| Literature DB >> 23420270 |
Masroor Qadri1, Sarojini Johri, Bhahwal A Shah, Anamika Khajuria, Tabasum Sidiq, Surrinder K Lattoo, Malik Z Abdin, Syed Riyaz-Ul-Hassan.
Abstract
This study was conducted to characterize and explore the endophytic fungi of selected plants from the Western Himalayas for their bioactive potential. A total of 72 strains of endophytic fungi were isolated and characterized morphologically as well as on the basis of ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 ribosomal gene sequence acquisition and analyses. The fungi represented 27 genera of which two belonged to Basidiomycota, each representing a single isolate, while the rest of the isolates comprised of Ascomycetous fungi. Among the isolated strains, ten isolates could not be assigned to a genus as they displayed a maximum sequence similarity of 95% or less with taxonomically characterized organisms. Among the host plants, the conifers, Cedrus deodara, Pinus roxburgii and Abies pindrow harbored the most diverse fungi, belonging to 13 different genera, which represented almost half of the total genera isolated. Several extracts prepared from the fermented broth of these fungi demonstrated strong bioactivity against E. coli and S. aureus with the lowest IC(50) of 18 μg/ml obtained with the extract of Trichophaea abundans inhabiting Pinus sp. In comparison, extracts from only three endophytes were significantly inhibitory to Candida albicans, an important fungal pathogen. Further, 24 endophytes inhibited three or more phytopathogens by at least 50% in co-culture, among a panel of seven test organisms. Extracts from 17 fungi possessed immuno-modulatory activities with five of them showing significant immune suppression as demonstrated by the in vitro lymphocyte proliferation assay. This study is an important step towards tapping the endophytic fungal diversity from the Western Himalayas and assessing their bioactive potential. Further studies on the selected endophytes may lead to the isolation of novel natural products for use in medicine, industry and agriculture.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial activity; Conifers; Endophytes; Fungal diversity; ITS; Immuno-modulation; Western Himalayas
Year: 2013 PMID: 23420270 PMCID: PMC3568471 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
The list of endophytes isolated in this study, their host plants and the summary of BLAST results, showing the coverage of the sequences and sequence similarities with the most closely related organisms (Altschul et al. 1997)
| No. | Plant host; Voucher no. | Endophytes isolated (GenBank Acc. no. of the ITS sequence) | Query coverage | % sequence similarity | Organism with the highest sequence identity, GenBank Acc. no. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | PR1 ( JQ769230 ) | 100 | 95 | ||
| PR2 ( JQ769231) | 99 | 99 | |||
| PR3 ( JQ769232 ) | 98 | 93 | |||
| PR4 ( JQ769233 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| 2. | CN1 ( JQ769234 ) | 100 | 98 | ||
| CN2 ( JQ769235 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| CN3 ( JQ769236 ) | 99 | 97 | |||
| CN4 ( JQ769237 ) | 100 | 96 | |||
| 3. | WEF1 ( JQ769238 ) | 100 | 99 | ||
| WEF2 ( JQ769239 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| WEF3 ( JQ769240 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| WEF4 ( JQ769241 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| WEF5 ( JQ769242 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| WEF7 ( JQ769243 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| WEF8 ( JQ769244 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| WEF9 ( JQ769245 ) | 100 | 94 | |||
| WEF10 ( JQ769246 ) | 100 | 95 | |||
