| Literature DB >> 35888697 |
Evangelia Tsiokanos1, Annalisa Cartabia2, Nikolaos Tsafantakis1, Ismahen Lalaymia2, Aikaterini Termentzi3, Maria Miguel4, Stéphane Declerck2, Nikolas Fokialakis1.
Abstract
Anchusa officinalis (L.) interacts with various microorganisms including arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). Recently, the AMF Rhizophagus irregularis MUCL 41833 has been shown to modulate the metabolome of A. officinalis. However, little information is available on the impact that different AMF species may have on primary and secondary plant metabolites. In this study, four AMF species belonging to the genus Rhizophagus (R. irregularis MUCL 41833, R. intraradices MUCL 49410, R. clarus MUCL 46238, R. aggregatus MUCL 49408), were evaluated for their potential to modulate A. officinalis metabolome under controlled semi-hydroponic cultivation conditions. An untargeted metabolomic analysis was performed using UHPLC-HRMS followed by a multivariate data analysis. Forty-two compounds were reported to be highly modulated in relation to the different AMF associations. Among them, six new secondary metabolites were tentatively identified including two acetyl- and four malonyl- phenylpropanoid and saponin derivatives, all presenting a common substitution at position C-6 of the glycosidic moiety. In addition, an enhanced accumulation of primary and secondary metabolites was observed for R. irregularis and R. intraradices, showing a stronger effect on A. officinalis metabolome compared to R. clarus and R. aggregatus. Therefore, our data suggest that different AMF species may specifically modulate A. officinalis metabolite production.Entities:
Keywords: Anchusa officinalis (L.); arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; circulatory semi-hydroponic cultivation system; metabolomics; primary and secondary metabolites
Year: 2022 PMID: 35888697 PMCID: PMC9319164 DOI: 10.3390/metabo12070573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolites ISSN: 2218-1989
AMF-root colonization (TC% and AC%) and total fresh weight (TFW) averaged between the two-time samplings (T0 and T1) of A. officinalis associated with each AMF species (R. irregularis, R. intraradices, R. clarus and R. aggregatus) growing for 9 days in the semi-hydroponic cultivation system.
| AMF Treatments | AMF Root Colonization (%) | Fresh Weight (g) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TC | AC | ||
| 70 ± 2 a | 10 ± 3 a | 5.68 ± 1.5 a | |
| 81 ± 2 b | 17 ± 3 a | 8.22 ± 1.5 a | |
| 74 ± 2 ab | 12 ± 3 a | 5.13 ± 1.5 a | |
| 77 ± 2 ab | 14 ± 3 a | 8.06 ± 1.5 a | |
The parameters measured are expressed as mean ± standard errors of 14 replicates per each AMF treatment. The AMF treatment means followed by the same lowercase letters are not significantly different according to Bonferroni post-hoc test (p-value < 0.05).
Figure 1Principal component analysis (PCA)—Comparison of UHPLC-HRMS metabolic profiles from A. officinalis root (a) and shoot (b) samples associated with R. irregularis, R. intraradices, R. clarus and R. aggregatus, after 9 days of growth in the semi-hydroponic cultivation system. (R. irregularis MUCL 41833: blue dots; R. intraradices MUCL 49410: green dots; R. clarus MUCL 46238: red dots; R. aggregatus MUCL 49408: yellow dots).
Figure 2Volcano-plot analysis—Identification of up- and down-regulated compounds (p-value < 0.05 and fold change > 1.5) between A. officinalis root samples associated with four AMF species (R. irregularis, R. intraradices, R. clarus and R. aggregatus) after 9 days of growth in the semi-hydroponic cultivation system. Comparison of metabolic profiles from root samples associated with (a) R. irregularis MUCL 41833 and R. clarus MUCL 46238; (b) R. irregularis MUCL 41833 and R. aggregatus MUCL 49408; (c) R. intraradices MUCL 49410 and R. clarus MUCL 46238; (d) R. intraradices MUCL 49410 and R. aggregatus MUCL 49408. Significant up-regulated compounds are represented in blue (right side of the plots) and down-regulated in magenta (left side of the plots). Blue and magenta arrows represent the amount of up- and down-regulated compounds, respectively, in the specific AMF-plants treatment.
