HAL Id: hal-01177560
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01177560
Submitted on 17 Jul 2015
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entic research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diusion de documents
scientiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Use of benecial bacteria and their secondary
metabolites to control grapevine pathogen diseases
Stéphane Compant, Günter Brader, Saima Muzammil, Angela Sessitsch,
Ahmed Lebrihi, Florence Mathieu
To cite this version:
Stéphane Compant, Günter Brader, Saima Muzammil, Angela Sessitsch, Ahmed Lebrihi, et al.. Use of
benecial bacteria and their secondary metabolites to control grapevine pathogen diseases. BioControl,
Springer Verlag, 2013, vol. 58 (n° 4), pp. 435-455. �10.1007/s10526-012-9479-6�. �hal-01177560�
Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the repository administrator:
staff-oatao@inp-toulouse.fr
DOI:10.1007/s10526-012-9479-6
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10526-012-9479-6
This is an author-deposited version published in: http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/
Eprints ID: 9738
To cite this version:
Compant, Stéphane and Brader, Günter and Muzammil, Saima and Sessitsch,
Angela and Lebrihi, Ahmed and Mathieu, Florence Use of beneficial bacteria
and their secondary metabolites to control grapevine pathogen diseases. (2013)
BioControl, vol. 58 (n° 4). pp. 435-455. ISSN 1386-6141
Open Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte (OATAO)
OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse researchers and
makes it freely available over the web where possible.
Use of beneficial bacteria and their secondary metabolites
to control grapevine pathogen diseases
Ste
´
phane Compant
•
Gu
¨
nter Brader
•
Saima Muzammil
•
Angela Sessitsch
•
Ahmed Lebrihi
•
Florence Mathieu
Abstract Grapevine is one
of the most important
economic crops yielding berries, wine products as
well as derivates. However, due to the large array of
pathogens inducing diseases on this plant, consider-
able amounts of pesticides—with possible negative
impact on the environment and health—have been
used and are currently used in viticulture. To avoid
negative impacts of such products and to ensure
product quality, a substantial fraction of pesticides
needs to be replaced in the near future. One solution
can be related to the use of beneficial bacteria
inhabiting the rhizo- and/or the endosphere of plants.
These biocontrol bacteria and their secondary metab-
olites can reduce directly or indirectly pathogen
diseases by affecting pathogen performance by anti-
biosis, competition for niches and nutrients, interfer-
ence with pathogen signaling or by stimulation of host
plant defenses. Due to the large demand for biocontrol
of grapevine diseases, such biopesticides, their modes
of actions and putative consequences of their uses need
to be described. Moreover, the current knowledge on
new strains from the rhizo- and endosphere and their
metabolites that can be used on grapevine plants to
counteract pathogen attack needs to be discussed. This
is in particular with regard to the control of root rot,
grey mould, trunk diseases, powdery and downy
mildews, pierce’s disease, grapevine yellows as well
as crown gall. Future prospects on specific beneficial
microbes and their secondary metabolites that can be
used as elicitors of plant defenses and/or as biocontrol
agents with potential use in a more sustainable
viticulture will be further discussed.
Keywords Vitis vinifera L. Diseases Biocontrol
Beneficial bacteria Secondary metabolites
Introduction
Grapevine is one of the most important economic
crops, mainly because of the use of their berries for
red, white, and rose
´
wine. This represents more than
7.5 million ha of cultivated surfaces in the world with
27 million t of wine produced by year as described for
2009 (FAOSTAT 2011). However, grapevine plants
Ste
´
phane Compant, Gu
¨
nter Brader, and Saima Muzammil
contributed equally to this work.
