Next Article in Journal
Online Learning-Based ANN Controller for a Grid-Interactive Solar PV System
Previous Article in Journal
A Method for Identifying Geospatial Data Sharing Websites by Combining Multi-Source Semantic Information and Machine Learning
Previous Article in Special Issue
Soil Bacteria as Potential Biological Control Agents of Fusarium Species Associated with Asparagus Decline Syndrome
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 18
10.3390/app11188710
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Selected Trichoderma Strains and Metabolites on Olive Drupes

by
Irene Dini
1,*,
Marica Pascale
2,
Alessia Staropoli
2,3,
Roberta Marra
2 and
Francesco Vinale
3,4,5,*
1
Department of Pharmacy, University of Naples Federico II, Via Domenico Montesano 49, Portici, 80131 Naples, Italy
2
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy
3
Institute for Sustainable Plant Protection, National Research Council, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy
4
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, 80138 Naples, Italy
5
BAT Center—Interuniversity Center for Studies on Bioinspired Agro-Environmental Technology, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(18), 8710; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188710
Submission received: 30 August 2021 / Revised: 16 September 2021 / Accepted: 17 September 2021 / Published: 18 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Microorganisms in Biocontrol and Growing Conditions in Vegetables)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Beneficial fungal strains of the genus Trichoderma are used as biofungicides and plant growth promoters. Trichoderma strains promote the activation of plant defense mechanisms of action, including the production of phenolic metabolites. In this work, we analyzed the effects of selected Trichoderma strains (T. asperellum KV906, T. virens GV41, and T. harzianum strains TH1, M10, and T22) and their metabolites (harzianic acid and 6-pentyl-α-pyrone) on drupes of young olive trees (4-year-old) cv. Carolea. This study used the untargeted analysis of drupe metabolome, carried out by LC–MS Q-TOF, to evaluate the phenolics profiles and target metabolomics approach to detect oleuropein and luteolin. The untargeted approach showed significant differences in the number and type of phenolic compounds in olive drupes after Trichoderma applications (by root dipping and drench soil irrigation method) compared to control. The levels of oleuropein (secoiridoid) and luteolin (flavonoid) varied according to the strain or metabolite applied, and in some cases, were less abundant in treated plants than in the control. In general, flavonoids’ levels were influenced more than secoiridoid production. The dissimilar aptitudes of the biological treatments could depend on the selective competence to cooperate with the enzymes involved in producing the secondary metabolites to defend plants by environmental stresses. Our results suggest that using selected fungi of the genus Trichoderma and their metabolites could contribute to selecting the nutraceutical properties of the olive drupe. The use of the metabolites would bring further advantages linked to the dosage in culture and storage.

1. Introduction

Since ancient times olive trees (Olea europaea L.) have been cultivated throughout the Mediterranean area for their fruits and oil production. Each country has its local cultivars because the human selection and pedoclimatic conditions have resulted in genetic variations [1,2,3,4]. In Italy, many trees sprout spontaneously, and oil and table cultivars are grown mainly in Calabria, Apulia, Sicily, and Campania, where centuries-old trees and archaeological finds document their presence from old times [5]. Extravirgin olive oil (EVOO) is obtained from crushing the olive drupe and separating olive oil by pressure, centrifugation, and percolation (selective filtration process) [6]. EVOO is present in all variants of the Mediterranean diet. The latter is a healthy diet adopted by the Italian and Greek population in the 1960s [7], reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and cognitive disorders [8]. It is characterized by high consumption of vegetables, fruit, salads, bread, whole grains, legumes/beans, nuts, seeds, moderate use of wine, and EVOO as the primary source of fat [8]. The EVOO has protective effects on human health due to the high content of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) and secondary bioactive molecules, including phenolic compounds, tocopherols, phytosterols, and carotenoids [9]. The phenolic compounds in EVOO range from 50 to 800 mg/kg [10,11]. They consist of phenolic alcohols (e.g., tyrosol and hydroxytyrosol), phenolic acids (e.g., vanillic, caffeic, coumaric, protocatechuic, ferulic, and p-hydroxybenzoic), flavones (e.g., apigenin, apigenin-7-O-glucoside, luteolin, luteolin-7-O-glucoside), lignans (e.g., pinoresinol and acetoxypinoresinol), and secoiridoids (e.g., oleacein, oleuropein, oleocanthal, and p-HPEA-EA) [12] responsible for EVOO bitterness, pungency, fragrance, and antioxidative properties [13]. Fruit’s maturation, cultivar varieties, pedoclimate condition [14], and the type of oil extraction processes affect the phenolic quality and concentration [15]. The oleuropein, tyrosol, and hydroxytyrosol (the main phenolic compounds in EVOO) [12] have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and neuroprotective activities [16]. The EVOO’s polyphenols protect blood lipids against oxidative stress [17,18]. Therefore, the EVOO’s phenolics are used in supplements for the prevention of chronic degenerative diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and cancer [19], in antiaging cosmetics [20,21], in the food industry as flavorings or preservers [22,23,24], and in functional foods preparations [25,26]. Olive plants make the phenolics in response to abiotic stress and pathogen attack [27,28,29,30,31,32]. Dini et al. in 2020 and 2021 investigated the effects of some Trichoderma strain applied to olive trees to evaluate a selective phenols production [33,34]. Nowadays, fungi belonging to the genus Trichoderma are commonly used in agriculture as biocontrol agents (they inhibit soils and air diseases) and plant growth promoters [35,36]. They also enhance the abiotic stress tolerance (e.g., salinity, drought), yields production, nutritional uptake, leaf area, root system growth, and activate protective mechanisms against oxidative injury [37,38]. Some Trichoderma strains produce secondary metabolites such as 6-pentyl-a-pyrone (volatile antibiotics), heptelidic acid, and peptaibols to help in metal transport, symbiosis, differentiation, and competition with another organism [39,40], and phenols against oxidative damage [41,42,43]. Phenols decrease cardiovascular pathologies, hypoglycemia, hypotension, and hypocholesterolemia and prevent angiogenesis, inflammation [44], and cancer [45].
In the present work, we report the effect of selected Trichoderma strains (e.g., T. asperellum KV906, T. harzianum strains TH1, M10, and T22; and T. virens GV41) and their metabolites (e.g., harzianic acid (HA), and 6-pentyl-α-pyrone –(6PP)) upon in vivo application, on weight and phenol metabolites of the olive drupes in consideration of the commodity and nutraceutical importance of their potential effects.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Microbial Strains

