Abstract
Fusarium verticillioides poses a threat to worldwide maize production due to its ability to infect maize kernel and synthesize fumonisins that can be accumulated above safety levels for humans and animals. Maize breeding has been proposed as key tool to decrease kernel contamination with fumonisins, but metabolic studies complementary to genomic approaches are necessary to disclose the complexity of maize resistance. An untargeted metabolomic study was proposed using inbreds genetically related but with contrasting levels of resistance in order to uncover pathways implicated in resistance to Fusarium ear rot (FER) and fumonisin contamination in the maize kernel and to look for possible biomarkers. Metabolite determinations were performed in kernels collected at 3 and 10 days after inoculation with F. verticillioides (dat). Discriminant metabolites between resistant and susceptible RILs were rather found at 10 than 3 dat, although metabolite differences at later stages of colonization could be driven by subtle variations at earlier stages of infection. Within this context, differences for membrane lipid homeostasis, methionine metabolism, and indolacetic acid conjugation seemed highly relevant to distinguish between resistant and susceptible inbreds, confirming the polygenic nature of resistance to FER and fumonisin contamination in the maize kernels. Nevertheless, some specific metabolites such as the polyamine spermidine and/or the alkaloid isoquinoline seemed to be promising indirect selection traits to improve resistance to FER and reduce fumonisin accumulation. Therefore, in vitro and in vivo experiments will be necessary to validate the inhibitory effects of these compounds on fumonisins biosynthesis.
Introduction
Fusarium verticillioides poses a threat to worldwide maize production because maize kernels infected with this fungus can accumulate fumonisins above safety levels for animal and human health. Fumonisin accumulation is mainly determined by environmental conditions, but there is wide genetic variability in maize for resistance to fumonisin accumulation that can be used to generate maize varieties with reduced fumonisin content (; ). However, breeding gains are hindered by the complex inheritance of kernel resistance to fumonisin accumulation due to the highly polygenic nature of the trait and the large effect of the genotype x environment interaction (). In such scenario, the predictive power of genetic data can be significantly improved when combined with metabolic measurements, because metabolites are the result of both genetic and environmental factors and, as such, provide great potential to bridge knowledge between genotype and phenotype (; ). In this sense, untargeted metabolomics offers a discovery and hypothesis-generating approach to provide new biomarkers to be used in plant breeding, as well as valuable insights into the pathways used by maize to limit kernel contamination with fumonisins (; ). In addition, these metabolic studies could complement and/or corroborate results previously obtained by using transcriptomic and proteomic approaches (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ).
studied the transcriptomic and metabolomic changes associated to kernel infection by F. verticillioides in mature kernels of two unrelated inbreds with different performance against infection by F. verticillioides. These authors found no significant changes in transcriptional and metabolomic profiles between resistant and susceptible inbreds, and they suggested that a constitutive defense mechanism may confer the resistant inbred an advantage against F. verticillioides infection. investigated differences in mature kernel metabolic profiles among three maize commercial hybrids under natural inoculation at open-field conditions and concluded that the maize lipid signature was strongly involved in the maize-F. verticillioides interaction and in the modulation of fumonisin accumulation; maize lipidome signature being genotype dependent. However, as metabolic differences among unrelated genotypes with contrasting values for resistance to fumonisin contamination could be attributed to genes related to resistance but also to many other genes these genotypes differ for, metabolomic studies aimed at identifying relevant biomarkers of genotype resistance should be performed with genotypes genetically related to avoid the possible biased caused by the genetic background. studied the metabolomics changes of two maize recombinant inbred lines with contrasting phenotypes obtained from the same cross, but they sampled germinated kernels instead of intact kernels. In the current study, we propose to compare the metabolomes of recombinant inbred lines (RILs) derived from the same cross but differing for resistance to kernel contamination with fumonisins to eliminate as much as possible the influence of genetic background on metabolic differences. Four different RILs were included in each category, resistant and susceptible, and would be identical in one or more genomic regions implicated in resistance but arbitrary in all unlinked regions (). Specifically, this study was focused on maize metabolomics of immature kernels since genotype-driven specific resistance factors could act at the beginning of maize colonization by the fungus and would be no longer detectable at the harvest stage (). In this sense, authors have reported that fumonisin production can be initiated during late-milk stage (approximately 18 days after pollination), but plant resistance mechanisms appear to became relevant for reducing fumonisin accumulation between 22 and 29 days after pollination (; ). Therefore, in order to find compounds in developing maize kernels that contribute most to the resistance to fumonisin accumulation, kernels should be harvested at the milk-dough stage (). Taking all this into account the main objectives of this study were (i) to uncover metabolic pathways implicated in resistance to FER and fumonisin contamination in the maize kernel and (ii) to identify possible biomarkers to be used in future breeding programs.
Materials and methods
Experiment setup and sample collection
Eight RILs of maize were selected from a set of 144 RILs derived from the cross between the European flint inbred line EP42 (susceptible to FER and kernel contamination with fumonisins) and the American dent inbred line A637 (resistant), and previously genotyped and phenotyped for FER and kernel fumonisin content under inoculation with F. verticillioides (; ; ). The four RILs with the lowest values (resistant) for fumonisin content (10-15 µg/g) and FER (~ 2 in a visual scale from 1 to 7) along with the four RILs with the highest values (susceptible) for fumonisin content (55-75 µg/g) and FER (~ 4) were selected based on previous evaluations (Supplementary Table 1) (). In 2018, 15 seeds from each RIL were sown in a single row of 3.5 m; distance between adjacent rows being 0.8 m. RILs were arranged in four pairs, each pair formed with one resistant and one susceptible RIL. RILs within each pair were planted in adjacent rows in order to minimize the contribution of field heterogeneity to differential metabolite content between resistant and susceptible inbreds. We self-crossed at least six plants per RIL, and 15 days later the main ear of each plant was inoculated, using a kernel inoculation technique (), with a spore suspension of F. verticillioides as previously described (). Ears were individually collected at 3 or 10 days after inoculation treatment (dat) (18 and 25 days after pollination, respectively). Immediately, undamaged immature kernels around the inoculation point were carefully collected into closed cap tubes kept in liquid nitrogen and stored at – 80 °C until lyophilization. Three biological replicates (ears) were obtained for each RIL and sampling date, except for one susceptible RIL at the 3-day sampling date for which no ears were obtained.
Metabolite extraction
Lyophilized kernels were ground in a mortar and 20 mg per sample were extracted twice with 1 ml of 75% methanol in acetate buffer, mixed in a vortex, sonicated (ultrasonic bath 30 Hz for 5 min) and centrifuged (20,000 g for 10 min). The supernatants were combined and filtered through a 0.22 µm PTFE membrane filter to an Eppendorf tube and an aliquot was transferred to a certified vial. Samples were stored at 4° C until analysis. For MS/MS analysis sample replicates pools were prepared in separate vials.
Untargeted liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry
The untargeted metabolomic analysis was conducted by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) (Ultimate 3000 LC; Thermo Scientific) coupled to a quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometer (QTOF-MS) equipped with an electrospray ionization source (ESI) (Bruker Compact; Bruker Daltonics). Samples (5 µl injection volume) were separated in an Intensity Solo 2 C18 column (1.7 µm, 2.1× 100 mm; Bruker Daltonics) at 35°C. A binary solvent system consisted of 0.1% of formic acid on water (solvent A) and acetonitrile (solvent B) with a 0.4 ml/min flow rate was used with the following gradient conditions: 0 min, 3% B; 4 min, 3% B; 16 min, 25% B; 25min, 80% B; 30 min, 100% B; 32 min, 100% B; return to initial conditions at 33 min (3% B) and maintain until 36 min.
