Dataset Information

A Reference List of Phenolic Compounds (Including Stilbenes) in Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) Roots, Woods, Canes, Stems, and Leaves.

ABSTRACT: Due to their biological activities, both in plants and in humans, there is a great interest in finding natural sources of phenolic compounds or ways to artificially manipulate their levels. During the last decade, a significant amount of these compounds has been reported in the vegetative organs of the vine plant. In the roots, woods, canes, stems, and leaves, at least 183 phenolic compounds have been identified, including 78 stilbenes (23 monomers, 30 dimers, 8 trimers, 16 tetramers, and 1 hexamer), 15 hydroxycinnamic acids, 9 hydroxybenzoic acids, 17 flavan-3-ols (of which 9 are proanthocyanidins), 14 anthocyanins, 8 flavanones, 35 flavonols, 2 flavones, and 5 coumarins. There is great variability in the distribution of these chemicals along the vine plant, with leaves and stems/canes having flavonols (83.43% of total phenolic levels) and flavan-3-ols (61.63%) as their main compounds, respectively. In light of the pattern described from the same organs, quercetin-3-O-glucuronide, quercetin-3-O-galactoside, quercetin-3-O-glucoside, and caftaric acid are the main flavonols and hydroxycinnamic acids in the leaves; the most commonly represented flavan-3-ols and flavonols in the stems and canes are catechin, epicatechin, procyanidin B1, and quercetin-3-O-galactoside. The main stilbenes (trans-?-viniferin, trans-resveratrol, isohopeaphenol/hopeaphenol, vitisin B, and ampelopsins) accumulate primarily in the woods, followed by the roots, the canes, and the stems, whereas the leaves, which are more exposed to environmental stresses, have a low concentration of these compounds. Data provided in this review could be used as (i) a metabolomic tool for screening in targeted and untargeted analyses and (ii) a reference list in studies aimed at finding ways to induce naturally occurring polyphenols on an industrial scale for pant and human disease control.

SUBMITTER: Goufo P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7278806 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Reference List of Phenolic Compounds (Including Stilbenes) in Grapevine (<i>Vitis vinifera</i> L.) Roots, Woods, Canes, Stems, and Leaves.

Goufo Piebiep P Singh Rupesh Kumar RK Cortez Isabel I

Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) 20200508 5

Due to their biological activities, both in plants and in humans, there is a great interest in finding natural sources of phenolic compounds or ways to artificially manipulate their levels. During the last decade, a significant amount of these compounds has been reported in the vegetative organs of the vine plant. In the roots, woods, canes, stems, and leaves, at least 183 phenolic compounds have been identified, including 78 stilbenes (23 monomers, 30 dimers, 8 trimers, 16 tetramers, and 1 hexa ...[more]

PMID: 32397203

Similar Datasets

Project description:UnlabelledCrown gall disease of grapevine is caused by virulent Agrobacterium strains and establishes a suitable habitat for agrobacteria and, potentially, other bacteria. The microbial community associated with grapevine plants has not been investigated with respect to this disease, which frequently results in monetary losses. This study compares the endophytic microbiota of organs from grapevine plants with or without crown gall disease and the surrounding vineyard soil over the growing seasons of 1 year. Amplicon-based community profiling revealed that the dominating factor causing differences between the grapevine microbiota is the sample site, not the crown gall disease. The soil showed the highest microbial diversity, which decreased with the distance from the soil over the root and the graft union of the trunk to the cane. Only the graft union microbiota was significantly affected by crown gall disease. The bacterial community of graft unions without a crown gall hosted transient microbiota, with the three most abundant bacterial species changing from season to season. In contrast, graft unions with a crown gall had a higher species richness, which in every season was dominated by the same three bacteria (Pseudomonas sp., Enterobacteriaceae sp., and Agrobacterium vitis). For in vitro-cultivated grapevine plantlets, A. vitis infection alone was sufficient to cause crown gall disease. Our data show that microbiota in crown galls is more stable over time than microbiota in healthy graft unions and that the microbial community is not essential for crown gall disease outbreak.ImportanceThe characterization of bacterial populations in animal and human diseases using high-throughput deep-sequencing technologies, such as 16S amplicon sequencing, will ideally result in the identification of disease-specific microbiota. We analyzed the microbiota of the crown gall disease of grapevine, which is caused by infection with the bacterial pathogen Agrobacterium vitis. All other Agrobacterium species were found to be avirulent, even though they lived together with A. vitis in the same crown gall tumor. As has been reported for human cancer, the crown gall tumor also hosted opportunistic bacteria that are adapted to the tumor microenvironment. Characterization of the microbiota in various diseases using amplicon sequencing may help in early diagnosis, to serve as a preventative measure of disease in the future.

