Investigations of 2-alkyl-3-methoxypyrazines in three ladybug species and wine /

Investigations of 2-alkyl-3-methoxypyrazines (2-isopropyl-3-methoxypyra2ine, 2- secbutyl-3-methoxypyrazine and 2-isobutyl-3-niethoxypyrazine) in ladybug species {Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and wine samples have been conducted. Headspace sampling coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was used to determine amounts of 2-alkyl-3-methoxypyra2ines in the ladybug species. Hippodamia convergens had the highest amount of alkybnethoxypyrazines, followed by Harmoma axyridis and the least in Coccinella septempunctata. Using a solvent extraction method, the precoccinelline alkaloid was found present in Hippodamia convergens and Coccinella septempunctata but not Harmonia axyridis. Steam distillation followed by a soHd phase extraction method as a sample preparation technique, enhanced detection while the isotope dilution method afforded accurate quantitation of the alkyknethoxypyrazines in the wine samples. Both ladybug-tainted and commercial wine samples were found to contain the 2- alkyl-3-methoxypyrazines. Wine samples prepared in 2001 generally contained higher levels than the corresponding 2003 samples. Levels of the 2-alkyl-3-methoxypyrazines found in the commercial wines ranged from a minimum value of 6 ng/L to 260 ±10 ng/L. Analyses revealed that for both ladybug species and wine samples, the 2- isopropyl-3-methoxypyrazine had the highest concentration, followed by 2-isobutyl- 3-methoxypyrazine and the least being the 2-secbutyl-3-methoxypyrazine. Possible contamination of the wine samples by ladybugs is thoroughly discussed. Furthermore, attempts to remove or reduce the levels of the alkylmethoxypyrazines with molecularly imprinted polymers from wine samples are presented in detail.

Probing cell surfaces of host and nonhost species of a mycoparasite, using FITC-labeled lectins

Cell surfaces of susceptible host species (Mortierella pusllla and Cboanepilora cucurbitarum ), resistant host (Pilascolomyces articulosus ), nonhost (Mortierella candelabrum ) and the mycoparasite (Piptocepilalis virginiana) were examined for sugar distribution patterns using light and fluorescent microscopy techniques. The susceptible host, resistant host and the mycoparasite species exhibited a similar sugar distribution profile; they all showed N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose on their cell wall surfaces. The nonhost cell wall surface showed a positive binding reaction to FITClectins specific for N-acetyl glucosamine and also for OI.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose. Treatment of these fungi with mild concentrations of proteinases (both commercial as well as the mycoparasiteproteinase) resulted in the revelation of additional sugars on the fungal cell walls. The susceptible host treated with proteinase expressed higher levels of N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose. The susceptible host also showed the presence of OI.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose. The proteinasetreated susceptible host cell walls also showed an increase in the levels of attachment with the mycoparasite. Treatment of the resistant host with proteinases revealed OI.-fucose in addition to N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose. Treatment of the nonhost cell wall with proteinase resulted in the exposure of low levels of D-glucose, in addition to sugars found on the untreated nonhost cell wall surface. The mycoparasite treated with proteinase revealed OI.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose on its cell surface in addition to the sugars N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose. Protoplasts were isolated from hosts and nonhost fungi and their surfaces were examined for sugar distribution patterns. The susceptible host and nonhost protoplast membranes showed all the sugars (N-acetyl glucosamine, D-glucose, (It.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose) tested for. The resistant host protoplast membrane however, had only N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose exposed. This sugar distribution profile resembles that exhibited by the untreated resistant host cell wall, as well as that shown by the untreated mycoparasite cell surface. Only susceptible host protoplasts were successful in attaching to the mycoparasite surface. Resistant host protoplasts did not show any interaction with the i mycoparasite cell surface. Both susceptible as well as resistant host protoplasts were incapable of attaching to agarose beads surface-coated with specific carbohydrates. The mycoparasite however, did attach to agarose beads surface-coated with either N-acetyl glucosamine, D-glucose/Dmannose or o:,- methyl-D-mannose. The relevance of the cell wall and the protoplast membrane in the light of the present results, in reacting appropriately to bring about either a susceptible, a resistant or a nonhost response has been discussed.