The MS acquisition was performed in both negative and positive ionization modes for full scan and auto MS/MS, in a mass scan range of m/z 100-1200. Specific conditions used were: gas flow 9 L/min, nebulizer pressure 38 psi, dry gas 9 L/min, and dry temperature 220°C; capillary and end plate offset were set to 4500 and 500 V, respectively. MS/MS analysis was performed by using different collision energy ramps to cover a range from 15 to 50 eV. The instrument was calibrated externally with a solution of 1mM sodium formate/acetate in 2-propanol:water 50:50 with 0.2% formic acid directly infused to the source. The calibration solution was injected at the beginning of each run and all the spectra were calibrated prior to statistical analysis.
Data processing and statistical analyses
The UHPLC-MS and MS/MS raw data were processed using the MetaboScape 4.0 software (Bruker Daltonics) and the algorithm T–Rex 3D for peak detection and alignment in a retention time (Rt) range from 0.5 to 30 min. Data obtained from positive and negative ionization modes were combined and system contaminants were manually removed (Supplemental Tables 2, 3). The web server MetaboAnalyst 5.0 () was used for further data filtering and statistical analyses. Variables with more than 50% missing values were removed and all missing values were replaced with a low value (1/5 of the minimum positive value of each variable). Then, the interquantile range filter was used to remove uninformative variables with a near-constant values throughout the dataset and a Pareto scaling was applied for adjusting for the disparities in fold differences between the metabolites. Within each sampling date, Orthogonal Projections to Latent Structures Discriminant Analysis (OPLS‐DA) was carried out to investigate and visualize the pattern of metabolite changes between the resistant and susceptible RILs. OPLS-DA disentangle group-predictive and group-unrelated variation in the measured data and provides a model in which the variables with the largest discriminatory power between groups are determined (). The OPLS‐DA model was evaluated through cross‐validation and the R2Y (estimation of the goodness of fit of the model) and Q2 (qualitative measure of the predictive ability of the model) statistics were used for quality assessment. We performed 1000-run permutations to test the possibility of obtaining those values for the goodness of fit and predictability by chance. In addition, the fold change ratio (FC) and p-value of the t-test for each peak between resistant and susceptible inbreds were calculated. For each sampling date, features with a variable importance in projection (VIP) score >1 in the OPLS‐DA model, |Log2FC| > 0.6 and p value < 0.05 were considered as significant and those with FDR < 0.10, VIP score >1, and |Log2FC| > 0.6 as highly significant.
Metabolite annotation
Significant metabolite features were annotated based on the accurate mass, molecular formula and fragmentation spectrum when available. MetaboScape 4.0 software and the bioinformatic tool SIRIUS 4 (version 4.9.12) () were used for molecular formulas calculations, and the CSi : FingerID tool () in SIRIUS 4 and the spectral library MS-DIAL () for molecular structures and MS/MS experimental spectra comparisons in metabolomic databases. Putative annotations were performed using publicly available databases as Pubchem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ), Lipid Maps (https://www.lipidmaps.org), KEGG (https://www.genome.jp), ChEBI, (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi), MoNA (https://mona.fiehnlab.ucdavis.edu), PlantCyc (https://plantcyc.org) (all accesed between February and October 2022), and consulting literature references.
Pathway analyses
For addressing the metabolic pathways and network-level changes in the resistant vs susceptible RILs, we performed a joint analysis with mummichog and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) using the Functional Analysis module of MetaboAnalyst (). These computational algorithms predict functional activity from mass spectrometry data without a priori identification of metabolites by leveraging the collective power of metabolic pathways and networks. The mummichog algorithm infers pathway activities using an over-representation analysis method to evaluate pathway-level enrichment based on significant features (with p-values above a p-value cutoff) from a ranked list of MS peaks identified by untargeted metabolomics (. The GSEA method () can extract biological meaning from a ranked feature list (based on t scores) without using a significance cutoff. The setup parameters used to perform functional analysis were: the library selected was the KEGG pathway library for Oryza sativa japonica; a mass tolerance of 5 ppm was stablished for putative annotation; and mummichog default cutoffs for p-values were used (0.1 and 0.01 for metabolite data at 3 and 10 dat, respectively).
Finally, we used the Pathview platform (; ) to integrate and visualize previous transcriptomic data () and the current untargeted metabolomic data. Target pathways for visualization were: phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, and glutathione and glycerophospholipid metabolisms.
Results
738 and 609 features were identified in kernel samples taken three and 10 days, respectively, after inoculation with Fusarium verticillioides (Supplementary Tables 2, 3). In order to identify the metabolomic differences between resistant and susceptible maize RILs, we first performed an OPLS-DA of the metabolomic data. The OPLS-DA model for kernel samples harvested at 3 dat explained 63% of metabolite variability (R2X); 57.3% of variability was structured in three orthogonal components meanwhile only the 5.8% of metabolite variation was predictive and assisted in differentiating resistant from susceptible inbreds (Figure 1 and Supplemental Figure 1). The model had an overall goodness of fit (R2Y) of 0.961 and an overall cross-validation coefficient (Q2) of 0.504; the probabilities of obtaining those values by chance being 0.083 for R2Y and 0.007 for Q2, respectively.
Figure 1
The OPLS-DA model for kernel samples collected at 10 dat comprised one predictive and three orthogonal components; predictive metabolite variability being the 6.4% of total metabolite variability (Figure 1 and Supplemental Figure 1). R2Y was 0.975 (p < 0.001) and Q2 0.714 (p < 0.001). The overall metabolite variability explained by the model was 55.5%, most variability being structured but uncorrelated to the differentiation between resistant and susceptible RILs.
Figure 2 shows the metabolite features from kernel samples harvested 3 and 10 dat with FC higher than 1.5 or lower than 0.7 (|Log2FC | > 0.6) and p values less than 0.05 for t-test between resistant and susceptible RILs. Discriminant features with a VIP score > 1 in the OPLS-DA model and that fulfilled the above mentioned FC and t-test criteria were considered as differentially accumulated metabolites in the resistant vs susceptible RILs (Tables 1, 2). However, only 10 metabolites out of them were high-significant differentially (FDR < 0.10, p value < 0.002) accumulated at 10 dat and no metabolite at 3 dat in contrast with most metabolomic studies in which differentially accumulated features between treatments on a single genotype are studied. In the current study, the genetically heterogeneous composition of each bulk could be behind the reduced number of features differentially accumulated between resistant and susceptible RILs. However, detected features are expected to play significant roles in resistance as they would be regulated by genomic regions shared by all resistant or susceptible RILs.
