finally, 2003 ape netdi h aslrepos- Vassal the in inserted samples 1963 ece al. et Sefc ; 2010 2006 edga a rw and drawn was dendogram ) 2011 silvestris ape n h Georgian the and samples ;DeAndrésetal. ahaz tal. et Maghradze ; n233clias The cultivars. 2,323 on ) reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree 2003 7 eoye with genotypes (72 vreae al. et Hvarleva ; 2009a 2012 3 2011 6 . are , ). ) , Version preprint circles 3 Fig. 0.000 0.047 0042 0.000 European Western 0.000 in experienced the 0.035 usually from compared ones and He, Ho, the 0.017 flora 0.033 of to far reduction local not significant are the same Moreover, wild 0.033 the others. the in to 0.000 sampling belong 0.031 of 0.034 all places here 0.049 sam- analyzed the while ples 0.080 proveniences 0.028 different germ- have French 0.035 collection the also plasm in 0.000 and present Georgian accessions wild the 0.074 0.060 18 that in the considering 0.073 present with 0.055 0.045 samples compared repository analyzed) Vassal 80 0.000 among profiles single 0.056 0.046 0.055 0.047 0.042 0.078 0.046 0.047 Silvestris 0.046 0.039 0.069 0.058 Sativa 0.061 0.072 0.051 Samegrelo 0.000 0.061 Ratcha-Letchumi Kartli 0.046 Kakheti Imereti 0.000 Guria Silvestris Adjara Abkhazeti 1 Table Genomes & Genetics Tree Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: ru ape htse ocutrbsn ntergorpia proveniance geographical their on basing cluster to seem that samples group rnia opnn nlsspromdo erinsmls( samples Georgian on performed analysis component Principal ariepplto s values Fst population Pairwise Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 .3 0.000 Silvestris 0.039 0.000 Sativa 0.000 0.069 0.076 Adjara Abkhazeti Comment citer cedocument: Silvestris

silvestris ui mrt aht atiRth-ecuiSamegrelo Ratcha-Letchumi Kartli Kakheti Imereti Guria silvestris etre,miti ihlvlo eedvriy hsresult past This diversity. the gene of during level occurring high a exchange maintain centuries, material low isola- despite and germplasm, and tion wild and populations indicate cultivated they wild Georgian because that Georgian interesting are of data These case individuals. the in confirmed al. et Zinelabidine al. et Cunha ouain Gas tal. et (Grassi populations and sativa 2007 ). e circle Red oe tal. et Lopes ; 2010 evidences ;DeAndrésetal. 2003b 2009 iVch tal. et Vecchi Di ; silvestris ec tal. et Zecca ; ape,while samples, 2012 )isnot 2006 2010 blue ; ; Version preprint aslcliae n wild) and cultivated Vassal wild; and cultivated groups (Georgian: four the the among of test results the on basing 5 Fig. wild the in contained richness genetic the tradition (McGovern cultivation Georgia long-standing in the to related probably is 4 Fig. Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: edormdrawn Dendrogram regions evidencing Georgia of map and matrix distance genetic Nei's a on computed tree Neighbor-joining Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 2003a χ 2 , b u,frto l,i evidences it all, of first but, ) Comment citer cedocument: silvestris

compart- ou ylcscmaio fallsdtce ntedatasets the in detected alleles of comparison locus by locus health. of state good their underlining ment, h s fcmo oiwsas sfli efriga performing in useful also was loci common of use The reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree Version preprint .02t .08 n beti h erinvreis On varieties. from Georgian the ranging in frequency absent the and a 0.1048) (with to present genotypes 0.0002 were Vassal alleles the not 15 and in just 0.1157) accessions; Vassal Georgian to 0.0044 in in 2,323 from presented presented the frequency a in were (with and alleles cultivars cultivars 73 Georgian accessions, alleles 130 Vassal 316 the the in Among identified wild worldwide. the collected representing populations thus Vassal, in described eiiino h eei tutr fampelographic of structure genetic allele the the of of in useful comparison definition been already the have nuclear and countries of among alleles frequencies presence/absence SSR The chloroplast alleles. and of number on low based thus suppositions a loci, erroneous SSR making of polymorphic risk highly the reducing most the in 0.0005 also in range present (harbor- absent 48 frequency and were a alleles 0.5) unique ing the to while 0.0217 vines, wild from Vassal (frequency vines wild representedinallthe the in ( represented dataset well Georgian those to mindful particularly were we h aslrpstr Oln resource Georgian (Online in from repository obtained Vassal ones loci) the the all with The coincident (in frequencies. mainly were frequencies allele accessions allele their of of majority and Georgia) and (Vassal Material Supplemental Electronic of three columns last the in reported are PCA, loci, the SSR describing each at allele each for eigenvalues The frequencies. allele on basing computed 6 Fig. Genomes & Genetics Tree Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree mn h lee ihdfeetfeunis vrl loci, overall frequencies, different with alleles the Among silvestris V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: C nlsswas analysis PCA Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 ie 9allswr rsn nteGeorgian the in present were alleles 59 side, sativa 4 .vnfr silvestris vinifera V. and silvestris – .37.Teecsswere cases These 0.5347). Comment citer cedocument: n beto poorly or absent and ) 3 ). compartment

.vinifera V. aecutiscudb osdrdacu ofrigthe Georgian confirming by clue played a the role considered from important be dataset wild could the countries in same absence contemporary the elsewhereand collected compartment same cultivated the the of in existence also the alleles hand, domesti- other the local on to and linked events probably cation traits of originality viticulture the this of and richness genetic the hand, one on confirm, to al. et Imazio bec fGoga ape n utvtdaccessions cultivated (no samples Georgian of to absence closer genetically were all work, eastern that that in confirmed considered estimates groups, Fst slightly pairwise was eastern lation the samples with western compared in reduced diversity haplotype the of samples 1,000 ( array SNP quality uoencutypafrs(rooGrí tal. et (Arroyo-García platforms country European sdt efr a perform were to Vassal) and used Georgia from accessions cultivated and (wild varieties. foreign of formation ulse oko ye ta.( al. et Myles of work published Gogaadwrdie hnteVassal the than worldwide) and (Georgia silvestris (Fig. dendrogram a draw h eetdall rqece o aho h orgroups four the of each for frequencies allele detected The hsls bevto id ofraini h recently the in confirmation a finds observation last This silvestris oprmn smc lsrt h utvtdvarieties cultivated the to closer much is compartment 2006 .Suiso h erinvtclueseem viticulture Georgian the on Studies ). .vinifera V. χ hnt h etr n.Det the to Due one. western the to than Vitis 2 itnets mn h rusadto and groups the among test distance kSPary a sdt genotype to used was array) SNP 9k 5 ,eiecn htteGeorgian the that evidencing ), nti ok uhr tt that state authors work, this In . 2011 vinifera .vinifera V. ,weea900high 9,000 a where ), silvestris n h popu- the and , vni the in even is. vinifera 2006 ; Version preprint eri.Mr eal bu hsln eeotie yPCA by obtained were link this about details More Georgia. inhpbetween tionship al. et al. et (Zinelabidine works in showed published ones previously the than accession. Fst each of values of lower area evidenced Results prove- growing prevalent geographical most the putative or nience on based subgroups theregional splitting further and groups arate ( al. et Myles grapevines by cultivated given and work, information wild that the in Georgian integrate included) on were results samples our wild five only and plat- In grapevine together. countries' grouping other from In distance forms. viticulture the describes Georgian It variance. dividing between-group the maximizing ing, 7 Fig. Djvari, and Heunisch, ( together; ing ( grapevines: om ecmue s popula Fst (Table computed plat- Georgian we grapevine cultivated form, the of of constitution the role in domestication. the grapevine on in conclusions East Near their the confirm partially and te atErpa ein [ regions European East other Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree ovrf ndti h oepae by played role the detail in verify To V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: 2011 edormbsdo h admto fheacia cluster- hierarchical of method Ward the on based Dendrogram 7 1 ohconsidering both ) aeai n zlhv obchuri] Dzelshavi and Saperavi, green Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 ;DeAndrésetal. 2 ru f16Goga utvtdgaeie,group- grapevines, cultivated Georgian 106 of group a ) 3 4 utvr( cultivar a ) ( to 1 ,pstoso h 3Goga idgaeie,all grapevines, wild Georgian 23 the of positions ), 7 erincliasgopn ihcliasfrom cultivars with grouping cultivars Georgian silvestris red h oiin ftecliae Georgian cultivated the of positions the , soi tetra Tsnoris 4 slkdi tetra Tsulukidzis vinifera and 2012 inpiws estimations pairwise tion Comment citer cedocument: sativa ofrigacoerela- close a confirming ) and sativa , silvestris 5 ls oGui rto or Gouais to close ) silvestris zeiAleksandrouli, Dzveli niiul within individuals negtdifferent eight in compartment 2010

