Soil Composition and Rootstock Genotype Drive the Root Associated Microbial Communities in Young Grapevines

Overview

Journal Front Microbiol

Specialty Microbiology

Date 2022 Nov 28

PMID 36439844

Authors

Romain Darriaut

Livio Antonielli

Guilherme Martins

Patricia Ballestra

Philippe Vivin

Elisa Marguerit

Birgit Mitter

Isabelle Masneuf-Pomarede

Stephane Compant

Nathalie Ollat

Virginie Lauvergeat

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Soil microbiota plays a significant role in plant development and health and appears to be a major component of certain forms of grapevine decline. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to study the impact of the microbiological quality of the soil and grapevine rootstock genotype on the root microbial community and development of young plants. Two rootstocks heterografted with the same scion were grown in two vineyard soils differing in microbial composition and activities. After 4 months, culture-dependent approaches and amplicon sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA gene and fungal ITS were performed on roots, rhizosphere and bulk soil samples. The root mycorrhizal colonization and number of cultivable microorganisms in the rhizosphere compartment of both genotypes were clearly influenced by the soil status. The fungal diversity and richness were dependent on the soil status and the rootstock, whereas bacterial richness was affected by the genotype only. Fungal genera associated with grapevine diseases were more abundant in declining soil and related root samples. The rootstock affected the compartmentalization of microbial communities, underscoring its influence on microorganism selection. Fluorescence hybridization (FISH) confirmed the presence of predominant root-associated bacteria. These results emphasized the importance of rootstock genotype and soil composition in shaping the microbiome of young vines.

Citing Articles

Effects of Coffea canephora genotypes on the microbial community of soil and fruit.

Gomes W, Partelli F, Veloso T, da Silva M, Moreli A, Moreira T Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):29035.

PMID: 39580566 PMC: 11585534. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-80403-4.

The changes of rhizosphere microbial communities in pepper varieties with different capsaicinoids.

Li X, Zhang Y, Zhou C, Li X, Zou X, Ou L Front Microbiol. 2024; 15:1430682.

PMID: 39252840 PMC: 11381285. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1430682.

The rootstock modifies the arbuscular mycorrhizal community of the root system, while the influence of the scion is limited in grapevines.

Lailheugue V, Darriaut R, Tran J, Morel M, Marguerit E, Lauvergeat V Environ Microbiol Rep. 2024; 16(4):e13318.

PMID: 39171931 PMC: 11340015. DOI: 10.1111/1758-2229.13318.

Metabarcoding analysis reveals an interaction among distinct groups of bacteria associated with three different varietals of grapes used for wine production in Brazil.

Rezende G, Rocha F, Funnicelli M, Malavazi I, Crauwels S, Brandao M Heliyon. 2024; 10(11):e32283.

PMID: 38933974 PMC: 11200342. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32283.

Both the scion and rootstock of grafted grapevines influence the rhizosphere and root endophyte microbiomes, but rootstocks have a greater impact.

Lailheugue V, Darriaut R, Tran J, Morel M, Marguerit E, Lauvergeat V Environ Microbiome. 2024; 19(1):24.

PMID: 38654392 PMC: 11040986. DOI: 10.1186/s40793-024-00566-5.

References

Nilsson R, Larsson K, Taylor A, Bengtsson-Palme J, Jeppesen T, Schigel D . The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018; 47(D1):D259-D264. PMC: 6324048. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky1022. View

Dries L, Bussotti S, Pozzi C, Kunz R, Schnell S, Lohnertz O . Rootstocks Shape Their Microbiome-Bacterial Communities in the Rhizosphere of Different Grapevine Rootstocks. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(4). PMC: 8070248. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9040822. View

Klaubauf S, Inselsbacher E, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Wanek W, Gottsberger R, Strauss J . Molecular diversity of fungal communities in agricultural soils from Lower Austria. Fungal Divers. 2013; 44(1):65-75. PMC: 3688302. DOI: 10.1007/s13225-010-0053-1. View

