| Literature DB >> 25375334 |
Joyce Kelly R da Silva1, José Rogério A Silva2, Soelange B Nascimento3, Shirlley F M da Luz4, Erisléia N Meireles5, Cláudio N Alves6, Alessandra R Ramos7, José Guilherme S Maia8.
Abstract
Fusarium disease causes considerable losses in the cultivation of Piper nigrum, the black pepper used in the culinary world. Brazil was the largest producer of black pepper, but in recent years has lost this hegemony, with a significant reduction in its production, due to the ravages produced by the Fusarium solani f. sp. piperis, the fungus which causes this disease. Scientific research seeks new alternatives for the control and the existence of other Piper species in the Brazilian Amazon, resistant to disease, are being considered in this context. The main constituents of the oil of Piper divaricatum are methyleugenol (75.0%) and eugenol (10.0%). The oil and these two main constituents were tested individually at concentrations of 0.25 to 2.5 mg/mL against F. solani f. sp. piperis, exhibiting strong antifungal index, from 18.0% to 100.0%. The 3D structure of the β-glucosidase from Fusarium solani f. sp. piperis, obtained by homology modeling, was used for molecular docking and molecular electrostatic potential calculations in order to determine the binding energy of the natural substrates glucose, methyleugenol and eugenol. The results showed that β-glucosidase (Asp45, Arg113, Lys146, Tyr193, Asp225, Trp226 and Leu99) residues play an important role in the interactions that occur between the protein-substrate and the engenol and methyleugenol inhibitors, justifying the antifungal action of these two phenylpropenes against Fusarium solani f. sp. piperis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25375334 PMCID: PMC6271360 DOI: 10.3390/molecules191117926
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Oil composition (%) of P. divaricatum.
| Constituents | IR a | IR b | Oil c (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| α- Pinene | 942 | 932 | 2.1 |
| β- Pinene | 988 | 974 | 3.2 |
| Limonene | 1036 | 1024 | 1.1 |
| 1052 | 1044 | 0.8 | |
| Borneol | 1178 | 1165 | 0.1 |
| 1361 | 1356 | ||
| β-Elemene | 1395 | 1389 | 0.1 |
| 1419 | 1403 | ||
| β-Gurjunene | 1438 | 1431 | 0.3 |
| α-Humulene | 1462 | 1452 | 0.1 |
| 1487 | 1493 | 1.4 | |
| Eugenol acetate | 1524 | 1521 | 3.8 |
| Elemicin | 1553 | 1555 | 0.3 |
| 1568 | 1561 | 0.1 | |
| Caryophyllene oxide | 1586 | 1582 | 0.1 |
| Monoterpene hydrocarbons | 7.2 | ||
| Oxygenated monoterpenes | 0.1 | ||
| Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons | 1.9 | ||
| oxygenated sesquiterpenes | 0.2 | ||
| phenylpropanoids | 89.1 | ||
| total | 98.5 |
RI = Retention index (DB-5ms column); a = Calculated; b = Literature (Adams, 2007); c: Main compounds (>5%) highlighted in bold.
Antifungal activity of the oil of P. divaricatum and the standards of eugenol and methyleugenol against F. solani f. sp. piperis.
| Concentration (mg/mL) | Antifungal Index (%) * | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Methyleugenol | Eugenol | ||
| 0.25 | 17.56 ± 0.00 a | 31.30 ± 13.48 ª | 32.82 ± 16.57 a |
| 0.50 | 38.93 ± 4.77 b | 48.85 ± 11.88 ª | 83.97 ± 15.02 b |
| 0.75 | 63.36 ± 0.00 c | 74.05 ± 8.64 b | 100.00 ± 0.00 b |
| 1.00 | 77.10 ± 10.49 d | 71.76 ± 2.16 b | 100.00 ± 0.00 b |
| 2.50 | 92.37 ± 3.50 d | 78.63 ± 2.86 b | 100.00 ± 0.00 b |
| MIC | >2.50 | >2.50 | 0.750 |
| IC50 | 0.698 | 0.501 | 0.497 |
* Values are presented as mean ± SD; a–d Significant differences at p < 0.05 level.
Figure 1The antifungal index (%) of eugenol (E) and methyleugenol (ME) individually, and in combined effects of the proportions 4:1, 1:1 and 1:4, at concentration of 0.75 mg/mL, against F. solani f. sp. piperis. a, b Values with the same letter are not statistically different at the p < 0.05 level (Tukey’s test).
Figure 2Primary sequential alignment for template (3AC0) and the target (Model): red for identical residues and yellow for similar residues.
Figure 33D structural overlay for template (blue) and target (green).
Figure 4Electrostatic potential density surface obtained by Adaptive Poisson-Boltzmann Solver (APBS): template (A) and target (B).
Figure 5Re-docking conformational results for natural substrates: glucose (A); methyleugenol (B) and eugenol (C). The crystal reference is in gray carbon atoms, and theoretical result is in green carbon atoms. The residues are shown in tube model and the ligands in CPK model. The conformational results were obtained by molecular docking using MVD software.
Energy calculations by MVD/MolDock Score and H-bond docking parameters.
| Molecules | MolDock Score(kcal/mol) | H-Bond(kcal/mol) |
|---|---|---|
| Glucose | −106.45 | −25.27 |
| Eugenol | −83.89 | −7.84 |
| Methyleugenol | −68.16 | −5.01 |
Hydrogen bond interactions selected by H-bond score.
| Molecules | Interactions | Molecule Atom | Receptor Atom | Distance (Å) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | 8 | O1 | OH(Tyr193) | 3.44 |
| O2 | OD2(Asp225) | 2.92 | ||
| O2 | NH1(Arg113) | 2.82 | ||
| O3 | NH1(Arg113) | 2.79 | ||
| O3 | NZ(Lys146) | 2.29 | ||
| O4 | NZ(Lys146) | 2.64 | ||
| O4 | OD1(Asp45) | 2.75 | ||
| O6 | OD2(Asp45) | 2.98 | ||
| Eugenol | 5 | O1 | OD1(Asp225) | 3.12 |
| O1 | NZ(Lys146) | 2.33 | ||
| O2 | NH2(Arg113) | 2.87 | ||
| O2 | NZ(Lys146) | 2.92 | ||
| O2 | NE2(His147) | 2.52 | ||
| Methyleugenol | 4 | O1 | NH1(Arg113) | 3.01 |
| O1 | NH2(Arg113) | 2.85 | ||
| O1 | OD1(Asp225) | 3.60 | ||
| O2 | NZ(Lys146) | 2.35 |
Figure 6Molecular Electrostatic Potential (MEP) obtained by DFT theory using Gaussian-09 results: glucose (A); methyleugenol (B); and eugenol (C).