| 4. | RSL1 ( JQ769247) | 100 | 97 | ||
| RSL2 ( JQ769248 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| RSL3 ( JQ769249 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| RSL4 ( JQ769250 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| RSL5 ( JQ769251 ) | 100 | 97 | |||
| RSS2 ( JQ769252 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| RSS3 ( JQ769253 ) | 100 | 97 | |||
| RSS4 ( JQ769254 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| RSS5 ( JQ769255 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| RSS6 ( JQ769256 ) | 100 | 97 | |||
| RSS7 ( JQ769257 ) | 100 | 97 | |||
| RSS9 ( JQ769258 ) | 100 | 97 | |||
| RSR1 ( JQ769259 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| 5. | DEF1 ( JQ769260 ) | 100 | 98 | ||
| DEF2 ( JQ769261 ) | 100 | 100 | |||
| DEF3 ( JQ769262 ) | 100 | 93 | |||
| DEF4 ( JQ769263 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| DEF5 ( JQ769264 ) | 99 | 98 | |||
| 6. | FEF2 ( JQ769265 ) | 99 | 99 | ||
| FEF3 ( JQ769266 ) | 99 | 96 | |||
| FEF4 ( JQ769267 ) | 99 | 98 | |||
| FEF5 ( JQ769268 ) | 98 | 95 | |||
| 7. | K1 ( JQ769269 ) | 99 | 99 | ||
| K2 ( JQ769270 ) | 100 | 97 | |||
| K4 ( JQ769271 ) | 100 | 94 | |||
| K6 ( JQ769272 ) | 100 | 95 | |||
| K7 ( JQ769273 ) | 99 | 99 | |||
| 8. | NF1 ( JQ769274 ) | 100 | 98 | ||
| NF2 ( JQ769275 ) | 100 | 93 | |||
| 9. | CH2 ( JQ769276 ) | 100 | 99 | ||
| CH3 ( JQ769277 ) | 100 | 100 | |||
| CH5 ( JQ769278 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| CH6 ( JQ769279 ) | 100 | 100 | |||
| 10. | Art ( JQ769280 ) | 100 | 100 | ||
| Art1 ( JQ769281 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art2 ( JQ769282 ) | 98 | 98 | |||
| Art3 ( JQ769283 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art4 ( JQ769284 ) | 100 | 100 | |||
| Art5 ( JQ769285 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art6 ( JQ769286 ) | 100 | 100 | |||
| Art7 ( JQ769287 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art8 ( JQ769288 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art9 ( JQ769289 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| Art10 ( JQ769290 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art11 ( JQ769291 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art12 ( JQ769292 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art14 ( JQ769293 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| Art15 ( JQ769294 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art17 ( JQ769295 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| Art18 ( JQ769296 ) | 100 | 100 | |||
| Art19 ( JQ769297 ) | 98 | 93 | |||
| Art20 ( JQ769298 ) | 100 | 98 | |||
| Art23 ( JQ769299 ) | 88 | 92 | |||
| Art25 ( JQ769300 ) | 100 | 99 | |||
| Art36 ( JQ769301 ) | 100 | 96 |
Antimycotic activity, represented as the% growth inhibition, of the endophytes against several plant pathogens
| S. No. | Endophyte | % Growth inhibition | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | PR4 | 41.3 ±2. 8 | 39.0 ±1.7 | 54.0 ±3.4 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 60.0 ±0.0 | 57.3 ±2.3 | 100.0 ±0 |
| 2. | DEF3 | 77 ±4.0 | 65.6 ±1.1 | 51.6 ±2.8 | 52 ±3.4 | 69.4 ±0.8 | 70.9 ±3.5 | 0.0 ±0.0 |
| 3. | DEF4 | 72.6 ±2.3 | 12.6 ±2.3 | 40 ±5.1 | 48.3 ±2.8 | 71.0 ±2.0 | 71.3 ±3.2 | 0.0 ±0.0 |
| 4. | RSL1 | 41.7 ±0.0 | 25.2 ±0.5 | 50.2 ±0.9 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 34.6 ±0.3 | 71.5 ±0.0 | 70.6 ±1.2 |
| 5. | RSR1 | 31.0 ±5.1 | 43.6 ±6.0 | 16.3 ±1.1 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 69 ±1.7 | 100 ±0.0 | 55.3 ±2.3 |
| 6. | WEF1 | 74.8 ±1.9 | 80 ±0.0 | 58.8 ±1.0 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 63.3 ±1.5 | 89.9 ±0.8 | 0.0 ±0.0 |
