| Literature DB >> 28612029 |
Gamal H Sewify1, Hanan M Hamada2, Hani A Alhadrami3.
Abstract
The invasive red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is considered one of the world's most devastating insect pests to palm trees. It was observed that larvae of this pest are able to inhibit microbial growth on the rearing media when they start feeding and this observation has led us to study the effect of red palm weevils on various microbial species. The antimicrobial effect of extracts from different parts of the alimentary canal on Gram positive bacteria (Enterococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus aureus), Gram negative bacteria (Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp.), Candida albicans, and Penicillium sp. was tested using the agar well diffusion method. All extracts inhibited the tested microbial species. Foregut extracts had the greatest zones of growth inhibition. Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Penicillium sp. were significantly sensitive to the extracts and had the largest growth inhibition zones. It is concluded that the gut extracts contain potent antimicrobial activity and may provide a new source of antimicrobial peptides.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28612029 PMCID: PMC5458366 DOI: 10.1155/2017/8564601
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Antimicrobial activity of alimentary canal extracts from the red palm weevil larvae against different microbial species.
| Exposure time (h) | Origin of extract | Growth Inhibition Zones (mm) | Mean | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gram negative bacteria | Gram positive bacteria | Yeast | Fungus | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 24 | G | 11.75 | 10.75 | 13.25 | 10.75 | 13.50 | 15.00 | 12.50 |
| F | 13.00 | 12.75 | 14.75 | 13.50 | 12.50 | 14.75 | 13.54 | |
| M | 10.75 | 11.50 | 11.50 | 13.50 | 12.50 | 12.50 | 12.04 | |
| H |
| 11.25 | 13.75 | 10.50 | 12.25 | 12.75 | 11.71 | |
| Mean | 11.31 | 11.56 | 13.31 | 12.06 | 12.69 | 13.75 | 12.45d | |
|
| ||||||||
| 48 | G | 15.75 | 12.00 | 15.25 | 12.25 | 16.75 | 19.25 | 15.21 |
| F | 18.50 | 13.50 | 16.50 | 13.75 | 14.00 | 22.50 | 16.46 | |
| M | 13.50 | 12.50 | 13.75 | 14.50 | 14.00 | 14.50 | 13.79 | |
| H | 12.75 | 11.25 | 12.50 | 11.75 | 13.75 | 14.75 | 12.79 | |
| Mean | 15.13 | 12.31 | 14.50 | 13.06 | 14.63 | 17.75 | 14.56c | |
|
| ||||||||
| 72 | G | 18.25 | 13.00 | 16.75 | 13.75 | 17.75 | 23.00 | 17.08 |
| F | 20.75 | 15.00 | 22.25 | 17.00 | 17.75 | 25.50 | 19.71 | |
| M | 16.25 | 14.50 | 17.25 | 16.50 | 15.25 | 17.00 | 16.13 | |
| H | 14.00 | 13.00 | 16.00 | 14.25 | 15.50 | 18.75 | 15.25 | |
| Mean | 17.31 | 13.88 | 18.06 | 15.38 | 16.56 | 21.06 | 17.04b | |
|
| ||||||||
| 96 | G | 20.00 | 17.25 | 21.25 | 27.50 | 22.25 | 24.50 | 22.13 |
| F | 25.75 | 23.25 |
| 33.00 | 23.50 | 28.00 | 28.63 | |
| M | 19.00 | 17.25 | 22.50 | 25.00 | 17.25 | 18.50 | 19.92 | |
| H | 19.00 | 19.25 | 23.75 | 20.50 | 18.75 | 20.25 | 20.25 | |
| Mean | 20.94 | 19.25 | 26.44 | 26.50 | 20.44 | 22.81 | 22.73a | |
|
| ||||||||
| G | 16.44 | 13.25 | 16.63 | 16.06 | 17.56 | 20.44 | 16.73b | |
| F | 19.50 | 16.13 | 22.94 | 19.31 | 16.94 | 22.69 | 19.58a | |
| M | 14.88 | 13.94 | 16.25 | 17.38 | 14.75 | 15.63 | 15.47c | |
| H | 13.88 | 13.69 | 16.50 | 14.25 | 15.06 | 16.63 | 15.00c | |
| Mean | 16.17c | 14.25d | 18.08b | 16.75c | 16.08c | 18.84a | ||
Columns labeled with the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05); G: total gut, F: foregut, M: midgut, and H: hindgut; LSD value at 0.05: microbial species = 0.7156, origin of extract = 0.5843, and time = 0.5843.
Figure 1Effect of red palm weevil alimentary canal extracts on different microbial species 96 h after treatment. G: whole gut, F: foregut, M: midgut, and H: hindgut.
Correlation between time of exposure to foregut extract and inhibition zone size.
| Microbial species | Linear correlation coefficient |
|---|---|
|
| 0.989 |
|
| 0.880 |
|
| 0.920 |
|
| 0.870 |
|
| 0.968 |
|
| 0.960 |
The effect of different extracts on the growth inhibition zone of tested microbes after 96 hours of treatment.
| Microbial species | Origin of extract | ANOVA of growth inhibition zone size | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Variance |
|
|
| ||
|
| G | 20.00 | 13.33 | 3.49 | 4.91 | 0.0188 |
| F | 25.75 | 2.25 | ||||
| M | 19.00 | 18.00 | ||||
| H | 19.00 | 0.67 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| G | 17.25 | 0.917 | 3.49 | 6.98 | 0.0057 |
| F | 23.25 | 2.250 | ||||
| M | 17.25 | 0.250 | ||||
| H | 19.25 | 14.92 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| G | 21.25 | 16.92 | 3.49 | 25.38 | 1.75 |
| F | 38.25 | 4.92 | ||||
| M | 22.50 | 11.00 | ||||
| H | 23.75 | 6.92 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| G | 27.50 | 0.33 | 3.49 | 93.14 | 1.4 |
| F | 33.00 | 3.33 | ||||
| M | 25.00 | 0.67 | ||||
| H | 20.50 | 0.33 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| G | 22.25 | 1.58 | 3.49 | 7.71 | 0.0039 |
| F | 23.50 | 5.67 | ||||
| M | 17.25 | 4.25 | ||||
| H | 18.75 | 6.25 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| G | 24.50 | 11.00 | 3.49 | 7.66 | 0.0040 |
| F | 28.00 | 12.67 | ||||
| M | 18.50 | 13.67 | ||||
| H | 20.25 | 0.92 | ||||
There is significant difference among the inhibition zone sizes caused by different extracts at significance level 5%.
The effect of foregut extract on the growth inhibition zone of tested microbes after 96 hours of treatment.
| Microbial species | ANOVA of growth inhibition zone size | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Variance |
|
|
| |
|
| 25.75 | 2.25 | 2.852 | 24.797 | 5.24 |
|
| 23.25 | 2.25 | |||
|
| 38.25 | 4.92 | |||
|
| 33.00 | 2.00 | |||
|
| 23.50 | 5.67 | |||
|
| 28.00 | 12.67 | |||