journal article·2020-11-26Open access

Genotype May Influence Bacterial Diversity in Bark and Bud of Vitis vinifera Cultivars Grown under the Same Environment

Murad Awad, Georgios Giannopoulos, Photini V. Mylona, Alexios N. Polidoros

Applied Sciences· Volume 10· Issue 23

Abstract

Viticulture is globally an important economic activity, and grapevine microbiomes hold a significant role in influencing yield and quality. Earlier studies showed that cultivar and agronomic management affect grapevine microbiome structure and, potentially, the quality of the end product. While microbial dynamics and ecology were established on some grapevine tissues, i.e., leaves and grapes, there is less knowledge deciphering microbiomes on other tissues, i.e., barks and buds. Moreover, although the impact on the microbiome of the so-called “vitivinicultural terroir” is well established, there are limited data considering microbiomes of genetically diverse cultivars within the same environment. Our study aims to explore microbiome diversity on bud and bark tissues of 37 different grapevine cultivars under the same environment and agronomic management. We targeted the V2-9 regions of the 16S rRNA gene of the microbiomes in bark and buds at the onset of new vegetation and bud expansion using Ion Torrent sequencing technology. Our results show that these tissues display high bacterial diversity regardless of cultivars’ use. Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Actinobacteria were the most prevalent among 11 detected phyla. The genotype of the cultivar seems to affect bacterial diversity and structure (p < 0.001) within the same environment. Our approach highlights the efficiency of high-throughput sequencing to unfold microbiomes of several grapevine parts that could be an important source of microbial inoculation and an important molecular fingerprint of the wine and grape end products.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Horticultural and Viticultural Research · Fermentation and Sensory Analysis · Plant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Laboratory of Genetics and Plant Breeding, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece

Institute of Plant Breeding & Genetic Resources, HAO-DEMETER, 57001 Thermi, Greece

References (80)

