Advertisement

Planta

, Volume 249, Issue 1, pp 59–70 | Cite as

In planta and in silico characterization of five sesquiterpene synthases from Vitis vinifera (cv. Shiraz) berries

  • Bjørn Dueholm
  • Damian P. Drew
  • Crystal Sweetman
  • Henrik T. SimonsenEmail author
Original Article
  • 193 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Terpenes and Isoprenoids

Abstract

Main conclusion

Five Vitis vinifera sesquiterpene synthases were characterized, two was previously uncharacterized, one being a caryophyllene/cubebene synthase and the other a cadinene synthase. Residue differences with other Vitis sesquiterpene synthases are described.

The biochemical composition of grape berries at harvest can have a profound effect on the varietal character of the wine produced. Sesquiterpenes are an important class of volatile compounds produced in grapes that contribute to the flavor and aroma of wine, making the elucidation of their biosynthetic origin an important field of research. Five cDNAs corresponding to sesquiterpene synthase genes (TPSs) were isolated from Shiraz berries and expressed in planta in Nicotiana benthamiana followed by chemical characterization by GC–MS. Three of the TPS cDNAs were isolated from immature berries and two were isolated from ripe Shiraz berries. Two of the investigated enzymes, TPS26 and TPS27, have been previously investigated by expression in E. coli, and the in planta products generally correspond to these previous studies. The enzyme TPS07 differed by eight amino acids (none of which are in the active site) from germacrene B and D synthase isolated from Gewürztraminer grapes and characterized in vitro. Here in planta characterization of VvShirazTPS07 yielded ylangene, germacrene D and several minor products. Two of the enzymes isolated from immature berries were previously uncharacterized enzymes. VvShirazTPS-Y1 produced cadinene as a major product and at least 17 minor sesquiterpenoid skeletons. The second, VvShirazTPS-Y2, was characterized as a caryophyllene/cubebene synthase, a combination of products not previously reported from a single enzyme. Using in silico methods, we identified residues that could play key roles regarding differences in product formation of these enzymes. The first ring closure that is either a 1,10- or 1,11-ring closure is likely controlled by three neighboring amino acids in helices G1, H2, and J. As for many other investigated TPS enzymes, we also observe that only a few residues can account for radical changes in product formation.

Keywords

Sesquiterpene synthase Shiraz Isoprenoid Sesquiterpenes Wine aroma 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant agreement 275422, which supported a Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship (DPD). The Danish Strategic Research Council Grant “SPOTLight” supported the work of HTS.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

425_2018_2986_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2 mb)
Online Resource 1: Product profiles of the five characterized VvShirazTPS enzymes (PDF 2072 kb)
425_2018_2986_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (167 kb)
Online Resource 2: Full-length sequence alignment of the VvShirazTPS enzymes (PDF 166 kb)
425_2018_2986_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (196 kb)
Online Resource 3: Positions of residues Ser, Ser, and Met in VvShirazTPS27 corresponding to residue-locations 402, 440, and 516 in TEAS. Distances from the residues to C10 of FPP are shown (PDF 195 kb)

