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…

Modulating role of SO2 in white wine protein haze formation

Despite the extensive research performed during the last decades, the multifactorial mechanism responsible for the white wine protein haze formation is not fully characterized. Herein, a new model is proposed, which is based on the experimental identification of sulfur dioxide as a major modulating factor inducing wine protein haze upon heating. As opposed to other reducing agents, such as 2-mercaptoethanol, dithiothreitol and tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP), the addition of SO2 to must/wine upon heating cleaves intraprotein disulfide bonds, hinders thiol-disulfide exchange during protein interactions and can lead to the formation of novel inter/intraprotein disulfide bonds. Those are eventually responsible for wine protein aggregation which follows a nucleation-growth kinetic model as shown by dynamic light scattering [1].

Impact of varying ethanol and carbonation levels on the odor threshold of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphtalene (petrol off-flavor) and role of berry size and Riesling clones

1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphtelene (TDN) evokes the odor of “petrol” in wine, especially in the variety Riesling. Increasing UV-radiation due to climate change intensifies formation of carotenoids in the berry skins and an increase of TDN-precursors1. Exploring new viticultural and oenological strategies to limit TDN formation in the future requires precise knowledge of TDN thresholds in different matrices. Thresholds reported in the literature vary substantially between 2 µg/L up to 20 µg/L2,3,4 due to the use of different methods. As Riesling grapes are used for very different wine styles such as dry, sweet or sparkling wines, it is essential to study the impact of varying ethanol and carbonation levels.

Reaction Mechanisms of Copper and Iron with Hydrogen Sulfide and Thiols in Model Wine

Fermentation derived sulfidic off-odors due to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and low molecular weight thiols are commonly encountered in wine production and removed by Cu(II) fining. However, the mechanism underlying Cu(II) fining remains poorly understood, and generally results in increased Cu concentration that lead to deleterious reactions in finished wine. The present study describes a mechanistic investigation of the iron and copper mediated reaction of H2S, cysteine, 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol, and 6-sulfanylhexan-1-ol with oxygen. The concentrations of H2S, thiols, oxygen, and acetaldehyde were monitored over time. It was found that Cu(II) was rapidly reduced by both H2S and thiols to Cu(I).

Use of chitosan as a secondary antioxidant in juices and wines

Chitosan is a polysaccharide produced from the deacetylation of chitin extracted from crustaceous and fungi. In winemaking chitosan is mainly used in the clarification of grape juice and wine, stabilization of white wines, removal of metals and to prevent wine spoilage by undesired microorganisms. The addition of chitosan to model wine systems was able to retard browning, reduce levels of metallic ions (Fe and Cu) and to protect varietal thiols due to its antiradical activity1. The present experiment was planned in order to evaluate the use of chitosan as a secondary antioxidant at three different stages of Sauvignon blanc fermentation and winemaking. Sauvignon blanc juices from three different locations were obtained at a commercial winery in Marlborough, New Zealand. One lots of grapes was collected from a receival bin and pressed into juice with a water-bag press, and a further juice sample was collected from a commercial pressing operation. Chitosan (1 g/L, low molecular weight, 75 – 85% deacetylated) was added to the juice after pressing, after cold settling, after fermentation, or at all these stages. Controls without any chitosan additions were also prepared.

Evaluating South African Chenin blanc wine styles using an LC-MS screening method

Sorting Chenin blanc is one of the most important white wine cultivars in South Africa. It has received a lot of attention and accolades in the past years and more research than ever is dedicated to this versatile cultivar. According to the Chenin blanc association of South Africa, there are three recognized dry wine styles, Fresh and Fruity (FF), Rich and Ripe Unwooded
(RRU), and Rich and Ripe Wooded (RRW). They are traditionally established with the aid of expert sensory evaluation, but the cost and the (subjective) human factor are aspects to be taken into account. A more objective and possibly robust way of assessing and attributing these styles can be the use of chemical analysis.