| Literature DB >> 26528961 |
Chuying Chen1, Chunpeng Wan2, Xuan Peng3, Yuhuan Chen4, Ming Chen5, Jinyin Chen6.
Abstract
The fruits of Ficus hirta (FH) display strong antifungal activity against Penicillium italicum and Penicillium digitatum. In order to optimize the extraction conditions of antifungal extracts from FH fruit, various extraction parameters, such as ethanol concentration, extraction time, solvent to solid ratio and temperature, were chosen to identify their effects on the diameters of inhibition zones (DIZs) against these two Penicillium molds. Response surface methodology (RSM) was applied to obtain the optimal combination of these parameters. Results showed that the optimal extraction parameters for maximum antifungal activity were: 90% (v/v) ethanol concentration, 65 min extraction time, 31 mL/g solvent to solid ratio and 51 °C temperature. Under the abovementioned extraction conditions, the experimental DIZs values obtained experimentally were 57.17 ± 0.75 and 39.33 ± 0.82 mm, which were very close to the values of 57.26 and 39.29 mm predicted by the model. Further, nine kinds of phytopathogens were tested in vitro to explore the antifungal activity of the FH extracts. It was found for the first time that the FH extracts showed significant inhibition on the growth of P. italicum, A. citri, P. vexans, P. cytosporella and P. digitatum.Entities:
Keywords: Ficus hirta; RSM; antifungal activity; optimization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26528961 PMCID: PMC6332073 DOI: 10.3390/molecules201119648
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1The effects of different extraction solvents on DIZs against P. italicum and P. digitatum. The vertical bars represent the standard deviation (n = 3). a–e Significant differences at p < 0.05 level. Extraction conditions under ultrasonic-assisted extraction: 60 min extraction time, 20:1 solvent to solid ratio and 20 °C temperature.
Figure 2The effects of different extraction parameters on DIZs against P. italicum and P. digitatum. (A) Effect of ethanol concentration on DIZs, the other extraction conditions were 60 min extraction time, 20:1 solvent to solid ratio and 20 °C temperature; (B) Effect of extraction time on DIZs, the other extract condition were 90% ethanol, 20:1 solvent to solid ratio and 20 °C temperature; (C) Effect of solvent to solid ratio on DIZs, the other extract condition were 90% ethanol, 60 min time and 20 °C temperature; (D) Effect of temperature on DIZs, the other extraction conditions were 90% ethanol, 60 min extraction time and 30:1 solvent to solid ratio. (■) DIZs against P. italicum; (▲) DIZs against P. digitatum. a–d Significant differences at p < 0.05 level.
A central composite design for independent variables and their responses.
| Standard Order | Run Order | Coded Level of Fermentation Condition | DIZs (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 (min) | X2 (mL/g) | X3 (°C) | Y1 | Y2 | ||
| 1 | 14 | −1 (30) | −1 (20) | −1 (35) | 46.6 | 32.2 |
| 2 | 3 | 1 (90) | −1 (40) | −1 (35) | 51.6 | 33.8 |
| 3 | 12 | −1 (30) | 1 (40) | −1 (35) | 48.0 | 31.8 |
| 4 | 4 | 1 (90) | 1 (40) | −1 (35) | 52.2 | 35.4 |
| 5 | 6 | −1 (30) | −1 (20) | 1 (65) | 49.7 | 33.5 |
| 6 | 20 | 1 (90) | −1 (20) | 1 (65) | 51.5 | 32.0 |
| 7 | 18 | −1 (30) | 1 (40) | 1 (65) | 50.6 | 34.5 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 (90) | 1 (40) | 1 (65) | 50.1 | 34.2 |
| 9 | 13 | −1.68 (9.5) | 0 (30) | 0 (50) | 47.8 | 33.7 |
| 10 | 17 | 1.68 (110.5) | 0 (30) | 0 (50) | 52.2 | 34.4 |
| 11 | 9 | 0 (60) | −1.68 (13.2) | 0 (50) | 50.6 | 32.9 |
| 12 | 7 | 0 (60) | 1.68 (46.8) | 0 (50) | 51.9 | 34.7 |
| 13 | 2 | 0 (60) | 0 (30) | −1.68 (24.8) | 49.3 | 32.5 |
| 14 | 16 | 0 (60) | 0 (30) | 1.68 (75.2) | 51.9 | 33.8 |
| 15 | 5 | 0 (60) | 0 (30) | 0 (50) | 57.3 | 39.2 |
| 16 | 15 | 0 (60) | 0 (30) | 0 (50) | 57.1 | 39.5 |
| 17 | 10 | 0 (60) | 0 (30) | 0 (50) | 56.9 | 39.1 |
| 18 | 8 | 0 (60) | 0 (30) | 0 (50) | 57.4 | 39.0 |
| 19 | 11 | 0 (60) | 0 (30) | 0 (50) | 57.0 | 39.2 |
| 20 | 19 | 0 (60) | 0 (30) | 0 (50) | 56.7 | 39.4 |
Results of regression analysis and corresponding F and p-value of second-order model polynomial regression equation for DIZs against P. italicum and P. digitatum.
| Source | Coefficient | Standard Error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIZs against | ||||
| Intercept | 57.07 | 0.143 | 281.46 | <0.0001 |
| X1 | 1.31 | 0.095 | 190.5 | <0.0001 |
| X2 | 0.27 | 0.095 | 8.08 | 0.0175 |
| X3 | 0.58 | 0.095 | 36.85 | 0.0001 |
|
| −2.54 | 0.092 | 753.8 | <0.0001 |
|
| −2.10 | 0.092 | 514.14 | <0.0001 |
|
| −2.33 | 0.092 | 633.06 | <0.0001 |
| X1X2 | −0.39 | 0.124 | 9.75 | 0.0108 |
| X1X3 | −0.99 | 0.124 | 63.34 | <0.0001 |
| X2X3 | −0.31 | 0.124 | 6.34 | 0.0305 |
| DIZs against | ||||
| Intercept | 39.23 | 0.105 | 383.18 | <0.0001 |
| X1 | 0.34 | 0.07 | 23.04 | 0.0007 |
| X2 | 0.54 | 0.07 | 60.65 | <0.0001 |
| X3 | 0.23 | 0.07 | 11.16 | 0.0075 |
|
| −1.81 | 0.068 | 710.76 | <0.0001 |
|
| −1.90 | 0.068 | 781.78 | <0.0001 |
|
| −2.13 | 0.068 | 982.25 | <0.0001 |
| X1X2 | 0.40 | 0.091 | 19.22 | 0.0014 |
| X1X3 | −0.87 | 0.091 | 91.97 | <0.0001 |
| X2X3 | 0.25 | 0.091 | 7.51 | 0.0208 |
ANOVA for the effects of extraction time (X1), solvent to solid ratio (X2) and temperature (X3) on DIZs against P. italicum and P. digitatum.
| Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIZs against | |||||
| Model | 234.50 | 9 | 26.06 | 211.56 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 1.23 | 10 | 0.12 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 0.90 | 5 | 0.18 | 2.69 | 0.1503 |
| Pure Error | 0.33 | 5 | 0.067 | ||
| Cor Total | 235.73 | 19 | |||
| R2 = 0.9948, Adj. R2 = 0.9901, Pred. R2 = 0.9672, CV = 0.67 | |||||
| DIZs against | |||||
| Model | 151.94 | 9 | 16.88 | 253.50 | < 0.0001 |
| Residual | 0.67 | 10 | 0.07 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 0.49 | 5 | 0.10 | 2.84 | 0.1381 |
| Pure Error | 0.17 | 5 | 0.03 | ||
| Cor Total | 152.61 | 19 | |||
| R2 = 0.9956, Adj. R2 = 0.9917, Pred. R2 = 0.9730, CV = 0.73 | |||||
Figure 3Response surface plot and contour plot showing DIZs against P. italicum of extraction time and solvent to solid ratio (A); extraction time and temperature (B) and solvent to solid ratio and temperature (C).
Figure 4Response surface plot and contour plot showing DIZs against P. digitatum of extraction time and solvent to solid ratio (A); extraction time and temperature (B) and solvent to solid ratio and temperature (C).
Response values under optimal conditions of ethanol concentration (90%), extraction time (65 min), solvent to solid ratio (31 mL/g) and temperature (51 °C).
| Responses | Predicted Value | Experimental Value |
|---|---|---|
| DIZs against | 57.22 | 57.17 ± 0.75 |
| DIZs against | 39.28 | 39.33 ± 0.82 |
Toxicities of the FH extracts against phytopathogens.
| Species | Toxicity Regression Equation | R2 | EC50 (mg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Y = 4.1301 + 1.5571X | 0.9963 | 5.04 | |
| Y = 4.4794 + 0.7442X | 0.9894 | 5.15 | |
| Y = 3.3269 + 1.8864X | 0.9940 | 6.98 | |
| Y = 3.9207 + 1.4206X | 0.9982 | 7.01 | |
| Y = 3.3381 + 1.7307X | 0.9978 | 7.95 | |
| Y = 3.2278 + 1.2738X | 0.9905 | 13.06 | |
| Y = 3.4513 + 1.2602X | 0.9884 | 22.43 | |
| Y = 3.4036 + 1.2048X | 0.9957 | 25.80 | |
| Y = 3.1294 + 1.1674X | 0.9914 | 39.21 |
X denotes the concentration of FH extracts (natural logarithm). Y denotes the rate of mortality. R2 denotes the coefficient of determination.
Range of extraction condition variables at different levels for the central composite design.
| Independent Variables | Parameter | Coded Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.68 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 1.68 | ||
| Extraction time (min) | X1 | 9.5 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 110.5 |
| Solvent to solid ratio (mL/g) | X2 | 13.2 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 46.8 |
| Temperature (°C) | X3 | 24.8 | 35 | 50 | 65 | 75.2 |