| Literature DB >> 24223954 |
Faraj M Hijaz1, John A Manthey, Svetlana Y Folimonova, Craig L Davis, Shelley E Jones, José I Reyes-De-Corcuera.
Abstract
Huanglongbing (HLB) presumably caused by Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) threatens the commercial U.S. citrus crop of an annual value of $3 billion. The earliest shift in metabolite profiles of leaves from greenhouse-grown sweet orange trees infected with Clas, and of healthy leaves, was characterized by HPLC-MS concurrently with PCR testing for the presence of Clas bacteria and observation of disease symptoms. Twenty, 8-month-old 'Valencia' and 'Hamlin' trees were grafted with budwood from PCR-positive HLB source trees. Five graft-inoculated trees of each variety and three control trees were sampled biweekly and analyzed by HPLC-MS and PCR. Thirteen weeks after inoculation, Clas was detected in newly growing flushes in 33% and 55% of the inoculated 'Hamlin' and 'Valencia' trees, respectively. Inoculated trees remained asymptomatic in the first 20 weeks, but developed symptoms 30 weeks after grafting. No significant differences in the leaf metabolite profiles were detected in Clas-infected trees 23 weeks after inoculation. However, 27 weeks after inoculation, differences in metabolite profiles between control leaves and those of Clas-infected trees were evident. Affected compounds were identified with authentic standards or structurally classified by their UV and mass spectra. Included among these compounds are flavonoid glycosides, polymethoxylated flavones, and hydroxycinnamates. Four structurally related hydroxycinnamate compounds increased more than 10-fold in leaves from 'Hamlin' and 'Valencia' sweet orange trees in response to Clas infection. Possible roles of these hydroxycinnamates as plant defense compounds against the Clas infection are discussed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24223954 PMCID: PMC3818228 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079485
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Mobile phase composition and flow rate.
| Time (min) | % A (0.5% formic acid, H2O) | % B (acetonitrile) | Flow (ml·min-1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 86 | 14 | 0.30 |
| 16 | 72 | 28 | 0.30 |
| 21 | 62 | 38 | 0.30 |
| 28 | 50 | 50 | 0.30 |
| 43 | 45 | 65 | 0.50 |
| 48 | 30 | 70 | 0.75 |
| 53 | 30 | 70 | 0.75 |
| 58 | 86 | 14 | 0.75 |
| 63 | 86 | 14 | 0.75 |
| 64 | 86 | 14 | 0.30 |
| 70 | 86 | 14 | 0.30 |
PCR results for inoculated ‘Hamlin’ and ‘Valencia’ trees.
| Weeks after inoculation | ‘Hamlin’ | ‘Valencia’ |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0/5 [ | 0/5 |
| 23 | 2/7 | 2/5 |
| 25 | 3/5 | 3/5 |
| 27 | 2/5 | 1/5 |
| 29 | 0/5 | 1/5 |
| 31 | 4/5 | 3/5 |
| 33 | 4/5 | 5/5 |
| 35 | 4/5 | 3/4 |
| 38 | 4/5 | 3/5 |
Number of PCR positive plants over number of sampled plants at each sampling week.
Figure 1Progression of huanglongbing (HLB)-related symptoms in ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’-inoculated ‘Valencia’ sweet orange seedlings.
A) leaves from control plants 19 weeks after inoculation; B) leaves from HLB-grafted plants 19 weeks after inoculation; C) leaves from control plants 29 weeks after inoculation; D) leaves from HLB-grafted plants 29 weeks after inoculation; E) leaves from control plants 35 weeks after inoculation; F) leaves from HLB-grafted trees 35 weeks after inoculation.