stosep- two as ;Myles 2011 6 ) lot ofr,oc gi,teasneo interspecific of absence the again, once confirm, to also a eepandb h rsneo eefo between flow gene a of presence sativa the V.v. by explained de- be be may of could presence scenarios the two fined: considerations, subgroups. these two on the between Based existing admixture the of tation cesos h o s au 009 ewe Georgian between (0.039) value Fst sativa of low subset The another are accessions. with they but overlapping ones, completely cultivated the also of part a from distinguished eaental ocerydfeetaeadseparate and differentiate and clearly to able not are sam- we cultivated comprises high and component by ples of second characterized sides the group hand of the right levels and Interestingly, (left graph). groups the other two defines ysis region. growing main their originality to link their local maintain and grapevines cultivation, Georgian is long-standing traditional origin, despite of that place confirmation initial putative another their on distinguish based to varieties able the still differences, genotype and phenotype varie- west and (Negrul east ties among differences present hairi- to leaf seem ness, as characteristics, ampelographical parts. Remarkably, mayor two into territory the dividing direction and south Georgia to across north a in running thus Caucasus, Minor Major and connecting Mountains Likhi geograph- by the constituted reflect barrier ical to seems subdivision This Guria, Adjara). the Racha-Lechkhumi, and of part Samegrelo, western (Abkhazeti, the from country originating ones Kakheti) the (Kartli, from regions differ eastern plants the the in are areas; originated geographical blocks putatively different two to the belong in to inserted thought individuals the the in and differentiation partment a identified PC1 of values Fig. in presented coi srml,CiitaaAjrl,adChrogha Opoura, and cultivars. Shavkurdzena, Adjaruli, Kakhetis Tagidzura, Chitistvala as Tsvrimala, such Tchodi, vines, wild or Kurdzeni forest, means to Tkis similar Tkis rather leaves) where Tkis and (grapes and traits ampelographic Georgia) as bearing Georgia) (West such Adjara (East conditions, from Kakheti wild varie- from cultivated recall Vazi in names rich which is ties ampelography Georgian that rsml o osdrdi hsfae ems report must We extinct frame. and becoming this one collected in other considered was not the one simply work, two or just this least and in at analyzed genotypes contain rather of but types homogeneous be not that may implying thus others, not and through grapevine or, derived cultivated backcrosses) the was that complex hypothesis the or by crossbreds alternatively, degree first either nteohrsd,tefrtcmoeto h C anal- PCA the of component first the side, other the On h oiinn of positioning The sativa and silvestris silvestris oprmns ned idacsin r well are accessions wild Indeed, compartments. and 1946 . silvestris V.v 3 Tsertsvadze ; neetnl,teP2cmie ihlow with combined PC2 the Interestingly, . cesos hs nteGoga dataset, Georgian the in thus, accessions; rusfnshr rpia represen- graphical a here finds groups silvestris “ “ domestication intermediate teegntpsbig thus, being, genotypes (these eoye ntePAseems PCA the in genotypes 1989 .v silvestris v. V. ” .Temitnneof maintenance The ). reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree ” utvtdgenotypes cultivated ysm genotypes some by sativa populations silvestris sativa com- Version preprint poie esol eal oidentify the the to on able from fact, be isolated In should collected. we samples opposite, wild the among hybrids Genomes & Genetics Tree ooiso h lc e uigtetitet ofifteenth to thirteenth (Genoa the during AD Sea centuries Black Republic the Genoa AD. on centuries colonies fifteenth neighbor to Georgia fourth a fourth the was the during Empire till Byzantine Colchis The in and AD. BC region century Kartli centuries the in first present was and to trades sixth in the (Lomouri role during important Sea exchanges an Black cultural played the Georgia, on of documented Greek coasts colonies, peoples. kept Georgia Hellenistic and history, countries and its European all during with distance, relationships the of spite In repository Vassal accessions with comparison and analysis Parentage admixture. and exchange of varietal detection allowing points clues, other contact and relationships for PO cultivars searching as such with made, comparison was countries a other past, from the on acquired in knowledge circulation the varietal to information add to better genetic viti- and Georgian To culture the of varieties. uniqueness by cultivated the comprehend witnessed the and investigate All in country. harbored the still of richness frame places the different in in occurred have to seems domestication and tradition where cultural scenario strong and a old describe very has to cultivation varietiesgrapevine seem selected results Our of exchanges regions. conservation the variety the in and to and germplasm regions low among to ge- pointing the loca- geographic tions, of with germplasm correlation Georgian A of the structure variability. netic concerned and result diversity unexpected genetic quite high for analy- the accounted all, ses of First viticulture. Georgian the of importance isA (Catholicism centu- nineteenth AD to thirteenth ries the during Georgia in sioners similarities more (Fig. regions have Georgia they Eastern the expected, with as and, Georgia East Georgia Georgia. silvestris West of regions neighboring are Abkhazeti, Adjara Guria, and Samegrelo, Imereti, while Georgia, East in provinces neighboring two are Kartli and Kakheti distances: al region- to proportional directly are distances genetic that show by Fig. drawn in represented picture results Moreover, analysis. the Fst confirmed the subsets distance, data genetic nine Nei's the among upon built tree neighbor-joining The ra ikRa fo h eodcnuyB othe to BC the century along second and roads, the AD). Black trading (from century the main seventeenth Road between the Silk Asia, on Great to seas Europe Caspian cross- the from on located: road strategically is Georgia Furthermore, Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree l h osdrtosmd bv emt neln the underline to seem above made considerations the All V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: cesosicue nti td eecletdfrom collected were study this in included accessions Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 1962 Lortkipanidze ; .vinifera V. 1979 1980 n h aia ahlcmis- catholic Vatican the and ) oprmns hc snot. is which compartments, r ouetda well. as documented are ) 1980 Comment citer cedocument: ;teRmnEmpire Roman the ); 4 ). silvestris

4 samples clearly ne hspito iw stehsoyo ahvariety the each from of derived history the information is genetic Helpful, view, with abroad. of combined from have point they introductions this if as under or considered country this be in- of re- to varieties autochthons these real of Georgian are direction the volved this the if on possible, comprehending aspect when lationships; define, interesting to Italy, most is France, The side are Austria. relationships and PO Greece, eventual in involved eecluae (Nei calculated were grapevine international Georgian the by worldwide. of distributed played platforms definition role the putative in the grapevines of consistency the ssoni Table in accessions shown cases European as other interesting and few material and Georgian Syria) involving and Ukraine, Armenia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, as (such to countries belonging neighboring varieties not or near and (data accessions re- Georgian material the and Georgian of shown) Most between involved: countries. scored admixture other lationships of and Georgia princi- degree was of the work viticulture this elucidate of uniformly to aim attri- are the pally correctly they but to relationships, if enough PO not even bute are work, genome, this the in in distributed that used underline and SSR also article We 20 present here. presented the the be of not this mission will the details However, the of classification. out is cultivar target for ample used records with be historical should combined and data characterization This ampelographic relationships varieties. genetic Georgian highlighted linking software used. FaMoz was molecular markers, The SSR from inherited codominantly pedigrees as of such data