Handling Editor: Jesus Mercado Blanco
S. Compant (&) S. Muzammil A. Lebrihi
F. Mathieu
De
´
partement Bioproce
´
de
´
s et Syste
`
mes Microbiens,
ENSAT-INP de Toulouse, Universite
´
de Toulouse,
LGC UMR 5503 (CNRS/INPT/UPS),
1 Avenue de l’Agrobiopo
ˆ
le, B.P. 32607,
31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex 1, France
e-mail: scompant@ensat.fr
G. Brader A. Sessitsch
Bioresources Unit, Health & Environment Department,
AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, 3430 Tulln,
Austria
DOI 10.1007/s10526-012-9479-6
can be infected and colonized by a large variety of
pathogenic microorganisms such as deleterious fungi,
oomycetes and bacteria (Gouadec et al.
2007). These
vine diseases can have drastic effects on the host
plants, on berr ies, but also on wine qualities and their
sensorial and organoleptic properties (Gouadec et al.
2007), resulting in economi c losses for the wine
grower
s and producers (van Helden 2008).
Pesticides have been or are currently applied in the
vineyard to avoid the outbreak of vine pests or diseases,
to manage the surrounding flora, to increase grape yield
and to ensur e wine quality (Leroux
2003; Pezet et al.
2004). As for instance in France more than 30,000 t
year
-1
of fungicides and bactericides have been
used for grapevine production (FAOSTAT 2011).
For Europe, the International Organization of Vines
and Wine estimates that 70,000 t of fungicides are used
annually on around 3.8 million hectares of land
dedicated to viticulture (http://www.endure-network.
eu/). Worldwide, on average 35 % of all pesticides are
used for viticulture. The continuous use of phytosani-
tary products during the last decades has been, how-
ever, accompanied by an increasing awareness of the
problems arising from intensive pesticide use. Conse-
quences of intensive pesticide use include their per-
sistence in soils, contamination of the environment,
as well as appearance of resistant pathogenic strains
(Leroux 2004). Additionally, specific pesticides have
been
withdrawn from the market due to their negative
impact on human health and the environment (Amaro
and Mexia 2003). Development of new active mole-
cules
targeting vine
pests without undesired impact is
possible. However, due to increasing costs to develop
these new molecu les, other alternative solutions have
also been proposed.
To reduce the use of phytosanitary produc ts,
genetically modified (GM) plants have been propa-
gated to control vine pests and diseases (see for
examples the studies of Ferreira et al.
2004; Agu
¨
ero
et
al. 2005;
Vidal et al. 2006; The Local Monitoring
Committee et al. 2010). However, this alternative
strategy has not been and is still not widely accepted.
So far, no GM grapevine has been commercialized
(The Local Monitoring Committee et al.
2010). Many
regions, especially in Europe, are generally not in
favour of cultivation of GM crops (Marshall 2009), so
there is a need for other solutions.
One of the alternative strategies to reduce the use of
pesticides in grapevine production corresponds to the
use of beneficial bacteria as biocontrol agents (Bent
2006). Since the rhizosphere concept of Lorenz
Hiltner describing
that the soil surrounding roots is
influenced by plants and by microorganisms (Hiltner
1904; Hartmann et al. 2008), a large n umber of studies
have demonstrated that part of the rhizobacteria
inhabiting the rhizosphere can stimulate plant growth
(plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria; PGPR) as well
as protect plants against pathogen infections (biocon-
trol strains) (Berg
2009; Lugtenberg and Kamilova
2009). Plant growth promotion (e.g. achieved by
hormone
stimulation
or changed nutrient availability)
and biocontrol activities of particular rhizobacteria
strains are disti nct issues. However, in practice this
is often hard to dissect as bacteria can show both
activities. Also, particularly in field or in green-
house trials, biocontrol bacteria might promote plant
growth by reducing pathogenic pressures. Biocontrol
by beneficial bacteria might be achieved by direct
antibiosis, competition for niches and nutrients, inter-
ference with pathogen signalling or by inducing plant
resistance (Fig. 1, Berg 2009; Lugtenberg and Kamil-
ova 2009). Moreover biocontrol might be achieved by
degrad
ation of virulence factors or phytotoxins of
pathogens, thereby leading to reduction of disease
symptoms (Compant et al.
2005a). Considerable
literature information has shown that rhizobacteria
can secrete various secondary metabolites (SMs).