Figure 2
Table 1
| RT (min) | Ionization | m/z | Neutral mass | MS/MS fragments (m/z) | Molecular formula | Error (|Δ m/z| ppm) | Tentative compound | FC | log2FC | p | VIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.94 | [M-H]- | 131.0456 | 132.0529 | n.d. | C4H8N2O3 | 4.37 | Asparagine | 0.57 | -0.81 | 0.0366 | 2.21 |
| 0.97 | [M-H]- | 815.2776 | 816.2849 | n.d. | 0.60 | -0.74 | 0.0471 | 2.08 | |||
| 0.97 | [M-H]- | 473.1626 | 474.1699 | 341.107, 293.107, 179.054, 161.042, 131.045, 113.035 | C16H30N2O14 | 0.33 | Asparagine di-hexoside | 0.56 | -0.83 | 0.0296 | 2.32 |
| 1.08 | [M+H]+ | 104.0547 | 103.0475 | n.d. | 2.15 | 1.10 | 0.0398 | 1.70 | |||
| 1.12 | [M+H]+ | 150.0585 | 149.0512 | 104.052, 84.047, 74.023, 61.011, 56.050 | C5H11NO2S | 0.92 | Methionine | 1.78 | 0.84 | 0.0487 | 1.67 |
| 1.50 | [M+H]+ | 150.0583 | 149.0511 | 104.052, 84.047, 74.023, 61.011, 56.050 | C5H11NO2S | 0.44 | Methionine | 1.61 | 0.68 | 0.0267 | 1.81 |
| 1.50 | [M+H]+ | 133.0320 | 132.0248 | 61.012. 56.051 | C5H8O2S | 1.86 | Methionine derivative | 1.68 | 0.75 | 0.0218 | 1.78 |
| 1.50 | [M+H]+ | 104.0531 | 103.0459 | n.d. | C4H9NS | 2.60 | Methionine derivative | 1.69 | 0.76 | 0.0231 | 1.77 |
| 1.50 | [M+H]+ | 102.0551 | 101.0494 | n.d. | C4H7NO2 | 1.76 | Methionine derivative | 1.67 | 0.74 | 0.0237 | 1.76 |
| 9.88 | [2M-H]- | 737.2042 | 738.2116 | 368.097, 206.045, 162.053 | C16H19NO9 | 1.21 | Hydroxy-oxindole-3-acetyl-hexoside | 2.01 | 1.01 | 0.0275 | 2.14 |
| 10.82 | [M+HCOOH-H]− | 544.1669 | 499.1687 | 498.154, 341.107, 323.097, 203.055, 179.055, 174.055, 161.044, 143.034, 130.065, 119.034, 113.023 | C22H29NO12 | 0.24 | Indole-3-acetyl-myo-inositol hexoside | 2.42 | 1.27 | 0.0125 | 2.23 |
| 10.83 | [M+Na]+ | 522.1585 | 499.1693 | 348.098, 290.066, 203.046, 177.067, 130.066 | C22H29NO12 | 0.66 | Indole-3-acetyl-myo-inositol hexoside | 1.78 | 0.83 | 0.0369 | 1.92 |
| 10.83 | [M+H]+ | 338.1236 | 337.1163 | 176.071, 130.065, 109.029, 81.034, 57.033 | C16H19NO7 | 0.43 | Indole-3-acetyl-hexoside | 2.37 | 1.24 | 0.0178 | 2.18 |
| 10.85 | [M+H]+ | 130.0651 | 129.0579 | 105.048, 77.039, 53.039 | C9H7N | 1.04 | Isoquinoline | 2.21 | 1.15 | 0.0211 | 2.13 |
| 11.53 | [M-H2O+H]+ | 177.0543 | 194.0574 | 117.035, 105.043, 97.011, 89.042, 78.042, 53.041 | C10H10O4 | 1.55 | Ferulic acid | 0.44 | -1.17 | 0.0323 | 2.02 |
| 13.25 | [M-H]- | 164.0353 | 165.0426 | 149.009, 121.015, 96.962 | C8H7NO3 | 0.28 | MBOA | 0.33 | -1.59 | 0.0383 | 2.20 |
| 15.13 | [M+H+H2]3+ | 438.5943 | 1312.7610 | n.d. | 2.30 | 1.20 | 0.0478 | 1.51 | |||
| 23.83 | [M+HCOOH-H]− | 723.3808 | 724.3880 | 677.368, 415.145, 397.134, 379.122, 323.097, 305.088, 279.232, 235.082, 179.056, 119.035 | C33H58O14 | 0.72 | DGMG 18:2 | 1.57 | 0.65 | 0.0193 | 1.91 |
| 24.01 | [M-H]- | 476.2780 | 477.2853 | 279.232, 214.048, 196.037, 140.012 | C23H44NO7P | 0.52 | LysoPE 18:2 | 1.56 | 0.64 | 0.0035 | 2.21 |
| 24.01 | [M+H]+ | 478.2936 | 477.2862 | 337.267, 306274, 255.149, 173.017, 121,098, 95.084, 62.061 | C23H44NO7P | 1.64 | LysoPE 18:2 | 1.51 | 0.59 | 0.0485 | 1.83 |
| 25.16 | [M+Na]+ | 539.3202 | 516.3308 | 212.118, 165.047, 141.043, 133.088, 89.062 | C27H48O9 | 2.07 | MGMG 18:2 | 1.52 | 0.60 | 0.0357 | 2.00 |
| 27.32 | [M+H]+ | 760.5857 | 759.5785 | n.d. | 0.31 | -1.69 | 0.0208 | 1.97 | |||
| 27.64 | [M-H]- | 433.2351 | 434.2424 | 279.230, 171.006, 152.995, 96.970, 78.959 | C21H39O7P | 2.24 | LysoPA 18:2 | 3.75 | 1.91 | 0.0135 | 2.04 |
| 28.73 | [M+Na]+ | 780.5520 | 757.5636 | 721.470, 597.475, 575.496, 520.330, 502.314, 500.300, 478.317, 465.228, 184.070, 146.979, 86.096 | C42H80NO8P | 1.78 | PC 34:2; PC (16:0/18:2) | 0.15 | -2.73 | 0.0318 | 2.46 |
LC-MS/MS data, tentative annotation, fold changes, p values and VIP scores for differentially accumulated metabolites between resistant and susceptible maize RILs at 3 days after inoculation with Fusarium verticillioides.
RT, Retention time (minutes); Log2FC, Log2 Fold change between resistant and susceptible RILs; p, p-value for the t-test; V1, VIP score in the OPLS-DA model. n.d. stands for non detected.
Table 2
| RT (min) | Ionization | m/z | Neutral mass | MS/MS fragments (m/z) | Molecular formula | Error (|Δ m/z| ppm) | Tentative compound | FC | log2FC | p | FDR | VIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | [M+H]+ | 146.1652 | 145.1579 | n.d. | C7H19N3 | 0.24 | Spermidine | 1.84 | 0.88 | 0.0001 | 0.05 | 2.87 |
| 0.91 | [M+H]+ | 222.9881 | 221.9809 | n.d. | 1.66 | 0.74 | 0.0215 | 0.32 | 1.88 | |||
| 0.92 | [M+H]+ | 185.0327 | 184.0255 | 124.997, 116.993, 98.982, 86.095, 71.072, 45.033 | 1.64 | 0.71 | 0.0422 | 0.4 | 1.62 | |||
| 0.92 | [M-H]- | 298.1141 | 299.1214 | 132.030, 118.050, 96.970, 74.027, 72.010 | 1.71 | 0.77 | 0.0190 | 0.31 | 1.97 | |||
| 0.94 | [M+H]+ | 351.069 | 350.0618 | n.d. | 2.48 | 1.31 | 0.0020 | 0.08 | 2.47 | |||
| 1.05 | [M+H]+ | 179.0485 | 178.0413 | n.d. | C5H10N2O3S | 0.18 | Cysteinylglycine | 1.81 | 0.86 | 0.0153 | 0.31 | 2.05 |
| 1.05 | [M+H]+ | 308.0922 | 307.0849 | 142.031, 116.016, 104.070, 84.045, 76.022 | C10H17N3O6S | 3.59 | Glutathione | 1.79 | 0.84 | 0.0099 | 0.27 | 2.15 |
| 1.07 | [M+H]+ | 492.1814 | 491.1742 | n.d. | 1.87 | 0.91 | 0.0124 | 0.27 | 2.08 | |||
| 1.08 | [M+H]+ | 150.0585 | 149.0513 | 84.044, 65.039, 61.010, 56.048 | C5H11NO2S | 0.83 | Methionine | 1.82 | 0.86 | 0.0260 | 0.34 | 1.83 |
| 1.49 | [M+H]+ | 308.0908 | 307.0836 | 142.031, 116.016, 104.070, 84.045, 76.022 | C10H17N3O6S | 0.87 | Glutathione | 1.61 | 0.68 | 0.0235 | 0.32 | 1.94 |
| 1.50 | [M+H]+ | 179.0483 | 178.0410 | n.d. | C5H10N2O3S | 0.97 | Cysteinylglycine | 1.58 | 0.66 | 0.0223 | 0.32 | 1.96 |
| 1.50 | [M+H]+ | 102.055 | 101.0492 | n.d. | C4H7NO2 | 1.3 | Methionine derivative | 1.56 | 0.64 | 0.0061 | 0.2 | 2.22 |
| 1.50 | [M+H]+ | 133.0319 | 132.0247 | 108.955, 90.954, 87.022, 72.004, 61.013, 56.051 | C5H8O2S | 1.46 | Methionine derivative | 1.52 | 0.60 | 0.0240 | 0.32 | 1.91 |
| 1.50 | [M+H]+ | 150.0583 | 149.0511 | 84.044, 65.039, 61.010, 56.048 | C5H11NO2S | 0.14 | Methionine | 1.64 | 0.71 | 0.0127 | 0.27 | 2.05 |
| 9.35 | [M+H]+ | 130.0648 | 129.0576 | n.d. | C9H7N | 2.17 | Isoquinoline | 1.70 | 0.77 | 0.0130 | 0.27 | 2.16 |
| 9.35 | [M+Na]+ | 360.1056 | 337.1164 | 306.061, 259.688, 167.054, 131.066, 130.062, 94.035, 57.070 | C16H19NO7 | 1.02 | Indole-3-acetyl-hexoside | 1.69 | 0.76 | 0.0126 | 0.27 | 2.16 |
| 10.82 | [M+HCOOH-H]- | 544.1667 | 499.1684 | 498.154, 341.111, 323.099, 245.070, 203.057, 179.058, 174.057, 161.047, 143.036, 130.067, 119.036, 101.024, 89.026 | C22H29NO12 | 0.60 | Indole-3-acetyl-myo-inositol hexoside | 2.46 | 1.30 | 0.0011 | 0.07 | 2.55 |
| 10.83 | [M+Na]+ | 522.1581 | 499.1689 | 499.125, 360.100, 203.358, 176.069, 130.062 | C22H29NO12 | 0.42 | Indole-3-acetyl-myo-inositol hexoside | 2.80 | 1.48 | 0.0005 | 0.07 | 2.72 |
| 10.83 | [M+H]+ | 338.1231 | 337.1162 | n.d. | C16H19NO7 | 0.09 | Indole-3-acetyl-hexoside | 2.80 | 1.49 | 0.0007 | 0.07 | 2.64 |
| 10.86 | [M+H]+ | 130.065 | 129.0577 | 118.064, 115.017, 105.045, 95.055, 90.947 | C9H7N | 0.94 | Isoquinoline | 2.80 | 1.49 | 0.0010 | 0.07 | 2.60 |
| 10.89 | [M+Na]+ | 360.1056 | 337.1164 | 190.063, 169.027, 167.050, 138.953, 130.064 | C16H19NO7 | 1.17 | Indole-3-acetyl-hexoside | 2.03 | 1.02 | 0.0066 | 0.2 | 2.27 |
| 12.59 | [M-H2O+H]+ | 207.065 | 224.0683 | 149.019, 135.040, 119.048, 105.044, 91.054, 65.040, 53.039 | C11H12O5 | 0.73 | Sinapic acid | 1.95 | 0.97 | 0.0163 | 0.31 | 1.93 |
| 24.01 | [M+H]+ | 337.2732 | 336.2659 | 335.143, 296.288, 195.085, 188.089, 119.058, 109.100, 95.083, 81.069 | C21H36O3 | 1.37 | Glycidyl linoleate | 2.05 | 1.03 | 0.0181 | 0.31 | 1.82 |
| 24.01 | [M-H]- | 476.2763 | 477.2836 | 279.233, 214.049, 196.038, 140.012, 78.690 | C23H44NO7P | 4.30 | LysoPE 18:2 | 1.77 | 0.82 | 0.0389 | 0.39 | 1.54 |
| 24.01 | [M+H]+ | 478.2934 | 477.2863 | 337.268, 306.271, 263.228, 173.015, 109.099, 95.083, 81.069, 62.062 | C23H44NO7P | 4.30 | LysoPE 18:2 | 2.09 | 1.06 | 0.0191 | 0.31 | 1.81 |
| 24.09 | [M+H]+ | 184.0737 | 183.0665 | n.d. | C5H14NO4P | 2.41 | Choline phosphate | 1.65 | 0.72 | 0.0435 | 0.4 | 1.57 |
| 24.09 | [M+H]+ | 520.3404 | 519.3331 | 502.320, 377.268, 258.104, 184.065, 124.996, 104.105, 86.095 | C26H50NO7P | 1.11 | LysoPC 18:2 | 1.67 | 0.74 | 0.0340 | 0.38 | 1.66 |
| 24.09 | [2M+H]+ | 1039.674 | 519.3337 | n.d. | C26H50NO7P | 2.48 | LysoPC 18:2 | 2.89 | 1.53 | 0.0495 | 0.43 | 1.49 |
| 25.01 | [M+H]+ | 337.2736 | 336.2664 | 335.143, 296.288, 195.085, 188.089, 119.058, 109.100, 95.083, 81.069 | C21H36O3 | 0.20 | Glycidyl linoleate | 1.86 | 0.89 | 0.0172 | 0.31 | 1.89 |
| 25.16 | [M+Na]+ | 539.32 | 516.3306 | 486.279, 402.982, 328.154, 264.243, 230, 200, 163, 124, 104, 87, 57 | C27H48O9 | 1.81 | MGMG 18:2 | 1.61 | 0.69 | 0.0437 | 0.4 | 1.57 |
| 25.16 | [M+HCOOH-H]- | 561.3261 | 516.3279 | 506.324, 281.249, 279.233, 253.093, 224.070, 44.998 | C27H48O9 | 3.85 | MGMG 18:2 | 1.64 | 0.71 | 0.0223 | 0.32 | 1.75 |
| 27.57 | [M+H]+ | 441.1595 | 440.1523 | n.d. | 2.78 | 1.48 | 0.0305 | 0.37 | 1.71 | |||
| 27.58 | [M+H]+ | 119.0854 | 118.0782 | n.d. | 2.21 | 1.15 | 0.0409 | 0.4 | 1.62 | |||
| 27.58 | [M+H]+ | 147.081 | 146.0737 | 103.052, 91.052, 62.926 | 2.77 | 1.47 | 0.0348 | 0.38 | 1.67 | |||
| 27.58 | [M+H]+ | 559.284 | 558.2767 | n.d. | 2.75 | 1.46 | 0.0238 | 0.32 | 1.77 | |||
| 27.64 | [M-H]- | 433.2342 | 434.2415 | 431.193, 279.236, 152.996, 96.970, 78.959 | C21H39O7P | 4.35 | LysoPA 18:2 | 16.70 | 4.06 | 0.0067 | 0.2 | 2.07 |
| 28.69 | [M-H]- | 379.157 | 380.1643 | 367.157, 349.148, 279.230, 116.925, 99.926, 84.950, 44.998 | Octadecadienoic acid derivative | 0.57 | -0.81 | 0.0013 | 0.07 | 2.54 | ||
| 28.70 | [M+Na]+ | 804.5536 | 781.5643 | 745.458, 621.469, 599.489, 146.978, 89.094 | C44H80NO8P | 2.84 | PC 36:4; PC (18:2/18:2) | 2.21 | 1.14 | 0.0358 | 0.38 | 1.67 |
| 28.81 | [M+HCOOH-H]- | 826.5574 | 781.5592 | 766.538, 504.307, 486.302, 430.272, 279.232, 224.068, 168.044, 44.996 | C44H80NO8P | 3.19 | PC 36:4; PC (18:2/18:2) | 3.35 | 1.75 | 0.0003 | 0.07 | 2.72 |
| 29.33 | [M+HCOOH-H]- | 802.5574 | 757.5592 | 742.540, 504.307, 486.296, 480.309, 462.299, 279.233, 255.233, 224.069, 168.042, 44.997 | C42H80NO8P | 3.83 | PC 34:2; PC (16:0/18:2) | 2.44 | 1.28 | 0.0007 | 0.07 | 2.75 |
| 29.64 | [M-H]- | 279.1621 | 280.1694 | 200.465, 155.081, 133.141, 96.960, 79.956 | . | 0.34 | -1.55 | 0.0016 | 0.07 | 2.47 |
LC-MS/MS data, tentative annotation, fold changes, p values and VIP scores for differentially accumulated metabolites between resistant and susceptible maize RILs at 10 days after inoculation with Fusarium verticillioides.
