| Literature DB >> 27775575 |
Bing Guo1, Yongqiang Zhang2, Shili Li3, Ting Lai4, Liang Yang5, Juanni Chen6, Wei Ding7.
Abstract
Many cereals accumulate hydroxamic acids involved in defense of plant against various fungi, bacteria, and insects. 2,4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1,4-benzoxazine-3-one, commonly known as DIMBOA, is one of the principal cyclic hydroxamic acids in aqueous extracts of maize. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial activity of the isolated DIMBOA and its derivatives 2-benzoxazolinone (BOA), 6-chloro-2-benzoxazolinone (CDHB), and 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT) against Ralstonia solanacearum. MBT showed the strongest antibacterial activity, followed by CDHB and DIMBOA, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 50, 100 and 200 mg/L, respectively, better than the BOA with 300 mg/L. These compounds also significantly affect bacterial growth, reduce biofilm formation, and inhibit swarming motility within 24 h. This paper is the first to report the anti-R. solanacearum activity of DIMBOA from Z. mays. The bioassay and pot experiment results suggested that DIMBOA and its derivatives exhibit potential as a new matrix structure of designing target bactericide or elicitor for controlling tobacco bacterial wilt. Further studies must evaluate the efficacy of DIMBOA and its derivatives in controlling bacterial wilt under natural field conditions where low inoculum concentrations exist.Entities:
Keywords: DIMBOA; Ralstonia solanacearum; antibacterial activity; bacterial wilt; biofilm inhibition
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27775575 PMCID: PMC6273367 DOI: 10.3390/molecules21101397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Disk diffusion susceptibility testing results for DIMBOA and its derivatives.
| Concentration (μg/disc) | Inhibition Zone (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOA | CDHB | MBT | DIMBOA | |
| 0 | 0.0 ± 0.00 | 0.0 ± 0.00 | 0.0 ± 0.00 | 0.0 ± 0.00 |
| 10 | 0.0 ± 0.00 a | 2.4 ± 0.22 a | 3.5 ± 0.29 a | 1.5 ± 0.29 a |
| 50 | 1.2 ± 0.17 a | 4.3 ± 0.33 a | 7.0 ± 0.58 ab | 4.5 ± 0.29 b |
| 100 | 5.0 ± 0.58 b | 10.5 ± 0.50 b | 8.0 ± 0.58 b | 4.5 ± 0.29 b |
| 200 | 9.67 ± 0.83 c | 17.7 ± 0.44 c | 11.0 ± 0.50 b | 13.7 ± 0.33 c |
| 300 | 10.83 ± 0.93 c | 22.0 ± 1.26 d | 17.7 ± 2.73 c | 19.3 ± 0.33 d |
Each experiment was repeated in three times. Lower case letters indicate significant differences according to Duncan’s test (p < 0.05).
Figure 1The structure of DIMBOA and its derivatives.
Figure 2Effect of DIMBOA and 1% DMSO on the growth of R. solanacearum at the concentration of 300 μg/disc.
The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) of DIMBOA and its derivatives against R. solanacearum in the 96-well polystyrene microtiter plates.
| DIMBOA and Its Derivatives | MIC (mg/L) | MBC (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|
| BOA | 300 | >1000 |
| CDHB | 100 | 500 |
| MBT | 50 | 400 |
| DIMBOA | 200 | 500 |
IC50 and IC90 for DIMBOA and its derivatives against R. solanacearum.
| DIMBOA and Its Derivatives | Regression Equations | IC50 (mg/ L) | IC90 (mg/L) | R Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOA | 208.92 | 904.05 | 0.9938 | ||
| CDHB | 29.65 | 522.50 | 0.9733 | ||
| MBT | 8.25 | 168.18 | 0.8930 | ||
| DIMBOA | 58.55 | 366.03 | 0.9015 | ||
Figure 3The effect of DIMBOA and its derivatives at different concentrations on the growth curves of R. solanacearum.
Figure 4Effects of DIMBOA and its derivatives on biofilm formation (A) and swarming motility(B) of R. solanacearum after 24 h.(A) Biofilm inhibition (%) was quantified after treatment with different concentrations of DIMBOA and its derivatives at 30 ± 1 °C for 24 h in the 96-well plates; (B) The swarming diameter was measured in both the vertical and horizontal direction on each plate after incubation at 30 ± 1 °C for 24 h. The mean value in both directions was calculated. The diameter represents the average of triplicate plates. The assays were independently repeated three times. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean from three replicates. Lower case letters indicate significant differences according to Duncan’s test (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Effects of DIMBOA and its derivatives at the minimum inhibitory concentrations on tobacco fresh weight. The 10-mL solution of DIMBOA and its derivatives (MICs) and DMSO (0.3%) were respectively irrigated into the rhizosphere of each 4-week-old tobacco seedling, then the fresh weight was measured after 7 days. The assays were independently repeated three times. BOA at concentrations of 300 mg/L; CDHB at concentrations of 100 mg/L; MBT at concentrations of 50 mg/L; DIMBOA at concentrations of 200 mg/L. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean from three replicates. Lower case letters indicate significant differences according to Duncan’s test (p < 0.05).
Figure 6The disease index (A) and control efficiency (B) of DIMBOA and its derivatives on seedlings inoculated with R. solanacearum. The 10-mL solution of DIMBOA and its derivatives (10 mg/L) and DMSO (0.05%) were respectively irrigated into tobacco roots, then 10 mL of freshly cultured suspension of R. solanacearum (1 × 108 CFU/mL) was inoculated to the rhizosphere of each 4-week-old tobacco plants which were treated with DIMBOA and its derivatives after 24 h. Symptoms were rated daily using a disease index scale of 0–4 (0, no symptoms appeared; 1, 1%–25% of leaves wilted; 2, 26%–50% of leaves wilted; 3, 51%–75% of leaves wilted; 4, 76%–100% of leaves wilted). Each point represents the average disease index of 20 plants. The DIMBOA and its derivatives treatment was significantly different from the DMSO treatment (p < 0.05; repeated-measures ANOVA). Similar results were observed in two other independent experiments.