reconstruction the to devoted structure. genetic actual the of impor- definition the great in of tance were they that proved molecular techniques modern genotyping and evolution, and history times grapevine different during at occurred events quite domestication grape, local for surely, centers the domestication about primary knowledge few of countries, the existence despite among that distances again distances once geographical confirming genetic reflect that is to dendrogram sce-seem the the in of described aspect interesting nario Another countries. other belong- to varieties ing other with admixture no apparently with apart Fig. ypgetto Auae al. et ber- (Azuma genetic as pigmentation such ry regarding domestication through investigations selected putatively further ma- traits address interesting be to for could origin terials and of varieties areas cultivated putative considered grapevine of are all frame nations that cited fact the the the in to due interesting domestication grapevine particularly investigating be could varieties n rm Eaulie al. et (Emanuelli aroma and is fal h eei itne ihVsa individuals Vassal with distances genetic the all, of First verifying in curiosity increased considerations these All obte netgt hs ons h ao software, FaMoz the points, these investigate better To 7 hr oto h erinacsin eieabranch a define accessions Georgian the of most where , 2 hsrsl sntsrrsn,adthese and surprising, not is result This . 1978 .Ti e otete ersne in represented tree the to led This ). 2010 2008 .Ohrfrincountries foreign Other ). iaezye al. et Lijavetzky ; 2006 ) Version preprint OTK YA FAC)DRF(RNE 10.13 17.85 21.76 19.96 23.95 29.34 12.35 23.01 29.14 8.74 18.59 (ITALY) SCORE (FRANCE) NERA LOD (FRANCE)XDURIF (AUSTRIA)XPICCOLA SYRAH BLANC GUEUCHE (FRANCE) (ITALY) (FRANCE)XVIOGNIER 14.12 NERA DURIF (AUSTRIA)XPICCOLA MEHLWEISS 11.89 (AUSTRIA) BLANC 15.83 (AUSTRIA)XGUEUCHE 16.68 BLAU BLANK (SYRIA) 29.16 30.11 11.66 BALADI (ITALY)XKAISI Fig. TONDO in PROSECCO described dendrogram (GEORGIA) (ARMENIE)XBUERA 16.27 GANZIANDY (GEORGIA) (IRAN)XRKATSITELI MEHDIK 13.41 (GEORGIA) KAKHURI (IRAN)XMTSVANE MEHDIK 08.23 8.87 TETRA (FRANCE) 15.95 TSULUKIDZIS VERDOT (GEORGIA)XPETIT TVRINA (GEORGIA) MAGHLARI (TAJIKISTAN)XCHKHUTCHESHI TETRA KAPTAR TSULUKIDZIS DELI (GEORGIA) TETRA (ARMENIE)XCHKHUTCHESHI TSULUKIDZIS GANZIANDY 22.30 PORTOKA 8.58 23.05 33.75 10.29 9.93 PORTOKA (GREECE) TETRA couple) (GREECE)XKOTSIPHALI KAKIS (parent RHODITIS relationships PO (GREECE) putative TETRI (GREECE)XMAUVROUIDON GOMIS RHODITIS 14.31 SHAVI DZIGANIDZIS DJVARI (FRANCE) (AUSTRIA) SYRAH BLANC GUEUCHE DJVARI (FRANCE) DURIF (AUSTRIA) MEHLWEISS SCORE BZVANURA LOD (ITALY) NERA PICCOLA BZVANURA SHAVI ASURETULI SHAVI ASURETULI (RUSSIA) variety BEKALNY Georgian (ARMENIE) GANZIANDY (ARMENIE) RUSSIA) GANZIANDY - (DAGESTAN TETRA ASSYLKARA TSULUKIDZIS RUSSIA) - TETRA (DAGESTAN TSULUKIDZIS ASSYLKARA TETRA TSULUKIDZIS (IRAN) (ITALY) MEHDIK TONDO PORTOKA PROSECCO (ARMENIE) GANZIANDY (ARMENIE) GANZIANDY PORTOKA MSKHVILTVALA TETRI (FRANCE) DURIF SAPERE MARGULI SAPERE parent) MARGULI (single relationships PO putative SHAVI (GREECE) MAGHLARI RHODITIS KHIKHVI KOLKHURI KHARISTVALA TETRA KAKHIS TETRI GOMIS DJVARI BUERA SHAVI ASURETULI variety considered) Georgian were score>8 LOD a with relationships (Only values 2 Table u cesosaeceryntblnigt h Georgian 1. the to belonging not Particularly: clearly branch. are accessions ful Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree nentoa ait aaou urnl it tas it lists currently Catalogue Vitis the Variety but Pannonia), International (or Croatia in specifically Blanc Gouais of origin the claims hypothesis 276 Another Pannonia. Emperor Marcus by (Roman Gauls the Probus to Aurelius given grape the for proposed candidate been a as has Blanc and Europe Gouais Dalmatia. Central in in cultivated especially Austria widely past, in the cultivated in in variety, and, weiss Ages Heunisch Middle of the ymous Vermorel in and Gouais (Viala widespread France Blanc. Eastern variety North Gouais a known is well Blanc very the with ship relation- strict a highlighted Tetra, Tsulukidzis variety The V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: rnia Orltosisietfe ewe erincliae aite n cesospeeti h aslRpstr n likelihood and Repository Vassal the in present accessions and varieties cultivated Georgian between identified relationships PO Principal Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 7 hr oeo hs doubt- these of some where , Comment citer cedocument: – 8) aieof native 282), 1910

,synon- ), hnu rmGoga h usinbeoii of origin questionable The Georgia. from autoch- not thonous is variety cited the that suggesting viticulture, defined Italian distances Fig. and genetic in the Austrian to other according with and PO varieties, also grapes. in fashion alleles Frankish sharing sibling noble be or the to found of was Tetra most Tsulukidzis to ancestor fact, an in was, it grape Hunnic as simple prototype world, the Germanic that meant the in used varieties grape Hunnic and Frankish into division old al. the given et surprising sounds (Bowers classi- varieties of grape number large European identified a cal of USA) ancestor the CA, as Blanc (Davis, Gouais California of University be Europe. probably should as which interpreted Austria, from originating ” 6 tpoal eog otewsenEuropean western the to belongs probably it , ntelt 90,DAfnepitn tthe at fingerprinting DNA 1990s, late the In “ ieyt rgnt oehr nCentral in somewhere originate to likely reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree 1999 .This ). Version preprint 3. 2. reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree 1989 ere eaevreyfo h otenGeorgia. Southern ( Cholokashvili the to black- from According a variety variety is female Shavi Greek Asuretuli berried ancient interesting. that the also Shavi is with Asuretuli Rhoditis relationship as known a variety has the of case The Shavi. Asuretuli Kharistvala and origin: Portoka, Georgian Kolkhuri, doubtful a of cases identify putative other offsprings. of Blanc investigation Gouais search deeper to linked the a candidates Georgian and of variety need this the regarding and interest very the of increas- Chardonnay, ing sibling as such half vines international a famous its becoming elevates Blanc standing, Gouais viticultural with relationship degree probable the first and country, this in environment favorable found a have to Georgian seems a variety the not Moreover, variety. is native Tetra Tsulukidzis that confirm but to authors seem two the by supposed and synonymy able the not support cultivar are to data Spanish Our Crimea. from Ximenez Georgia in Pedro introduced from and derived Mirotadze as in (cit. Tabidze Bregvadze but named nine- century, the also during teenth Albillo, Georgia in as introduced known Krismki, Albillo cultivar Spanish the of slkdi er a led vdne ysome (Cholokashvili by evidenced ampelographers Georgian already was Tetra Tsulukidzis gno hsvrey(eshvl tal. et (Ketskhoveli variety this of or- igin other Georgian the despite of countries, convinced ampelographers European7 Georgian other to and belonging Georgia to autochthonous not variety this considered aihii( Ramishvili ( ioaz n Bregvadze and Mirotadze emnclns ihntepro 1825 period the within colonist German cie hdtsa ait ouetdi Greece various with in and documented hermaphrodite century, variety ninth the a since ( as Michos Rhoditis and and scribed red-fruiting, Nicolau growing, plant. wildly high-yielding a of district, Georgia) (Marneuli Asureti South village the to close woodland hnteoerpre yTetvde( Tsertsvadze this by reported of one earlier the ampelography existence Georgian than the the in of found was indication variety no relations that in- PO highlight varieties the foreign in (same volved origin Kolkhuri same the Kharistvala have to as The seems Portoka origin. as foreign known variety a confirmed with about fingerprinting hypotheses relationship DNA ampelographic also strict The might a varieties. this of French and existence involved the a be that explain could suggesting origin accessions, Georgian foreign the colo for skin typical berry traits shape, ampelographical (leaf performs Kolkhuri Kharistvala 2010 V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: na es he te ae,orivsiainldu to us led investigation our cases, other three least at In Ramishvili ; ,isoii sdet h icvr aeb a by made discovery the to due is origin its ), Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 1972 1986 upsdta tsol econsidered be should it that supposed ) ,i a ob osdrda synonym a as considered be to has it ), 2001 .Priual,acrigto according Particularly, ). 1972 i) oty ehv to have we mostly, hip); Comment citer cedocument: ,adpathbts not habitus) plant and r, 1939 ;Ramishvili n rodee al. et Ortoidze and ) 1960 1988 – Tsertsvadze ; 1938 85i the in 1845 ).