Show source-provided references
1. OIV (2019). International Organisation of Vine and Wine 2019 Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture, International Organisation of Vine and Wine Intergovernmental Organisation.
2. Microbial phyllosphere populations are more complex than previously realized10.1073/pnas.051633898 ↗
3. Progress in cultivation-independent phyllosphere microbiology10.1111/1574-6941.12198 ↗
4. Singh, P., Santoni, S., This, P., and Péros, J.-P. (2018). Genotype-Environment Interaction Shapes the Microbial Assemblage in Grapevine’s Phyllosphere and Carposphere: An NGS Approach. Microorganisms, 6.10.3390/microorganisms6040096 ↗
5. Inventory and monitoring of wine microbial consortia10.1007/s00253-006-0798-3 ↗
6. Martins, G., Lauga, B., Miot-Sertier, C., Mercier, A., Lonvaud, A., Soulas, M.L., Soulas, G., and Masneuf-Pomarède, I. (2013). Characterization of Epiphytic Bacterial Communities from Grapes, Leaves, Bark and Soil of Grapevine Plants Grown, and Their Relations. PLoS ONE, 8.10.1371/journal.pone.0073013 ↗
7. Bark and grape microbiome of Vitis vinifera: Influence of geographic patterns and agronomic management on bacterial diversity10.3389/fmicb.2018.03203 ↗
8. Yeast and bacterial modulation of wine aroma and flavour10.1111/j.1755-0238.2005.tb00285.x ↗
9. Wine microbiology is driven by vineyard and winery anthropogenic factors10.1111/1751-7915.12428 ↗
10. Epiphytic fungal community in Vitis vinifera of the Portuguese wine regions10.1111/lam.12826 ↗
11. Wei, Y.J., Wu, Y., Yan, Y.Z., Zou, W., Xue, J., Ma, W.R., Wang, W., Tian, G., and Wang, L.Y. (2018). High-throughput sequencing of microbial community diversity in soil, grapes, leaves, grape juice and wine of grapevine from China. PLoS ONE, 13.10.1371/journal.pone.0193097 ↗
12. Discovering the bacteriome of Vitis vinifera cv. Pinot Noir in a conventionally managed vineyard10.1038/s41598-020-63154-w ↗
13. The microbial ecology of wine grape berries10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.11.025 ↗
14. Setati, M.E., Jacobson, D., Andong, U.C., and Bauer, F. (2012). The Vineyard Yeast Microbiome, a Mixed Model Microbial Map. PLoS ONE, 7.10.1371/journal.pone.0052609 ↗
15. Grape berry bacterial microbiota: Impact of the ripening process and the farming system10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.06.013 ↗
16. Fermentation Behavior Suggest Microbial Contribution to Regional10.1128/mBio.00631-16 ↗
17. Analysis of microbial diversity and dynamics during wine fermentation of Grenache grape variety by high-throughput barcoding sequencing10.1016/j.lwt.2016.05.009 ↗
18. Whole-metagenome-sequencing-based community profiles of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Corvina berries withered in two post-harvest conditions10.3389/fmicb.2016.00937 ↗
19. Cleistothecia of Uncinula necator—An additional source of inoculum in Italian vineyards10.1094/PDIS.1997.81.8.922 ↗
20. Perennation of Uncinula necator in vineyards of Eastern Washington10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.3.242 ↗
21. Bringing back the fruit into fruit fly-bacteria interactions10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03674.x ↗
22. Efficacy of Natural Epiphytes and Colonizers of Grapevine Pruning Wounds for Biological Control of Eutypa Dieback10.1094/Phyto-83-624 ↗
23. Winter habitat of Xylophilus ampelinus, the cause of bacterial blight of grapevine, in Japan10.1007/s10327-015-0581-3 ↗
24. Phylogenetic relationships of Pseudomonas syringae pv. Syringae isolates associated with bacterial inflorescence rot in Grapevine10.1094/PDIS-07-15-0806-RE ↗
25. Bultreys, A., and Kaluzna, M. (2010). Bacterial cankers caused by Pseudomonas syringae on stone fruit species with special emphasis on the pathovars syringae and morsprunorum race 1 and race 2. J. Plant Pathol., 92.
26. Pinto, C., Pinho, D., Sousa, S., Pinheiro, M., Egas, C., and Gomes, A.C. (2014). Unravelling the diversity of grapevine microbiome. PLoS ONE, 9.10.1371/journal.pone.0085622 ↗
27. The effect of 16s rRNA region choice on bacterial community metabarcoding results10.1038/sdata.2019.7 ↗
28. Meyer, F., Paarmann, D., D’Souza, M., Olson, R., Glass, E.M., Kubal, M., Paczian, T., Rodriguez, A., Stevens, R., and Wilke, A. (2008). The metagenomics RAST server—A public resource for the automatic phylogenetic and functional analysis of metagenomes. BMC Bioinform., 9.10.1186/1471-2105-9-386 ↗
29. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education education and data analysis
30. Heberle, H., Meirelles, V.G., da Silva, F.R., Telles, G.P., and Minghim, R. (2015). InteractiVenn: A web-based tool for the analysis of sets through Venn diagrams. BMC Bioinform., 16.10.1186/s12859-015-0611-3 ↗
31. Siegwald, L., Touzet, H., Lemoine, Y., Hot, D., Audebert, C., and Caboche, S. (2017). Assessment of common and emerging bioinformatics pipelines for targeted metagenomics. PLoS ONE, 12.10.1371/journal.pone.0169563 ↗
32. Campisano, A., Antonielli, L., Pancher, M., Yousaf, S., Pindo, M., and Pertot, I. (2014). Bacterial endophytic communities in the grapevine depend on pest management. PLoS ONE, 9.10.1371/journal.pone.0112763 ↗
33. Marzano, M., Fosso, B., Manzari, C., Grieco, F., Intranuovo, M., Cozzi, G., Mulè, G., Scioscia, G., Valiente, G., and Tullo, A. (2016). Complexity and dynamics of the winemaking bacterial communities in berries, musts, and wines from apulian grape cultivars through time and space. PLoS ONE, 11.10.1371/journal.pone.0157383 ↗
34. Relations among epiphytic microbial communities from soil, leaves and grapes of the grapevine10.1080/21553769.2017.1365776 ↗
35. The rhizosphere bacterial microbiota of Vitis vinifera cv. Pinot Noir in an integrated pest management vineyard10.3389/fmicb.2017.01528 ↗
36. Mezzasalma, V., Sandionigi, A., Bruni, I., Bruno, A., Lovicu, G., Casiraghi, M., and Labra, M. (2017). Grape microbiome as a reliable and persistent signature of field origin and environmental conditions in Cannonau wine production. PLoS ONE, 12.10.1371/journal.pone.0184615 ↗
37. Geographical and cultivar features differentiate grape microbiota in Northern Italy and Spain vineyards10.3389/fmicb.2018.00946 ↗
38. From the Vineyard to the Winery: How Microbial Ecology Drives Regional Distinctiveness of Wine10.3389/fmicb.2019.02679 ↗
39. Vineyard under-vine floor management alters soil microbial composition, while the fruit microbiome shows no corresponding shifts10.1038/s41598-018-29346-1 ↗
40. Vineyard microbiome variations during different fertilisation practices revealed by 16s rRNA gene sequencing10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.12.019 ↗
41. Vineyard soil microbiome composition related to rotundone concentration in Australian cool climate “peppery” Shiraz grapes10.3389/fmicb.2019.01607 ↗
42. Metagenomic analysis of the microbial community in fermented grape marc reveals that Lactobacillus fabifermentans is one of the dominant species: Insights into its genome structure10.1007/s00253-014-5795-3 ↗
43. Endophytic microbial assemblage in grapevine10.1093/femsec/fiaa053 ↗
44. Seasonal epiphytic microbial dynamics on grapevine leaves under biocontrol and copper fungicide treatments10.1038/s41598-019-56741-z ↗
45. Pinto, C., Pinho, D., Cardoso, R., Custódio, V., Fernandes, J., Sousa, S., Pinheiro, M., Egas, C., and Gomes, A.C. (2015). Wine fermentation microbiome: A landscape from different Portuguese wine appellations. Front. Microbiol., 6.10.3389/fmicb.2015.00905 ↗
46. Bokulich, N.A., Joseph, C.M.L., Allen, G., Benson, A.K., and Mills, D.A. (2012). Next-generation sequencing reveals significant bacterial diversity of botrytized wine. PLoS ONE, 7.10.1371/journal.pone.0036357 ↗
47. Understanding grapevine-microbiome interactions: Implications for viticulture industry10.15698/mic2015.05.204 ↗
48. Alonso, A., De Celis, M., Ruiz, J., Vicente, J., Navascués, E., Acedo, A., Ortiz-Álvarez, R., Belda, I., Santos, A., and Gómez-Flechoso, M.Á. (2019). Looking at the origin: Some insights into the general and fermentative microbiota of vineyard soils. Fermentation, 5.10.3390/fermentation5030078 ↗
49. Vineyard soil bacterial diversity and composition revealed by 16S rRNA genes: Differentiation by vineyard management10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.09.007 ↗
50. Hall, M.E., O’Bryon, I., Wilcox, W.F., Osier, M.V., and Cadle-Davidson, L. (2019). The epiphytic microbiota of sour rot-affected grapes differs minimally from that of healthy grapes, indicating causal organisms are already present on healthy berries. PLoS ONE, 14.10.1371/journal.pone.0211378 ↗
51. A multi-amplicon 16S rRNA sequencing and analysis method for improved taxonomic profiling of bacterial communities10.1016/j.mimet.2018.09.019 ↗
52. Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120106 ↗
