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…

Characterizing the effects of nitrogen on grapevines with different scion/rootstock combinations: agronomic, metabolomic and transcriptomic approaches

Most vineyards are grafted and include a variety (Vitis vinifera) grafted over a wild Vitis rootstock (hybrids of V. berlandieri, riparia and rupestris). Grape berry quality at harvest depends on a subtle balance between acidity and the concentrations of sugars, polyphenols and precursors of aroma compounds. The mechanisms controlling the balance of sugars/acids/polyphenols are influenced by the abiotic environment, in particular nitrogen supply, and interact with the genotypes of both the scion variety and the rootstock. Previous work suggests that some of the effects of water stress are in fact linked to a nitrogen deficiency driven indirectly by the reduction of water absorption.

Use of computational modelling for selecting adsorbents for improved fining of wine

The occurrence of faults and taints in wine, such as those caused by microbial spoilage or various taints, have resulted in significant financial losses to wine producers. The wine industry commits significant financial resources towards fining and taint removal processes each year. Fining involves the addition of one or more adsorptive substrates to juice or wine to bind certain components, thus reducing their concentration [1]. However, these processes are often not selective and can also remove desirable flavour and aroma compounds.

Impact of drought stress on concentration and composition of wine proteins in Riesling

Protein haze in white wines is a major technological and economic problem of the wine industry. Field tests were carried out in steep slope vineyards planted with Riesling grapes over 3 dry growing seasons to study the effect of drought stress on the concentration of proteins in the resulting wines. Plots suffering from drought stress were compared with surrounding drip irrigated plots. Riesling grapes were processed into wines by conventional procedures. Protein amounts of the isolated wine colloids of the stressed samples were always higher than those of the watered samples(mean watered 13.8 ± 0.44, mean stressed 17.4 ± 0.40 g 100 g-1). As a consequence, higher bentonite doses were needed to achieve protein haze stability of the drought stressed treatments.

Metabolomics of grape polyphenols as a consequence of post-harvest drying: on-plant dehydration vs warehouse withering

A method of suspect screening analysis to study grape metabolomics, was developed [1]. By performing ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) – high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) analysis of the grape extract, averaging 320-450 putative grape compounds are identified which include mainly polyphenols. Identification of metabolites is performed by a new HRMS-database of putative grape and wine compounds expressly constructed (GrapeMetabolomics) which currently includes around 1,100 entries.

Fining-Derived Allergens in Wine: from Detection to Quantification

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).