Project description:BackgroundVegetative buds provide plants in temperate environments the possibility for growth and reproduction when environmental conditions are favorable. In grapevine, crucial developmental events take place within buds during two growing seasons in consecutive years. The first season, the shoot apical meristem within the bud differentiates all the basic elements of the shoot including flowering transition in lateral primordia and development of inflorescence primordia. These events practically end with bud dormancy. The second season, buds resume shoot growth associated to flower formation and development. Gene expression has been previously monitored at specific stages of bud development but has never been followed along the two growing seasons.ResultsGene expression changes were analyzed along the bud annual cycle at eight different time points. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) revealed that the main factors explaining the global gene expression differences were the processes of bud dormancy and active growth as well as stress responses. Accordingly, non dormant buds showed an enrichment in functional categories typical of actively proliferating and growing cells together with the over abundance of transcripts belonging to stress response pathways. Differential expression analyses performed between consecutive time points indicated that major transcriptional changes were associated to para/endodormancy, endo/ecodormancy and ecodormancy/bud break transitions. Transcripts encoding key regulators of reproductive development were grouped in three major expression clusters corresponding to: (i) transcripts associated to flowering induction, (ii) transcripts associated to flower meristem specification and initiation and (iii) transcripts putatively involved in dormancy. Within this cluster, a MADS-box gene (VvFLC2) and other transcripts with similar expression patterns could participate in dormancy regulation.ConclusionsThis work provides a global view of major transcriptional changes taking place along bud development in grapevine, highlighting those molecular and biological functions involved in the main events of bud development. As reported in other woody species, the results suggest that genes regulating flowering could also be involved in dormancy regulatory pathways in grapevine.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In traditional vine areas, the production should present a typicity that partly depends on the grapevine variety. Therefore, vine improvement is considered difficult because of the limited choice in the natural variability of the cultivars within the limits of their characteristics. A possibility to circumvent this problem is the use of somatic variability. In vitro somatic embryogenesis and organogenesis can lead to genotypic and phenotypic variations, described as somaclonal variation, that could be useful for the selection of improved grapevine genotypes. RESULTS: In order to study tissue culture-induced variation of grapevine, we have analysed 78 somaclones obtained from somatic embryos of two distinct cultivars using molecular marker techniques. SSRs were only useful to verify the conservation of the microsatellite genotype between the somaclones and the respective mother clones. AFLP polymorphism between mother clones and somaclones was 1.3-2.8 times higher to that found between clones. However, a majority of the somaclones (45/78) exhibited only few changes. Seven and five somaclones of 'Chardonnay 96' and 'Syrah 174', respectively, which covered at least all polymorphic loci found in AFLP analysis were used for MSAP study. All of the 120 polymorphic fragments were found only in the somaclones. The percentage of full methylation at CCGG recognition sites was slightly higher in somaclones due to more polymorphic bands generated after cleavage by EcoRI/HpaII. Different digestion patterns revealed different methylation status, especially different levels of de-methylation, that are the consequence of the in vitro culture. CONCLUSION: MSAP highlights DNA methylation variation in somaclones compared to mother clones and, therefore, is a powerful tool for genotypic characterisation of somatic embryo-derived grapevines. The detection of the same polymorphic bands in numerous somaclones of different cultivars suggests the possibility of hot spots of DNA methylation variation. SSR profiles of the 'Chardonnay' and 'Syrah' somaclones were the same as of the respective mother clones. The somaclones exhibited a higher AFLP variation than clones obtained via traditional clonal selection in the field. Therefore, somatic embryogenesis through in vitro culture technique could be useful for the selection of improved cultivars with subtle changes but conserving their main characteristics.

Dataset Information

A Reference List of Phenolic Compounds (Including Stilbenes) in Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) Roots, Woods, Canes, Stems, and Leaves.

Publications

A Reference List of Phenolic Compounds (Including Stilbenes) in Grapevine (<i>Vitis vinifera</i> L.) Roots, Woods, Canes, Stems, and Leaves.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets