Grapevine (Vitis Spp.) Rootstock Stilbenoid Associations with Host Resistance to and Induction by Root Knot Nematodes, Meloidogyne Incognita Christopher M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wallis BMC Res Notes (2020) 13:360 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-05201-3 BMC Research Notes RESEARCH NOTE Open Access Grapevine (Vitis spp.) rootstock stilbenoid associations with host resistance to and induction by root knot nematodes, Meloidogyne incognita Christopher M. Wallis* Abstract Objective: The root knot nematodes (RKN) Meloidogyne incognita can severely reduce grapevine yields over time. Grapevine rootstocks have been developed from wild Vitis species that provide resistance to nematode infections. However, the potential biochemical or mechanical mechanisms of resistance have not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, this study measured levels of stilbenoids in roots of non-infected and RKN-infected grapevines with Cabernet Sauvignon scion grafted to susceptible (O39-16) or resistant (Freedom) rootstocks. This was part of a larger efort to assess phenolic compound levels within grapevine rootstocks to determine roles of stilbenoid compounds in improving nematode resistance and overall plant health. Results: None of the assessed compounds were consistently greater in RKN infected plants versus healthy controls. Stilbenoids putatively identifed as pallidol, ɑ-viniferin, miyabenol C, and hopeaphenol were overall much greater in Freedom than O39-16 rootstocks. By contrast, the stilbenoids ampelopsin A, ω-viniferin, and vitisin B were greater in O39-16 than Freedom. O39-16 and Freedom had similar levels of other stilbenoids especially monomers and dimers. Potentially the greater levels of specifc stilbenoids present in Freedom than O39-16 provided RKN resistance. If validated, breeding programs could utilize the increased presence of these compounds as a marker for increased resistance to nematodes. Keywords: Induced defense responses, Phenolics, Plant host resistance, Stilbenoids, Vitis champinii, Vitis rotundifolia, Vitis riparia, Vitis vinifera Introduction Most commercial grapevines are now Vitis vinifera Root knot nematodes (RKN, Meloidogyne spp.) can be cultivars grown as scions grafted onto rootstocks, as major pathogens almost everywhere grapevines are some of these rootstocks possess medium to high lev- grown as populations can build up over time to severely els of resistance to RKN from breeding projects dating afect root functioning, with efects on overall plant back to the 1950s [2–8]. Te mechanisms for resistance health and yields [1]. to RKN remain unclear, with work to characterize how grapevines could ward of nematodes only beginning [4]. One potential mechanism is the production of a class of phenolic compounds called stilbenoids, which are mostly *Correspondence: [email protected] USDA-ARS San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center, Crop Diseases, associated with being antibiotics against microbes [9]. A Pests and Genetics Research Unit, 9611 S. Riverbend Ave, Parlier, CA recent study of stilbenoids present in roots of grapevine 93648, USA was conducted on self-rooted ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ and © The Author(s) 2020. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creat iveco mmons .org/publi cdoma in/ zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Wallis BMC Res Notes (2020) 13:360 Page 2 of 7 quantifed high levels of fve stilbenoid compounds: res- the water was collected from the funnel assembly, and veratrol, piceatannol, piceid, ε-viniferin, and δ-viniferin brought to 10 mL total. A 1 mL aliquot of this was then [10]. placed in a deep-well microscope slide with a 4 1 × 1 mm However, more stilbenoids exist in grapevine root- grid for counting RKN at the mobile juvenile (J2) stage. stocks as multiple species can comprise specifc ones. Final counts were adjusted to a per g root or per cm3 soil Tis is the frst study to relate concentrations of stilbe- amounts. noids to observed resistance that grapevine rootstocks may possess against nematodes. Tus, stilbenoid levels Stilbenoid extraction and quantifcation were assessed in a susceptible rootstock cultivar ‘O39-16′ Chemical analyses proceeded based on modifed meth- (V. vinifera × Vitis rotundifolia) and a resistant rootstock ods of Wallis et al. [11] and Wallis and Chen [12]. All cultivar ‘Freedom’ [Vitis champinii × (Vitis solonis x (V. reagents and solvents were provided by Termo-Fisher vinifera × (Vitis riparia × V. labrusca)))]. Future and Scientifc (Waltham, MA, USA). All frozen root samples, ongoing studies will examine additional rootstocks with including some with galls, were pulverized with a mortar diferent backgrounds. Findings could