APC mass-spectra in positive ion detection mode “m/z” and absorbance maximum (nm) for detected compounds.
| Peak no. | RT (min) | Compound | “ | λmax (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.2 | Unknown | 313.8 | |
| 2 | 5.3 | Unknown | 268 | |
| 3 | 5.4 | Unknown | 151 | |
| 4 | 10.2 | Feruloylputrescine[ | 265/177 | 292/317 |
| 5 | 10.5 | HCA[ | 386/195/177 | 325/230 |
| 6 | 12.5 | HCA[ | 386/195/177 | 325/231 |
| 7 | 14.1 | HCA[ | 386/195/177 | 328/234 |
| 8 | 14.4 | 6,8-di-C-Glucosylapigenin[ | 595/577/559/541 | 271/335 |
| 9 | 16.1 | HCA[ | 386/195/177 | 328/234 |
| 10 | 18.5 | Unknown | 595 | |
| 11 | 19.4 | Unknown | 573 | |
| 12 | 19.5 | 2′′- | 565/433/415/397 | 268/337 |
| 13 | 20.2 | Unknown | 565 | |
| 14 | 20.3 | Unknown | 595 | |
| 15 | 20.5 | Flavanone- | 611/465/303 | |
| 16 | 21.2 | Luteolin-7- | 595/595/449/287 | 255/266sh/348 |
| 17 | 22.1 | 8- | 463/445/427 | 254/266/348 |
| 18 | 24.4 | Flavone- | 609/463/301 | |
| 19 | 25.8 | Diosmin[ | 609/463/301 | 253/267/347 |
| 20 | 26.3 | Hesperidina, PCA | 611/465/449/303 | 283/331 |
| 21 | 29.1 | Flavanone- | 611/465/303 | |
| 22 | 32.2 | Isosakuranetin rutinoside[ | 595/449/287 | 283/331 |
| 23 | 33.5 | Unknown | 728 | |
| 24 | 33.5 | Unknown | 359 | |
| 25 | 34.1 | Unknown | 713 | |
| 26 | 34.4 | Unknown | 359 | |
| 27 | 35.2 | Unknown | 359 | |
| 28 | 35.3 | Unknown | 331 | |
| 29 | 36.1 | Isosinensetin[ | 373 | 249/270/342 |
| 30 | 37.1 | DesmethylPMF[ | 389 | |
| 31 | 37.6 | Sinensetina, PCA | 373 | 243/264/333 |
| 32 | 38.4 | DesmethylPMF[ | 345 | |
| 33 | 39.4 | Nobiletin[ | 403 | 249/270/334 |
| 34 | 40.1 | Tetramethyl- | 343 | 265/322 |
| 35 | 40.2 | Unknown | 375 | |
| 36 | 40.5 | Heptamethoxyflavone[ | 433 | 254/270sh/341 |
| 37 | 41.3 | DesmethylPMF[ | 359 | |
| 38 | 41.5 | Tangeretin[ | 373 | 271/321 |
| 39 | 42.3 | DesmethylPMF[ | 359 | |
| 40 | 43.2 | 5-Desmethylnobiletin[ | 389 |
aIdentified by matching their retention time, mass spectra, and UV spectra with known standard. The UV spectra were further compared to earlier published spectra [18].
bTentatively identified using +APCI-MS fragmentation patterns.
Figure 3Typical APCI-HPLC-MS chromatograms of ‘Hamlin’ and ‘Valencia’ leaf extracts and mass-spectra and UV spectra of unknown 5, 6, 7, and 9.
A) selective ion recording chromatograms of “m/z” specie of 177 in the positive ion mode; B) negative electrospray ionization mass spectra ; C) UV spectra of unknown 5, 6, 7, and 9.
Figure 4Principal component analysis of HPLC-MS leaf metabolites from ‘Valencia’ and ‘Hamlin’ trees.
A) score plot of leaf metabolites from ‘Valencia’ trees 3 weeks after inoculation; B) score plot of leaf metabolites from ‘Hamlin’ trees 3 weeks after inoculation; C) score plot of leaf metabolites from ‘Valencia’ trees 38 weeks after inoculation; D) score plot of leaf metabolites from ‘Hamlin’ trees 38 weeks after inoculation.
Loadings from PCA for metabolites in leaves from ‘Valencia’ or ‘Hamlin’ at sampling dates when group clustering was observeda.
| Compound | Loadings | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Time after inoculation (week) | |||||
| 27 | 29 | 35 | 35 | 38 | ||
| ‘Valencia’ | ‘Hamlin’ | |||||
| PC-1 |
|
|
|
| ||
| 9 | 0.27 | |||||
| 19 | 0.19 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 31 | 0.28 | 0.21 | 0.21 | |||
| 33 | -0.15 | -0.25 | ||||
| 34 | 0.25 | |||||
| 37 | 0.22 | |||||
| 38 | -0.10 | |||||
| PC-2 |
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 33 | 0.48 | |||||
| 38 | -0.22 | |||||
| 40 | 0.25 | |||||
aCompounds relevant to both varieties were bolded.