1986 2009 , 1939 )that )de- ; nGoga oa emlssado those on and germplasms local a Georgian knowledge with better soft- on varieties to FaMoz contributing those the origin, questionable evidenced with analyzed correctly and ware, data SSR from Terek. river of basin the grape of in beginning cultivation the in Caucasus South the from duced (Ampelography Peitel' and 1946 Marchenko to According iie ra 1 a TohnadRadchevskii and (Troshin Caucasus ha) North (18 in only areas the nowadays limited of cultivated Dagestan), varieties Krai, oldest (Stavropol' is the Asylkara of germplasm. of grape region one of viticultural richness to to important due neighbor most Russia and the Mountains is Caucasian Georgia, Great the slopes of north the in a Sapere located Dagestan, Shavi. Marguli share Maghlari varieties: and to Georgian seems two (Russia) with relationship Dagestan from Assylkara ety Georgian the of why constitution platform. explain the ampelographical in might present This a is Georgia. Ganziandy is of Lori region communication). border personal Melyan, (G. the the Ararat Valley South in in the spread in variety, available mount not rare and Armenia a a of northeast is from It comes Region. Lori Lalvari Armenian name the while known, not is Gandziandy of meaning The Lalvari. variety t adinyi yoy fteAmna wine Armenian the of synonym a is vari- the Gandziandy (1966), Ampelography ety USSR the on Sea Based Black tion. al. the recent et in the Zan even (Del or Ampelography and Catalogue Database Variety Vitis International European Vitis the given in is information little but variety, wine a work Bzvanura). is Ganziandy this and Tetri, in Mskhviltvala analyzed Tetri, varieties Gomis (Buera, the of some rela- with degree tionship first Ganziandy a has variety varieties, Georgian the cases, with some combined by in which, played Armenia) in role cultivated (traditionally the be to seems interest Russi particular Of the interesting. very viticulture of Armenian part a sidered (Table countries boring Georgia. in imported confirming probably were Georgian, varieties weren't those that parents indi- putative individuals two as the cated Shavi), Asuretuli and Kolkhuri, Kharistvala a Terta, Tsulukidzis support (Portoka, not origin do Georgian his- ampelography which and varieties information the torical for and couples, parent evidenced putative also software FaMoz involved, were cultivars be- reported. communication previously as of countries history two the long tween the is by varieties Greek supported and Georgian of contact The biotypes. ne hspito iw u niain,derived indications, our view, of point this Under codn oFMz upttebakbrywn vari- wine berry black the output FaMoz, to According nteohrsd,tecsso eainhp ihneigh- with relationships of cases the side, other the On foreign where varieties Georgian the of some For – 90,tevreyAykr a rbbyintro- probably was Asylkara variety the 1970), 2 eadpicplvreiscon- varieties principal regard ) n rna,Sra,and Syrian, Iranian, an, 2009 eot odescrip- no reports ) 2005 ). Version preprint otdi h id Actually, are be plants wild. the could the were reasons soils in the the hosted of of any conditions edaphic One perform to infestation. not linked wild did the natural, analyzed of the plants symptom In the pest inoculated. all the artificially environment, when and only topic directly individuals this is wild in on symptoms published al. disease works et recent Rubio most (Ocete the of One silvestris hloea( Phylloxera useis seilyrgrigtesaeo elhin this health affecting of pests of major but aspects state the Georgia healthy the to in relation to regarding grapevine contribution especially wild subspecies, offer of to ecology also the will the on of deep This in not tion project. a out useful FA1003 carried years, particularly COST be next be European will the part the of eastern in frame the vegeta- most but in more also Georgia, the harboring survey East is thus country, than Georgia in the tion West interested of was investigations. part Georgia humid of of kind part western must this on the and we only population addition, now each In of evolution. fitness their the venture to on per enough conclusions robust individuals data any of these make number we not limited do However, population the accounted. that popula- were underline Misaktieli females must of only exception where only tion, the with respected four the is of on resources samples each (Online in males the ratio identified of same all populations the prevalence consider of we little if ratio with and sex females, 1 The near population five. was for to investigated individuals two of from number In varied recorded. the individual cases, one four than more these were them just of collection, four of sparse for places identify different to 10 the is Among scenario individuals. common the populations: real of presence the all the silvestris in was recording found which countries environment traditional Georgia, other the in the to grapevines regarding similar wild very traits of ecological for habitat main useful typical the were of years these description and in the Viticulture, obtained data Horticulture, of All activity of Oenology. the to Institute of due 60s Georgian progress in the the still in is and (beginning grape- century) wild past history the Georgian long-standing on not a survey is has The this paper. vines if the even of Georgia, topic in consider- the grapevine few wild of on addition also ations allows carried investigation The silvestris vinifera V. Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree ept eogn otes the to belonging Despite aite edn eprivsiaint verify to investigation origin. deeper Georgian their a needing varieties V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: si te onre,i sqiedfiutt find to difficult quite is it countries, other in As . niiul emt eutuhdb hspest. this by untouched be to seem individuals Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 atlshiavitifoliae Daktulosphaira tt fhat nGeorgia in health of state 2012 a eiidteeitneof existence the verified has ) yt opeetedescrip- the complete to ly .vnfr silvestris vinifera V. Comment citer cedocument: m pce,Georgian species, ame .vinifera V. Fitch). neln httill that underline 1a ,teproportion the ), .vinifera V.

species: ie in lives erinvtcluepriual neetn ntefaeof frame the in interesting particularly viticulture Georgian increase to expected are sampling. the samples, enlarging of when rela- number and a on low structure achieved the tively germplasm, affecting Georgian not of relationships abroad characteristics of from existence the varieties and with terroir, the the heterozygosis, with of link level strict Georgian high on the conclusions does Oppositely, huge and consideration viticulture. the discussion last our of This invalidate representative varieties. not just putative is of accessions work number of this number in main the accounted the so by descriptors, characterized are ampelographical most which among (Ketskhoveli varieties, Georgia research. of al. our Ampelography et in the ex- inserted all to not genetic was According if of germplasm even viticulture, degree Georgian world low the the of a rest the highlight this with in to changes drawn also Evidences seem structure. its work erosions genetic affected no have that seems drift germ- it or time, conserved same extremely the Georgian at an of but, of plasm description example same an the as to viticulture lead all and other each varieties. cultivated with ture akr SR s Ns r atclryitrsig espe- regarding interesting, ones particularly the are to cially SNPs) belonging vs. molecular (SSRs varieties other