| Literature DB >> 32272699 |
Carmine Negro1, Erika Sabella1, Francesca Nicolì1, Roberto Pierro2, Alberto Materazzi2, Alessandra Panattoni2, Alessio Aprile1, Eliana Nutricati1, Marzia Vergine1, Antonio Miceli1, Luigi De Bellis1, Andrea Luvisi1.
Abstract
Bois noir is a disease associated with the presence of phytoplasma 'Candidatus Phytoplasma solani' belonging to the Stolbur group (subgroup 16SrXII-A), which has a heavy economic impact on grapevines. This study focused on the changes induced by phytoplasma in terms of the profile and amount of secondary metabolites synthesized in the phenylpropanoid pathway in leaves of Vitis vinifera L. red-berried cultivar Sangiovese. Metabolic alterations were assessed according to the disease progression through measurements of soluble sugars, chlorophyll, and phenolic compounds produced by plant hosts, in response to disease on symptomatic and asymptomatic Bois noir-positive plants. Significant differences were revealed in the amount of soluble sugars, chlorophyll, and accumulation/reduction of some compounds synthesized in the phenylpropanoid pathway of Bois noir-positive and negative grapevine leaves. Our results showed a marked increase in phenolic and flavonoid production and a parallel decrease in lignin content in Bois noir-positive compared to negative leaves. Interestingly, some parameters (chlorophyll a, soluble sugars, total phenolic or flavonoids content, proanthocyanidins, quercetin) differed between Bois noir-positive and negative leaves regardless of symptoms, indicating measurable biochemical changes in asymptomatic leaves. Our grapevine cultivar Sangiovese results highlighted an extensive modulation of the phenylpropanoid biosynthetic pathway as a defense mechanism activated by the host plant in response to Bois noir disease.Entities:
Keywords: Bois noir; grapevine cultivar (cv.) Sangiovese; phenylpropanoid compounds; plant-phytoplasma interaction
Year: 2020 PMID: 32272699 PMCID: PMC7238227 DOI: 10.3390/pathogens9040269
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pathogens ISSN: 2076-0817
Figure 1Leaves of grapevine cv. Sangiovese BN-negative and BN-positive: (A) BN-negative leaves collected in July; (B) BN-negative leaves collected in September; (C) BN-positive leaves collected in July (sampled from plants with symptom severity class 0 (plants with no symptoms); (D) BN-positive leaves collected in September (symptoms of disease on leaves were clearly visible and were sampled from plants with symptom severity class 3 (more than three shoots with reddening leaf and berry shrivel)). BN = Bois noir phytoplasma.
Differences in the content (mg·g−1 dry weight (DW)) of chlorophyll (Chls), carotenoids (Cars), their ratio and soluble sugars in BN-positive and BN-negative leaves collected in July and September.
| July | September | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | BN- | BN- | BN- | %var. | BN- | BN- | BN- | %var. |
| Chl | 1.29 ± 0.01 | 1.52 ± 0.04 | **** | −15 | 0.57 ± 0.06 | 1.01 ± 0.03 | **** | −44 |
| Chl | 0.66 ± 0.04 | 0.67 ± 0.05 | ns | −1 | 0.46 ± 0.06 | 0.66 ± 0.03 | *** | −30 |
| Chls | 1.95 ± 0.17 | 2.19 ± 0.37 | ns | −11 | 1.03 ± 0.21 | 1.67 ± 0.35 | ** | −38 |
| Chls | 1.96 ± 0.01 | 2.29 ± 0.01 | - | −14 | 1.23 ± 0.01 | 1.53 ± 0.01 | - | −19 |
| Cars | 0.25 ± 0.06 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | ns | 0 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.05 | * | −33 |
| Cars/Chls | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.02 | - | - | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.02 | - | - |
| Soluble sugars | 80.4 ± 6.02 | 47.9 ± 3.21 | **** | +68 | 68.3 ± 5.93 | 52.2 ± 3.39 | *** | +31 |
Note: Data are presented as means and standard deviations of five harvested samples (n = 5 BN-positive and BN-negative plants, respectively) each measured in three technical replicates. The values shown in the %var columns represent the percentage reduction or increase in BN-positive sample compared to BN-negative control. The statistical analysis (BN-n vs. BN-p) was carried out using a multiple t-test (False Discovery Rate, FDR = 5%). BN-p = Bois noir positive leaves; BN-n = Bois noir negative leaves. Statistical significances are reported: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001. ns = no significance.