The relative amounts of metabolites from leaves of CLas-inoculated ‘Valencia’ trees with respect to control ‘Valencia’ trees.
| Peak no. | Compound | Week 3 | Week 23 | Week 27 | Week 29 | Week 35 | Week 38 | Time effect ( | Group effect ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unknown | 0.7 | 0.9 |
| 1.5 | 1.4 |
| 0.3940 | 0.0380 |
| 2 | Unknown | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.0 |
| 0.0060 | 0.2010 |
| 3 | Unknown | 1.0 | 0.7 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
| 0.3780 | 0.0290 |
| 4 | Feruloylputrescine | 1.6 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.3 |
| 0.0820 | 0.0056 |
| 5 | HCA | 1.6 | 1.3 |
|
| 3.2 |
| 0.1280 | 0.0003 |
| 6 | HCAPCA | 1.5 | 3.3 |
|
| 291.2 |
| 0.0056 | <0.0001 |
| 7 | HCAPCA | 2.3 | 2.2 |
|
| 105.6 |
| 0.0007 | <0.0001 |
| 8 | 6,8-di-C-Glucosylapigenin | 1.3 | 0.7 | 4.7 |
|
|
| 0.2000 | <0.0001 |
| 9 | HCAPCA | 1.3 | 2.0 | 6.8 |
| 45.8 |
| 0.0064 | <0.0001 |
| 10 | Unknown | 1.3 | 2.2 | NA | 6.5 | 114.8 |
| 0.0206 | 0.0078 |
| 11 | Unknown | 0.9 | 2.7 | 12.3 | 31.8 | 4.0 |
| 0.0087 | 0.0003 |
| 12 | 2′′- | 0.9 | 1.0 | 7.2 | 202.4 | 81.9 |
| 0.0381 | 0.0147 |
| 13 | Unknown | 1.2 | 12.5 | 3.2 |
|
|
| 0.0104 | 0.0008 |
| 14 | Unknown | 1.4 | 1.0 | NA | NA |
|
| 0.0513 | 0.0009 |
| 15 | Flavanone- | 0.6 | 1.4 | 15.4 | 12.7 | 10.3 |
| 0.0200 | 0.7039 |
| 16 | Luteolin-7- | 1.4 | 2.8 | 10.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.0413 | 0.0383 |
| 17 | 8- | 1.4 | 14.8 | 11.0 | 3.6 |
|
| 0.6120 | 0.0002 |
| 18 | Flavone- | 1.1 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 1.6 |
|
| 0.2540 | 0.0058 |
| 19 | Diosmin | 1.2 | 1.3 | 4.3 | 1.6 | 2.2 |
| 0.9260 | 0.0020 |
| 20 | HesperidinPCA | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| 2.2 | 1.8 |
| 0.1860 | 0.0006 |
| 21 | Flavanone- | 1.4 | 3.6 | 5.0 | 0.4 | 2.3 |
| 0.4840 | 0.1179 |
| 22 | Isosakuranetin rutinoside | 1.2 | 1.8 |
| 2.9 | 3.4 |
| 0.2003 | < 0.0001 |
| 23 | Unknown | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 1.8 |
| 0.1849 | 0.0024 |
| 24 | Unknown | 0.8 | 1.0 | 5.4 |
| 2.0 |
| 0.8840 | 0.0003 |
| 25 | Unknown | 0.9 | 0.8 | 3.4 |
| 2.8 |
| 0.0001 | 0.0095 |
| 26 | Unknown |
| 1.2 | 4.6 |
| 2.6 |
| 0.0520 | 0.0041 |
| 27 | Unknown | 0.7 | 0.6 | 3.2 |
| 3.5 | 1.3 | 0.1740 | 0.1055 |
| 28 | Unknown | 0.8 | 1.2 | 4.9 |
| 2.1 |
| 0.3660 | 0.0002 |
| 29 | Isosinensetin |
| 0.4 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.5 |
| 0.4450 | 0.0029[ |
| 30 | DesmethylPMF |
| 0.7 | 1.8 |
|
| 0.8 | 0.6540 | 0.5315 |
| 31 | SinensetinPCA |
| 1.2 | 4.8 |
| 2.4 |
| 0.0001 | 0.0037 |
| 32 | DesmethylPMF | 0.7 | 1.4 | 4.8 |
| 2.9 |
| 0.0019 | 0.0030 |
| 33 | Nobiletin |
| 0.6 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| 0.2510 | 0.4680 |
| 34 | Tetramethyl- | 0.9 | 1.1 | 6.0 |
| 2.0 |
| 0.0223 | 0.0082 |
| 35 | Unknown | 0.7 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 0.4580 | 0.7399 |
| 36 | Heptamethoxyflavone | 0.7 | 0.9 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 0.1890 | 0.2531 |
| 37 | DesmethylPMFPCA | 0.9 | 1.5 | 5.7 |
| 2.4 |