wild markers on cultivated based few conclusions no common just our and had Georgia, 5) cited important (# work an the samples here since find and that confirmation, countries Caucasian ( by al. played work et and the Myles Particularly, interesting of issues. most these addressing the works to recent work Our confirmation have today. is strong that it way offered routes the in recon- and viticulture the modern events designed to domestication contribution a of of offer viticulture struction to with trying admixtures countries, speculating and other links and existing Georgia the in most about present and the cultivated compartments of of structure wild one genetic was the of work describing The out viticulture carried domestication. the grape for of attribu- countries frame false important or the synonyms, in mistakes, tions out check to and germ- base verify grapevine comparison as exhaustive Repository) and (Vassal of collections complete utilization plasm more of the example of of first analysis one the high-throughput and first viticulture the Georgian provides work This Conclusions soil the Phylloxera. of for conditions unsuitable anoxic are the were environments humid eei n gooi tde.Vn utvto n pest and cultivation Vine studies. agronomic and genetic h viac fgntcasrmn osmakes loss assortment genetic of avoidance The with consistent are work the in reported results the All 1960 ,Goga emls scntttdb 525 by constituted is germplasm Georgian ), 2011 edt ocuin bu h role the about conclusions to lead ) silvestris ape n hi admix- their and samples reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree Version preprint nti pce.Oeo h atadms motn sthe is important most and last the (Bacilieri of project European GrapeGen06 One projects species. research this several in the biodiversity of of characterization by and years, exploration the underlined 10 to devoted well last is the wild) in existence, and (cultivated resources ic meta- or resistance. or genetic quality of governing comprehension features bolic encour- for should research and diversity more large age its Georgian of the proof in a found is alleles grapevine biodiver- new of of presence loss the the Also, of sity. prevent should knowledge in resources Proper experimented genetic assortments. loss, these local the of avoiding countries, step, other first viti- the country is Caucasian The culture other situation. and real Georgian the of of maintenance our underestimation possible possible making of a viticulture, search results the Georgian also involving present affects relationships collections, countries same narrow European the the eastern in germ- with to European combined belonging in limit, varieties available This region collections. the plasm number from limited the varieties by of affected also is viticulture Caucasian genetic increasing purposes. of different frame for the variability in and step assortments be first should a and as germplasm considered poten- unexplored in highlight this in to knowledge hidden aspires tialities this work This of languages. unavailability European varieties) the Georgian few and for for characterization varieties (and agronomical information about few achieved the is research taeis hskn fmitnnei ut xesv and expensive quite breeding is and maintenance conservation of kind plan pecu- This to plant strategies. single and verify characteristics of to field strategy liar genomes grapevine, best the the as are in heterozygous collections and highly flora plants spontaneous cultivated the resources in by genetic used hidden investigate is better germplasm To in practice. conserved agricultural diversity genetic the scientific of the country. the that of germplasm importance grape the the to of tributes mark community a as countries, 2010 breeding al. Ukraine the et in of (Goryslavets programs history used the extensively be Saperavi to cv seems Georgian view of point this under esting rdi 5cutis ihtecnrbto f1 Georgian 13 of contribution al. the et (Vakhtangadze were varieties with varieties native countries, new 15 193 in result, bred a As in countries. as foreign Georgia in other programs breeding in inserted native were Georgian varieties several and/or years, quality last for the breeding in Actually, by resistance. offered possibilities the at ing countries. other in as structure varieties germplasm cultivated the Georgian affected of not had past the in diseases Genomes & Genetics Tree Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree h edfripoigtekoldeo rpvn genet- grapevine on knowledge the improving for need The from varieties regarding information of search The of kind this of development the in constrains main of One nco pce,ol ml oto ftersucsand resources the of portion small a only species, crop In hsmkstecutyvtcluecalnigwe think- when challenging viticulture country the makes This ,weeGogawsicue nadto oEuropean to addition in included was Georgia where ), V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 2010 ). Comment citer cedocument: 2010 2008 .Priual inter- Particularly ). aiir tal. et Bacilieri ;

trigpitfrtedfnto fa UCS ( to EU-COST devoted an project of definition the the www.cost.esf.org/domains_act were for work this point in discussed starting and scenario obtained This results collections. the core and replicate also and strategy define common to proper aimed rationalize developing to collab- by repositories a collections urgent the germplasm make among variety same work the orative not are of they highlight- group that fingerprints our ing different in of existence similar) the (or and has name samples work of same presence the this The with that viticulture. accessions Georgian issue for another consider is num- to started the This type optimize genotypes. to to of true account ber into Only taken made. be be should should material collection repre- the be to in selected sented resources genetic of management good meorpy(1946 Ampelography naiR alaO cez ,Cmotn 19)Wl grapevine Wild (1990) F Campostini A, Scienza O, Failla R, Anzani fgaepouto nEurope. quality in beneficial production greater creating grape and west of level, of conservation, and European areas long-term east the knowledge, innovative from at introduce researchers research to enable countries The richness. to European and is diversity untapped aim Caucasus) enclosing the grape- still particularly for and and domestication Europe of (southeastern know area vine presumed poorly the the in present explore to is for traits adaptive of breeding. mobilization and exploration diversity rodC(02 clged avgesauvage, vigne la de Ecologie (2002) C Arnold breeding. grapevine in Progress (1988) JV Possingham G, Alleweldt References Adaptive Breeding. of Mobilization for and Traits a Exploration FA1003 Diversity is Action Grapevine study for COST tion This the suggestions. of and publication comments joint valuable their for viewers Acknowledgments rdy K ad S rn H oriutJ,Wle A(2003) MA Walker JM, Boursiquot BH, Prins GS, Gandl MK, Aradhya rooGrí ,Ri-acaL oln ,OeeR oe MA, Lopez R, Ocete L, Bolling L, Ruiz-García R, Arroyo-García zm ,KbysiS iaiN hrih ,Ymd ,Un T, Ueno M, Yamada M, Shiraishi N, Mitani S, Kobayashi A, Azuma ( Russian) (in Moscow Pischepromizdat, 96 n erlA o os7 vols for AM Negrul 1 and vols for 1956) AM Frolov-Bagreev A.M. Editors: volumes. 