Figure 3Volcano-plot analysis—Identification of up- and down-regulated compounds (p-value < 0.05 and fold change > 1.5) between A. officinalis shoot samples associated with four AMF species (R. irregularis, R. intraradices, R. clarus and R. aggregatus) after 9 days of growth in the semi-hydroponic cultivation system. Comparison of metabolic profiles from shoot samples associated with (a) R. irregularis MUCL 41833 and R. clarus MUCL 46238; (b) R. irregularis MUCL 41833 and R. aggregatus MUCL 49408; (c) R. intraradices MUCL 49410 and R. clarus MUCL 46238; (d) R. intraradices MUCL 49410 and R. aggregatus MUCL 49408. Significant up-regulated compounds are represented in blue (right side of the plots) and down-regulated in magenta (left side of the plots). Blue and magenta arrows represent the amount of up- and down-regulated compounds, respectively, in specific AMF-plants treatment.
Affected primary (a) and secondary metabolites (b) in root and shoot samples of Anchusa officinalis associated to R. irregularis MUCL 41883, R. intraradices MUCL 49410, R. clarus MUCL 46238 and R. aggregatus MUCL 49408 growing for 9 days in the semi-hydroponic cultivation system.
| Peak | Proposed | Rt | Precursor | Δm (ppm) | MS/MS Fragment Ions ( | Chemical Formula | Affected In | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | D-Glutamine | 1.43 | 145.0620 | 146.0686 | 1.13 | 146, 128, 102 | C5H10N2O3 | R | [ | |
| 2 | L-Aspartic acid | 1.44 | 132.0303 | 133.0370 | 0.67 | 132, 115, 88, 71 | C4H7NO4 | S, R | [ | |
| 3 | L-Glutamic acid | 1.46 | 146.0660 | 147.0530 | 0.75 | 146, 128, 102 | C5H9NO4 | S | [ | |
| 4 | L-Threonic acid | 1.51 | 135.0300 | 136.0366 | 1.06 | 135, 117, 89, 75, 61 | C4H8O5 | S | [ | |
| 5 | DL-Malic acid | 1.59 | 133.0144 | 134.0210 | 0.93 | 133, 115, 89, 72, 71 | C4H6O5 | S, R | [ | |
| 6 | DL-pyroglutamic acid | 1.65 | 128.0355 | 129.0420 | 1.28 | 128, 82, 62 | C5H7NO3 | S, R | [ | |
| 7 | Allantoin | 1.49 | 157.0359 | 158.0434 | −1.56 | 114, 97, 71, 59 | C4H6N4O3 | S | [ | |
| 8 | Danshensu | 3.53 | 197.0451 | 198.0523 | 0.64 | 179, 153, 135, 121, 73 | C9H10O5 | S | [ | |
| 9 | Glomeratose A | 4.50 | 561.1837 | 562.1892 | 2.19 | 342, 240, 191, 163, 121, 59 | C24H34O15 | R | [ | |
| 10 | Methyl dihydrosinapic acid glucoside | 4.90 | 401.1458 | 402.1520 | 1.15 | 208, 193, 175, 163, 121, 93, 71 | C18H26O10 | R | [ | |
| 11 | Salicylic acid | 4.94 | 299.0776 | 300.0840 | 1.50 | 137, 93 | C13H16O8 | S | [ | |
| 12 | 3-Feruloyl-6′acetyl | 5.05 | 559.1679 | 560.1736 | 2.16 | 193, 179, 161, 133 | C24H32O15 | R | [ | |
| 13 | Methylsyringinoside | 5.22 | 547.2039 | 548.2100 | 1.26 | 219, 191, 176, 161, 121, 93, 71 | C24H36O14 | R | [ | |
| 14 | Barlerin | 5.37 | 447.1514 | 448.1575 | 1.97 | 269, 161, 113, 101, 71 | C19H28O12 | S, R | - | |
| 15 | Dihydroferulic acid | 5.78 | 371.0990 | 372.1051 | 1.67 | 179, 163, 121, 73 | C16H20O10 | S | [ | |