References

  1. Andersen T, Cozzi F, Simonsen HT (2015) Optimization of biochemical screening methods for volatile and unstable sesquiterpenoids using HS–SPME–GC–MS. Chromatography 2:277–292.  https://doi.org/10.3390/chromatography2020277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach SS, Bassard J-É, Andersen-Ranberg J et al (2014) High throughput testing of terpenoid biosynthesis candidate genes using transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana. In: Rodríguez-Concepción M (ed) Plant isoprenoids, 1153rd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Battilana J, Emanuelli F, Gambino G et al (2011) Functional effect of grapevine 1-deoxy-d-xylulose 5-phosphate synthase substitution K284N on muscat flavour formation. J Exp Bot 62:5497–5508.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err231 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen VB, Arendall WB, Headd JJ et al (2010) MolProbity: all-atom structure validation for macromolecular crystallography. Acta Crystallogr Sect D Biol Crystallogr 66:12–21.  https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444909042073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen F, Tholl D, Bohlmann J, Pichersky E (2011) The family of terpene synthases in plants: a mid-size family of genes for specialized metabolism that is highly diversified throughout the kingdom. Plant J 66:212–229.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2011.04520.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christianson DW (2017) Structural and chemical biology of terpenoid cyclases. Chem Rev 117:11570–11648.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00287 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Coelho E, Rocha SM, Delgadillo I, Coimbra MA (2006) Headspace-SPME applied to varietal volatile components evolution during Vitis vinifera L. cv. “Baga” ripening. Anal Chim Acta 563:204–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2005.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis EM, Croteau R (2000) Cyclization enzymes in the biosynthesis of monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, and diterpenes. In: Leeper FJ, Vedera JC (eds) Biosynthesis. Topics in Current Chemistry, vol 209. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 53–95Google Scholar
  9. Degenhardt J, Köllner TG, Gershenzon J (2009) Monoterpene and sesquiterpene synthases and the origin of terpene skeletal diversity in plants. Phytochemistry 70:1621–1637.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2009.07.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dougherty DA (1996) Cation–π interactions in chemistry and biology: a new view of benzene, Phe, Tyr, and Trp. Science 271:163–168.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.271.5246.163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drew DP, Rasmussen SK, Avato P, Simonsen HT (2012) A comparison of headspace solid-phase microextraction and classic hydrodistillation for the identification of volatile constituents from Thapsia spp. provides insights into guaianolide biosynthesis in Apiaceae. Phytochem Anal 23:44–51.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pca.1323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drew DP, Dueholm B, Weitzel C et al (2013) Transcriptome analysis of Thapsia laciniata Rouy provides insights into terpenoid biosynthesis and diversity in Apiaceae. Int J Mol Sci 14:9080–9098.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14059080 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Drew DP, Andersen TB, Sweetman C et al (2016) Two key polymorphisms in a newly discovered allele of the Vitis vinifera TPS24 gene are responsible for the production of the rotundone precursor α-guaiene. J Exp Bot 67:799–808.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunlevy JD, Kalua CM, Keyzers RA, Boss PK (2009) The production of flavour & aroma compounds in grape berries. In: Roubelakis-Angelakis KA (eds) Grapevine molecular physiology & biotechnology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 293–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Durrant JD, De Oliveira CAF, McCammon JA (2011) POVME: an algorithm for measuring binding-pocket volumes. J Mol Graph Model 29:773–776.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2010.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Durrant JD, Votapka L, Sørensen J, Amaro RE (2014) POVME 2.0: an enhanced tool for determining pocket shape and volume characteristics. J Chem Theory Comput 10:5047–5056.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ct500381c CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Dziadas M, Jeleń HH (2010) Analysis of terpenes in white wines using SPE–SPME–GC/MS approach. Anal Chim Acta 677:43–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2010.06.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fang X, Li J-X, Huang J-Q et al (2017) Systematic identification of functional residues of Artemisia annua amorpha-4,11-diene synthase. Biochem J 474:2191–2202.  https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20170060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gao Y, Honzatko RB, Peters RJ (2012) Terpenoid synthase structures: a so far incomplete view of complex catalysis. Nat Prod Rep 29:1153.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c2np20059g CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Gonzalez V, Touchet S, Grundy DJ et al (2014) Evolutionary and mechanistic insights from the reconstruction of α-humulene synthases from a modern (+)-germacrene A synthase. J Am Chem Soc 136:14505–14512.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja5066366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. González V, Grundy DJ, Faraldos JA, Allemann RK (2016) The amino-terminal segment in the β-domain of δ-cadinene synthase is essential for catalysis. Org Biomol Chem 14:7451–7454.