75:669 Genet Appl Theor eei tutr n ifrnito ncliae grape cultivated in differentiation vinifera and structure Genetic rodCe l(06 utpeoiiso utvtdgrapevine cultivated of origins Multiple (2006) al ( et C Arnold Switzerland Neuchâtel, of University Thesis, PhD d'Europe. sylvestris 97 preservation germplasm and ooA auhj ,KsiaY(08 eoi n genetic and Genomic (2008) Y Koshita H, Yakushiji A, Kono opim.MlEo 15:3707 Ecol Mol morphisms. ii vinifera Vitis ii vinifera Vitis – 112 ” h e hleg asdi hs atyears last these in raised challenge new The .GntRs81:179 Res Genet L. Gei)Hg,dn e oêsalvae tcolluviales et alluviales forêts les dans Hegi, (Gmelin) ” var. .ssp. L. – h uhr r rtflt w nnmu re- anonymous two to grateful are authors The 90 meorpyo h oitUini ten in Union Soviet the of Ampelography 1970) “ silvestris East sativa – – etclaoainfrgrapevine for collaboration west 673 — nIaydsrbto,characteristics distribution, Italy in ) ae nclrpatDApoly- DNA chloroplast on based ) – 99rpr.VtsSeilIse pp Issue, Special Vitis report. 1989 192 – 3714 ions/fa/Actions/grapevine eei eore still resources genetic n “ – East 0(1963 10 ii vinifera Vitis – etCollabora- west – .(1946 6. – 1970). http:// .ssp L. Vitis – ) Version preprint eAdé T eioA ee-ieaG ct ,LpzMA, Lopez R, Ocete G, Perez-Rivera A, Benito MT, Andrés De e a ,Fil ,SinaA(09 avt l'uomo e nostrum Vinum (2010) vite G La Pasquale Di (2009) A Scienza O, French) (in Failla Paris F, cultivées. plantes Zan des Origine Del (1883) A Candolle De ai E vs C(04 irstlienl lee nparentage in alleles null Microsatellite (2004) JC Avise EE, Dakin uh ,Blra-ot ,CnaJ ta 20)Caatrzto of Characterization (2007) al et JP Cunha M, Balerias-Couto J, Cunha otniiL vvdeE uihiiN(0520)Teatqiyof antiquity The (2005/2006) N Rusishvili E, Kvavadze L, Costantini okra C erB 18)Vrac fata nreig Theor inbreeding. actual of Variance (1983) BS Weir CC, Cockerham M, Crespan G, Gaspero Di I, Jurman A, Spadotto Ganatleba G, viticulture. Cipriani for Handbook (1939) S Cholokashvili hlksvl 13)MtrasfrGoga rpvn aite of varieties grapevine Georgian for Materials (1938) S Cholokashvili (2005) R Tchipashvili K, Gogishvili D, Maghradze N, Chkhartishvili hhrihiiN ahaz 21)Vtclueadwnmkn in winemaking (in and Viticulture Tbilisi. (2012) Georgians. D the Maghradze N, and Chkhartishvili wine vine, The (2004) L Chilashvili ess(04 aeil ftefrtNtoa giutrlCnu of Census Agricultural National first the of of Materials Encyclopedy (2004) In: Census Georgia. in Catholicism (1980) Catholicism CP Meredith H, Johansson K, Chu P, This JM, Bousiquot J, Bowers G, Munoz E, Maul I, Pejic S, Grando D, Maghradze R, Bacilieri GrapeGen06 (2008) R Bacilieri Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree n hi eei eainhp ihcliae rpvns Mol grapevines. cultivated with Spain 21:800 relationships in Ecol R populations genetic grapevine Arroyo-Garcia their wild JM, and of diversity Martinez-Zapater Genetic F, (2012) Cabello L, Goforio opcmodleoiiia avtgi el eiue n edn. 2nd reliquie, delle Italian) salvataggio (in ERSA al origini delle rompicampo nlss eeiy93:504 Heredity analysis. raie nteMsodgiAgniPlzoPtia 0July 20 at Pitti Palazzo S.p.A. Grafiche Argenti exhibition degli the Museo of 2010 the Catalogue in cultures. organised Mediterranean ancient in ei ee eorCo vl54:981 Evol Crop Resour Genet Hegi. otgeeppltosof populations Portuguese ie.Tiii1 Tbilisi J. Wine). Georgia. in cultivation grapevine ou il23:85 Biol Popul SSR-based The M, (2010) ( Morgante R grapevine Testolin M, 1005 of A, Cresti profile Policriti molecular R, E, Vignani Pe M, E, Pezzotti Frare S, Meneghetti Georgian) (In 478 p Publishers. ditr mns aite fdfeetgorpi origin. large geographic 121:1569 a different Genet reveals Appl of Theor and varieties parentages, amongst and admixture synonymy new uncovers Tbilisi, publishers shroma 60 da pp Tekhnika epoch. Rustaveli's Shota XII Italy (The Sicily, Agrigento, Georgia use. and of conservation internat fruits Relative first minor The and Caucasus). small grapevine, CWR: es acssadNrhr lc e ein ii,Special Vitis, Region. Sea 169 Black pp Failla Northern Issue, J, Turok and A, Caucasus Scienza (eds) L, O Rustioni D, Maghradze In: Georgia. Georgian) page&p_id=662&lang=eng 2004. in made Georgia Georgian) (in 5:319 Tbilisi, Georga. 285:1562 Science France. northeastern 1565 of Gamay grapes Chardonnay, wine of other parentage and the genetics: Historical (1999) Georgia. Tbilisi, Wine. and Materials Vine on www.oiv2010.ge Grapegen06. Congress (2010) World project 33rd P OIV European of This the resources: M, genetic Boselli characterisati A, Conservation, Schneider J, Eiras-Dias 34:16 Eur Newsl Biovers GR. grapevine hssi rp er kn ho plGnt117:1009 Genet Appl Theor biosyn- skin. anthocyanin berry grape regulate in that thesis genes Myb-related of analysis V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: – IIcnuis n jvkihiiI(d aeilclueof culture Material (ed) I Djavakhishvili In: centuries. XIII – – 0Arl 01 lrne rne yGut Industrie Giunti by Printed Florence. 2011. Aprile 30 0 I Georgian) (In 105 Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 – 816 – 176 – – rt.p382 p Prato. 2:62 – 109 – 70 http://www.geostat.ge/index.php?action= – ii vinifera Vitis 509 — cesd2 c.2011 Oct. 24 Accessed – nadmngmn fgrapevine of management and on 1585 aaeetadcnevto of conservation and management oa ofrneo rpWild Crop on conference ional — Comment citer cedocument: r,sineadmtso wine of myths and science art, ‘ aid Ghvino da Vazi ii vinifera Vitis – ssp. L 988 sylvestris . accessions L.)

’ – Vn and (Vine (Gmelin) 1019 — dal – ofa ,HfmnJ,Ao 20)Mcoaelt genotyping Microsatellite (2005) W Amos JI, Hoffman A, Hoffman aus Ubergang ihren in Hausteire und Kulturpflanzen (1870) V Hehn LH Rieseberg RA, Bye DL, Lentz D, Falush KA, Gardner AV, Harter compari- Empirical (2007) ES Buckler ML, Warburton MT, Hamblin Ibà rsiF mzoS alaO cez ,OeeRboR oe MA, Lopes R, Rubio Ocete A, Scienza O, Failla S, Imazio F F, Sala Grassi A, Scienza S, Sgorbati A, Spada S, Imazio M, Labra F, Grassi zdiuiL(95 rpvn n oci.J. Colchis. and Grapevine (1995) L Dzidziguri vreaT usnvK eotF zekvI tnso A, Atanassov I, Tzvetkov F, Lefort K, Russanov T, Hvarleva oylvt ,RsvnaV aiir ,HumnJ,HurzM Heuertz JF, Hausman R, Bacilieri V, Risovanna S, Goryslavets wine. Georgian of history and technologies Traditional (2010) T Glonti parent- for In: software a cost. FaMoz: Sea (2003) A Black Kremer P, North Chabrier the S, Gerber on genoa of Colonies (1979) Genoa of origin The (2012) G Forni 5:164 Cladistics package. inference Phylogeny (1989) J Felsenstein JM, Boursiquot L, Cunff Le L, Costantini J, Battilana F, Emanuelli oie ,Aa-lno F iraiG acuV ednguD, Merdinoglu V, Laucou G, Cipriani AF, Adam-Blondon A, Doligez al. et D, Varés T, Bourse G, Bruno C, Roux V, Laucou M, Vecchi Di P, This T, Lacombe V, Laucou S, Gerber M, Boselli M, Staraz Vecchi Di rr ,Csaut ,GantoS eehtiS rsa (2011) M Crespan S, Meneghetti S, Giannetto A, Costacurta E, di aree Frare Le uomo: e vite di intrecciati destini I (2010) O Failla G, Forni ň sJ eAdè T oioA org 20)Gntcsuyof study Genetic (2003) J Borrego A, Molino MT, Andrès De J, es ros eeto prahs omnsucsadconsequences and sources common approaches, detection auflage, errors: (VIII auflage. I German) Italien, (in Berlin und 1911). Griechenland nach Asien North eastern 430:201 in Nature sunflowers America. domesticated extant of Origin (2004) PLoS relatedness. and polymor- diversity nucleotide maize 12:1367 single of One and assessment repeats in sequence phisms simple of son pns rpvn aite sn irstlieaayi.A J Am analysis. 54:22 microsatellite Vitic using Enol varieties grapevine Spanish n hools S nlss ln il5:608 Biol Plant analysis. wild nuclear SSR by of estimated chloroplast diffusion as and and populations Spanish isolation and Genetic Italian (2003b) grapevine M Labra F, Sala 107:1315 Genet Appl Theor centre analysis. domestication SSR grapevine by secondary detected a of Evidence (2003a) utvr ymcoaelt nlss ii 43:27 Bulgarian Vitis analysis. of microsatellite by Genotyping cultivars (2004) I Atanassov aite sn irstliemres stlGnt44:95 Genet Tsitol grape wine markers. Ukrainian microsatellite related using closely varieties of study parentage A (2010) Tbilisi, Wine. and Vine 7. on p Congress Georgia, World 33d OIV of Materials 3:479 Notes Ecol Mol markers. dominant, inherited using analysis Georgian) (in age 58 pp Tbilisi. 