Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 141–152 | Cite as

Emission of volatile compounds by Erwinia amylovora: biological activity in vitro and possible exploitation for bacterial identification

  • Francesco SpinelliEmail author
  • Antonio Cellini
  • Joel L. Vanneste
  • Maria T. Rodriguez-Estrada
  • Guglielmo Costa
  • Stefano Savioli
  • Frans J. M. Harren
  • Simona M. Cristescu
Original Paper

Abstract

Several analytical techniques such as gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, proton transfer reaction–mass spectrometry and laser photoacoustic detection, were used to characterize the volatiles emitted by Erwinia amylovora and other plant-pathogenic bacteria. Diverse volatiles were found to be emitted by the different bacterial species examined. The distinct blend of volatiles produced by bacteria allowed their identification using an electronic nose (e-nose). The present study reports the discrimination of E. amylovora, the fire blight pathogen, from other plant-associated bacteria using an e-nose based on metal oxide semiconductor sensors. Two different approaches were used for bacterial identification. The first one was the direct comparison of the odorous profiles of unknown bacterial isolates with four selected reference species. The second approach was the use of previously developed databases representing the odorous variability among several bacterial species. Using these two strategies, the e-nose successfully identified the isolates in 87.5 and 62.5% of the cases, respectively. Finally, the profiling of the volatiles emitted by E. amylovora lead to identify some metabolic markers with a potential biological activity in vitro.

Keywords

Fire blight VOCs Erwinia amylovora 2,3-Butanediol Electronic nose Plant growth promotion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully thank Elena Rondelli, Deirdre Cornish and Janet Yu for their active participation to the research and for their excellent work. The project was partially funded by Q-Detect: FP7-KBBE Project “Developing quarantine pest detection methods for use by national plant protection organizations (NPPO) and inspection services”. We also thank the COST-Action 864: PomeFruitHealth for coordinating the European research groups on fire blight and proving the opportunity of research exchanges and collaborations.

