Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Microbial life in the grapevine: what can we expect from the leaf microbiome?

Microbial life in the grapevine: what can we expect from the leaf microbiome?

Abstract

The above-ground parts of plants, which constitute the phyllosphere, have long been considered devoid of bacteria and fungi, at least in their internal tissues and microbial presence there was long considered a sign of disease. However, recent studies have shown that plants harbour complex bacterial communities, the so-called “microbiome”[1]. We are only beginning to unravel the origin of these bacterial plant inhabitants, their community structure and their roles, which in analogy to the gut microbiome, are likely to be of essential nature. Among their multifaceted metabolic possibilities, bacteria have been recently demonstrated to emit a wide range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can greatly impact the growth and development of both the plant and its disease-causing agents. In particular, these VOCs have been shown to promote root growth and thereby nutrient acquisition and growth, but also to induce plant resistance against diseases [2-4]. Their effects on fungal and oomycete pathogens range from mycelium growth reduction to inhibition of sporulation, zoospore release and even death, although much of these reports are based on experiments performed in controlled laboratory conditions with model plants [5]. Preliminary experiments indicate that these VOCs could also confer protection against oomycete pathogens grown in planta [6]. This presentation will summarize the present state of knowledge in both fields of research, the phyllosphere microbiome and the bacterial emission of VOCs, and highlight the potential these new fields offer for sustainable viticulture.

1. Vorholt JA. 2012. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat Rev Micro 10:828-840. 2. Ryu CM, Farag MA, Hu CH, Reddy MS, Kloepper JW, Pare PW. 2004. Bacterial volatiles induce systemic resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 134:1017-1026. 3. Ryu CM, Farag MA, Hu CH, Reddy MS, Wei HX, Pare PW, Kloepper JW. 2003. Bacterial volatiles promote growth in Arabidopsis. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100:4927-4932. 4. Bailly A, Groenhagen U, Schulz S, Geisler M, Eberl L, Weisskopf L. 2014. The inter-kingdom volatile signal indole promotes root development by interfering with auxin signalling. Plant J 80:758-771. 5. Weisskopf L. 2014. The potential of bacterial volatiles for crop protection against phytophathogenic fungi. In Méndez-Vilas A (ed.), Microbial pathogens and strategies for combating them: science, technology and education. Formatex Research Center, online resource. 6. DeVrieze M, Pandey P, Bucheli TD, Varadarajan AR, Ahrens CH, Weisskopf L, Bailly A. 2015. Volatile organic compounds from native potato-associated Pseudomonas as potential anti-oomycete agents. Front Microbiol 6.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Article

Authors

Laure Weisskopf*

*HES-SO

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Using combinations of recombinant pectinases to elucidate the deconstruction of the polysaccharide‐rich grape cell wall during winemaking

The effectiveness of enzyme-mediated maceration processes in red winemaking relies on a clear picture of the target (berry cell wall structure) to achieve the optimum combination of specific enzymes to be used. However, we lack the information on both essential factors of the reaction (i.e. specific activities in commercial enzyme preparation and the cell wall structure of berry tissue). In this study, the different combinations of pure recombinant enzymes and the recently validated high throughput cell wall profiling tools were applied to extend our knowledge on the grape berry cell wall polymeric deconstruction during the winemaking following a combinatorial enzyme treatment design.

To a better understanding of the impact of vine nitrogen status on volatile thiols from plot to transcriptome level

Volatile thiols contribute largely to the organoleptic characteristics and typicity of Sauvignon blanc wines. Among this family of odorous compounds, 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol (3SH) and 4-methyl-4-sulfanylpentan-2-one (4MSP) have a major impact on wine flavor. These thiols are formed during alcoholic fermentation by the yeast from odorless and non-volatile precursors found in the berry and the must. The effect of vine nitrogen status on 3SH and 4MSP in Sauvignon blanc wine and on the glutathionylated and cysteinylated precursors of 3SH (Glut-3SH and Cys-3SH) was investigated in this study.

Pesticide removal in wine with a physical treatment by molecular sieving

All along the winemaking process, conditioning and aging, wine is susceptible to be contaminated by different molecules. Contaminations can have various origins, related to wine microorganisms or as a result of an exogenous contamination. The aforementioned contamination of the wine can be caused by the migration of molecules from the materials in contact with the wine or by a contamination from exogenous molecules present in the air. Regardless of the source of the contamination, mainly two types of consequences can be observed.

A combination of biotechnology tools and coopers elements for an alternative the addition of SO2 at the end of the malolactic fermentation in red wines or at the “mutage” for the “liquoreux” wines

In red wines the post-MLF SO2 addition is an essential event. It is also the case for the “mutage” during the elaboration of the “liquoreux”. At these moments SO2 plays an antimicrobial action and an antioxidant effect. But at current pH of wines, ensuring a powerful molecular SO2 has become very difficult. Recent work on Brettanomyces strains have also shown that some strains are resistant up to 1.2 mg / L of molecular SO2. It’s also the case of the some Saccharomuces or Zygosaccharomyces strains suitable to re-ferment “liquoreux” wines after the “mutage”.

DNA and type of grain: which factor does better explain sensory differences of sessile and pedunculate oaks?

Sessile oak and pedunculate oak have shown several differences of interest for enological purposes. Tannic and aromatic composition among sessile oak or pedonculate oak has been well studied. Sessile oak is generally more aromatic than pedunculated, while the later is more tannic. This scientific point of view is rarely applied to classify oak in cooperages. Most coopers use the type of grain to distinguish wide and thin grain.