RT, Retention time (minutes); Log2FC, Log2 Fold change between resistant and susceptible RILs; p, p-value for the t-test; FDR, p-adjusted value; VIP, VIP 1 score in the OPLS-DA model. n.d. stands for non detected.
When possible, the differentially accumulated metabolite features in kernels were putatively annotated based on public databases and literature references, and about 75% of them could be related to known compounds (Tables 1, 2). A total of 30% were lipid or lipid-related compounds, 21% were related to methionine and glutathione, 20% were indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) derivative compounds, and only 3% were phenolic compounds. Compounds displayed a deprotonated ion at m/z 337 were annotated as IIA-hexose based on the exact mass and the characteristic fragmentation ions at m/z 176 (IAA) and at m/z 130 (isoquinoline). The fragment at m/z 176 (IAA) was generated by a neutral loss of 162 Da of one hexose that probably correspond to myo-inositol, since the forms of indole-3-acetyl-myo-inositol are the most abundant IAA conjugates in maize kernels (; ). Thus, ions [M+Na]+ at m/z 522 and [M+HCOOH-H]- at m/z 544 were assigned as sodium and formic acid adducts of IAA-myo-inositol-hexose (499.1693 Da). Compounds eluted at 1.5 min with [M+H]+ ions at m/z 133, 104 and 102 were assigned as dissociation products of methionine (m/z 150) eluted at the same retention time (). Compound with an [M-H]- ion at m/z 164 in 3 dat samples was annotated as the benzoxazinoid 6-methoxy-2-benzoxazolinone (MBOA) based on its fragmentation pattern at m/z 164, 149, 121 according to . Metabolite displayed a [M-H]- ion at m/z 379 at 28.6 min in 10 dat samples was left as unidentified. However, the fragment ion at m/z 279.23 and the detection of a octadecadienoic acid form ([M-H]- at m/z 279.23) at the same retention time, suggested that it could be a fatty acid related compound.
The Functional Analysis results showed several pathways such as the cysteine and methionine metabolism; aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis; arginine biosynthesis; alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism; and porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism that were significantly (combined p-values < 0.01) enriched among metabolites differentially accumulated in 3 dat kernel samples of resistant and susceptible RILs (Figure 3). Meanwhile, the pathway enrichment analysis for metabolites in kernel samples collected at 10 dat showed that the pathways glutathione metabolism; arginine and proline metabolism; and cysteine and methionine metabolism were significantly enriched (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Visualization of genes and metabolites differentially regulated in resistant compared to susceptible RILs within three different pathways, phenylpropanoid biosynthesis and glutathione and glycerophospholipid metabolisms can be made through Supplemental Figures 2–4, respectively.
Discussion
Higher metabolic differences at later stage of Fusarium infection
The metabolic profiles in maize kernels from RILs with contrasting resistance-susceptibility levels to F. verticillioides infection and fumonisin accumulation were explored at 3 and 10 days after infection with the fungus. Results of the supervised OPLS-DA show that differences between resistant and susceptible RILs were better explained by metabolite abundances at 10 dat than at 3 dat. In addition, high-significant differentially accumulated metabolites were only found at 10 dat. This suggests a larger response occurs at later stages of F. verticillioides infection of maize kernels. These results agree with those obtained by
Importance of the membrane lipid homeostasis in resistance
Three probable lysophospholipids were differentially accumulated in resistant vs susceptible RILs at 10 dat, but those changes co-occurred with a more significant difference for phosphatidylcholines content between resistant and susceptible RILs. Similarly, an untargeted approach to look for metabolites involved in kernel resistance to fumonisin contamination showed that kernel lipid signature at harvest was strongly involved in the plant−pathogen interaction and in the modulation of fumonisin accumulation; the phosphatidylcholine PC(O-16:0/18:2) being significantly more accumulated in the resistant than in the susceptible hybrid at harvest (
The multifunctional role of methionine metabolism in resistance
The amino acid methionine is the immediate precursor of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), the major methyl-group donor in transmethylation reactions and intermediate in the biosynthesis of compounds related to plant defense against pathogens such as glutathione, polyamines and the phytohormone ethylene (
Modulation of IAA conjugates in relation to resistance
IAA-myo-inositol and its glycosidic forms with galactose and arabinose are the major IAA ester conjugates in maize seed endosperm; IAA ester conjugates comprising the 97-99% of endogenous IAA (
Other metabolites likely related to resistance
Therefore, subtle changes observed at 3 dat for isoquinoline and metabolites involved in methionine metabolism, lipid remodeling, IAA signaling are kept at 10 dat and, in some cases, amplified as it is the case for phosphatidylcholines, isoquinoline and IAA-conjugates. However, there were other metabolites that were high-differentially accumulated in kernel collected at 10 dat but they did not appear as differentially accumulated at 3 dat: the polyamine spermidine, already discussed, and an octadecadienoic acid derivative were over and under-accumulated, respectively, in resistant compared to susceptible RILs. Octadecadienoic acid derivatives such as the Lox3 derived oxylipins haves been already associated to increased fumonisin content (
Finally, ferulic acid and the benzoxacinoid MBOA appeared as discriminant between resistant and susceptible RILs at 3 dat, and no longer, but they deserve special attention because these metabolites have been described as involved in resistance to fungal diseases but in the current study were more accumulated in the susceptible RILs. Benzoxazinoids are abundant indole-derived specialized metabolites in several monocot crop species that function as iron chelators, allelochemicals and in plant defense against herbivorous arthropods and fungal pathogens (
Metabolomic differences between resistant and susceptible RILs would confirm some results from the previous transcriptomic study (
Conclusions
Discriminant metabolites between resistant and susceptible RILs were rather found at 10 than 3 dat, although differences for key metabolites were kept across kernel sampling times suggesting that longer exposition to fungal colonization is necessary to uncover biomarkers but those changes could be driven by subtle changes at earlier stages of infection. Within this context, differences for membrane lipid homeostasis, methionine metabolism and IAA-conjugation seemed highly relevant in order to distinguish between resistant and susceptible inbreds. In addition, some metabolites such as spermidine and isoquinoline seemed to be promising indirect traits to improve resistance to FER and reduce fumonisin accumulation. However, their role in resistance should be validated using in vitro and in vivo experiments to determine the real effects of these compounds on F. verticilllioides growth and fumonisins biosynthesis.