| 16 | Yunnaneic acid D | 5.79 | 539.1206 | 540.1262 | 1.82 | 297, 271, 197, 179, 161, 135, 109, 73 | C27H24O12 | S | [ | |
| 17 | Lithospermic acid | 5.81 | 537.1050 | 538.1106 | 2.11 | 339, 295, 269, 197, 179, 161, 135, 109, 73 | C27H22O12 | S | [ | |
| 18 | Isofraxidin | 5.98 | 221.0457 | 222.0523 | 1.30 | 177, 161, 145, 133, 123, 108, 95, 85, 67 | C11H10O5 | R | - | |
| 19 | Anchusoside-9 | 6.07 | 827.4449 | 828.4502 | 1.8 | 665, 503, 161, 113, 85, 71 | C42H68O16 | R | [ | |
| 20 | Bayogenin triglycoside | 6.09 | 1001.4954 | 1002.5030 | 0.17 | 942, 797, 635 | C49H78O21 | S, R | - | |
| 21 | Rosmarinic acid | 6.14 | 521.1311 | 522.1368 | 2.13 | 359, 197, 179, 161, 135, 123, 73 | C24H26O13 | R | [ | |
| 22 | Acetylanchusoside-9 | 6.22 | 869.4543 | 870.4608 | 0.33 | 707, 503, 161, 113, 85, 71 | C44H70O17 | R | [ | |
| 23 | SA derivative I | 6.33 | 537.1049 | 538.1106 | 2.73 | 285, 185, 135, 109, 121 | C27H22O12 | R | - | |
| 24 | Methylsyringin | 6.40 | 385.1509 | 386.1571 | 1.57 | 207, 191, 176, 161, 121, 93, 71 | C18H26O9 | S, R | [ | |
| 25 | Bayogenin diglycoside | 6.42 | 839.4435 | 840.4502 | 1.00 | 633, 423, 161, 113, 85, 71 | C43H68O16 | S | [ | |
| 26 | Salvianolic acid (SA) A | 6.48 | 493.1150 | 494.1207 | 2.11 | 295, 267, 197, 185, 169, 135, 109, 73 | C26H22O10 | R | [ | |
| 27 | Dihydroxybayogenin diglycoside | 6.49 | 843.4406 | 844.4451 | 2.58 | 621, 459, 161, 113, 101, 71 | C42H68O17 | S | [ | |
| 28 | SA derivative II | 6.51 | 537.1046 | 538.1106 | 3.01 | 295, 185, 135, 109, 121 | C27H22O12 | R | - | |
| 29 | Rosmarinic acid (RA) | 6.53 | 359. 0779 | 360.0840 | 1.95 | 197, 179, 161, 135, 123, 73, 62 | C18H16O8 | S, R | [ | |
| 30 | Salvianolic acid (SA) E | 6.70 | 717.1478 | 718.1528 | 1.72 | 339, 321, 295, 185, 161, 135, 109, 73 | C36H30O16 | R | [ | |
| 31 | 6″-Acetyl-methyl | 6.75 | 427.1616 | 428.1677 | 0.59 | 384, 219, 208, 191, 176, 161, 121, 93, 73 | C20H28O10 | R | - | |
| 32 | Clinopodic acid A | 6.98 | 343.0829 | 344.0891 | 0.59 | 197, 179, 145, 135, 123, 117, 89, 73 | C18H16O7 | R | - | |
| 33 | Dehydro SA B | 7.10 | 715.1324 | 716.1372 | 2.70 | 339, 295, 185, 135, 109, 72 | C36H28O16 | R | [ | |
| 34 | Dehydro RA | 7.00 | 357.0622 | 358.0683 | 0.70 | 197, 179, 161, 133, 123, 73 | C18H14O8 | R | [ | |
| 35 | Methyl RA | 7.06 | 373.0935 | 374.0996 | 0.65 | 197, 179, 161, 135, 123, 73 | C19H18O8 | S | [ | |
| 36 | Citrinin | 7.75 | 249.0771 | 250.0836 | 0.22 | 205, 157, 143, 122, 104 | C13H14O5 | R | [ | |
| 37 | Malonylanchusoside-2 | 8.15 | 1027.5135 | 1028.5187 | 1.38 | 779, 659, 617, 599, 455, 159, 129, 113, 101, 87 | C51H80O21 | S | [ | |
| 38 | Hydroxy Malonyl | 8.30 | 1043.5081 | 1044.5136 | 2.21 | 795, 659, 617, 471, 159, 129, 113, 101, 87 | C51H80O22 | S | - | |
| 39 | Hydroxy | 8.43 | 1129.5087 | 1130.5140 | 2.24 | 659, 471, 455, 159, 111, 101, 87 | C54H82O25 | S | - | |