3. vol. Georga. of Encyclopedy ( on grapevine 10:241 study association in gene flavor candidate A muscat (2010) MS Grando P, This n ie.Tiii1 Tbilisi Wine). and nertdSRmpo rpvn ae nfv mapping five on An based 113:369 (2006) Genet G grapevine Appl Gaspero of Theor Di populations. P, map This SSR C, Roux integrated S, Riaz CP, Meredith (Abstract) Udine, Breeding. and Genetics e Grape on and Conference populations ( of grape structure wild of analysis ssp. the to Contribution (2006) analysis parentage scale in large for software a FaMoz: (2007) D Varès o aenlecuin o cl14:599 Ecol Mol exclusion. paternal for S akr n oeua eainhpwt uoengrape- 83:475 European L'OIV with de by Bulletin relationship cultivars Le molecular vines. ssp. and Vitis markers Georgian and SSR Armenian of Identification 1:17 spa). Origi Agrario vite. della and 27 domesticazione Caucasus pp (eds) Issue, O Special Vitis, Failla Region. J, Sea Turok Black A, Northern Scienza L, Rustioni D, ii vinifera Vitis sylvestris www.oiv2010.ge Gei) ouain nFac n tl:genetic Italy: and France in populations (Gmelin)) .seis SSAt otcl 754:79 Horticult Acta ISHS species. L. – 30 – 1(nItalian) (in 21 – 2(18 “ – – l World Old 205 19):73 ii vinifera Vitis ooiataduniparentally and codominant iec fgn lx n 9th In: flux. gene of vidence – 8(nGeorgian) (in 78 – e(dzoiL'Informatore (edizioni ne 484 ” reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree iiutr.I:Maghradze In: viticulture. – – – 382 612 “ 481 aid Ghvino da Vazi ..BCPatBiol Plant BMC L.). – – 34 614 ii vinifera Vitis ii vinifera Vitis – 84 – – 1320 38 – ” 102 (Vine – 166 L. Version preprint ahaz 20)Sau of Status (2008) D Maghradze ahaz ,Iai ,Fil 20a ios eeih el iein vite della genetiche Risorse (2006a) O Failla S, Imazio D, Maghradze otiaiz 18)Tekndmo oci.Eccoeyof Encyclopedy Colchis. of kingdom The (1980) O Lortkipanidze ahaz ,TrkJ(02 rjc fBoest nentoa on International Bioversity of Project (2012) J Turok D, Maghradze oe S edcA,Rdiusd atsJ,ErsDa E da JE, Eiras-Dias JE, Santos do Rodrigues AD, Mendoc MS, Lopes oor 16)Gec ooiaino oci.Eccoeyof Encyclopedy Colchis. of colonization Greece (1962) N Lomouri G, Bravo MT, Andrés De JA, Cabezas L, Ruiz-García D, Lijavetzky ahaz ,Miaaz ,Ckatsvl ,Ggsvl K, Gogishvili N, Chkhartishvili I, Mdinaradze D, Maghradze Chloroplast (2006) O Failla A, Scienza F, Grassi M, Labra S, Imazio Genomes & Genetics Tree ahaz ,Fil ,TrkJ mnvM vdb ,Chkhartishvili A, Avidzba M, Amanov J, Turok O, Failla D, Maghradze in der Anordnung systematischen einer Versuch (1846) FA Kolenati phenomenon Georgian (2004) Z Kokrashvili Georgia (2000) T of Kighuradze Ampelography (1960) D Tabidze M, Ramishvili of N, farming for Ketskhoveli culture oldest The (1971) A Javakhishvili O, Japaridze ihl 20)OdGoga iemaking wine Georgian des Old cultives (2007) et V sauvages Licheli populations Les (1956) L Levadoux M, Dessup JP, Bruno R, Siret F, Dechesne T, Lacombe V, Laucou p americanas Vides (1978) A Larrea kartuli. Kheloba In: Kvevri. making of art The (2011) Kvevri Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree acs a eo 'nomtr gai 49:59 Agrario L'Informatore Nero. Mar e Caucaso Pali on group working 5:596 Tbilisi, Georga. acssadNrhr lc e ein ii,SeilIse pp Issue, (eds) Special O Vitis, Failla region. J, 17 Sea Turok Black A, Northern Scienza and L, Caucasus Rustioni results. and D, activities Maghradze region: In: Sea Black northern in and resources Caucasus genetic the grapevine of use sustainable and conservation otgeegaeieado rpvn oetcto.Genome of domestication. basis grapevine genetic 52:790 on the and on insights grapevine New Portuguese (2009) A Machado Camara era bls,1:487 Tbilisi, Georga. JM grape. 276:427 table Martínez-Zapater Genomics in Genet J, variation Mol colour Ibáñez berry F, of genetics Cabello Molecular (2006) J, Carreño A, Ibáñez hpsvl 20)Ivnoyo idygoiggaeiein grapevine growing wildly J. of Georgia. Eastern Inventory (2006) R Chipashvili 53:1003 Evol Crop Resour investigate to microsatellites eei eore nteCuau n otenBakSaarea. Sea Black Northern 827:155 and Horticult Caucasus N, Acta ISHS grapevine Tsertsvadze the use in L, sustainable resources Troshin and genetic A, Conservation (2009a) Smurigin V A, Volynkin Scienza G, K, Savin Gogishvili S, Gasparian JF, Hausman G V, o Cornea L, r Costantini iN, s l a Russian) v (in e 6:39 t Moscow Viticulture). sS ,M a u lE ,M e l y a nG ,P o l l u l y a k hA ,R i s o v a n n a y aV , 19:283 Moscou Nat oekonomisch- Sci Soc einem Bull Anhange. nebst technischen Reben einheimischen Grusinien Russian) English, Georgian, (in Tbilisi Badagoni. wine J. (In making. Georgia. Tbilisi, Science, Russian) of and Georgian Academy Georgian Georgian) Georgia. (In Tbilisi Georgia. of territory the on habitants excvlstosd i.Lstaaxd olqe bls.pp Tbilisi. colloque. du France: travaux la Les et vin. 25 Géorgie du la civilisations deux international Colloque interpretation. man- collection germplasm of 122:1233 for Genet analysis tool Appl throughput a Theor High agement. as (2011) diversity Péros P genetic D, Varés grape This S, JM, Santoni C, Boursiquot Roux P, JP, Parra P, Ortigosa T, Dessup Spanish in Madrid, Agricoltura, 2011 October www.kvevri.org/en/the-art-of-making-kvevri.html vinifera 27 pp V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: – – 26 2(nGeorgian) (in 42 ć ebaadMneer,hl n20,p 75 pp 2003, in held Montenegro, and Serbia , – – 9(nGeorgian) (in 29 Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 800 .AnAé lne 1:59 Plantes Amél Ann L. “ aid Ghvino da Vazi Vitis ‘ ioei Vinogradarsvo i Vinodelie – – h is C/Rmeig 12 meeting, ECP/GR first The . 9 i Georgian) (in 597 8 i Georgian) (in 488 Vitis — – 1011 – h rdeo iiutr n wine- and viticulture of cradle the ” 158 olcin nGoga eot fa of Reports Georgia. in collections – ( 435 h rgno rpvn.Genet grapevine. of origin the ‘ rpvn n Wine and Grapevine Comment citer cedocument: – 118 ranets iitrode Ministerio ortainjestos. – 1245 — — ieaddvnt of divinity and wine ’ h archaeological the Wnmkn and (Winemaking – 1 nItalian in 61, –

cesd30 Accessed 76 ’ – .Tbilisi. ). – 4June, 14 371 http:// Vitis izS arsnK ag ,Busqo ,Mrdt 20)Genetic (2002) C Meredith J, Boursiquot G, Dangl K, Garrison Tbilisi, S, wine. Riaz and grapevine Georgian Tbilisi of History trans-Caucasus. (2001) the R Ramishvili of grapevine Wild (1988) R House Publishing Ramishvili edn. 2nd ampelography, The (1986) M Ramishvili ekl ,Sos E(06 EAE :gntcaayi nExcel. in analysis genetic 6: GENALEX (2006) PE Smouse R, Peakall G Jigauri N, Ramishvili M, Bezhuashvili L, Vashakidze T, Ortoidze loH 19)Teoii n oetcto fthe of domestication and origin The (1995) HP Olmo Una (2006) MA Perez MA, Lopez M, Lara A, Gallardo R, Ocete ct ui ,OeeRboE ct ée ,PrzIqiroMA, Izquierdo Pérez C, Pérez Ocete E, Rubio Ocete R, Rubio Ocete A Scienza O, Failla F, Zan Del In: Roditis. (2009) V Michos N, University Nicolau Columbia genetics. evolutionary Molecular (1978) M Nei classification. its and Paris grapevine grapes. cultivated of of Origin forms (1946) and cultivated AM of Negrul structure Evolution (1938) Genetic AM (2011) Negrul al et C Owens AR, Boyko S, Ratcha- Myles of varieties Grapevine (1972) M Bregvadze A, in Mirotadze unearthed of wine origins 8,000-year-old the (Interview). (2003b) for PE search McGovern The wine. Ancient (2003a) PE Phenological McGovern (2012) O Failla A, Scienza L, Rustioni D, Maghradze L, Vashakidze S, Imazio R, Bacilieri O, Failla D, Maghradze ahaz ,RsoiM mzoS atiC alaO e a F, Zan Del O, Failla C, Maitti S, Imazio M, Rossoni D, Maghradze uihiiN(00 rpvn utr nGogao ai of basis on Georgia in culture Grapevine (2010) of N dwelling Rusishvili earliest the on plants Cultivated (1990) N Rushishvili iegneadcieimwti nin sxal propagated asexually ancient within chimerism and divergence Georgian) (in Georgia. Russian) (in Georgian In 620, p Tbilisi, Ganatleba, ouaingntcsfwr o ecigadrsac.MlEcol Mol research. and 6:288 teaching Notes for software genetic Population ( 6. p grapevine Georgia, Tbilisi, distributed Congress. Ma rarely Wine Shavi. of Asuretuli peculiarities variety and Origin (2010) ne ieoadlz ut eAdlca nttt Nacional formacion Instituto impacto Spanish) Andalucia, y su (in de y Investigation Junta filoxerica andaluz. de crisis vinedo el la en sobre historica perspective itr fwn.Gro rah uebug p31 ancient pp Luxembourg, and Breach, origin & The Gordon (eds) wine. of SH history Katz SJ, Fleming PE, McGovern utoiL alaO hpsvl ,MgrdeD(2012) D grape- wild Maghradze ( Eurasian the R, vine of characteristics Chipashvili sanitary and O, Ecological Failla L, Rustioni 628 pp Gorizia, ERSA, edn. 2nd relique, delle l'uomo e vite La (eds) York New Press, Frolov- 1:159 Chief Moscow of Pishchepromizdat, Russian) Editor (ed) Union. AM, Soviet Bagreev the of Ampelography Sci Acad Natl Proc grape. the 108:3530 of history domestication in Tbilisi, Sakartvelo, Sabtchota Georgian House Publishing Lechkhumi. 2003 December, 28 Independence. The Georgia. Princeton Press, University Princeton viniculture. Am J Italy. 66:56 Northern Soc in cultivars Pomol grapevine Georgian of diversity 83:485 L'OIV de Scienza Bulletin P, Le This investigation. Georgian N, (2010) Chkhartishvili I, A Mdinaradze R, Chipashvili Cuainrgo) ln ee eor10:155 Resour Genet Plant region). (Caucasian Horticult Acta ISHS germplasm. grapevine 827:107 explo- Georgian phenetic of and Genetic ration (2009b) A Scienza N, Chkhartishvili bls,p3.(nGoga,Rsin English) Russian, Georgian, (In Publisher 37. p edn. Tbilisi, 2nd data, palaeobotanical Russian) (in for Chisinau Abstract dissertation. investigations. Doctor palaeobotanical to according Georgia iegaeclias mScHri c 127:508 Sci Hortic Soc Am J cultivars. grape wine ii vinifera Vitis – – 114 3535 – 295 – 67 .ssp. L. — Vitis a opcmodleoiiia salvataggio al origini delle rompicampo dal emls:uae osrainand conservation usage, germplasm: sylvestris eil fte3dOVVn and Vine OIV 33d the of terials gai eqea Sevilla. Pesquera. y Agraria Gei)Hg)i Georgia in Hegi) (Gmelin) http://www.oiv2010.ge – “ 596 Mteni – 3,i Italian in 630, – vinifera 162 ” – 514 Association, – 43 rp.In: grape. – 1 (in 216 ) Version preprint ahagdeT ahaz ,Dnusvl 21)Priiainof Participation (2010) N Dandurshvili grapevine. D, Maghradze cultural T, Vakhtangadze Georgian of Classification (1989) N in Tsertsvadze distributed varieties grapevine of Determiner (1988) N Tsertsvadze grape- of cultivars Recommended (2005) PP Radchevskii genetic LP, and Troshin origins Historical (2006) MR Thomas T, Lacombe P, This trslk A(83 rpvn aite fteCaucasus the of varieties Grapevine (1893) VA Staroselski mueP,PaalR(99 pta uoorlto nlsso indi- of analysis autocorrelation Spatial Barnov). (1999) V. R by Peakall PE, (Translated Smouse Georgia. in Traveling (1711) J Sharden A, Machado Camara Da R, Botta F, Lefort H, Steinkellner K, Sefc ecK,LpsM,Lfr ,BtaR oblksAglksKA, Roubelakis-Angelakis R, Botta F, Lefort MS, Lopes KM, Sefc calB ekJ s C eiz ,GmrldeM onahiiM, Gogniashvili M, Gamkrelidze T, Beridze SC, Hsu J, Beck B, Schaal Imazio, S. (Auteurde correspondance), Maghradze, D.,DeLorenzis, G.,Bacilieri, R.,Laucou, molecular overview anddescription ofGeorgian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)germplasm .Tree erinntv aite ngaeiebedn.Bl cdAgric Acad 27:186 Bull Georgia breeding. Sci grapevine in varieties native Georgian house Publishing Georgian) (in Tbilisi Georgia. Russian in Krasnodar, Vol'nyeMastera, Publisher Russia. for vine 22:511 Genet Trends grapes. wine the of diversity on Russian) Materials (in Gubernia. 1:20 Caucasus. Kutaisi the of of ampelography uezds Kutaisi and iulmlileeadmliou g multilocus 82:561 and multiallele vidual Georgian) (In 1931 in Printed cultivars. 54:15 grapevine Vitic European Enol to J vines Am genetic wild Substantial local (2003) of J Glössl contribution E, Maletic L, Palanco Borrego h egahcoii fclias ho plGnt100:498 assess Genet to Appl Theor testing cultivars. of assignment (2000) origin different geographic of H the evaluation from Steinkellner and cultivars J, regions grapevine European Glossl in HW, Wagner variability I, Microsatellite Pejic J, Ibanez h 3dWrdCnrs nVn n ie bls.p8. p Tbilisi. Wine. and Vine on of set Congress ( World worldwide M 33rd a Glonti the in V, ( diversity Gotsiridze cultivars sequence R, grapevine DNA Bacilieri P, Plastid This (2010) V, Tabidze Pipia, www.oiv2010.ge V., This, P.,Scienza,A., Failla,O.(2013). Fromthe cradleofgrapevine domestication: – Genetics and Genomes, 9 (3), 641-658. DOI : 10.1007/s11295-013-0597-9 573 ) “ atht Sakartvelo Sabtchota – 9,i Georgian in 192, ii vinifera Vitis – 21 Comment citer cedocument: .subsp. L. ntcsrcue Heredity structure. enetic ” bls,i Georgian in Tbilisi, , sativa – 519 .Mtrasof Materials ).

— Shorapani – 505 ec ,D ataF oiuG ar ,Sl ,Gas 21)Wild (2010) F Grassi F, Sala M, Labra G, Lovicu F, Mattia De G, Zecca adJ 16)Heacia ruigt piiea betv func- objective an optimize to grouping Hierarchical (1963) JH Ward S A, Ergul P, McGovern JF, Vouillamoz anrA,CelS aiosiS 20)Etmtn eaens and relatedness Applied Estimating (2006) for ST Kalinowski Centre S, Creel 1.0. AP, Wagner IDENTITY (1999) KM Sefc HW, Wagner ioru ,Mthl ,Mtuk ,HmlnM rsvc ,Smith S, Kresovich M, Hamblin Y, Matsuoka S, Mitchell Y, Vigouroux Viticulture de general Traité (1910) V Vermorel P, Viala USSR the of part Asia of trees fruit of relatives Wild (1931) NI Vavilov (The rastenii kulturnikh proiskhozhdenia Cemtry (1926) NI Vavilov oayD ofM(00 oetcto fpat nteOdWorld. Old the in plants of Domestication (2000) M Horf D, Zohary ieaiieL,Hdiu ,BaoR,Ary-acaR Martínez R, Arroyo-García RG, Bravo A, Haddioui LH, Zinelabidine iead?mlclreiec nSrii.PatBo 12:558 Biol Plant Sardinia. in evidence molecular vineyards? grapevine: in mSa so 58:36 Assoc Stat Am J tion. eainhp sn irstlielc ihnl lee.Heredity alleles. null with 97:336 loci microsatellite using relationships Vienna Sciences Agricultural of University Genetics, Transcaucasia 4:144 Resour from Genet and cultivars Plant characterization Anatolia. grape and Genetic traditional (2006) of SM relationship Grando CP, Meredith S,JqehJ mt S obe 20)A nlssof analysis An microsatellites. using (2005) genome J 169:1617 maize Genetics Doebley the across OS, diversity Smith genetic J, Jaqueth JSC, Paris Cie, et Masson 2:343 Eds. 1960. used). was Vavilov Russian) N.I. (Selective (in trees. Acad. fruit for of origin of works problems and Caucasus the and Breed Plant Genet Bot Appl Proc 16(2):133 selektsii. i cultivat genetike for botanike, origin of centres h rgnadsra nWs sa uoeadteNl Valley. Nile the and Europe Oxford Asia, Press, West University in Oxford spread and origin The ie rmMrco mJEo ii 61:83 Vitic grape- Enol wild J and Am cultivated Morocco. of from origins vines Genetic (2010) JM Zapater – 345 – 3,i Russian in 137, silvestris – 1630 yrd rcliasta sae from escaped that cultivars or hybrids , – 244 dpat) rd oprikladnoi po Trudi plants). ed ő reGntc Genomes & Genetics Tree ylezo – 158 ğ – uG ezdeG, Tevzadze G, lu 90 — Ampelographie. – – 361. 562