Marastoni L, Lucini L, Miras-Moreno B, Trevisan M, Sega D, Zamboni A . Changes in physiological activities and root exudation profile of two grapevine rootstocks reveal common and specific strategies for Fe acquisition. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):18839. PMC: 7606434. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-75317-w. View

Schreiner R, Mihara K . The diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi amplified from grapevine roots (Vitis vinifera L.) in Oregon vineyards is seasonally stable and influenced by soil and vine age. Mycologia. 2009; 101(5):599-611. DOI: 10.3852/08-169. View

Saary P, Forslund K, Bork P, Hildebrand F . RTK: efficient rarefaction analysis of large datasets. Bioinformatics. 2017; 33(16):2594-2595. PMC: 5870771. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx206. View

Samad A, Trognitz F, Compant S, Antonielli L, Sessitsch A . Shared and host-specific microbiome diversity and functioning of grapevine and accompanying weed plants. Environ Microbiol. 2016; 19(4):1407-1424. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.13618. View

Marasco R, Rolli E, Fusi M, Michoud G, Daffonchio D . Grapevine rootstocks shape underground bacterial microbiome and networking but not potential functionality. Microbiome. 2018; 6(1):3. PMC: 5751889. DOI: 10.1186/s40168-017-0391-2. View

Moukarzel R, Ridgway H, Guerin-Laguette A, Jones E . Grapevine rootstocks drive the community structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in New Zealand vineyards. J Appl Microbiol. 2021; 131(6):2941-2956. DOI: 10.1111/jam.15160. View

10.

Deyett E, Rolshausen P . Endophytic microbial assemblage in grapevine. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2020; 96(5). DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiaa053. View

11.

Marasco R, Alturkey H, Fusi M, Brandi M, Ghiglieno I, Valenti L . Rootstock-scion combination contributes to shape diversity and composition of microbial communities associated with grapevine root system. Environ Microbiol. 2022; 24(8):3791-3808. PMC: 9544687. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.16042. View

12.

Zahid M, Li D, Javed H, Sabir I, Wang L, Jiu S . Comparative fungal diversity and dynamics in plant compartments at different developmental stages under root-zone restricted grapevines. BMC Microbiol. 2021; 21(1):317. PMC: 8594160. DOI: 10.1186/s12866-021-02376-y. View

13.

Taylor D, Walters W, Lennon N, Bochicchio J, Krohn A, Caporaso J . Accurate Estimation of Fungal Diversity and Abundance through Improved Lineage-Specific Primers Optimized for Illumina Amplicon Sequencing. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016; 82(24):7217-7226. PMC: 5118932. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02576-16. View

14.

Berg G, Rybakova D, Grube M, Koberl M . The plant microbiome explored: implications for experimental botany. J Exp Bot. 2015; 67(4):995-1002. PMC: 5395086. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erv466. View

15.

Liang H, Wang X, Yan J, Luo L . Characterizing the Intra-Vineyard Variation of Soil Bacterial and Fungal Communities. Front Microbiol. 2019; 10:1239. PMC: 6554343. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01239. View

16.

Reinhold-Hurek B, Bunger W, Burbano C, Sabale M, Hurek T . Roots shaping their microbiome: global hotspots for microbial activity. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2015; 53:403-24. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102342. View

17.

Gramaje D, Urbez-Torres J, Sosnowski M . Managing Grapevine Trunk Diseases With Respect to Etiology and Epidemiology: Current Strategies and Future Prospects. Plant Dis. 2019; 102(1):12-39. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-04-17-0512-FE. View

18.

Liu D, Howell K . Community succession of the grapevine fungal microbiome in the annual growth cycle. Environ Microbiol. 2020; 23(4):1842-1857. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.15172. View

19.

Kiss L . Limits of nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences as species barcodes for Fungi. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(27):E1811. PMC: 3390822. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1207143109. View

20.

Compant S, Mitter B, Colli-Mull J, Gangl H, Sessitsch A . Endophytes of grapevine flowers, berries, and seeds: identification of cultivable bacteria, comparison with other plant parts, and visualization of niches of colonization. Microb Ecol. 2011; 62(1):188-97. DOI: 10.1007/s00248-011-9883-y. View