Five Trichoderma strains (T. asperellum strain KV906, T. harzianum strains TH1, M10, and T22; and T. virens strain GV41) were used in this work. Strains were provided by Department of Agricultural Sciences of the University of Naples Federico II, after cultivation on previously described conditions [46].
A hemocytometer (Neubauer-improved, BRAND GMBH + CO KG, Wertheim, Germany) was used to establish the concentration of the spore suspensions.

2.2. Trichoderma Bioactive Metabolites

We used 6PP and HA in this work. The former was extracted from T. atroviride strain P1 [47] and the latter from T. harzianum strain M10 [48]. Metabolite solutions used for treatments were obtained by resuspending HA and 6PP in distilled water and ethyl acetate 0.01% (v/v) to facilitate the process. Once a clear solution was made, ethyl acetate was evaporated under nitrogen flow.

2.3. Plant Material

Four-year-old olive trees (Olea europaea L cv. Carolea.) were used for experimental purposes. The plants were grown into plastic pots (50 cm diameter × 40 cm high) located in a field at the University of Naples Federico II-Department of Agricultural Sciences (Portici, Italy). Each pot contained one plant and 50 L of universal soil (granulated pumice, peat, and coconut fiber). Once a week, the plants were watered to field capacity. No nutrients were added.

2.4. Experimental Design

Eight treatments were performed (including water control), using five Trichoderma strains and two metabolites. The field trial was performed in a randomized block design. Trichoderma metabolite solutions (1 × 10−6 M), or spore suspensions (1 × 106 sp mL−1) were inoculated through root system exposure at the time of transplant (10 min, 1 L plant−t) by root dip, and every 30 days (400 mL plant−1) by soil irrigation (six applications in total). Each treatment was performed on 15 plants (five plants in each replicate and three biological replicates per treatment). Drupes were collected and weighed with an electronic digital scale (Precisa Instruments AG, model XB220A, Dietikon, Switzerland). Finally, drupes samples were stored at −80 °C until extraction of metabolites.

2.5. Chemicals

Solvents (methanol, water, formic acid, acetonitrile) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). ESI–TOF tune mix was bought from Agilent Technologies (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

2.6. Olive Metabolites Extraction

Talhaoui et al. method [49], with some modifications, was used to extract the phenolic compounds. Briefly, drupes were freeze-dried and crushed. 200 mg of powder were extracted twice in an ultrasonic bath for 10 min (Model 6.5l200 H, Dakshin, India), using 5 mL of a solution of methanol/water (50/50, v/v) and then centrifuged (Hettich GmbH and Co., Tuttlingen, Germany) at 4000 rpm, 4 °C for 10 min. The supernatants were collected, dried in a speed-vac (Savant SpeedVac, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and dissolved in 2 mL of a solution of methanol/water (50/50, v/v). Finally, the extracts obtained were filtered (Millipore 0.45 μm) and stored in the dark (at −80 °C) until use.

2.7. Phenolics’ Isolation, Identification, and Quantification

2.7.1. Metabolites’ Analysis

The analysis of metabolites was performed on an Agilent HP 1260 Infinity Series liquid chromatograph (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with a DAD system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and a Q-TOF mass spectrometer model G6540B (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

Chromatographic Conditions

An InfinityLab Poroshell 120 EC-C18 column (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 2.7 μm) (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), at controlled temperature (25 °C) was used as stationary phase. Two eluents, phase A (0.1% (v/v) formic acid in water) and phase B (0.1% (v/v) formic acid in acetonitrile), were employed as mobile phase. The gradient was set as follows: 0 min, 95% A; 4 min, 91% A; 7 min, 88% A; 8 min, 85% A; 9 min, 84% A; 14 min, 80% A; 15 min, 78% A; 18 min, 72% A; 19 min, 70% A; 20 min, 69% A; 21.50 min, 68% A; 23 min, 66% A; 24 min, 65% A; 25.5 min, 60% A; 27 min, 50% A; 30 min, 0% A; 35 min, 0% A; and 37 min, 95% A. Flow rate was 0.5 mL min−w.

Spectroscopic and Spectrometric Conditions

The UV spectra were recorded every 0.4 s, with a resolution of 2 nm, from 190 to 750 nm by DAD (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).
The MS system was equipped with a dual ESI (electrospray ionization) source and operated in negative mode as reported by Tafuri et al. [50]. All the parameters were controlled by the Agilent MassHunter Data Acquisition Software, version B.05.01. Mass spectra were recorded in the mass range 100–1600 m/z (3 scans per second). Hexakis (1H,1H, 3H-tetrafluoropentoxy)-phosphazene (C18H18O6N3P3F24 at m/z 922.009798, 2 µmol L−9) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), and purine (C5H4N4 at m/z 121.050873, 10 µmol L−1) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) were injected in the source (0.060 mL min−e) to perform the lock mass correction in real-time. The capillary was set at 4000 V, cone 1 (skimmer 1) at 45 V, fragmentor at 180 V. Gas temperature was 350 °C, and the nebulizer was at 45 psi. The injection volume was 5 µL. For each treatment, three biological samples were analyzed in triplicate.
Mass Profiler Professional (Agilent Technologies, MPP v 13.1.1, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used for molecular feature normalization, alignment, compound identification, and statistical analysis. MPP normalization and alignment parameters were: minimum number of ions (2); abundance filter (>5000 counts); intercept (0.4 min), alignment RT window, and slope (0%); intercept (2 mDa), alignment mass window, and slope (20 ppm). Only masses occurring in two of three samples were accepted. Masses found in blank runs from filtered masses were used to remove background noise. The ion chromatogram (EIC) was extracted with ±20 ppm single ion expansion with MassHunter software v B.06.00 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

2.7.2. Phenolics’ Identification

The phenolics were identified by Mass Hunter Qualitative Analysis Software version B.06.00 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Identification was achieved by comparison with in-house databases (comprising data from METLIN library) and with existing literature data. Empirical formulas, calculated by isotope model (common organic molecules, ppm limit = 10, limit charge state to a maximum of 2, and use +H or −H, or sodium and potassium adducts) were given for unidentified compounds. Experimental retention time, monoisotopic mass, and UV max of standards confirmed the identification.