Statements
Data availability statement
Raw metabolic data are deposited in the online repository DIGITAL.CSIC and can be accessed using this link: https://doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/15427.
Author contributions
AB conceived the study. AC took care of field experiments, data recording, and sample collection with the assistance of AB, RS, and RM. AC led extraction and acquisition and filtering of UHPLC-QTOF data with the assistance of NG. AC performed the identification of tentative compounds. AB performed statistical analyses of data. AB and NG drafted the initial manuscript and RS and NG edited the figures. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This research was funded by subsequent coordinated projects financed by MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE (RTI2018-096776-B-C21, RTI2018-096776-B-C22, PID2021-122196OB-C21 and PID2021-122196OB-C22). We also used funds of the CSIC project 2021AEP132.
Acknowledgments
NG acknowledges an FPI contract (“Contrato predoctoral para la formación de doctores”) funded by project RTI2018-096776-B-C21 (financed by MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE). AC acknowledges a PTA contract PTA2018-015873-I financed by MCIU/AEI/FSE+.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1160092/full#supplementary-material
Supplementary Figure 1Validation of supervised least square and orthogonal projections to latent structures discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) for data acquired at 3 and 10 days after inoculation (dat) with Fusarium verticillioides in resistant and susceptible RILs. (A) Cross-validation for R2X, R2Y, and Q2 coefficients for the OPLS-DA model with one predictive (p1) and three orthogonal (o1, o2, and o3) components for samples collected at 3 dat, (B) Visualization of permutation test to validate the results of OPLS-DA analysis for samples collected at 3 dat, (C) Cross-validation for R2X, R2Y, and Q2 coefficients of the OPLS-DA model with one predictive (p1) and three orthogonal (o1, o2, and o3) components for samples collected at 10 dat, and (D) Visualization of permutation test to validate the results of OPLS-DA analysis for samples collected at 10 dat.
Supplementary Figure 2Integrative visualization by Pathview platform of genes (Cao et al, 2022) and metabolites of the phenylpropanoid biosynthesis pathway differentially expressed and accumulated, respectively, in immature maize kernels of resistant and susceptible RILs to FER and fumonisin contamination collected 10 days after inoculation with F. verticillioides.
Supplementary Figure 3Integrative visualization by Pathview platform of genes (Cao et al, 2022) and metabolites of the glutathione metabolism pathway differentially expressed and accumulated, respectively, in immature maize kernels of resistant and susceptible RILs to FER and fumonisin contamination collected 10 days after inoculation with Fusarium verticillioides.
Supplementary Figure 4Integrative visualization by Pathview platform of genes (Cao et al, 2022) and metabolites of the glycerophospholipid metabolism pathway differentially expressed and accumulated, respectively, in immature maize kernels of resistant and susceptible RILs to FER and fumonisin contamination collected 10 days after inoculation with Fusarium verticillioides.
References
1
Atanasova-PenichonV.BernillonS.MarchegayG.LornacA.Pinson-GadaisL.PontsN.et al. (2014). Bioguided isolation, characterization, and biotransformation by Fusarium verticillioides of maize kernel compounds that inhibit fumonisin production. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.27 (10), 1148–1158. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-04-14-0100-R
2
BandurskiR. S. (1979). Chemistry and physiology of conjugates of indole-3-Acetic acid. Plant Growth SubstancesMandavaN.B. (Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society) 1979, 1–17. doi: 10.1021/bk-1979-0111.ch001
3
BatesP. D. (2022). “Chapter six - the plant lipid metabolic network for assembly of diverse triacylglycerol molecular species,” in Advances in botanical research. Eds. RébeilléF.MaréchalE.101, 225–252. doi: 10.1016/bs.abr.2021.07.003
4
BattilaniP.LanubileA.ScalaV.ReverberiM.GregoriR.FalavignaC.et al. (2018). Oxylipins from both pathogen and host antagonize jasmonic acid-mediated defence via the 9-lipoxygenase pathway in Fusarium verticillioides infection of maize. Mol. Plant Pathol.19 (9), 2162–2176. doi: 10.1111/mpp.12690
5
BrauerE. K.RocheleauH.BalcerzakM.PanY. L.FauteuxF.LiuZ. Y.et al. (2019). Transcriptional and hormonal profiling of Fusarium graminearum-infected wheat reveals an association between auxin and susceptibility. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.107, 33–39. doi: 10.1016/j.pmpp.2019.04.006
6
BruijnW. J. C.GruppenH.VinckenJ. P.. (2016). Structure and biosynthesis of benzoxazinoids: Plant defence metabolites with potential as antimicrobial scaffolds. Phytochemistry155, 233. doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2018.07.005
7
BylesjoM.RantalainenM.CloarecO.NicholsonJ. K.HolmesE.TryggJ. (2006). OPLS discriminant analysis: combining the strengths of PLS-DA and SIMCA classification. J. Chemometrics20 (8-10), 341–351. doi: 10.1002/cem.1006
8
Campos-BermudezV. A.FauguelC. M.TronconiM. A.CasatiP.PreselloD. A.AndreoC. S. (2013). Transcriptional and metabolic changes associated to the infection by Fusarium verticillioides in maize inbreds with contrasting ear rot resistance. PloS One8 (4), 10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061580
9
CaoA.ButrónA.RamosA. J.MarínS.SoutoC.SantiagoR. (2014). Assessing white maize resistance to fumonisin contamination. Eur. J. Plant Pathol.138, 283–292. doi: 10.1007/s10658-013-0328-y
10
CaoA. A.de la FuenteM.GesteiroN.SantiagoR.MalvarR. A.ButronA. (2022). Genomics and pathways involved in maize resistance to fusarium ear rot and kernel contamination with fumonisins. Front. Plant Sci.13, 866478. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.866478
11
ChenL.LiuY. P.WuG. W.ZhangN.ShenQ. R.ZhangR. F. (2017). Beneficial rhizobacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9 induces plant salt tolerance through spermidine production. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.30 (5), 423–432. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-02-17-0027-R
12
ChongJ.WishartD. S.XiaJ. (2019). Using MetaboAnalyst 4.0 for comprehensive and integrative metabolomics data analysis. Curr. Protoc. Bioinf.68 (1), e86. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky310
13
CiascaB.LanubileA.MaroccoA.PascaleM.LogriecoA. F.LattanzioV. M. T. (2020). Application of an integrated and open source workflow for LC-HRMS plant metabolomics studies. case-control study: metabolic changes of maize in response to Fusarium verticillioides infection. Front. Plant Sci.11, 15. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00664
14
CuiL. Q.DeckerE. A. (2016). Phospholipids in foods: prooxidants or antioxidants? J. Sci. Food Agric.96 (1), 18–31. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7320
15
Dall’AstaC.FalavignaC.GalavernaG.BattilaniP. (2012). Role of maize hybrids and their chemical composition in Fusarium infection and fumonisin production. J. Agric. Food Chem.60 (14), 3800–3808. doi: 10.1021/jf300250z
