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…

Metabolomics comparison of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however, in wine, non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect on aroma and flavor formation. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS of Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) were commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct chemical profile that was unique for both grape musts. The SC-monoculture and CZ-SC sequential fermentations were the most distinctly different in the Sauvignon blanc while the LT-SC sequential fermentations were the most different from the control in the Shiraz fermentations.

Flavanol glycosides in grapes and wines : the key missing molecular intermediates in condensed tannin biosynthesis ?

Polyphenols are present in a wide variety of plants and foods such as tea, cacao and grape1. An important sub-class of these compounds is the flavanols present in grapes and wines as monomers (e.g (+)-catechin or (-)-epicatechin), or polymers also called condensed tannins or proanthocyanidins. They have important antioxidant properties2 but their biosynthesis remains partly unknown. Some recent studies have focused on the role of glycosylated intermediates that are involved in the transport of the monomers and may serve as precursors in the polymerization mechanism3, 4. The global objective of this work is to identify flavanol glycosides in grapes or wines, describe their structure and determine their abundance during grape development and in wine.

Chemical markers in wine related to low levels of yeast available nitrogen in the grape

Nitrogen is an important nutrient of yeast and its low content in grape must is a major cause for sluggish fermentations. To prevent problems during fermentation, a supplementation of the must with ammonium salts or more complex nitrogen mixtures is practiced in the cellar. However this correction seems to improve only partially the quality of wine [1]. In fact, yeast is using nitrogen in many of its metabolic pathways and depending of the sort of the nitrogen source (ammonium or amino acids) it produces different flavor active compounds. A limitation in amino acids can lead to a change in the metabolic pathways of yeast and consequently alter wine quality.

Effect of malolactic fermentation in barrels or stainless steel tanks on wine composition. Influence of the barrel toasting

Ellagitannin, anthocyanin and woody volatile composition of Cabernet Sauvignon wines aged in oak barrels for 12 months was evaluated. Depending on the container where malolactic fermentation (MLF) was carried out, two wine modalities were investigated: wines with MLF carried out in stainless steel tanks and barrel-fermented wines. Three toasting methods (medium toast, MT; medium toast with watering, MTAA; noisette) were considered for ageing of each wine modality. Sensory analyses (triangle and rating tests) were also performed. Two-way ANOVA of the raw experimental data revealed that the toasting method and the container where MLF took place, as well as the interaction between both factors, have a significant influence (p < 0.05) on ellagitannin, anthocyanin and woody volatile profiles of Cabernet Sauvignon wines.

Characterization of non-Saccharomyces yeast and its interaction with Saccharomyces cerevisiae with investigation of fermentation kinetics and aromatic composition

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.20.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...