2.7.3. Phenolics’ Quantification

The quantification of phenolics was performed by using oleuropein and luteolin commercial standards purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) dissolved in methanol: water (50:50, v/v) to make standard calibration curves (Table S1).

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS V24 statistic software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). One-way ANOVA analyzed the data of SPAD index. Significant differences among treatments were compared using Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) post hoc tests and S–N–K (Student–Newman–Keuls) (with 0.05 level of significance). The Student’s t-test (with a 0.05 level of significance) determined significant differences.

3. Results

3.1. Effect of Treatments on the Olive Trees Drupe’s Weight

In the first year of production, the average weight of the drupes for each treatment was evaluated. All treatments, except T. harzianum M10 and T. asperellum KV906, positively affected the drupes’ average weight compared to the control (Table 1).

3.2. Characterization of Olive Drupe Metabolome

Thirteen phenolic compounds were identified based on total ion chromatogram (TIC), mass/UV–VIS, spectra, and literature data. Identification parameters (retention time, UV maximum absorption, experimental and calculated monoisotopic masses, molecular formula) are reported in Table 2.

3.3. Untargeted Metabolomics Analyses of Phenolics in Olive Drupes

Untargeted metabolomic analyses were carried out on the olives harvested from treated plants. There was a tendency for the number of down-regulated compounds to increase (Table 3). In general, a more significant number of compounds were observed whose abundance was lower when compared to the control. The metabolite 6PP and Trichoderma sp. strains GV41 and KV906 influenced the metabolic response in drupes more than the control.
Replicate samples were grouped and subjected to variance analysis (one-way ANOVA, p < 0.05) and to fold change (FC > 2.0), comparing metabolite abundances in treatments vs. water-treated plants (CTRL). Hierarchical cluster analysis and statistical analysis revealed 88 metabolites differentially accumulated among treatments that are depicted as hierarchical cluster in Figure 1. The metabolic profiling revealed that drupes from olive plants treated with the Trichoderma sp. strain M10, KV906, T22, and metabolite HA were grouped separately. TH1 determined no differences in terms of phenolic levels compared to the control.
Successively, the variations in metabolite accumulation between increased (UP) or decreased (DOWN) compounds, as compared to the control, were analyzed for T22, M10 and HA.
A Venn diagram showed that 30 down-regulated compounds were in common among all treatments, while four metabolites were exclusively in the metabolome of T22-treated samples and four in those exposed to M10. No compound was found to be specific for HA treatment. Four metabolites were common to T22 and M10 treatments and six to M10 and HA. In contrast, no compounds were found to be common to T22 and HA treatments. Concerning the up-regulated compounds, five were common to all treatments, eight exclusive to M10, 1 to HA, and none for T22; one metabolite was common between treatments with T22 and M10, two between M10 and HA and four between HA and T22. (Figure 2).
Untargeted metabolomic analysis revealed the presence of several differentially accumulated metabolites in treated or non-treated drupes. Among these, 13 metabolites were putatively identified by comparison with an in-house database and standard compounds (Table 4).

3.4. Targeted Metabolomics Analyzes of Phenolics in Olive Drupes

Oleuropein (secoiridoid) and luteolin (flavonoid) concentrations were considered to evaluate the phenolics’ level trends. Oleuropein content increased in the drupes of plants treated with 6PP, GV41, and T22 (Figure 3).
The secondary metabolite 6PP and the Trichoderma strains GV41, KV906, HA, and M10, increased the luteolin’s level in drupes (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