16
DubotsE.BotteC.BoudiereL.Yamaryo-BotteY.JouhetJ.MarechalE.et al. (2012). Role of phosphatidic acid in plant galactolipid synthesis. Biochimie94 (1), 86–93. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2011.03.012
17
DuhrkopK.FleischauerM.LudwigM.AksenovA. A.MelnikA. V.MeuselM.et al. (2019). SIRIUS 4: a rapid tool for turning tandem mass spectra into metabolite structure information. Nat. Methods16 (4), 299. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0344-8
18
DuhrkopK.ShenH. B.MeuselM.RousuJ.BockerS. (2015). Searching molecular structure databases with tandem mass spectra using CSI : FingerID. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.112 (41), 12580–12585. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1509788112
19
EllerM. S.HollandJ. B.PayneG. A. (2008). Breeding for improved resistance to fumonisin contamination in maize. Toxin Rev.27 (3-4), 371–389. doi: 10.1080/15569540802450326
20
GartnerT.SteinfathM.AndorfS.LisecJ.MeyerR. C.AltmannT.et al. (2009). Improved heterosis prediction by combining information on DNA- and metabolic markers. PloS One4 (4), e5220. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005220
21
GauthierL.Atanasova-PenichonV.ChereauS.Richard-ForgetF. (2015). Metabolomics to decipher the chemical defense of cereals against Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol accumulation. Int. J. Mol. Sci.16 (10), 24839–24872. doi: 10.3390/ijms161024839
22
GiovanelliJ.MuddS. H.DatkoA. H. (1985). Quantitative-analysis of pathways of methionine metabolism and their regulation in Lemna. Plant Physiol.78 (3), 555–560. doi: 10.1104/pp.78.3.555
23
GlennA. E.HintonD. M.YatesI. E.BaconC. W. (2001). Detoxification of corn antimicrobial compounds as the basis for isolating Fusarium verticillioides and some other Fusarium species from corn. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.67 (7), 2973–2981. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.7.2973-2981.2001
24
HashimotoY.ShudoK. (1996). Chemistry of biologically active benzoxazinoids. Phytochemistry43 (3), 551–559. doi: 10.1016/0031-9422(96)00330-5
25
JabeenR.YamadaK.HasegawaT.MinamiE.ShigemoriH.HasegawaK. (2007). Direct involvement of benzoxazinoids in the growth suppression induced by phototropic stimulation in maize coleoptiles. Heterocycles71 (3), 523–529. doi: 10.3987/COM-06-10940
26
KotiahoT.EberlinM. N.VainiotaloP.KostiainenR. (2000). Electrospray mass and tandem mass spectrometry identification of ozone oxidation products of amino acids and small peptides. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrometry11 (6), 526–535. doi: 10.1016/S1044-0305(00)00116-1
27
KovácsB.KovácsA.PálM.SpitkóT.MartonC. L.SzőkeC. (2023). Changes in polyamine contents during Fusarium graminearum and Fusarium verticillioides inoculation in maize seedlings with or without seed-priming. Biol. Futura. doi: 10.1007/s42977-023-00162-7
28
LanubileA.BernardiJ.BattilaniP.LogriecoA.MaroccoA. (2012). Resistant and susceptible maize genotypes activate different transcriptional responses against Fusarium verticillioides. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.77, 52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.pmpp.2011.12.002
29
LanubileA.FerrariniA.MaschiettoV.DelledonneM.MaroccoA.BellinD. (2014). Functional genomic analysis of constitutive and inducible defense responses to Fusarium verticillioides infection in maize genotypes with contrasting ear rot resistance. BMC Genomics15, 710. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-710
30
LanubileA.MaschiettoV.BorrelliV. M.StagnatiL.LogriecoA. F.MaroccoA. (2017). Molecular basis of resistance to fusarium ear rot in maize. Front. Plant Sci.8, 1774. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01774
31
LanubileA.PasiniL.MaroccoA. (2010). Differential gene expression in kernels and silks of maize lines with contrasting levels of ear rot resistance after Fusarium verticillioides infection. J. Plant Physiol.167, 1398–1406. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2010.05.015
32
LiS. Z.ParkY.DuraisinghamS.StrobelF. H.KhanN.SoltowQ. A.et al. (2013). Predicting network activity from high throughput metabolomics. PloS Comput. Biol.9 (7), e1003123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003123
33
LiQ. Y.XuK. G.WangS. Y.LiM. Y.JiangY. M.LiangX. L.et al. (2020). Enzymatic browning in wheat kernels produces symptom of black point caused by Bipolaris sorokiniana. Front. Microbiol.11, 526266. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.526266
34
LiuJ. H.WangT. W.LinY. Y.HoW. C.TsaiH. C.ChenS. P.et al. (2020). Acrolein is involved in ischemic stroke-induced neurotoxicity through spermidine/spermine-N1-acetyltransferase activation. Exp. Neurol.323, 113066. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2019.113066
35
LuJ. H.XuY.WangJ. L.SingerS. D.ChenG. Q. (2020). The role of triacylglycerol in plant stress response. Plants-Basel9 (4), 472. doi: 10.3390/plants9040472
36
LuoW. J.BrouwerC. (2013). Pathview: an R/Bioconductor package for pathway-based data integration and visualization. Bioinformatics29 (14), 1830–1831. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt285
37
LuoW. J.PantG.BhavnasiY. K.BlanchardS. G.BrouwerC. (2017). Pathview web: user friendly pathway visualization and data integration. Nucleic Acids Res.45 (W1), W501–W508. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx372
38
MajumdarR.MinochaR.LebarM. D.RajasekaranK.LongS.Carter-WientjesC.et al. (2019). Contribution of maize polyamine and amino acid metabolism toward resistance against Aspergillus flavus infection and aflatoxin production. Front. Plant Sci.10, 692. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00692
39
MakinenK.DeS. (2019). The significance of methionine cycle enzymes in plant virus infections. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.50, 67–75. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2019.03.002
40
MaschiettoV.LanubileA.De LeonardisS.MaroccoA.PaciollaC. (2016). Constitutive expression of pathogenesis-related proteins and antioxydant enzyme activities triggers maize resistance towards Fusarium verticillioides. J. Plant Physiol.200, 53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2016.06.006
41
MaschiettoV.MaroccoA.MalachovaA.LanubileA. (2015). Resistance to Fusarium verticillioides and fumonisin accumulation in maize inbred lines involves an earlier and enhanced expression of lipoxygenase (LOX) genes. J. Plant Physiol.188, 9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2015.09.003
42
MerelD.SavoieJ. M.MataG.SalmonesD.OrtegaC.AtanasovaV.et al. (2020). Methanolic extracts from cultivated mushrooms affect the production of fumonisins b and fusaric acid by Fusarium verticillioides. Toxins12 (6), 366. doi: 10.3390/toxins12060366
43
MichelmoreR. W.ParanI.KesseliR. V. (1991). Identification of markers linked to disease-resistance genes by bulked segregant analysis - a rapid method to detect markers in specific genomic regions by using segregating populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United States America88 (21), 9828–9832. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.21.9828