| 0.0136 | 0.0003 |
| 38 | TangeretinPCA | 0.9 | 0.7 | 2.1 |
| 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.2340 | 0.1070 |
| 39 | DesmethylPMF | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| 0.2018 | 0.0117[ |
| 40 | 5-Desmethylnobiletin | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 2.3 |
| 0.2590 | 0.8380 |
Bolded ratio means that the averages of these compounds in CLas-inoculated trees (n = 5) were significantly different (p-value < 0.05) from the controls (n = 3).
a p-value for group effect and time effect for the whole model (all sampling dates) using ANCOVA analysis.
bThe average of the relative amount of these compounds in all sampling dates was significantly lower in CLas-inoculated plants. P-values (in the same column) lower than 0.05 without any superscript are higher in CLas-inoculated plants.
PCA Compound with loading > 0.2 from principal component analysis, hence, accounts for group clustering.
NA means that the level of the compound was below the detection limit.
The relative amounts of metabolites from CLas-inoculated ‘Hamlin’ trees with respect to control ‘Hamlin’ trees.
| Peak no. | Compound | Week 3 | Week 23 | Week 27 | Week 29 | Week 35 | Week 38 | Time effect ( | Group effect ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unknown | 1.2 | 0.6 | 9.2 | 1.5 | 41.5 | 1.0 | 0.9890 | 0.0900 |
| 2 | Unknown | 1.0 | 0.8 |
|
| 1.0 | 1.6 | 0.0050 | 0.7300 |
| 3 | Unknown | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 0.0149 | 0.1673 |
| 4 | Feruloylputrescine[ | 2.0 | 1.1 | 16.4 |
| 41.1 | 1.7 | 0.0210 | 0.0137 |
| 5 | HCA |
| 1.1 | 0.9 | NA | 1.0 |
| 0.0187 | 0.0059 |
| 6 | HCAPCA | 4.5 | 11.4 | 14.0 | 7.0 | 17.0 |
| 0.0128 | 0.0006 |
| 7 | HCAPCA | 4.1 | 43.3 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 88.9 |
| 0.0007 | 0.0001 |
| 8 | 6,8-di-C-Glucosylapigenin[ | 2.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 13.5 | 1.8 | 0.4298 | 0.0007 |
| 9 | HCAPCA | 2.6 | 14.5 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 39.3 |
| 0.0183 | 0.0001 |
| 10 | Unknown | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 3.6 | 52.0 | 6.0 | 0.0907 | 0.0132 |
| 11 | Unknown | 2.0 | 8.1 | 36.2 | 4.2 | 146.8 |
| 0.0180 | 0.0005 |
| 12 | 2′′- | 2.5 | 2.0 | NA | 4.5 | 355.3 | 23.6 | 0.0660 | 0.0194 |
| 13 | Unknown | 1.9 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 4.3 | 62.1 | 9.6 | 0.0936 | 0.0123 |
| 14 | Unknown | 1.6 | 1.4 | NA | 2.0 | 17.3 | 5.4 | 0.4280 | 0.0084 |
| 15 | Flavanone- | 3.7 | 15.6 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.0180 | 0.1520 |
| 16 | Luteolin-7- |
| 1.6 | 0.4 | 1.4 |
| 1.9 | 0.0952 | 0.0327 |
| 17 | 8- | 2.5 | 1.5 | 4.4 | 2.4 |
| 2.6 | 0.8600 | 0.0017 |
| 18 | Flavone- | 1.5 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 0.0605 | 0.0047 |
| 19 | Diosmin | 1.7 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.5 |
| 1.9 | 0.5138 | 0.0035 |
| 20 | HesperidinPCA | 1.8 | 1.1 | 5.8 | 2.0 | 14.1 | 2.0 | 0.5210 | 0.0008 |
| 21 | Flavanone- | 1.8 | 0.9 | NA | 2.2 | 11.9 | 2.3 | 0.7970 | 0.0018 |
| 22 | Isosakuranetin rutinoside |