Today, it is considered a priority to limit pesticides against phytopathogenic agents or replace them with products of biological origin. The use of mycoparasitic fungi, particularly those belonging to the genus Trichoderma, has met considerable success [11]. The world market of biopharmaceuticals proposes over 50 bioformulates containing Trichoderma strains as active ingredients [51]. The considerable achievement of Trichoderma fungi in agriculture is due to their suppression of pathogenic species, both terricolous and foliar, among the most harmful, such as those belonging to the genera Fusarium, Sclerotinia, Botrytis, and Pythium [52]. Microbial inocula to promote plant development and/or control phytopathogenic agents is still not very widespread in tree crops. Few studies evaluated the effect of beneficial microorganisms on the fitness of the olive tree and provided helpful information for the use of bioformulates in the open field. The present work aims to evaluate the effects of the field applications of Trichoderma spp. strains and some of their metabolites on young olive trees’ drupes weight and nutraceutical content contained therein.
The olive is the most representative tree in Italy, with both historical and productive significance. There are three types of olives on the market: olive for oil production, olive for the table, and dual-use. Fruit size, oil content flesh, and weight/pit weight ratio determine the inclusion in the product classes. Olives for oil production have an average weight below 3, table-use have an average weight higher than 5, dual-use between 3 and 5 [53]. Extensive research has been conducted on multiple species to understand the mechanisms that control fruit size [54]. Environmental and genetic factors affect the fruits’ growth potential [55]. In particular, the water volume and the type of irrigation used for cultivation are noteworthy [56]. Water deficit results in high reactive oxygen species (ROS) (e.g., hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radical superoxide anion, and singlet oxygen) [57]. ROS can damage DNA, lipids, and protein, thereby affecting plants’ metabolism [58]. Plants react to ROS, making enzymes with different biological activities (e.g., catalase, ascorbate peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, monodehydroascorbate reductase, dehydroascorbate reductase, guaiacol peroxidase, and glutathione reductase) [59] and primary or secondary metabolites (e.g., polyols, soluble sugars, alkaloids, free amino acids, and phenols) [60]. In this work, all treatments (excluding M10 and KV906) enhanced drupe weight, probably due to Trichoderma strains’ ability to induce root growth, preserve nutritional uptake, and interfere with phenolics’ productions [61]. The diverse response to bio-treatments was probably linked to the different abilities of each strain and metabolite to interact with the plant’s secondary defense mechanisms [15]. The variation in phenolics (variety and levels) was tested using targeted and untargeted metabolomics to evaluate the interaction of Trichoderma spp. and metabolites with the plant defense mechanism. Targeted metabolomics uses analytical techniques and suitable multivariate statistical analysis (MSA) tools to evaluate some metabolites simultaneously [62]. The untargeted approach determines unknown and known metabolic changes based on data-independent acquisition (DIA). DIA methods make complex fragmentation spectra. In downstream data analysis steps, fragment ions are matched with precursor ions based on mass and retention time [63].
In this study, an untargeted metabolomic approach was used to evaluate phenolic profiles for olive drupes. The analysis of chromatograms led to the putative identification of 13 differentially accumulated compounds among all treatments. Oleuropein (the main secoiridoid) and luteolin (the main flavonoid) concentration increased in treated samples compared to control. Metabolomic profiles of olive drupes following the application of M10, KV906, T22, and metabolite HA were grouped separately. This result may indicate that the olive plants have a similar response when inoculated with Trichoderma fungi and treated with their metabolites [51]. However, the identified differential metabolites were not always common to all treatments (Figure 1). The targeted metabolomics method estimated the effects of each biological treatment on the phenolic’ levels in the olive’s drupes. Four more representative phenolic classes (flavonoids, secoiridoids, simple phenols, and oleosides) were considered. Following the treatments, an increase in the oleuropein’s content and a decrease in the oleuropein’s precursors (11-methyl ester and ligstroside) concentrations were determined, demonstrating the ability of Trichoderma and its metabolites to interact with the enzyme β-glucosidase [64] responsible for this biotransformation (Figure 5) [65].
About flavonoids, an improvement of the flavone luteolin’s level (except in olive drupes obtained from plants treated by T22) and a decrease in the flavonol rutin’s concentration (except in olive drupes obtained from plants treated by 6PP) were observed in all tested samples (Table 4), indicating the ability of the treatments (except T22 and 6PP) to affect principally the flavone synthase activity rather than flavonol synthase (Figure 6).
Finally, the levels’ variation of oleuropein and luteolin in olive drupes after the bio-treatment was studied in detail. Oleuropein and luteolin were used as indicators of the secoiridoids and flavonoids variation, respectively. Oleuropein acts in Olea europaea as signaling molecule to protect the plant against UV-B radiation [67]. It has beneficial properties on human health, preventing cancer, cardiovascular diseases, inflammatory and oxidant damage [68]. Luteolin avoids oxidative and inflammatory processes with important implications for preventing neurodegenerative, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases and fortifying the immune system [69,70]. All Trichoderma spores and metabolites treatments affected the secoiridoid oleuropein and flavonoid luteolin levels (in some cases, they were less abundant in treated plants) and generally influenced the flavonoids more than secoiridoids production. The biological treatment (6PP, GV41, and T22) improved the oleuropein content, while the luteolin levels were higher after 6PP, GV41, M10, HA, and KV906 treatments confirming a different interaction capacity of the biotreatments with the enzymes involved in the two biosynthetic pathways.

5. Conclusions

Trichoderma strains and their bioactive metabolites used to cultivate the olive tree (O. europaea cv. Carolea) influence the weight of the drupes and the composition of phenolic compounds they contain, although in different ways depending on the strain or metabolite applied. All Trichoderma treatments influenced the production of flavonoids more than secoiridoids. The biological treatments’ different abilities could depend on their selective aptitude to interact with the enzymes involved in flavonoid and secoiridoid production. Our results show that using the Trichoderma fungi and their metabolites represents a suitable alternative to synthetic fungicide since they are biocontrol agents and influence other desirable characteristics such as the size and nutraceutical properties of the olives. Furthermore, they suggest that in the future, the use of metabolites is preferable to that of living fungi as they give the same biological effects beneficial for cultivation and guarantee the nutraceutical properties of olives, avoiding some of the limitations related to the application of living microbes (difficulty in dosing concentrations to be applied on the plant and storage complications).

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11188710/s1, Table S1. Analytical parameters used to perform the calibration curves.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, I.D. and F.V.; data curation, M.P. and A.S.; Formal analysis, A.S. and R.M.; Formal analysis and writing, F.V.; Investigation, A.S. and R.M.; project administration, F.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the following project: MIUR—PON [grant number Linfa 03PE_00026_1].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or supplementary material.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vossen, P. Olive Oil: History, Production, and Characteristics of the World’s Classic Oils. HortScience 2007, 42, 1093–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Kaniewski, D.; Van Campo, E.; Boiy, T.; Terral, J.-F.; Khadari, B.; Besnard, G. Primary domestication and early uses of the emblematic olive tree: Palaeobotanical, historical and molecular evidence from the Middle East. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2012, 87, 885–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Besnard, G.; Baradat, P.; Bervillé, A. Genetic relationships in the olive (Olea europaea L.) reflect multilocal selection of cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2001, 102, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Angiolillo, A.; Reale, S.; Pilla, F.; Baldoni, L. Molecular Analysis of Olive Cultivars in the Molise Region of Italy. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2006, 53, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Marra, F.P.; Caruso, T.; Costa, F.; di Vaio, C.; Mafrica, R.; Marchese, A. Genetic relationships, structure and parentage simulation among the olive tree (Olea europaea L. subsp. europaea) cultivated in Southern Italy revealed by SSR markers. Tree Genet. Genomes 2013, 9, 961–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kapellakis, I.E.; Tsagarakis, K.P.; Crowther, J.C. Olive oil history, production and by-product management. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2008, 7, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mazzocchi, A.; Leone, L.; Agostoni, C.; Pali-Schöll, I. The Secrets of the Mediterranean Diet. Does [Only] Olive Oil Matter? Nutrients 2019, 11, 2941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Schwingshackl, L.; Morze, J.; Hoffmann, G. Mediterranean diet and health status: Active ingredients and pharmacological mechanisms. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2019, 177, 1241–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Dini, I.; Laneri, S. Spices, Condiments, Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Aromas as Not Only Flavorings, but Precious Allies for Our Wellbeing. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pedan, V.; Popp, M.; Rohn, S.; Nyfeler, M.; Bongartz, A. Characterization of Phenolic Compounds and Their Contribution to Sensory Properties of Olive Oil. Molecules 2019, 24, 2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Dini, I.; Seccia, S.; Senatore, A.; Coppola, D.; Morelli, E. Development and Validation of an Analytical Method for Total Polyphenols Quantification in Extra Virgin Olive Oils. Food Anal. Methods 2020, 13, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dini, I.; Graziani, G.; Fedele, F.L.; Sicari, A.; Vinale, F.; Castaldo, L.; Ritieni, A. Effects of Trichoderma Biostimulation on the Phenolic Profile of Extra-Virgin Olive Oil and Olive Oil By-Products. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Bendini, A.; Cerretani, L.; Carrasco-Pancorbo, A.; Gómez-Caravaca, A.M.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A.; Lercker, G. Phenolic molecules in virgin olive oils: A survey of their sensory properties, health effects, antioxidant activity and analytical methods. An overview of the last decade. Molecules 2007, 12, 1679–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Dini, I.; Graziani, G.; Fedele, F.L.; Sicari, A.; Vinale, F.; Castaldo, L.; Ritieni, A. An environmentally friendly practice used in olive cultivation capable of increasing commercial interest in waste products from oil processing. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Casas, R.; Estruch, R.; Sacanella, E. The Protective Effects of Extra Virgin Olive Oil on Immune-mediated Inflammatory Responses. Endocr. Metab. Immune Disord. Drug Targets 2018, 18, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Santangelo, C.; Vari, R.; Scazzocchio, B.; de Sanctis, P.; Giovannini, C.; D’Archivio, M.; Masella, R. Anti-inflammatory Activity of Extra Virgin Olive Oil Polyphenols: Which Role in the Prevention and Treatment of Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases? Endocr. Metab. Immune Disord. Drug Targets 2018, 18, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to polyphenols in olive and maintenance of normal blood HDL cholesterol concentrations (ID 1639, further assessment) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Tetens, I.; EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the Substantiation of a Health Claim Related to Glucosamine and Maintenance of Lycopene, Proanthocyanidins, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium and Beta-Carotene and Contribution to Normal Collagen Formation (ID 1669) and Protection of the Skin from UV-Induced Damage (ID 1669) Pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006; European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): Parma, Italy, 2011.
  19. Stark, A.; Zecharia, M. Olive oil in the prevention of breast and colon carcinogenesis. In Olives and Olive Oil in Health and Disease Prevention; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 337–345. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dini, I.; Laneri, S. The New Challenge of Green Cosmetics: Natural Food Ingredients for Cosmetic Formulations. Molecules 2021, 26, 3921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dini, I.; Falanga, D.; di Lorenzo, R.; Tito, A.; Carotenuto, G.; Zappelli, C.; Grumetto, L.; Sacchi, A.; Laneri, S.; Apone, F. An Extract from Ficus carica Cell Cultures Works as an Anti-Stress Ingredient for the Skin. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dini, I. Spices and herbs as therapeutic foods. In Food Quality: Balancing Health and Disease; Holban, A.M., Grumezescu, A.M., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA; Elservier: London, UK, 2018; pp. 433–469. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fanelli, F.; Cozzi, G.; Raiola, A.; Dini, I.; Mulè, G.; Logrieco, A.F.; Ritieni, A. Raisins and Currants as Conventional Nutraceuticals in Italian Market: Natural Occurrence of Ochratoxin A. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 2306–2312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dini, I.; Laneri, S. Nutricosmetics: A brief overview. Phytother. Res. 2019, 33, 3054–3063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cavallo, P.; Dini, I.; Sepe, I.; Galasso, G.; Fedele, F.L.; Sicari, A.; Bolletti Censi, S.; Gaspari, A.; Ritieni, A.; Lorito, M.; et al. An innovative olive pâté with nutraceutical properties. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Dini, I.; Izzo, L.; Graziani, G.; Ritieni, A. The Nutraceutical Properties of “Pizza Napoletana Marinara TSG” a Traditional Food Rich in Bioaccessible Antioxidants. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rahioui, B.; Aissam, S.; Messaouri, H.; Moukhli, A.; Khadari, B.; Ei, M.C. Role of phenolic metabolism in the defense of the olive-tree against leaf-spot disease caused by Spilocaea oleagina. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2013, 15, 273–278. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rahioui, B.; El-Aabidine, A.Z.; Baissac, Y.; El-Boustani, E.; Khadari, B.; Jay Allemand, C.; El-Modafar, C. Phenolic compounds of olive-tree leaves and their relationship with the resistance to the leaf-spot disease caused by Spilocaea oleagina. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2009, 5, 204–214. [Google Scholar]
  29. Markakis, E.A.; Tjamos, S.E.; Antoniou, P.P.; Roussos, P.A.; Paplomatas, E.J.; Tjamos, E.C. Phenolic responses of resistant and susceptible olive cultivars induced by defoliating and nondefoliating Verticillium dahlia pathotypes. Plant Dis. 2010, 94, 1156–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Petridis, A.; Therios, I.; Samouris, G.; Tananaki, C. Salinity-induced changes in phenolic compounds in leaves and roots of four olive cultivars (Olea europaea L.) and their relationship to antioxidant activity. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2012, 79, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cetinkaya, H.; Koc, M.; Kulak, M. Monitoring of mineral and polyphenol content in olive leaves under drought conditions: Application chemometric techniques. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 88, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mechria, B.; Tekayaa, M.; Hammamia, M.; Chehabb, H. Root verbascoside and oleuropein are potential indicators of drought resistance in olive trees (Olea europaea L.). Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 141, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dini, I.; Graziani, G.; Gaspari, A.; Fedele, F.L.; Sicari, A.; Vinale, F.; Cavallo, P.; Lorito, M.; Ritieni, A. New strategies in the cultivation of olive trees and repercussions on the nutritional value of the extra virgin olive oil. Molecules 2020, 25, 2345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Dini, I.; Marra, R.; Cavallo, P.; Pironti, A.; Sepe, I.; Troisi, J.; Scala, G.; Lombari, P.; Vinale, F. Trichoderma Strains and Metabolites Selectively Increase the Production of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Olive Trees. Metabolites 2021, 11, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Woo, S.L.; Ruocco, M.; Vinale, F.; Nigro, M.; Marra, R.; Lombardi, N.; Pascale, A.; Lanzuise, S.; Manganiello, G.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma-based products and their widespread use in agricolture. Open Mycol. J. 2014, 8, 71–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Lorito, M.; Woo, S.L.; Harman, G.E.; Monte, E. Translational research on Trichoderma: From ‘omics to the field. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2010, 48, 395–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Hermosa, R.; Viterbo, A.; Chet, I.; Monte, E. Plant-beneficial effects of Trichoderma and of its genes. Microbiology 2012, 158, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Mona, S.A.; Hashem, A.; Abd Allah, E.F.; Alqarawi, A.A.; Soliman, D.W.K.; Wirth, S.; Egamberdieva, D. Increased resistance of drought by Trichoderma harzianum fungal treatment correlates with increased secondary metabolites and proline content. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 1751–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mukherjee, P.K.; Horwitz, B.A.; Kenerley, C.M. Secondary metabolism in Trichoderma—A genomic perspective. Microbiology 2012, 158, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Khan, R.A.A.; Najeeb, S.; Hussain, S.; Xie, B.; Li, Y. Bioactive Secondary Metabolites from Trichoderma spp. against Phytopathogenic Fungi. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pascale, A.; Vinale, F.; Manganiello, G.; Nigro, M.; Lanzuise, S.; Ruocco, M.; Marra, R.; Lombardi, N.; Woo, S.L.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma and its secondary metabolites improve yield and quality of grapes. Crop Prot. 2017, 92, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Mastouri, F.; Bjorkman, T.; Harman, G.E. Trichoderma harzianum enhances antioxidant defense of tomato seedlings and resistance to water deficit. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2012, 25, 1264–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Rouphael, Y.; Carillo, P.; Colla, G.; Fiorentino, N.; Sabatino, L.; El-Nakhel, C.; Giordano, M.; Pannico, A.; Cirillo, V.; Shabani, E.; et al. Appraisal of combined applications of Trichoderma virens and a biopolymer-based biostimulant on lettuce agronomical, physiological, and qualitative properties under variable regimes. Agronomy 2020, 10, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Stoclet, J.C.; Chataigneau, T.; Ndiaye, M.; Oak, M.H.; el Bedoui, J.; Chataigneau, M.; Shini-Kerth, V.B. Vascular protection by dietary polyphenols. Eur. J. Pharm. 2004, 500, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ruzzolini, J.; Peppicelli, S.; Andreucci, E.; Bianchini, F.; Scardigli, A.; Romani, A.; la Marca, G.; Nediani, C.; Calorini, L. Oleuropein, the Main Polyphenol of Olea europaea Leaf Extract, Has an Anti-Cancer Effect on Human BRAF Melanoma Cells and Potentiates the Cytotoxicity of Current Chemotherapies. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Marra, R.; Lombardi, N.; d’Errico, G.; Troisi, J.; Scala, G.; Vinale, F.; Woo, S.L.; Bonanomi, G.; Lorito, M. Application of Trichoderma strains and metabolites enhances soybean productivity and nutrient content. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 1814–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Vinale, F.; Nicoletti, R.; Lacatena, F.; Marra, R.; Sacco, A.; Lombardi, N.; d’Errico, G.; Digilio, M.C.; Lorito, M.; Woo, S.L. Secondary metabolites from the endophytic fungus Talaromyces pinophilus. Nat. Prod. Res. 2017, 31, 1778–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Vinale, F.; Flematti, G.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Lorito, M.; Marra, R.; Skelton, B.W.; Ghisalberti, E.L. Harzianic acid, an antifungal and plant growth promoting metabolite from Trichoderma harzianum. J. Nat. Prod. 2009, 72, 2032–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Talhaoui, N.; Gómez-Caravaca, A.M.; León, L.; de la Rosa, R.