| Literature DB >> 35360327 |
Petra Štambuk1,2, Iva Šikuten1,2, Jasminka Karoglan Kontić1,2, Edi Maletić1,2, Darko Preiner1,2, Ivana Tomaz1,2.
Abstract
Since grapevine is highly susceptible to various pathogens, enormous amounts of pesticides are applied each season to achieve profitable production. One of the most destructive grapevine diseases is downy mildew, and their interaction has been in the spotlight for more than a decade. When it comes to a metabolome level, phenolic compounds are relevant to investigate due to their involvement in the plant immune system and known antifungal properties. Croatian grapevine germplasm is highly heterogeneous due to its long history of cultivation in diversified geographical regions. Since it has been found that native varieties react differently to the infection of Plasmopara viticola, the intention of this study is to define if the chemical background of the leaves, i.e., polyphenolic composition, is responsible for these dissimilarities. Therefore, the leaves of 17 genotypes, among which 14 were native and 3 were controls, were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in four terms: before inoculation and 24, 48, and 96 h post inoculation (hpi). During this early phase, significant differences were found neither between the terms nor between the non-inoculated and inoculated samples, except for resveratrol-3-O-glucoside. By applying principal component analysis (PCA) using initial leaf polyphenolic composition, varieties of V. vinifera were clearly separated into three different groups corresponding to their International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) classes of susceptibility to P. viticola. Results obtained in this research suggest that the initial constitutive polyphenolic composition of the cultivar leaves has a crucial influence on their susceptibility to P. viticola, and this finding can be used to improve the success of grapevine breeding programs toward downy mildew resistance.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC; Vitis vinifera L.; chemical composition; defense mechanism; downy mildew; leaves
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360327 PMCID: PMC8963502 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.836318
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Genotypes, additional information on the plant material, the corresponding OIV classes of resistance of the genotypes to P. viticola (OIV 452-1), and the density levels of the trichomes on abaxial leaf sides (OIV 053) according to OIV (2009).
| Genotype (Accession name) | Holding Institute | Material source ID (EURISCO) | VIVC code | Species | OIV 452-1 | OIV 053 |
| Belina starohrvatska | HRV041 | VIT00233 | 5374 | 1 | 5 | |
| Debit | HRV041 | VIT00017 | 10423 | 1 | 1 | |
| Grk | HRV041 | VIT00030 | 5066 | 1 | 3 | |
| Moslavac | HRV041 | VIT00052 | 4292 | 1 | 5 | |
| Plavac mali | HRV041 | VIT00060 | 9549 | 1 | 7 | |
| Babić | HRV041 | VIT0002 | 844 | 3 | 1 | |
|
| HRV041 | CL-277 | 2455 | 3 | 3 | |
| Kraljevina | HRV041 | VIT00035 | 24904 | 3 | 1 | |
| Plavina | HRV041 | VIT00062 | 9557 | 3 | 9 | |
| Pošip | HRV041 | VIT00065 | 16018 | 3 | 1 | |
| Škrlet | HRV041 | VIT00085 | 22983 | 3 | 3 | |
| Tribidrag | HRV041 | VIT00013 | 9703 | 3 | 3 | |
| Malvazija istarska | HRV041 | VIT00047 | 7269 | 5 | 1 | |
| Ranfol | HRV041 | VIT00070 | 9908 | 5 | 5 | |
| Teran | HRV041 | VIT00087 | 12374 | 5 | 9 | |
|
| DEU455 | 20340 | 20340 | 7 | 3 | |
|
| DEU098 | 4609 | 4609 |
| 9 | 1 |
Genotypes used as controls are in bold.
*Plant material from vineyard on Experimental station Jazbina, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Viticulture and Enology, Cv. Chardonnay, clone CL-277.
** According to VIVC.
VIVC—Vitis International Variety Catalog (
OIV 452-1—Descriptor for leaf: degree of resistance to Plasmopara (leaf disc test).
OIV 053—Descriptor for young leaf: density of prostrate hairs between the main veins on the lower side of blade.
FIGURE 1Principal component analysis (PCA) scatter plot depicting (A) three OIV classes of susceptibility (1, 3, and 5—V. vinifera varieties) based on the polyphenolic composition of their leaves before and after artificial P. viticola inoculation at 0, 24, 48, and 96 hpi in the space defined by the first two principal components explaining 60.55% of the variability; (B) the vector diagram of correlation among the content of polyphenolic compounds and the first two principal components. 0, 1, 2, 3, Terms of sampling (0, 24, 48, and 96 hpi); N, I, Non-inoculated and inoculated observations; 1, 3, 5, OIV classes of resistance.
