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…

Intelligent article to control the internal pressure in continue in bottles

An intelligent packaging might, among others, provide information and allow monitoring of the quality of the packed product or its surrounding environment. A recent project on micro-flow wine bottles closed with aluminium screw cap and tightness liner, highlighted the importance of monitoring the internal overpressure continuously, in real-time and at least for 72 hours, since the internal pressure on the tightness liner and the micro-flow are related. Real-time and continuous measurements are not the standard methods of measurement of the overpressure, yet. The most used equipment for the determination of the pressure in wine bottle is the aphrometer, a destructive device that supplies a single value of pressure.

Application of high power ultrasounds during red wine vinification

Wine color is one of the main organoleptic characteristics influencing its quality. It is of especial interest in red vinifications due to the economic resources that wineries have to invest for the extraction of the phenolic compounds responsible of wine color, compounds that are mainly located inside the skin cell vacuoles. Moreover, these phenolic compounds not only influence color but also other organoleptic properties such as body, mouthfeel, astringency and flavour. The transference of phenolic compounds from grapes to must during vinification is closely related with the type of grapes and the winemaking technique.

HEAT BERRY : Sensitivity of berries ripening to higher temperature and impact on phenolic compounds in wine

The grapevine is an important economical crop that is very sensitive to climate changes and microclimate. The observations made during the last decades at a vineyard scale all concur to show the impact of climate change on vine physiology, resulting in accelerated phenology and earlier harvest (Jones and Davis 2000). It is well-known that berry content is affected by the ambient temperature. While the first experiences were primarily conducted on the impact of temperature on anthocyanin accumulation in the grape, few studies have focused on others component of phenolic metabolism, such as tannins.

New biological tools to control and secure malolactic fermentation in high pH wines

Originally, the role of the malolactic fermentation (MLF) was simply to improve the microbial stability of wine via biological deacidification. However, there is an accumulation of evidence to support the fact that lactic acid bacteria (LAB) also contribute positively to the taste and aroma of wine. Many different LAB enter into grape juice and wine from the surface of grape berries, cluster stems, vine leaves, soil and winery equipment. Due to the highly selective environment of juices and wine, only a few types of LAB are able to grow.

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.