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6OB01398H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenhagen BT, O’Maille PE, Noel JP, Chappell J (2006) Identifying and manipulating structural determinates linking catalytic specificities in terpene synthases. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:9826–9831.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601605103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ikram NKBK, Zhan X, Pan X-W et al (2015) Stable heterologous expression of biologically active terpenoids in green plant cells. Front Plant Sci 6:129.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00129 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Ilc T, Halter D, Miesch L et al (2017) A grapevine cytochrome P450 generates the precursor of wine lactone, a key odorant in wine. New Phytol 213:264–274.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalua CM, Boss PK (2010) Comparison of major volatile compounds from Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) from fruitset to harvest. Aust J Grape Wine Res 16:337–348.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2010.00096.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Köllner TG, Schnee C, Gershenzon J, Degenhardt J (2004) The variability of sesquiterpenes emitted from two Zea mays cultivars is controlled by allelic variation of two terpene synthase genes encoding stereoselective multiple product enzymes. Plant Cell 16:1115–1131.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.019877.tive CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Köllner TG, Maille PEO, Gatto N et al (2006) Two pockets in the active site of maize sesquiterpene synthase TPS4 carry out sequential parts of the reaction scheme resulting in multiple products. Arch Biochem Biophys 448:83–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abb.2005.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kumeta Y, Ito M (2010) Characterization of δ-guaiene synthases from cultured cells of Aquilaria, responsible for the formation of the sesquiterpenes in agarwood. Plant Physiol 154:1998–2007.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.161828 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Li J-X, Fang X, Zhao Q et al (2013) Rational engineering of plasticity residues of sesquiterpene synthases from Artemisia annua: product specificity and catalytic efficiency. Biochem J 451:417–426.  https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20130041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liang J, Liu J, Brown R et al (2018) Direct production of di-hydroxylated sesquiterpenoids by a maize terpene synthase. Plant J 94:847–856.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.13901 Google Scholar
  31. Lund ST, Bohlmann J (2006) The molecular basis for wine grape quality—a volatile subject. Science 311:804–805.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1118962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lüthy R, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D (1992) Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Nature 356:83–85.  https://doi.org/10.1038/356083a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Madison V (1977) Flexibility of the pyrrolidine ring in proline peptides. Biopolymers 16:2671–2692.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bip.1977.360161208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin DM, Bohlmann J (2004) Identification of Vitis vinifera (−)-α-terpineol synthase by in silico screening of full-length cDNA ESTs and functional characterization of recombinant terpene synthase. Phytochemistry 65:1223–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2004.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin DM, Toub O, Chiang A et al (2009) The bouquet of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon) flowers arises from the biosynthesis of sesquiterpene volatiles in pollen grains. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:7245–7250.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901387106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin DM, Aubourg S, Schouwey MB et al (2010) Functional annotation, genome organization and phylogeny of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera) terpene synthase gene family based on genome assembly, FLcDNA cloning, and enzyme assays. BMC Plant Biol 10:226.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-10-226 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin DM, Chiang A, Jo STL et al (2012) Biosynthesis of wine aroma: transcript profiles of hydroxymethylbutenyl diphosphate reductase, geranyl diphosphate synthase, and linalool/nerolidol synthase parallel monoterpenol glycoside accumulation in Gewürztraminer grapes. Planta 236:919–929.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-012-1704-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matarese F, Scalabrelli G, D’Onofrio C (2013) Analysis of the expression of terpene synthase genes in relation to aroma content in two aromatic Vitis vinifera varieties. Funct Plant Biol 40:552–565.  https://doi.org/10.1071/FP12326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matarese F, Cuzzola A, Scalabrelli G, D’Onofrio C (2014) Expression of terpene synthase genes associated with the formation of volatiles in different organs of Vitis vinifera. Phytochemistry 105:12–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2014.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. May B, Wüst M (2012) Temporal development of sesquiterpene hydrocarbon profiles of different grape varieties during ripening. Flavour Fragr J 27:280–285.