53. Comparison of microbial community structure in kiwifruit pollens10.5423/PPJ.NT.12.2017.0281 ↗
54. Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial community structure at the continental scale10.1128/AEM.00335-09 ↗
55. Going back to the roots: The microbial ecology of the rhizosphere10.1038/nrmicro3109 ↗
56. Grapevine microbiomics: Bacterial diversity on grape leaves and berries revealed by high-throughput sequence analysis of 16S rRNA amplicons10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.905.2 ↗
57. Is microbial terroir related to geographic distance between vineyards?10.1111/1758-2229.12589 ↗
58. Effects of different management regimes on microbial biodiversity in vineyard soils10.1038/s41598-018-27743-0 ↗
59. Morgan, H.H., du Toit, M., and Setati, M.E. (2017). The grapevine and wine microbiome: Insights from high-throughput amplicon sequencing. Front. Microbiol., 8.10.3389/fmicb.2017.00820 ↗
60. Metagenomic approaches to investigate the contribution of the vineyard environment to the quality of wine fermentation: Potentials and difficulties10.3389/fmicb.2018.00991 ↗
61. The principles of QTL analysis (a minimal mathematics approach)10.1093/jxb/49.327.1619 ↗
62. A review on the plant microbiome: Ecology, functions, and emerging trends in microbial application10.1016/j.jare.2019.03.004 ↗
63. Microbial biogeography of wine grapes is conditioned by cultivar, vintage, and climate10.1073/pnas.1317377110 ↗
64. Fungal communities are differentially affected by conventional and biodynamic agricultural management approaches in vineyard ecosystems10.1016/j.agee.2017.05.022 ↗
65. Differentiation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae populations from vineyards of the Azores Archipelago: Geography vs. Ecology10.1016/j.fm.2018.03.017 ↗
66. Comparison of plant growth-promotion with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus subtilis in three vegetables10.1590/S1517-83822008000300003 ↗
67. Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: Current perspective10.1016/j.jksus.2013.05.001 ↗
68. Sarris, P.F., Trantas, E.A., Mpalantinaki, E., Ververidis, F., and Goumas, D.E. (2012). Pseudomonas viridiflava, a multi host plant pathogen with significant genetic variation at the molecular level. PLoS ONE, 7.10.1371/journal.pone.0036090 ↗
69. The Pseudomonas viridiflava phylogroups in the P.syringae species complex are characterized by genetic variability and phenotypic plasticity of pathogenicity-related traits10.1111/1462-2920.12433 ↗
70. Rozpdek, P., Domka, A., and Turnau, K. (2017). Chapter 29 Mycorrhizal Fungi and Accompanying Microorganisms in Improving Phytoremediation Techniques. The Fungal Community: Its Organization and Role in the Ecosystem, CRC Press.10.1201/9781315119496-30 ↗
71. Plant original Massilia isolates producing polyhydroxybutyrate, including one exhibiting high yields from glycerol10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05228.x ↗
72. Leaf microbiota in an agroecosystem: Spatiotemporal variation in bacterial community composition on field-grown lettuce10.1038/ismej.2012.32 ↗
73. Yashiro, E., and McManus, P.S. (2012). Effect of streptomycin treatment on bacterial community structure in the apple phyllosphere. PLoS ONE, 7.10.1371/journal.pone.0037131 ↗
74. Protection of Arabidopsis thaliana against leaf-pathogenic Pseudomonas syringae by Sphingomonas strains in a controlled model system10.1128/AEM.00133-11 ↗
75. Qin, C., Tao, J., Liu, T., Liu, Y., Xiao, N., Li, T., Gu, Y., Yin, H., and Meng, D. (2019). Responses of phyllosphere microbiota and plant health to application of two different biocontrol agents. AMB Express, 9.10.1186/s13568-019-0765-x ↗
76. Sphingomonas melonis sp. nov., a novel pathogen that causes brown spots on yellow Spanish melon fruits10.1099/00207713-52-6-2081 ↗
77. Draft genome sequence of Pantoea agglomerans R190, a producer of antibiotics against phytopathogens and foodborne pathogens10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.07.440 ↗
78. Genome-wide assessment of population structure, linkage disequilibrium and resistant QTLs in Chinese wild grapevine10.1016/j.scienta.2016.12.014 ↗
79. Quantifying the relative roles of selective and neutral processes in defining eukaryotic microbial communities10.1038/ismej.2015.18 ↗
80. Keller, M. (2015). Phenology and Growth Cycle, Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-419987-3.00002-9 ↗