References

  1. Atlas RM (2000) Handbbok of microbiological media. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachinger T, Mandenius CF (2000) Searching for process information in the aroma cell cultures. Trends Biotechnol 18:494–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergey DH, Holt JG, Krieg NR (1984) Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. vol. 1. Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  4. Boamfa EI, Steeghs MML, Cristescu SM, Harren FJM (2004) Trace gas detection from fermentation processes in apples and rice; a comparison between proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry and laser photoacoustics. Int J Mass Spectrom 239:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cristescu SM, Persijn ST, Te Lintel Hekkert S, Harren FJM (2008) Laser-based systems for trace gas detection in life sciences. Appl Phys B Lasers Opt 92:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dutta R, Hines EL, Gardner JW, Boilot P (2002) Bacteria classification using Cyranose 320 electronic nose. BioMed Eng OnLine 1:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farag MA, Ryu CM, Sumner LW, Paré PW (2006) GC–MS SPME profiling of rhizobacterial volatiles reveals prospective inducers of growth promotion and induced systemic resistance in plants. Phytochemistry 67:2262–2268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Francioso O, Rodriguez-Estrada MT, Montecchio D, Salomoni C, Caputo A, Palenzona D (2010) Chemical characterization of municipal wastewater sludges produced by two-phase anaerobic digestion for biogas production. J Hazard Mater 175:740–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardner JW, Craven M, Dow C, Hines EL (1998) The prediction of bacteria type and culture growth phase by an electronic nose with a multi-layer perceptron network. Meas Sci Technol 9:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibson TD, Prosser O, Hulbert JN, Marshall RW, Corcoran P, Lowery P, Ruck-Keene EA, Heron S (1997) Detection and simultaneous identification of microorganisms from headspace samples using an electronic nose. Sensor Actuat B Chem 44:413–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Han XY (2006) Bacterial identification based on 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequence analysis. In: Tang YW, Stratton CW (eds) Advanced techniques in diagnostic microbiology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harper WJ (2001) The strengths and weaknesses of the electronic nose. Adv Exp Med Biol 488:59–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonsson A, Winquist F, Schnürer J, Sundgren H, Lundtröm I (1997) Electronic nose for microbial quality classification of grains. Int J Food Microbiol 35:187–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keshri G, Magan N (2000) Detection and differentiation between mycotoxigenic and non-mycotixogenic strains of Fusarium spp using volatile production profiles and hydrolytic enzymes. J Appl Microbiol 89:825–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laothawornkitkul J, Moore JP, Taylor JE, Possell M, Gibson TM, Hewitt CN, Paul ND (2008) Discrimination of plant volatile signatures by an electronic nose: a potential technology for plant pest and disease monitoring. Environ Sci Technol 42:8433–8439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Magan N, Evans P (2000) Volatiles as an indicator of fungal activity and differentiation between species, and the potential use of electronic nose technology for early detection of grain spoilage. J Stored Prod Res 36:319–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marilley L, Ampuero S, Zesiger T, Casey MG (2004) Screening of aroma-producing lactic acid bacteria with an electronic nose. Int Dairy J 14:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin-Laurent F, Philippot L, Hallet S, Chaussod R, Germon JC, Soulas G, Catroux G (2001) DNA extraction from soils: old bias for new microbial diversity analysis methods. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:2354–2359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McEntegart CM, Penrose WR, Strathmann S, Stetter JR (2000) Detection and discrimination of coliform bacteria with gas sensor arrays. Sensor Actuat B Chem 70:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller TD, Schroth MN (1972) Monitoring the epiphytic population of Erwinia amylovora on pear with a selective medium. Phytopathology 62:1175–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Momol MT, Balaban MO, Korel F, Odabasi A, Momol EA, Folkes G, Jones JB (2004) Discrimination of plant pathogenic bacteria using an electronic nose. Plant Health Progr (online)Google Scholar
  22. Pardo M, Sberveglieri G (2004) Electronic olfactory systems based on metal oxide semiconductor sensor arrays. MRS Bull 29:703–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pavlou AK, Turner APF (2000) Sniffing out the truth: clinical diagnosis using the electronic nose. Clin Chem Lab Med 38:99–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prithiviraj B, Vikram A, Kushalappa AC, Yaylayan V (2004) Volatile metabolite profiling for the discrimination of onion bulbs infected by Erwinia carotovora ssp. carotovora, Fusarium oxysporum and Botrytis allii. Eur J Plant Pathol 110:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rapparini F, Baraldi R, Miglietta F, Loreto F (2004) Isoprenoid emission in trees of Quercus pubescens and Quercus ilex with lifetime exposures to naturally high CO2 environment. Plant Cell Environ 27:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Röck F, Barsan N, Weimar U (2008) Electronic nose: current status and future trends. Chem Rev 108:705–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryu CM, Farag MA, Hu CH, Reddy MS, Wei HX, Paré PW, Kloepper JW (2003) Bacterial volatiles promote growth in Arabidopsis. PNAS 100:4927–4932PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryu CM, Farag MA, Hu CH, Reddy MS, Kloepper JW, Paré PW (2004) Bacterial volatiles induce systemic resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 134:1017–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saevels S, Lammertyn J, Berna AZ, Veraverbeke EA, Di Natale C, Nicolaï BM (2003) Electronic nose as a non-destructive tool to evaluate the optimal harvest date of apples. Postharvest Biol Technol 30:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spinelli F, Noferini M, Vanneste JL, Costa G (2010) Potentials of the electronic nose for the diagnosis of bacterial and fungal diseases in fruit trees. EPPO Bulletin 40:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spinelli F, Costa G, Rondelli E, Vanneste JL, Rodriguez Estrada MT, Busi S, Savioli S, Harren FJM, Crespo E, Cristescu SM (2011a) Emission of volatiles during the pathogenic interaction between Erwinia amylovora and Malus domestica. Acta Hortic 896:55–63Google Scholar
  32. Spinelli F, Costa G, Rondelli E, Vanneste JL, Rodriguez Estrada MT, Busi S, Savioli S, Cristescu S (2011b) Volatile compounds produced by Erwinia amylovora and their potential exploitation for bacterial identification. Acta Hortic 896:77–84Google Scholar
  33. Theis N, Lerdau M (2003) The evolution of function in plant secondary metabolites. Int J Plant Sci 164:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tothill IE (2001) Biosensors developments and potential applications in the agricultural diagnosis sector. Comput Electron Agr 30:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turner APF, Magan N (2004) Electronic noses and disease diagnostics. Nat Rev Microbiol 2:161–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vanneste JL, Yu J, Beer SV (1992) Role of antibiotic production by Erwinia herbicola Eh252 in biological control of Erwinia amylovora. J Bacteriol 174:2785–2796PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Vikram A, Hamzehzarghani H, Kushalappa AC (2005) Volatile metabolites from the headspace of onion bulbs inoculated with postharvest pathogens as a tool for disease discrimination. Can J Plant Pathol 27:194–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson AD, Lester DG (1998) Application of aromascan analysis to detect and diagnose oak wilt in live oaks. Phytopathology 88:S97Google Scholar
  39. Wilson AD, Lester DG, Oberle CS (2004) Development of conductive polymer analysis for the rapid detection and identification of phytopathogenic microbes. Phytopathology 94:419–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang Z, Schwartz S, Wagner L, Miller W (2000) A greedy algorithm for aligning DNA sequences. J Comput Biol 7:203–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang H, Kim MS, Krishnamachari V, Payton P, Sun Y, Grimson M, Farag MA, Ryu CM, Allen R, Melo IS, Paré PW (2007) Rhizobacterial volatile emissions regulate auxin homeostasis and cell expansion in Arabidopsis. Planta 226:839–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Spinelli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antonio Cellini
    • 1
  • Joel L. Vanneste
    • 2
  • Maria T. Rodriguez-Estrada
    • 3
  • Guglielmo Costa
    • 1
  • Stefano Savioli
    • 3
  • Frans J. M. Harren
    • 4
  • Simona M. Cristescu
    • 4
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Colture ArboreeUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd., Ruakura Research CentreHamiltonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Scienze degli AlimentiUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Radboud University, Life Science Trace Gas FacilityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations