Aleksandra Burdziej1,2, Grégory Da Costa1, Louis Gougeon1, Inès Le Mao1, Anthony Bellée3, Marie-France Corio-Costet3, Jean-Michel Mérillon1, Tristan Richard1, Anna Szakiel2, Stéphanie Cluzet4. 1. Univ. Bordeaux, Faculté des Sciences Pharmaceutiques, Unité de recherche Œnologie, EA 4577, USC 1366 INRA, Equipe Molécules d'Intérêt Biologique (GESVAB), ISVV, 33882, Villenave d'Ornon cedex, France. 2. Department of Plant Biochemistry, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, ul. Miecznikowa 1, 02-096, Warsaw, Poland. 3. INRA, UMR Santé et Agroécologie du Vignoble (1065), ISVV, Labex Cote, CS 20032, 33882, Villenave d'Ornon, France. 4. Univ. Bordeaux, Faculté des Sciences Pharmaceutiques, Unité de recherche Œnologie, EA 4577, USC 1366 INRA, Equipe Molécules d'Intérêt Biologique (GESVAB), ISVV, 33882, Villenave d'Ornon cedex, France. stephanie.cluzet@u-bordeaux.fr.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Grapevine protection is an important issue in viticulture. To reduce pesticide use, sustainable disease control strategies are proposed, including a promising alternative method based on the elicitor-triggered stimulation of the grapevine natural defense responses. However, detailed investigations are necessary to characterize the impact of such defense induction on the primary metabolism. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to use a metabolomics approach to assess the impact on grapevine of different elicitors dependent on the salicylic acid (SA) and/or jasmonic acid (JA) pathway. For this purpose, leaves of grapevine foliar cuttings were treated with methyl jasmonate, acibenzolar-S-methyl or phosphonates. METHODS: According to the elicitor, common and discriminating metabolites were elucidated using 1H NMR measurements and principal component analysis. RESULTS: A wide range of compounds including carbohydrates, amino acids, organic acids, phenolics and amines were identified. The score plots obtained by combining PC1 versus PC2 and PC1 versus PC3 allowed a clear separation of samples, so metabolite fingerprinting showed an extensive reprogramming of primary metabolic pathways after elicitation. CONCLUSION: The methods applied were found to be accurate for the rapid determination and differential characterization of plant samples based on their metabolic composition. These investigations can be very useful because the application of plant defense stimulators is gaining greater importance as an alternative strategy to pesticides in the vineyard.
INTRODUCTION: Grapevine protection is an important issue in viticulture. To reduce pesticide use, sustainable disease control strategies are proposed, including a promising alternative method based on the elicitor-triggered stimulation of the grapevine natural defense responses. However, detailed investigations are necessary to characterize the impact of such defense induction on the primary metabolism. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to use a metabolomics approach to assess the impact on grapevine of different elicitors dependent on the salicylic acid (SA) and/or jasmonic acid (JA) pathway. For this purpose, leaves of grapevine foliar cuttings were treated with methyl jasmonate, acibenzolar-S-methyl or phosphonates. METHODS: According to the elicitor, common and discriminating metabolites were elucidated using 1H NMR measurements and principal component analysis. RESULTS: A wide range of compounds including carbohydrates, amino acids, organic acids, phenolics and amines were identified. The score plots obtained by combining PC1 versus PC2 and PC1 versus PC3 allowed a clear separation of samples, so metabolite fingerprinting showed an extensive reprogramming of primary metabolic pathways after elicitation. CONCLUSION: The methods applied were found to be accurate for the rapid determination and differential characterization of plant samples based on their metabolic composition. These investigations can be very useful because the application of plant defense stimulators is gaining greater importance as an alternative strategy to pesticides in the vineyard.
Authors: Dharani Dhar Burra; Oliver Berkowitz; Pete E Hedley; Jenny Morris; Svante Resjö; Fredrik Levander; Erland Liljeroth; Erik Andreasson; Erik Alexandersson Journal: BMC Plant Biol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 4.215
Authors: Nina Prezelj; Elizabeth Covington; Thomas Roitsch; Kristina Gruden; Lena Fragner; Wolfram Weckwerth; Marko Chersicola; Maja Vodopivec; Marina Dermastia Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 5.753
Authors: Oliver Berkowitz; Ricarda Jost; Daniel O Kollehn; Ricarda Fenske; Patrick M Finnegan; Philip A O'Brien; Giles E St J Hardy; Hans Lambers Journal: J Exp Bot Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 6.992