Figure 2(A) total phenolic content (TPC) expressed as mg of caffeic acid equivalent (CAE)·g−1 dry weight (DW) (B) total flavonoid content (TFC) expressed as mg of catechin equivalent (CE)·g−1 DW and (C) proanthocyanidins (PAs) (mg·g−1 DW) in BN-positive and BN-negative leaves collected in July and September. The statistical analysis between BN-positive and BN-negative leaves was carried out using a multiple t-test (FDR = 5%) and significant differences at p < 0.05 are marked by an asterisk. Values are reported as means and standard deviations of five harvested samples (n = 5 BN-positive and BN-negative plants, respectively), each measured in three technical replicates. BN = Bois noir phytoplasma.
List of putative compounds and anthocyanins extracted from Vitis vinifera cv. Sangiovese BN-positive and BN-negative leaves detected by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF. BN = Bois noir phytoplasma.
| N. | Compound | RT a (min) | (M-H)- | Error d | Score e | Reference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | protocatechuic acid 3-glucoside | 2.451 | 315.0737 | 315.0722 | C13H15O9 | −4.98 | 96.36 | [ |
| 2 | caftaric acid isomer 1 | 3.060 | 311.0436 | 311.0409 | C13H11O9 | −8.76 | 94.65 | [ |
| 3 | caftaric acid isomer 2 | 3.386 | 311.0404 | 311.0409 | C13H11O9 | 1.49 | 94.65 | [ |
| 4 | protocatechuic acid | 3.689 | 153.0571 | 153.0557 | C8H9O3 | −9.28 | 98.83 | [ |
| 5 | protocatechuic acid glucoside | 3.704 | 315.1101 | 315.1045 | C14H19O8 | −5.05 | 95.00 | [ |
| 6 | rosmarinic acid | 4.610 | 359.0785 | 359.0772 | C18H15O8 | −3.46 | 94.79 | [ |
| 7 | caffeic acid glucoside | 4.689 | 341.0893 | 341.0878 | C15H17O9 | −4.45 | 87.82 | [ |
| 8 | tartaric acid | 5.176 | 149.0103 | 149.0092 | C4H5O6 | −7.56 | 99.85 | [ |
| 9 | coumaric acid | 5.245 | 163.0398 | 163.0401 | C9H7O3 | 1.87 | 98.83 | [ |
| 10 | catechin* | 5.307 | 289.0695 | 289.0718 | C15H13O6 | 7.67 | 98.49 | [ |
| 11 | isorhamnetin 3-glucuronide isomer 1 | 5.568 | 491.0841 | 491.0831 | C22H19O1 | −2.09 | 94.41 | [ |
| 12 | viniferin | 6.555 | 453.1348 | 453.1337 | C28H21O6 | 2.42 | 88.00 | [ |
| 13 | unknown | 6.907 | 447.1492 | 447.1508 | C19H27O1 | 3.57 | 43.82 | - |
| 14 | unknown | 7.107 | 451.2193 | 451.2185 | C20H35O1 | −1.90 | 90.34 | - |
| 15 | epicatechin* | 7.193 | 289.0735 | 289.0718 | C15H13O6 | −6.02 | 91.43 | [ |
| 16 | myricetin 3- | 7.333 | 493.0601 | 493.0624 | C21H17O1 | 4.67 | 88.49 | [ |
| 17 | hexose derivative isomer1 | 7.361 | 431.1920 | 431.1923 | C20H31O1 | 0.65 | 92.50 | [ |
| 18 | hexose derivative isomer 2 | 7.704 | 431.1928 | 431.1923 | C20H31O1 | −1.15 | 99.00 | [ |
| 19 | quercetin-pentoside | 7.872 | 433.2081 | 433.2079 | C20H33O1 | −0.31 | 94.94 | [ |
| 20 | hexose derivative isomer 3 | 8.073 | 431.1914 | 431.1923 | C20H31O1 | −1.98 | 95.00 | [ |
| 21 | unknown | 8.243 | 657.1084 | 657.1097 | C30H25O1 | 1.94 | 94.94 | - |
| 22 | myricetin 3- | 8.257 | 493.0629 | 493.0624 | C21H17O1 | −1.05 | 86.75 | [ |
| 23 | myricetin 3- | 8.505 | 493.0643 | 493.0624 | C21H17O1 | −3.86 | 91.97 | [ |
| 24 | myricetin-3-glucoside | 8.604 | 479.0849 | 479.0831 | C21H19O1 | −3.73 | 91.89 | [ |
| 25 | unknow | 8.967 | 387.2021 | 387.2024 | C19H31O8 | 0.86 | 92.39 | - |
| 26 | quercetin-glucoside | 9.488 | 463.0902 | 463.0882 | C21H19O1 | −4.43 | 93.41 | [ |
| 27 | quercetin 3-glucuronide | 9.615 | 477.0697 | 477.0675 | C21H17O1 | −4.77 | 95.94 | [ |
| 28 | quercetin-glucoside | 9.750 | 463.0900 | 463.0882 | C21H19O1 | −3.91 | 93.21 | [ |
| 29 | kaempferol 3- | 10.274 | 447.0955 | 447.0933 | C21H19O1 | −5.00 | 91.62 | [ |
| 30 | unknown | 10.435 | 549.2544 | 549.2553 | C25H41O1 | 1.62 | 62.74 | - |
| 31 | kaempferol-rutinoside | 10.519 | 593.1513 | 593.1512 | C27H29O1 | −0.10 | 90.62 | [ |