44
MyersA. M.JamesM. G.LinQ. H.YiG.StinardP. S.Hennen-BierwagenT. A.et al. (2011). Maize opaque5 encodes monogalactosyldiacylglycerol synthase and specifically affects galactolipids necessary for amyloplast and chloroplast function. Plant Cell23 (6), 2331–2347. doi: 10.1105/tpc.111.087205
45
NiemeyerH. M. (2009). Hydroxamic acids derived from 2-hydroxy-2h-1,4-benzoxazin-3(4h)-one: key defense chemicals of cereals. J. Agric. Food Chem.57 (5), 1677–1696. doi: 10.1021/jf8034034
46
NikiforovaV.KempaS.ZehM.MaimannS.KreftO.CasazzaA. P.et al. (2002). Engineering of cysteine and methionine biosynthesis in potato. Amino Acids22 (3), 259–278. doi: 10.1007/s007260200013
47
OstrowskiM.CiarkowskaA.DalkaA.WilmowiczE.JakubowskaA. (2020). Biosynthesis pathway of indole-3-acetyl-myo-inositol during development of maize (Zea mays l.) seeds. J. Plant Physiol.245, 153082. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2019.153082
48
PangZ. Q.ChongJ.ZhouG. Y.MoraisD. A. D.ChangL.BarretteM.et al. (2021). MetaboAnalyst 5.0: narrowing the gap between raw spectra and functional insights. Nucleic Acids Res.49 (W1), W388–W396. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab382
49
PerincherryL.WitaszakN.UrbaniakM.WaskiewiczA.StepienL. (2021). Effects of secondary metabolites from pea on Fusarium growth and mycotoxin biosynthesis. J. Fungi7 (12), 1004. doi: 10.3390/jof7121004
50
PicotA.BarreauC.Pinson-GadaisL.PirauxF.CaronD.LannouC.et al. (2011). The dent stage of maize kernels is the most conducive for fumonisin biosynthesis under field conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.77 (23), 8382–8390. doi: 10.1128/AEM.05216-11
51
PoschenriederC.TolraR. P.BarceloJ. (2005). A role for cyclic hydroxamates in aluminium resistance in maize? J. Inorganic Biochem.99 (9), 1830–1836. doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2005.05.017
52
RavanelS.GakiereB.JobD.DouceR. (1998). The specific features of methionine biosynthesis and metabolism in plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United States America95 (13), 7805–7812. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.13.7805
53
RibbenstedtA.ZiarrustaH.BenskinJ. P. (2018). Development, characterization and comparisons of targeted and non-targeted metabolomics methods. PloS One13 (11), e0207082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207082
54
RighettiL.Dall’AstaC.LuciniL.BattilaniP. (2021). Lipid signaling modulates the response to fumonisin contamination and its source, Fusarium verticillioides, in maize. Front. Plant Sci.12, 701680. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.701680
55
RighettiL.LuciniL.GiorniP.LocatelliS.Dall’AstaC.BattilaniP. (2019). Lipids as key markers in maize response to fumonisin accumulation. J. Agric. Food Chem.67 (14), 4064–4070. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b06316
56
SahaJ.BrauerE. K.SenguptaA.PopescuzS. C.GuptaK.GuptaB. (2015). Polyamines as redox homeostasis regulators during salt stress in plants. Front. Environ. Sci.3, 21. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2015.00021
57
SamayoaL. F.ButronA.MalvarR. A. (2014). QTL mapping for maize resistance and yield under infestation with sesamia nonagrioides. Mol. Breed.34 (3), 1331–1344. doi: 10.1007/s11032-014-0119-y
58
SantiagoR.CaoA.ButronA. (2015). Genetic factors involved in fumonisin accumulation in maize kernels and their implications in maize agronomic management and breeding. Toxins7 (8), 3267–3296. doi: 10.3390/toxins7083267
59
SantiagoR.CaoA.MalvarR. A.ButronA. (2020). Genomics of maize resistance to fusarium ear rot and fumonisin contamination. Toxins12 (7), 431. doi: 10.3390/toxins12070431
60
SantiagoR.CaoA.MalvarR. A.ReidL. M.ButronA. (2013). Assessment of corn resistance to fumonisin accumulation in a broad collection of inbred lines. Field Crops Res.149, 193–202. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.04.011
61
Schrimpe-RutledgeA. C.CodreanuS. G.SherrodS. D.McLeanJ. A. (2016). Untargeted metabolomics strategies-challenges and emerging directions. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrometry27 (12), 1897–1905. doi: 10.1007/s13361-016-1469-y
62
ShimojimaM.OhtaH. (2022). “Chapter two - plant and algal galactolipids: their function, biosynthesis and evolution,” in Advances in botanical research. Eds. Rébeillé,. F.MaréchalE.101, 59–89. doi: 10.1016/bs.abr.2021.09.007
63
SubramanianA.TamayoP.MoothaV. K.MukherjeeS.EbertB. L.GilletteM. A.et al. (2005). Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.102 (43), 15545–15550. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506580102
64
SunM. X.LiuX. L.GaoH. F.ZhangB. B.PengF. T.XiaoY. S. (2022). Phosphatidylcholine enhances homeostasis in peach seedling cell membrane and increases its salt stress tolerance by phosphatidic acid. Int. J. Mol. Sci.23 (5), 2585. doi: 10.3390/ijms23052585
65
TimsM. C.BatistaC. (2007). Effects of root isoquinoline alkaloids from Hydrastis canadensis on Fusarium oxysporum isolated from Hydrastis root tissue. J. Chem. Ecol.33, 1449–1455. doi: 10.1007/s10886-007-9319-9
66
TsugawaH.IkedaK.TakahashiM.SatohA.MoriY.UchinoH.et al. (2020). A lipidome atlas in MS-DIAL 4. Nat. Biotechnol.38 (10), 1159. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0531-2
67
VrabkaJ.NiehausE. M.MunsterkotterM.ProctorR. H.BrownD. W.NovakO.et al. (2019). Production and role of hormones during interaction of Fusarium species with maize (Zea mays l.) seedlings. Front. Plant Sci.9, 1936. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01936
68
WangL. P.ShenW. Y.KazachkovM.ChenG. Q.ChenQ. L.CarlssonA. S.et al. (2012). Metabolic interactions between the lands cycle and the kennedy pathway of glycerolipid synthesis in arabidopsis developing seeds. Plant Cell24 (11), 4652–4669. doi: 10.1105/tpc.112.104604
69
WangY. P.ZhouZ. J.GaoJ. Y.WuY. B.XiaZ. L.ZhangH. Y.et al. (2016). The mechanisms of maize resistance to Fusarium verticillioides by comprehensive analysis of RNA-seq data. Front. Plant Sci.7, 1654. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01654
70
YuanG. S.ZhangZ. M.XiangK.ShenY. O.DuJ.LinH. J.et al. (2013). Different gene expressions of resistant and susceptible maize inbreds in response to Fusarium verticillioides infection. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep.31, 925–935. doi: 10.1007/s11105-013-0567-2
Summary
Keywords
Zea mays L., maize, Fusarium verticillioides, fumonisins, untarget metabolomics, resistance, fusarium ear rot
Citation
Cao A, Gesteiro N, Santiago R, Malvar RA and Butrón A (2023) Maize kernel metabolome involved in resistance to fusarium ear rot and fumonisin contamination. Front. Plant Sci. 14:1160092. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1160092
Received
06 February 2023
Accepted
27 June 2023
Published
19 July 2023
Volume
14 - 2023
Edited by
Olubukola Oluranti Babalola, North-West University, South Africa
Reviewed by
Magda Pál, Centre for Agricultural Research, Hungary; Jianyu Wu, Henan Agricultural University, China
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2023 Cao, Gesteiro, Santiago, Malvar and Butrón.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ana Butrón, abutron@mbg.csic.es
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.