| 40 | Malonylanchusoside-7 | 9.26 | 1027.5138 | 1028.5187 | 1.86 | 779, 659, 617, 599, 455, 161, 113, 101, 89 | C51H80O21 | S | [ | |
| 41 | Gingerol | 9.54 | 293.1662 | 294.1826 | 1.39 | 236, 221, 148, 127, 97, 72 | C17H26O4 | S, R | [ | |
| 42 | Embellin | 10.07 | 293.1766 | 294.1826 | 2.51 | 249, 193, 177, 136, 97, 79 | C17H26O4 | S, R | - |
Rt = Retention time; Δm = mass errors; [M-H]− = m/z of the pseudomolecular ion in negative and positive ionization modes, respectively; m/z calcd = theoretical m/z value; R = roots; S = shoots; PMs = primary metabolites; SMs = secondary metabolites.
Figure 4Graphical representation of metabolome profile variations in shoots of Anchusa officinalis associated with four different AMF species (R. irregularis MUCL 41883, R. intraradices MUCL 49410, R. clarus MUCL 46238 and R. aggregatus MUCL 49408). The AMF treatment means followed by the same lowercase letters are not significantly different according to HSD Tukey’s test (p-value < 0.05).
Figure 5Graphical representation of metabolome profile variations in roots of Anchusa officinalis associated with four different AMF species (R. irregularis MUCL 41883, R. intraradices MUCL 49410, R. clarus MUCL 46238 and R. aggregatus MUCL 49408). The AMF treatment means followed by the same lowercase letters are not significantly different according to HSD Tukey’s test (p-value < 0.05).
Chemical structure and fragmentation pattern of compound 19 and potential new compounds 22, 31, 37, 40 identified by ESI-HRMS and MS/MS analysis.
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| Comp. | [M-H]− | MS/MS ( |
| 19 | 827.4449 | 665 (E1), 503 (E2), 161, 113, 85, 71 |
| 22 | 869.4543 | 707 (E1), 503 (E2), 161, 113, 85, 71 |
| 31 | 427.1616 | 384 (K), 219 (F), 208 (G), 191(G/I), 176 (G/H), 161 (G/H/I), 121(G/I/J), 93, 73 |
| 37 | 1027.5135 | 779 (A/C), 659 (B/A1/A2), 617 (A1/A2/C), 599 (A1/A2/D), 455 (A4), 159, 129, 113, 101, 87 |
| 40 | 1027.5138 | 779 (A/C), 659 (B/A2/A3), 617 (A2/A3/C), 599 (A2/A3/D), 455 (A4), 159, 129, 113, 101, 87 |
Figure 6Schematic representation of the circulatory semi-hydroponic cultivation system. The Hoagland solution circulated through the containers supporting Anchusa officinalis plants associated with four different AMF species (R. irregularis MUCL 41833; R. intraradices MUCL 49410; R. clarus MUCL 46238; R. aggregatus MUCL 49408). The nutrient solution in the glass bottle (1) is pumped using a peristaltic pump (2) via silicon tubes (3) to the upper part of the plant container (4) containing A. officinalis plants (5). The solution percolates through the plant container back into the glass bottle. The black arrows indicate the flow direction of the nutrient solution in the tubing. The roots-stained images represent the plant-AMF colonization of the four different AMF species applied in this study.