be used to aid the and pestle in liquid nitrogen and had three 0.10 g aliquots development of novel RKN resistance molecular markers weighed out into three 1.5 mL centrifuge tubes and then for use in grapevine breeding eforts. extracted overnight at 4 °C in methanol. Remaining pel- lets were re-extracted in 0.5 mL of the same solvent, with Main text this second extract combined with the frst 1.0 mL total Materials and methods extract after combination. Experimental design and sample collection High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was In both June of 2015 and 2016, a total of 16 for each of used to examine stilbenoid compounds from these meth- 2 year old ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ grapevines either grafted anol extracts. A total of 50 µL of the methanol extract to ‘O39-16′ (RKN-susceptible) or ‘Freedom’ (RKN-resist- was injected into a Shimadzu (Columbia, MD, USA) LC- ant) [7, 13] in 3 gallon pots were inoculated with a RKN, 20AD pump based liquid chromatograph equipped with Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwood, by Supelco Ascentis RP-18 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, pipetting 10 mL of a nematode suspension, containing USA) column and a Shimadzu PDA-20 photodiode array a total of 1000 nematode eggs, into the soil around the detector. Sigma-Aldrich provided piceatannol, resvera- plants. Te treatments were arranged as a completely trol, and ε-viniferin, which were used to identify these randomized block design, with the plants kept in temper- compounds. Other compounds were identifed via liquid ature-controlled greenhouse (about 22 °C to 32 °C), care- chromatography-mass spectrometry using a Shimadzu fully watered weekly to avoid water fow-through, and LCMS2020 system [12] and comparing molecular weight received natural sunlight for the entire duration of the information and relative retention times with those pre- experiment. Four controls and four RKN infected plants viously reported for grapevine stems and roots (Table 1). were harvested at 6 and 12 weeks post-inoculation treat- Te obtained weights of phenolics present within sam- ment. At each harvest, the plants were removed from the ples were derived by running standard curves made using pots, with the roots briefy rinsed in water, and sampled resveratrol [12]. by using pruning shears to collect six semi-randomly collected segments covering fne, lateral, and tap roots Statistical analyses (roughly 10 g total were collected) for nematode extrac- IBM (Armonk, NY, USA) SPSS statistics version 22, with tions, and additional roots were collected similarly and α = 0.05, was used for all statistical analyses. Outliers fash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and kept at − 20 °C for consistently greater than two standard errors of a mean compound extractions. Te leftover soil was then hand- for each factor were excluded from analyses [11]. Unless 3 mixed with roughly 50 cm collected in a 50 mL centri- stated, for all analyses N = 32. fuge tube for soil nematode counts. Due to a lack of meeting normality assumptions, non- parametric Mann–Whitney U tests were used to confrm Root knot nematode counts diferences in RKN nematodes present within soil and RKN counts were made in both the root tissues and col- roots among the grapevine rootstock cultivars (O39-16 lected soil. In brief, modifed Baermann funnels were set or Freedom), for each sampling time (6 or 12 weeks), and up with flter paper, on which a weighed amount of roots for each year (2015 or 2016) for RKN-inoculated plants were (roughly 5 g) submerged in water. Te end of the only, as all non-inoculated plants did not have RKN funnel had a small amount of rubber tubing closed with observed. a binder clip. Likewise, 50 cm3 of soil was measured out Analyses of variance were employed to compare dif- and placed on flter paper and submerged. After 48 h, ferences in individual compounds between rootstock Wallis BMC Res Notes (2020) 13:360 Page 3 of 7 Table 1 Compounds quantifed in this study and criteria used for putative identifcations Stilbenoid type Putative name Retention time Molecular weight References Monomer Piceatannol 19.1 243 [14–16] Resveratrol 21.5 228 [14–16] Dimer Ampelopsin A 16.3 469 [14, 15] Ampelopsin D/ quadrangularin A 18.8 454 [17] ε-viniferina 24.0 454 [10, 14–17] Pallidol 18.1 454 [17] ω-viniferin 26.6 454 [15, 16] Trimer α-viniferin 24.7 680 [17] Miyabenol C 22.3 680 [14, 15, 17] Tetramer Hopeaphenolb 25.9 906 [14, 15] Vitisin B 27.8 906 [15, 16] a Compound potentially co-eluted with δ-viniferin b Compound potentially co-eluted with isohopeaphenol cultivars and diferences due to inoculation status (with infections whereas ‘O39-16′ rootstocks were susceptible the interaction also in the model).