Both rhizobacteria and SMs produced by them can act
on pathogens by depriving the path ogens of nutrients
(competition), lysing cells and/or blocking specific
functions related to pathogen growth (antibiosis) and
act therefore as biocontrol agents (Berg 2009; Com-
pant
et al.
2005a;
Lugtenberg and Kamilova 2009).
Rhizobacteria and their SMs are also known to induce
plant defense reactions leading to a systemic resis-
tance or priming of above-ground parts to be more
resistant to subsequent pathogen infections (Berg
2009
; van Loon 2008; van Loon and Bakker 2005),
and
this can be used for grapevine protection against
phytopathogenic disease s.
Already since the nineteenth century with the
description of bacteria-like structures by Woronin
(the so-called Frankia sp.) and the work of Galippe
and di Vestea (see Compant et al. 2010a , 2012) with
bacteria
other than root nodulating strains, it has been
widely accepted that specific microsymbionts can
also colonize different host plants and plant parts.
Although sources of colonization of these endophytic
bacteria could be the anthosphere, the caulosphere,
the phyllosphere or the spermosphere, the prevailing
opinion suggests colonization of a large fraction
of the endophytic population from the rhi zosphere as
described by microscopic, genetic as well as metage-
nomic evidences (Hallmann
2001; Hallmann and Berg
2007; Compant et al. 2010a).
As rhizobacteria,
also endophytes are known to
stimulate host plant growth and can act as biocontrol
agents to alleviate infection by pathogenic strains,
in particular cases even to higher levels than root-
restricted bacteria (Welbaum et al. 2004; Hallmann
and Berg 2007).
Bacterial endophytes inhabiting plant
internal tissues are also a source of SMs that may act as
elicitors of plant defenses or as antimicrobi al agents
with potential use to control disease (Qin et al.
2011).
Different elicitors of plant defenses are known
from beneficial bacteria, both from the rhizo- and the
endosphere of plants. This includes a variety of
primary bacterial constituents such as flagella (flagel-
lin) or lipopolysaccharides (LPS) but also SMs with
high structural diversity specific for certain strains
(Qin et al. 2011; van Loon and Bakker 2005). In
additio
n, continuous research and discovery of novel
elicitors and strains from different environments,
particularly from harsh ecosy stems, will likely yield
novel strains and elicitors capable of triggering plant
defenses and enabling resistance. Th is is especially
interesting for the reduction of the use of pesticides in
viticulture, where—in Franc e—up to 50 % of the total
pesticide entry is used for only 3.3 % of cultivated
surfaces and in EU 3.5 % of the cultivated land
receives 15 % of the total pesticide entry representing
20–22 kg of pesticide per ha used for grapevine
(Compant
2011; Compant and Mathieu, 2011).
The role of both rhizobacteria and endophytes
in biocontrol of plan t diseases or for a sustainable
management of agriculture has been highlighted
(van Loon and Bakker 2005; Lugtenberg and
Kamilov
a 2009) and information on the usage of
beneficial microbes in viticulture is currently emerg-
ing. Research performed on specific strains have
moreover allowed the description of SMs secreted by
specific strains (both rhizo- and endosphere colonizing
bacteria), which may be responsible for their effects
on pathogen targets and/or on resistance mechanisms
of grapevine plants (Compant and Mathieu 2011).
Addit
ionally, new beneficial bacterial strains and SMs
to control plant diseases with potential use in viticul-
ture are continuously described (Compant
2011).
Nevert
heless, a better understanding of how and
which microorganisms or bacterial metabolite s can
Beneficial bacteria
and metabolites
Pathogens
Protection
competition for space and nutrients & colonization;
antibiosis (excretion of lytic enzymes or production of antibiotics);
interference with pathogen signaling e. g. by degrading enzymes or by
interfering metabolites;
reduction of disease symptoms by degradation or interference with pathogen
toxins or virulence factors
Induced (systemic) resistance
Fig. 1 Drawing summarizing the potential mechanisms involved in the control of grapevine pathogen diseases by beneficial bacteria
and their secondary metabolites