| 7. | WEF2 | 73.0 ±0.0 | 65.3 ±2.8 | 40.0 ±0.0 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 73.0 ±0.0 | 92.6 ±0.5 | 68.3 ±2.8 |
| 8. | WEF4 | 73.0 ±0.0 | 51.1 ±3.4 | 36.6 ±5.7 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 65.4 ±1.5 | 64.3 ±2.3 | 50.0 ±0.0 |
| 9. | WEF9 | 67.0 ±0.0 | 23.6 ±3.3 | 36.6 ±2.7 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 56.6 ±3.5 | 56 ±1.7 | 31.6 ±2.7 |
| 10 | WEF10 | 60.0 ±0.0 | 31.0 ±5.1 | 20.0 ±0.0 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 54.6 ±2.0 | 51.6 ±2.8 | 37.0 ±2.6 |
| 11 | Art 18 | 73.0 ±0.0 | 51.6 ±4.0 | 40.0 ±0.0 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 63.0 ±3.1 | 56.0 ±1.7 | 46.6 ±5.7 |
| 12 | K2 | 50.0 ±0.0 | 31.0 ±1.7 | 19.6 ±0.5 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 59.0 ±0.9 | 70.0 ±0.0 | 65.0 ±0.5 |
| 13 | K4 | 41.7 ±0.2 | 32.5 ±1.2 | 57.0 ±0.9 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 88.6 ±0.0 | 50.0 ±1.3 |
| 14 | K5 | 41.7 ±0.2 | 32.5 ±1.2 | 57.0 ±0.9 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 88.6 ±0.0 | 60.0 ±1.0 |
| 15 | K6 | 55.6 ±1.1 | 52.8 ±2.2 | 60.0 ±1.8 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 88.6 ± 0.0 | 60.0 ±0.7 |
| 16 | CN1 | 25.0 ±0.9 | 23.1 ±0.6 | 65.1 ±1.1 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 52.0 ±1.4 | 88.6 ± 0.0 | 50.0 ±0.4 |
| 17 | CN2 | 75.0 ±2.1 | 31.0 ±1.4 | 12.0 ±0.2 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 60.0 ±1.0 | 87.0 ±0.7 | 90.0 ±3.2 |
| 18 | Art | 50.0 ±1.7 | 53.8 ±0.6 | 54.3 ±0.4 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 60.0 ±0.7 | 85.7 ±0.2 | 50.2 ±1.4 |
| 19 | Art1 | 50.0 ±1.2 | 30.8 ±1.5 | 50.0 ±0.2 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 46.2 ±1.3 | 71.5 ±0.5 | 53.3 ±1.2 |
| 20 | Art2 | 58.4 ±1.7 | 30.8 ±1.3 | 50.0 ±0.7 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 57.3 ±1.2 | 72.2 ±2.8 | 60.0 ±0.9 |
| 21 | Art4 | 42.0 ±1.3 | 28.6 ±0.3 | 50.0 ±0.6 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 55.1 ±0.5 | 85.7 ±1.6 | 59.4 ±0.5 |
| 22 | Art6 | 50.0 ±0.0 | 38.5 ±1.3 | 65.0 ±1.1 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 30.0 ±0.3 | 88.6 ±0.0 | 65.2 ±0.4 |
| 23 | Art7 | 52.0 ±0.3 | 38.5 ±1.3 | 64.2 ±1.3 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 33.1 ±0.5 | 88.6 ±0.0 | 68.3 ±0.7 |
| 24 | Art9 | 50.0 ±2.2 | 25.0 ±1.9 | 65.3 ±2.3 | 0.0 ±0.0 | 50.0 ±0.3 | 88.6 ±0.0 | 71.0 ±0.3 |
Data of endophytes possessing significant activity (50% inhibition or more) against three or more pathogens is presented in this table.
Figure 1Phylogenetic relationship between different fungal endophytes, isolated in this study, and their close relatives. The evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method (Saitou and Nei 1987). The optimal tree with the sum of branch length = 2.89592492 is shown. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (500 replicates) are shown next to the branches (Felsenstein 1985). The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths in the same units as those of the evolutionary distances used to infer the phylogenetic tree. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method (Tamura et al. 2004) and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated from the dataset (Complete deletion option). There were a total of 192 positions in the final dataset. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted according to Tamura et al. (2007).
Figure 2Phylogenetic relationship between different isolates ofspp.(a) and Alternaria spp. (b) inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method. The optimal trees with the sum of branch lengths = 0.22208797 and 0.18904166, respectively, are shown (Tamura et al. 2007).
Antimicrobial activity of DCM (Dichloromethane) extracts of the endophytes against the bacterial strains,ATCC 25922 (Gram negative),ATCC 29978 (Gram positive) andMTCC 4748 (a fungal pathogen)
| S.No. | Code | IC50(μg/ml) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Art | - | - | 50 |
| 2. | Art1 | - | 88 | - |
| 3. | Art 2 | - | - | 15 |
| 4. | Art 4 | - | 30 | - |
| 5. | Art6 | 56 | 92 | - |
| 6. | Art7 | 50 | - | - |
| 7. | Art 8 | 50 | 50 | - |
| 8. | Art9 | - | - | 50 |
| 9. | DEF3 | - | 80 | - |
| 10. | K4 | 95 | 18 | - |
| 11. | K6 | - | 92 | - |
| 12. | K7 | - | 98 | - |
| 13. | FEF2 | 52 | 70 | - |
| 14. | NF1 | 50 | 53 | - |
| 15. | NF2 | 98 | - | - |
| 16. | PR1 | - | 92 | - |
| 17. | PR2 | 90 | - | - |
| 18. | PR3 | 90 | 88 | - |
| 19. | PR4 | 88 | 25 | - |
| 20. | CN1 | 78 | - | - |
| 21. | CN2 | 48 | - | - |
| 22. | CN3 | 88 | - | - |
| 23. | RSL1 | - | 92 | - |
| 24. | RSL2 | - | 75 | - |
| 25. | RSL3 | 80 | 80 | - |
| 26. | RSL4 | 85 | 50 | - |
| 27. | RSL5 | 50 | - | - |
| 28. | RSR1 | 80 | 43 | - |
| Control | 0.10 (Ciprofloxacin) | 0.09 (Ciprofloxacin) | 8.0 (Nystatin) | |
Among all the endophytes included in this study, significant numbers (29 cultures) displayed an IC50 less than 100 μg/ml against one or more of these test organisms.
A summary ofimmunomodulatory screening of the endophytic fungal extracts by the lymphocyte proliferation assay
| S.No. | Test Extract | Dose μg/ml | Immunomodulatory activity (% lymphocyte proliferation) Inhibition (↓) /stimulation (↑) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cont | T -Cell | B-Cell | ||
| - | - | - | ||
| 1. | K1 | 1 | 34↓* | 54↓** |
| 10 | 31↓ | 22↓ | ||
| 2. | K2 | 1 | 15 | 46↑ |
| 10 | 12 | 49↑ | ||
| 3. | K4 | 1 | 31↑ | 40↑ |
| 10 | 42↑ | 57↑ | ||
| 4. | K7 | 1 | 40↓** | 37↓* |
| 10 | 25↓ | 46↓** | ||
| 5. | DEF3 | 1 | 32↑ | 65↑** |
| 10 | 37↑ | 48↑ | ||
| 6. | DEF4 | 1 | 34↓ | 51↓ |
| 10 | 34↓ | 44↓ | ||
| 7. | Art | 1 | 28↑ | 47↑ |
| 10 | 33↑ | 22↑ | ||
| 8. | Art3 | 1 | 44↓* | 38↓* |
| 10 | 37↓* | 52↓** | ||
| 9. | Art4 | 1 | 25↓ | 51↓ |
| 10 | 40↓** | 45↓** | ||
| 10. | FEF2 | 1 | 56↑ | 40↑* |
| 10 | 29↑ | 47↑** | ||
| 11. | FEF4 | 1 | 57↑** | 11 |
| 10 | 62↑** | 18 | ||
| 12. | NF2 | 1 | 14↑ | 32↑* |
| 10 | 28↑ | 45↑ | ||
| 13. | PR1 | 1 | 51↑** | 19↑ |
| 10 | 34↑ | 14↑ | ||
| 14. | PR2 | 1 | 15↑ | 48↑** |
| 10 | 28↑ | 34↑ | ||
| 15. | PR3 | 1 | 48↑ | 43↑ |
| 10 | 28↑ | 54↑** | ||
| 16. | PR4 | 1 | 25↑ | 15↑ |
| 10 | 16↑ | 44↑* | ||
| Betamethasone | 0.005 | 46↓ | 34↓ | |
| Levamisole | 0.05 | 29↑ | 43↑ | |
16 extracts demonstrated significant immune-modulation. Levamisole (as stimulator) and Betamethasone (as an immunesuppressor) were used as positive controls. Data are presented as % inhibition or stimulation of sets of independent experiments. * P<0.05 and ** P<0.01 represent significant difference compared with cells treated with Levamisole and Betamethasone.