| 32 | kaempferol 3- | 10.673 | 461.0740 | 461.0725 | C21H17O1 | −3.23 | 91.22 | [ |
| 33 | quercetin 3- | 10.678 | 447.0960 | 447.0933 | C21H19O1 | −6.05 | 93.66 | [ |
| 34 | unknown | 10.734 | 429.1778 | 429.1776 | C20H29O1 | −2.71 | 88.77 | - |
| 35 | isorhamnetin 3 glucuronide isomer 2 | 11.007 | 491.0841 | 491.0831 | C22H19O1 | −2.01 | 92.57 | [ |
| 36 | resveratrol glucoside | 11.122 | 389.1228 | 389.1242 | C20H21O8 | 3.49 | 95.85 | [ |
| 37 | caffeic acid and catechin | 11.622 | 451.1010 | 451.1028 | C24H19O6 | −3.99 | 87.00 | [ |
| 38 | quercetin | 13.100 | 301.0939 | 301.0412 | C15H9O7 | 6.44 | 91.77 | [ |
| 39 | syringetin-3- | 13.990 | 507.2089 | 507.2083 | C23H23O1 | −1.11 | 96.44 | [ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 40 | delphinidin 3-glucoside | 8.330 | 465.1032 | 465.1028 | C21H21O1 | −0.94 | 98.36 | [ |
| 41 | cyanidin 3-glucoside* | 9.615 | 449.1104 | 449.1078 | C21H21O1 | −5.78 | 96.25 | [ |
| 42 | peonidin 3-glucoside | 12.200 | 463.1232 | 463.1235 | C22H23O1 | 0.30 | 97.02 | [ |
Retention time, m/z experimental, m/z calculated, Difference between the observed mass and the theoretical mass of the compound (ppm), Isotopic abundance distribution match: a measure of the probability that the distribution of isotope abundance ratios calculated for the formula matches the measured data. *Confirmed by authentic chemical standards.
Figure 3Amount of anthocyanidins (mg·g−1 dry weight (DW)) in BN-positive and BN-negative leaves: (A) leaves collected in July (symptoms of disease on leaves were not yet visible) and (B) leaves collected in September (symptoms of disease on leaves were clearly visible). The statistical analysis between BN-positive and BN-negative leaves was carried out using multiple t-test (FDR = 5%) and significant differences at p < 0.0001 are marked by four asterisks. Values are reported as means and standard deviation of five harvested samples (n = 5 BN-positive and BN-negative plants, respectively), each measured in three technical replicates. BN = Bois noir phytoplasma.
Figure 4The content of flavan-3-ols (catechin and epicatechin), flavonols (quercetin, quercetin 3-glucuronide, quercetin-glucoside, and quercetin 3-O-rhamnoside), and stilbenoid (resveratrol glucoside) in BN-positive and BN-negative leaves of grapevine cv. Sangiovese sampled: (A) in July (symptoms of disease on leaves were not yet visible) and (B) in September (symptoms of disease on leaves were clearly visible). The statistical analysis between BN-positive and BN-negative leaves was carried out using a multiple t-test (FDR = 5%) and significant differences at p < 0.0001 are marked by four asterisks. Values are reported as means and standard deviation of five harvested samples (n = 5 BN-positive and BN-negative plants, respectively), each measured in three technical replicates. BN = Bois noir phytoplasma.
Figure 5(A,B) Phenotype and lignin auto-fluorescence of hand cross sections of BN-positive and BN-negative leaves of grapevines cv. Sangiovese in July and in September; (C) Intensities of autofluorescence signals are represented in false rainbow colors (highest intensity in red and the lowest intensity in blue); (D) Quantification of the intensity of autofluorescence signal. The statistical analysis between BN-positive and BN-negative was carried out using multiple t-test (FDR = 5%) and significant differences at p < 0.001 are marked by three asterisks. Bar: 100 µm.
Figure 6The biosynthetic pathways of phenylpropanoids and possible alterations in grapevine cv. Sangiovese leaves infected by Bois noir phytoplasma in relation to the increase in soluble sugars. Green arrows indicate the increase in metabolites, red arrows indicate the decrease in metabolites.