| 0.1 | NA | 1.4 | 13.9 | 2.0 | 0.4800 | 0.7350 |
| 23 | Unknown | 1.1 | 1.6 | 4.7 | 1.3 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 0.0030 | 0.0010 |
| 24 | Unknown | 1.4 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 0.0932 | 0.0001 |
| 25 | Unknown | 0.9 | 2.4 | 130.0 | 2.3 | 225.1 | 2.4 | 0.0010 | 0.0039 |
| 26 | Unknown | 1.2 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.0724 | 0.2864 |
| 27 | Unknown |
| 0.8 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.6949 | 0.9887 |
| 28 | Unknown | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 1.8 | 0.2536 | 0.0006 |
| 29 | Isosinensetin | 1.2 | 0.5 |
| 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 0.0951 | 0.0010[ |
| 30 | DesmethylPMF | 1.5 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.1669 | 0.4856 |
| 31 | SinensetinPCA | 1.2 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 1.7 | 4.2 | 1.1 | 0.0010 | 0.0027 |
| 32 | DesmethylPMF |
| 1.3 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 15.6 | 1.7 | 0.0003 | 0.0003 |
| 33 | Nobiletin | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.4 |
|
| 0.9670 | 0.0030[ |
| 34 | Tetramethyl- | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 11.6 | 1.4 | 0.0003 | 0.0023 |
| 35 | Unknown | 1.3 | 0.7 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6110 | 0.9910 |
| 36 | Heptamethoxyflavone | 1.4 | 0.7 |
| 0.6 | 0.2 |
| 0.9960 | 0.0014[ |
| 37 | DesmethylPMFPCA | 1.1 | 1.8 | 3.7 | 2.1 | 6.0 | 1.5 | 0.0043 | 0.0010 |
| 38 | TangeretinPCA | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 1.5 |
| 0.5310 | 0.0013[ |
| 39 | DesmethylPMF | 1.1 | 0.5 |
| 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 0.1100 | 0.0001[ |
| 40 | 5-Desmethylnobletin | 1.1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.4 |
| 0.4 | 0.1530 | 0.0260 |
Bolded ratio means that the averages of these compounds in CLas-inoculated trees (n = 5) were significantly different (p-value < 0.05) from the controls (n = 3).
a p-value for group effect and time effect for the whole model (all sampling dates) using ANCOVA analysis.
bThe average of the relative amount of these compounds in all sampling dates was significantly lower in CLas-inoculated plants. P-values (in the same column) lower than 0.05 without any superscript are higher in CLas-inoculated plants.
PCA Compound with loading > 0.2 from principal component analysis, hence, accounts for group clustering.
NA means that the level of the compound was below the detection limit.
Figure 5Relative amounts versus time (week) of different citrus leaf metabolites from controls and CLas-inoculated trees.
A) unknown 29 in ‘Valencia’ leaves; B) unknown 29 in ‘Hamlin’ leaves; C) unknown 39 in ‘Valencia’ leaves; D) unknown 39 in ‘Hamlin’ leaves.
Figure 6Relative amounts versus time (week) of different citrus leaf metabolites from controls and CLas-inoculated trees.
A) unknown 6 in ‘Valencia’ leaves; B) unknown 6 in ‘Hamlin’ leaves; C) unknown 7 in ‘Valencia’ leaves; D) unknown 7 in ‘Hamlin’ leaves; E) unknown 9 in ‘Valencia’ leaves; F) unknown 9 in ‘Hamlin’ leaves.