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ffj.3096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McAndrew RP, Peralta-Yahya PP, DeGiovanni A et al (2011) Structure of a three-domain sesquiterpene synthase: a prospective target for advanced biofuels production. Structure 19:1876–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meng EC, Pettersen EF, Couch GS et al (2006) Tools for integrated sequence-structure analysis with UCSF Chimera. BMC Bioinform 7:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nour-Eldin HH, Hansen BG, Nørholm MHH et al (2006) Advancing uracil-excision based cloning towards an ideal technique for cloning PCR fragments. Nucleic Acids Res 34:e122.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl635 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Paré PW, Tumlinson JH (1999) Plant volatiles as a defense against insect herbivores. Plant Physiol 121:325–332.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.121.2.325 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC et al (2004) UCSF Chimera—a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem 25:1605–1612.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rising KA, Starks CM, Noel JP, Chappell J (2000) Demonstration of germacrene A as an intermediate in 5-Epi-aristolochene synthase catalysis. J Am Chem Soc 122:1861–1866.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja993584h CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson AL, Boss PK, Solomon PS et al (2014) Origins of grape and wine aroma. Part 1. Chemical components and viticultural impacts. Am J Enol Vitic 65:1–24.  https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2013.12070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rupasinghe S, Schuler MA (2006) Homology modeling of plant cytochrome P450s. Phytochem Rev 5:473–505.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-006-9028-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sali A, Blundell TL (1993) Comparative protein modeling by satisfaction of spatial restraint. J Mol Biol 234:779–815.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1993.1626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Salvagnin U, Carlin S, Angeli S et al (2016) Homologous and heterologous expression of grapevine E-(β)-caryophyllene synthase (VvGwECar2). Phytochemistry 131:76–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2016.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sánchez-Palomo E, Diaz-Maroto MC, Perez-Coello MS (2005) Rapid determination of volatile compounds in grapes by HS–SPME coupled with GC–MS. Talanta 66:1152–1157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2005.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Starks CM, Back K, Chappell J, Noel JP (1997) Structural basis for cyclic terpene biosynthesis by tobacco 5-epi-aristolochene synthase. Science 277:1815–1820.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5333.1815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sweetman C, Wong DCJ, Ford CM, Drew DP (2012) Transcriptome analysis at four developmental stages of grape berry (Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz) provides insights into regulated and coordinated gene expression. BMC Genom 13:1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trott O, Olson AJ (2010) AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 31:455–461PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Vilanova M, Sieiro C (2006) Determination of free and bound terpene compounds in Albarino wine. J Food Compos Anal 19:694–697.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2005.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Webb B, Sali A (2016) Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER. Curr Protoc Protein Sci 86:2.9.1–2.9.37.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpps.20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weitzel C, Simonsen HT (2015) Cytochrome P450-enzymes involved in the biosynthesis of mono- and sesquiterpenes. Phytochem Rev 14:7–24.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-013-9280-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wood C, Siebert TE, Parker M et al (2008) From wine to pepper: rotundone, an obscure sesquiterpene, is a potent spicy aroma compound. J Agric Food Chem 56:3738–3744.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf800183k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yang K, Monafared RS, Wang H et al (2015) The activity of the artemisinic aldehyde Δ11(13) reductase promoter is important for artemisinin yield in different chemotypes of Artemisia annua L. Plant Mol Biol 88:325–340.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-015-0284-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yoshikuni Y, Ferrin TE, Keasling JD (2006) Designed divergent evolution of enzyme function. Nature 440:1078–1082.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhan X, Zhang Y-H, Chen D-F, Simonsen HT (2014) Metabolic engineering of the moss Physcomitrella patens to produce the sesquiterpenoids patchoulol and α/β-santalene. Front Plant Sci 5:636.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00636 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang F, Chen N, Wu R (2016) Molecular dynamics simulations elucidate conformational dynamics responsible for the cyclization reaction in TEAS. J Chem Inf Model 56:877–885.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhou K, Peters RJ (2009) Investigating the conservation pattern of a putative second terpene synthase divalent metal binding motif in plants. Phytochemistry 70:366–369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2008.12.022 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biotechnology and BiomedicineTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Wine Science, School of Agriculture, Food and WineUniversity of AdelaideUrrbraeAustralia

Personalised recommendations