The differences between OIV classes of resistance to P. viticola in the content of polyphenolic compounds (mg/kg dw) in the young leaves.
| Polyphenolic compound (mg/kg dw) | OIV class of resistance | Polyphenolic compound (mg/kg dw) | OIV class of resistance | ||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||
| 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | ||
| Myricetin 3- | 284.76 bc | 341.57 b | 450.71 a | 246.94 bc | 142.38 c | Gallic acid | 0.14 b | 4.56 a | 1.00 b | 0.00 b | 0.00 b |
| Quercetin 3- | 10.98 bc | 31.32 b | 67.71 a | 79.83 a | 0.00 c | Protocatechuic acid | 120.17 ab | 131.65 a | 134.73 a | 99.79 b | 67.06 c |
| Quercetin 3- | 21476.02 a | 20459.28 a | 22230.20 a | 19939.34 ab | 12930.30 b | Vanillic acid | 37.62 c | 34.33 c | 31.03 c | 150.65 a | 85.56 b |
| Kaempferol 3- | 107.08 c | 82.88 c | 187.92 b | 186.31 b | 356.74 a | Syringic acid | 48.08 b | 47.61 b | 45.10 b | 6.72 c | 96.87 a |
| Isorhamnetin 3- | 80.80 a | 35.87 ab | 0.00 b | 0.00 b | 0.00 b |
| 206.01 a | 218.15 a | 211.86 a | 257.16 a | 249.49 a |
| Kaempferol 3-O-glucoside | 97.56 b | 119.99 ab | 152.31 a | 143.20 a | 116.43 ab | Epigallocatechin gallate | 96.61 b | 69.74 bc | 27.70 c | 79.61 bc | 510.13 a |
| Kaempferol 3- | 24.03 a | 11.89 b | 25.05 a | 0.00 c | 2.74 bc | Gallocatechin | 602.10 b | 675.72 b | 1365.01 a | 652.79 b | 31.69 c |
| Izorhamnetin 3-O-glucoside | 6.74 a | 0.26 b | 1.92 b | 0.00 b | 0.00 b | Epigallocatechin | 1389.55 a | 1607.88 a | 1337.18 a | 1429.44 a | 313.19 b |
| Taxifolin | 0.56 b | 10.94 a | 0.00 b | 0.00 b | 0.00 b | Procyanidin B1 | 2209.83 c | 3019.73 b | 3683.26 a | 3193.26 ab | 1213.24 d |
|
| 22088.52 a | 21094.01 a | 23115.82 a | 20595.62 ab | 13548.60 b | Procyanidin B3 | 36.81 b | 48.72 a | 19.65 c | 40.82 ab | 3.93 d |
| Caftaric acid | 5362.67 b | 5424.84 b | 6101.63 a | 5544.56 ab | 2511.22 c | Catechin | 31.36 b | 60.74 a | 37.21 b | 54.00 a | 10.87 c |
| Aesculin | 686.79 a | 352.53 b | 481.52 b | 227.66 b | 139.39 b | Procyanidin B4 | 111.97 b | 151.69 a | 150.75 a | 124.66 ab | 23.30 c |
| Coutaric acid | 120.23 b | 269.23 a | 69.08 b | 330.28 a | 217.99 ab | Procyanidin B2 | 133.44 b | 193.71 a | 65.65 c | 147.83 b | 49.24 c |
| Caffeic acid | 888.08 b | 840.94 b | 769.88 b | 1443.86 a | 280.46 c | Epicatechin | 391.86 b | 474.72 ab | 107.81 d | 485.20 a | 225.81 c |
| Fertaric acid | 15.28 bc | 16.19 b | 14.16 bc | 26.31 a | 11.04 c | Procyanidin A1 | 82.02 a | 74.12 a | 82.18 a | 65.61 a | 26.47 b |
| 26.71 b | 20.71 c | 25.66 b | 12.27 d | 33.83 a |
| 5085.54 b | 6376.75 a | 6876.40 a | 6273.21 ab | 2407.87 c | |
| Ferulic acid | 31.28 b | 34.12 ab | 40.94 a | 41.42 a | 5.44 c | Piceatannol | 13.44 c | 13.42 c | 27.97 b | 37.79 b | 63.97 a |
| Sinapic acid | 3633.00 a | 3213.18 b | 3801.47 a | 3372.13 ab | 2154.91 c | Resveratrol 3- | 183.21 a | 143.12 b | 101.44 c | 70.09 c | 208.62 a |
|
| 27451.19 a | 26518.85 a | 29217.45 a | 26140.19 a | 16059.81 b |
| 196.64 b | 156.54 c | 129.41 cd | 107.88 d | 272.59 a |
*Means were evaluated by Duncan’s multiple range test at a confidence level of 95% (p < 0.05). Different letters show statistical significance.
FIGURE 2The ascending content of resveratrol-3-O-glucoside throughout the experiment [before inoculation (T0), 24 hpi (T1), 48 hpi (T2), and 96 hpi (T3)] for non-inoculated (N) and inoculated (I) samples regardless of the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) class. The values for each time point and treatment were obtained by the mean of the values of 17 genotypes. The differences between the means were evaluated by Duncan’s multiple range test at a confidence level of 95% (p < 0.05). Different letters show statistical significance.