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A. Determination of phenolic compounds of ‘Sikitita’ olive leaves by HPLC-DAD-TOF-MS. Comparison with its parents’ Arbequina’ and ‘Picual’ olive leaves. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 58, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tafuri, S.; Cocchia, N.; Carotenuto, D.; Vassetti, A.; Staropoli, A.; Mastellone, V.; Peretti, V.; Ciotola, F.; Albarella, S.; del Prete, C.; et al. Chemical Analysis of Lepidium meyenii (Maca) and Its Effects on Redox Status and on Reproductive Biology in Stallions. Molecules 2019, 24, 1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Marra, R.; Coppola, M.; Pironti, A.; Grasso, F.; Lombardi, N.; d’Errico, G.; Sicari, A.; Bolletti Censi, S.; Woo, S.L.; Rao, R.; et al. The Application of Trichoderma Strains or Metabolites Alters the Olive Leaf Metabolome and the Expression of Defense-Related Genes. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Patkowska, E.; Mielniczuk, E.; Jamiołkowska, A.; Skwaryło-Bednarz, B.; BłaŻewicz-Woźniak, M. The Influence of Trichoderma harzianum Rifai T-22 and Other Biostimulants on Rhizosphere Beneficial Microorganisms of Carrot. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Giuffrè, A.M. Biometric evaluation of twelve olive cultivars under rainfed conditions in the region of Calabria, South Italy. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2017, 29, 696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Rosati, A.; Zipanćič, M.; Caporali, S.; Padula, G. Fruit weight is related to ovary weight in olive (Olea europaea L.). Sci. Hortic. 2009, 122, 399–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hannachi, H.; Breton, C.; Msallem, M.; El-Hadj, S.B.; El-Gazzah, M.; Bervillé, A. Differences between native and introduced olive cultivars as revealed by morphology of drupes, oil composition and SSR polymorphisms: A case study in Tunisia. Sci. Hortic. 2008, 116, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Smirnoff, N. The role of active oxygen in the response of plants to water deficit and desiccation. New Phytol. 1993, 125, 27–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kaushik, D.; Roychoudhury, A. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and response of antioxidants as ROS-scavengers during environmental stress in plants. Front. Environ. Sci. 2014, 2, 53. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Bhuyan, M.H.M.B.; Parvin, K.; Bhuiyan, T.F.; Anee, T.I.; Nahar, K.; Hossen, M.S.; Zulfiqar, F.; Alam, M.M.; Fujita, M. Regulation of ROS Metabolism in Plants under Environmental Stress: A Review of Recent Experimental Evidence. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fang, Y.; Xiong, L. General mechanisms of drought response and their application in drought resistance improvement in plants. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2015, 72, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ahmad, P.; Hashem, A.; Abd_Allah, E.F.; Alqarawi, A.A.; John, R.; Egamberdieva, D.; Gucel, S. Role of Trichoderma harzianum in mitigating NaCl stress in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) through antioxidative defense system. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Schrimpe-Rutledge, A.C.; Codreanu, S.G.; Sherrod, S.D.; McLean, J.A. Untargeted Metabolomics Strategies-Challenges and Emerging Directions. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2016, 27, 1897–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Mayo-Prieto, S.; Marra, R.; Vinale, F.; Rodríguez-González, Á.; Woo, S.L.; Lorito, M.; Casquero, P.A. Effect of Trichoderma velutinum and Rhizoctonia solani on the Metabolome of Bean Plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Gutierrez-Rosales, F.; Romero, M.P.; Casanovas, M.; Motilva, M.J.; Mínguez-Mosquera, M.I. Metabolites involved in oleuropein accumulation and degradation in fruits of Olea europaea L.: Hojiblanca and Arbequina varieties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 12924–12933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Damtoft, S.; Franzyk, H.; Jensen, S.R. Biosynthesis of secoiricoid glucosides in Oleaceae. Phytochemistry 1993, 34, 1291–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Damtoft, S.; Franzyk, H.; Jensen, S.R. Biosynthesis of iridoids in Syringa and Fraxinus: Secoiridoid precursors. Phytochemistry 1995, 40, 773–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Morita, Y.; Hoshino, A. Recent advances in flower color variation and patterning of Japanese morning glory and petunia. Breed. Sci. 2018, 68, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Dias, M.C.; Pinto, D.C.G.A.; Freitas, H.; Santos, C.; Silva, A.M.S. The antioxidant system in Olea europaea to enhanced UV-B radiation also depends on flavonoids and secoiridoids. Phytochemistry 2020, 170, 112199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Omar, S.H. Oleuropein in olive and its pharmacological effects. Sci. Pharm. 2010, 78, 133–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Montesano, D.; Rocchetti, G.; Cossignani, L.; Senizza, B.; Pollini, L.; Lucini, L.; Blasi, F. Untargeted Metabolomics to Evaluate the Stability of Extra-Virgin Olive Oil with Added Lycium barbarum Carotenoids during Storage. Foods 2019, 8, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Xu, H.; Linn, B.S.; Zhang, Y.; Ren, J. A review on the antioxidative and prooxidative properties of luteolin. React. Oxyg. Species 2019, 7, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Applsci 11 08710 g001 550
Figure 1. Hierarchical clustering heat map of differential metabolic profiles from olive drupe extracts. Samples are indicated by treatments with Trichoderma strains (TH1, GV41, T22, M10, and KV906) or secondary metabolites (HA and 6PP). Control was plants treated with water. Red color indicates higher phenolic abundance (>0), blue colors lower (<0), yellow a neutral change from the overall average abundance. Statistical significance was tested by one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Hierarchical clustering heat map of differential metabolic profiles from olive drupe extracts. Samples are indicated by treatments with Trichoderma strains (TH1, GV41, T22, M10, and KV906) or secondary metabolites (HA and 6PP). Control was plants treated with water. Red color indicates higher phenolic abundance (>0), blue colors lower (<0), yellow a neutral change from the overall average abundance. Statistical significance was tested by one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05).
Applsci 11 08710 g001
Applsci 11 08710 g002 550
