| Literature DB >> 29543767 |
Anna Koziróg1, Bogumił Brycki2, Katarzyna Pielech-Przybylska3.
Abstract
This study investigates the biological activity of two cationic gemini surfactants, hexamethylene-1,6-bis-(N,N-dimethyl-N-dodecylammonium bromide) C6 and pentamethylene-1,5-bis-(N,N-dimethyl-N-dodecyla,.mmonium bromide) C5, and their two neutral analogs, hexamethylene-1,6-bis-(N-methyl-N-dodecylamine) (A6) and pentamethylene-1,5-bis-(N-methyl-N-dodecylamine) (A5). Experiments were performed with Aspergillus brasiliensis, which is used in the standard tests for biocides. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values for conidia and mycelium were determined using the dilution method. The viability of the conidia was evaluated using the plate count method. The dry mass of the mycelium was determined using the thermogravimetric method. Ergosterol was extracted from the mycelium and evaluated by gas chromatography. The effect of gemini surfactants on fungal morphology was observed using scanning electron microscopy. Cationic gemini surfactants were found to be active at lower concentrations compared to their non-ionic analogues, rapidly reducing the total number of conidia that were able to grow. They also decreased both the ergosterol content in the mycelium and its dry weight. These results suggest that cationic gemini surfactants C6 and C5 could have a wide range of practical applications as active compounds. However, it should be remembered that usage at too low concentrations, below the MIC, will only lead to short-term disturbances in the development of conidia and mycelium.Entities:
Keywords: antifungal activity; conidia germination; ergosterol; gemini surfactants; scanning electron microscopy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29543767 PMCID: PMC5877734 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19030873
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Minimal inhibitory concentration (mM) of cationic (C) and neutral (A) gemini surfactants for A. brasiliensis ATCC 16404 conidia and mycelium.
| Biocide | Conidia | Mycelium |
|---|---|---|
| C5 | 0.12 | 0.31 |
| C6 | 0.12 | 0.31 |
| A5 | 0.38 | 30 |
| A6 | 0.38 | 25 |
Viability of conidia A. brasiliensis ATCC 16404 (log conidia/mL) in medium with microbiocides.
| Biocide Concentration (mM) | Biocide | Time (h) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 8 | 24 | 48 | |||
| control | 0.00 | K | 6.20 ± 0.05 | 6.18 ± 0.10 | mycelium | Mycelium |
| ½ MIC | 0.06 | C5 | 5.93 ± 0.53 | 5.46 ± 0.15 # | mycelium | Mycelium |
| 0.06 | C6 | 5.51 ± 0.37 # | 4.18 ± 0.11 # | mycelium | Mycelium | |
| 0.19 | A5 | 5.90 ± 0.60 | 5.87 ± 0.22 # | mycelium | Mycelium | |
| 0.19 | A6 | 5.92 ± 0.10 | 5.71 ± 0.20 # | mycelium | Mycelium | |
| MIC | 0.12 | C5 | 4.49 ± 0.03 # | 4.72 ± 0.13 # | nd | nd |
| 0.12 | C6 | 3.87 ± 0.02 # | 2.91 ± 0.23 # | nd | nd | |
| 0.38 | A5 | 5.11 ± 0.03 # | 2.73 ± 0.16 # | 1.64 ± 0.05 # | nd | |
| 0.38 | A6 | 4.92 ± 0.03 # | 4.20 ± 0.31 # | 1.04 ± 0.02 # | nd | |
| 2 MIC | 0.24 | C5 | 2.91 ± 0.10 # | 1.85 ± 0.08 # | nd | nd |
| 0.24 | C6 | 2.38 ± 0.24 # | nd | nd | nd | |
| 0.76 | A5 | 4.30 ± 0.32 # | 2.97 ± 0.15 # | 1.25 ± 0.01 # | nd | |
| 0.76 | A6 | 3.08 ± 0.28 # | 2.48 ± 0.21 # | nd | nd | |
MIC—minimal inhibitory concentration; nd—not detected in 1 mL; K—control sample; # Reduced value of log 10 differed significantly from the control without surfactant (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Dry weight (black, solid line) and ergosterol (dotted line) in mycelium following treatment with: cationic gemini surfactants (A) pentamethylene-1,5-bis-(N,N-dimethyl-N-dodecylammonium bromide) C5 and (B) hexamethylene-1,6-bis-(N,N-dimethyl-N-dodecylammonium bromide) C6; or with non-ionic gemini surfactants (C) pentamethylene-1,5-bis-(N-methyl-N-dodecylamine) A5 and (D) hexamethylene-1,6-bis-(N-methyl-N-dodecylamine) A6. The results are displayed for ½ MIC (square marker), MIC (triangle marker), 2 MIC (circle marker) and the control sample without the addition of surfactant (rhombus marker).
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) for ergosterol concentration and mycelial dry weight content.
| Biocide Concentration (mM) | Biocide | Correlation Coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|
| K | 0.00 | - | 0.999 |
| ½ MIC | 0.06 | C5 | 0.987 |
| 0.06 | C6 | 0.947 | |
| 0.19 | A5 | 0.999 | |
| 0.19 | A6 | 0.966 | |
| MIC | 0.12 | C5 | 0.958 |
| 0.12 | C6 | 0.958 | |
| 0.38 | A5 | −0.869 | |
| 0.38 | A6 | −0.750 | |
| 2 MIC | 0.24 | C5 | 0.996 |
| 0.24 | C6 | 0.990 | |
| 0.76 | A5 | 0.808 | |
| 0.76 | A6 | 0.837 | |
Effect of exogenous ergosterol on MICs of cationic and neutral gemini surfactants for A. brasiliensis conidia.
| Biocide | Control | With Ergosterol |
|---|---|---|
| C5 | 0.12 | 0.36 |
| C6 | 0.12 | 0.36 |
| A5 | 0.38 | 0.19 |
| A6 | 0.38 | 0.19 |
Figure 2Figure 2. Changes in morphology of conidia: control sample without biocide after 4 h (A) and 24 h (B); with cationic GS C6 at ½ MIC after 4 h (C) and 24 h (D); sample with cationic GS C6 at MIC after 24 h (E); sample with non-ionic GS A6 at MIC after 24 h (F); sample with cationic GS C6 at 2 MIC after 24 h (G); sample with non-ionic GS A6 at 2 MIC after 24 h (H).
Figure 3Two days old mycelium: sample with cationic GS C6 at ½ MIC after 24 h (A); sample without GS after 24 h (B); sample with cationic GS C6 at MIC after 4 h (C) and 24 h (D); sample with non-ionic GS A6 at MIC after 4 h (E) and 24 h (F); sample with cationic GS C6 at 2 MIC after 4 h (G) and 24 h (H); sample with non-ionic GS A6 at 2 MIC after 4 h (I) and 24 h (K).