Figure 2. Venn diagrams of phenolic compounds whose abundance in the olive drupe metabolome is lower (DOWN) or higher (UP) compared to the control (CTRL). Samples treated with T22 are reported in green; with M10 in blue and with HA in red.
Figure 2. Venn diagrams of phenolic compounds whose abundance in the olive drupe metabolome is lower (DOWN) or higher (UP) compared to the control (CTRL). Samples treated with T22 are reported in green; with M10 in blue and with HA in red.
Applsci 11 08710 g002
Applsci 11 08710 g003 550
Figure 3. Oleuropein content in drupes. Samples are indicated by treatments with Trichoderma strains (TH1, GV41, T22, M10, and KV906) or secondary metabolites (HA and 6PP). Values are the means of three replicates ± SE. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Oleuropein content in drupes. Samples are indicated by treatments with Trichoderma strains (TH1, GV41, T22, M10, and KV906) or secondary metabolites (HA and 6PP). Values are the means of three replicates ± SE. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Applsci 11 08710 g003
Applsci 11 08710 g004 550
Figure 4. Luteolin content in drupes. Samples are indicated by treatments with Trichoderma strains (TH1, GV41, T22, M10, and KV906) or secondary metabolites (HA and 6PP). Values are the means of three replicates ± SE. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Luteolin content in drupes. Samples are indicated by treatments with Trichoderma strains (TH1, GV41, T22, M10, and KV906) or secondary metabolites (HA and 6PP). Values are the means of three replicates ± SE. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Applsci 11 08710 g004
Applsci 11 08710 g005 550
Figure 5. Oleuropein biosynthesis.
Figure 5. Oleuropein biosynthesis.
Applsci 11 08710 g005
Applsci 11 08710 g006 550
Figure 6. Flavonoid’s biosynthesis [66].
Figure 6. Flavonoid’s biosynthesis [66].
Applsci 11 08710 g006
Table
Table 1. Effects of treatments with Trichoderma spp. strains T22, M10, GV41, TH1, KV906 or its metabolites 6-pentyl-α-pyrone (6PP) and harzianic acid (HA) on average weights of the drupes collected from the experimental field. The control (CTRL) was not treated with biostimulants.
Table 1. Effects of treatments with Trichoderma spp. strains T22, M10, GV41, TH1, KV906 or its metabolites 6-pentyl-α-pyrone (6PP) and harzianic acid (HA) on average weights of the drupes collected from the experimental field. The control (CTRL) was not treated with biostimulants.
TreatmentDrupe’s Average Weight (g)
GV418.10 b
M105.66 a
T227.61 b
TH16.63 b
KV9065.90 a
6PP6.12 b
HA9.40 b
CTRL5.85 a
Different letters within each column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 2. Phenolics’ identification parameters.
Table 2. Phenolics’ identification parameters.
CompoundRT (min)UV Max (nm)Experimental MassMass TheoreticalFormula
Secoiridoids
Oleuropein aglycone10.90235; 271378.1569378.13C16H26O16
Oleuropein isomer a19.10240; 280540.1840540.18C25H32O13
Oleuropein isomer b20.10235; 280540.1848540.184C25H32O13
2″-Methoxyoleuropein15.81236; 280570.1942570.19C26H34O14
Ligstroside20.52230; 280524.1900524.19C25H32O12
Flavonoids
Luteolin20.80255; 286286.0488286.05C15H35O14
Luteolin rutinoside11.90248; 267594.1589594.16C27H30O15
Luteolin di-glucoside12.25248; 267; 335610.1537610.15C27H30O16
Rutin14.60253610.1539610.15C27H30O16
Simple phenols
Hydroxytyrosol-glucoside4.75230; 280316.1160316.12C14H20O8
Verbascoside14.55234; 329624.2064624.20C29H36O15
Oleosides
Oleoside methyl ester6.33235404.1321404.13C17H24O11
Secologanoside7.45234390.1151390.12C16H22O11
Table
Table 3. Number of metabolites whose production is higher (UP) or lower (DOWN) compared to the control (CTRL) in the drupes obtained from treated plants (Trichoderma spp. strains T22, M10, GV41, TH1, KV906 or its metabolites 6-pentyl-α-pyrone (6PP) and harzianic acid (HA).
Table 3. Number of metabolites whose production is higher (UP) or lower (DOWN) compared to the control (CTRL) in the drupes obtained from treated plants (Trichoderma spp. strains T22, M10, GV41, TH1, KV906 or its metabolites 6-pentyl-α-pyrone (6PP) and harzianic acid (HA).
TreatmentsUP vs. CTRLDOWN vs. CTRL
GV412130
M101644
T221038
TH11635
KV9062144
HA1236
6PP2839
Table
Table 4. Metabolites identified in the drupe extracts of olive trees subjected to field applications of biological treatments. Samples are indicated by treatments with Trichoderma strains (TH1, GV41, T22, M10, and KV906) or secondary metabolites (HA and 6PP). Identifications were confirmed by comparing results with known compounds in an in-house database/standards and selecting matching (≥95%).
Table 4. Metabolites identified in the drupe extracts of olive trees subjected to field applications of biological treatments. Samples are indicated by treatments with Trichoderma strains (TH1, GV41, T22, M10, and KV906) or secondary metabolites (HA and 6PP). Identifications were confirmed by comparing results with known compounds in an in-house database/standards and selecting matching (≥95%).
CompoundRegulation against Control Group (CTRL)
M10KV906GV41TH1T226PPHA
Oleuropein aglycon↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
Oleuropein isomer a↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Oleuropein isomer b↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
2-Methoxyoleuropein↓↓↑↑↓↓↓
Ligstroside↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Luteolin↑↑↑↑↓↑↑
Luteolin rutinoside↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
Luteolin di-glucoside↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
Rutin↓↓↓↓↓↑↓
Hydroxytyrosol glucoside↓↓↑↑↑↓↑
Verbascoside↑↑↑↑↓↑↓
Oleoside methyl ester↓↓↑↑↑↓↑
Secologanoside↓↓↓↑↓↓↓
↑ Increased production of the metabolite in treated vs. control. ↓ Decreased production of the metabolite in treated vs. control.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dini, I.; Pascale, M.; Staropoli, A.; Marra, R.; Vinale, F. Effect of Selected Trichoderma Strains and Metabolites on Olive Drupes. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8710. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188710

AMA Style

Dini I, Pascale M, Staropoli A, Marra R, Vinale F. Effect of Selected Trichoderma Strains and Metabolites on Olive Drupes. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(18):8710. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188710

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dini, Irene, Marica Pascale, Alessia Staropoli, Roberta Marra, and Francesco Vinale. 2021. "Effect of Selected Trichoderma Strains and Metabolites on Olive Drupes" Applied Sciences 11, no. 18: 8710. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188710

APA Style

Dini, I., Pascale, M., Staropoli, A., Marra, R., & Vinale, F. (2021). Effect of Selected Trichoderma Strains and Metabolites on Olive Drupes. Applied Sciences, 11(18), 8710. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188710

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop