| Literature DB >> 29724011 |
Andreea Cosoveanu1, Raimundo Cabrera2.
Abstract
The genus Artemisia, a collection of ~400 hardy herbaceous plant and shrub species, is an important resource contributing to chemistry, medicine, agriculture, industry, and ecology. Its communities of endophytic fungi have only recently begun to be explored. Summarized from studies conducted on the fungal endophytes in Artemisia species, both fungal phylogenetic diversity and the associated bioactivity was examined. Isolations from 14 species of Artemisia have led to 51 genera of fungal endophytes, 28 families, and 18 orders. Endophytes belonged mainly to Ascomycota, except for two taxa of Cantharellales and Sporidiobolales, one taxon of Mucoromycota, and one species of Oomycota. The mostly common families were Pleosporaceae, Trichocomaceae, Leptosphaeriaceae, and Botryosphaeriaceae (relative abundance = 14.89, 8.51, 7.14 and 6.38, respectively). In the search for bioactive metabolites, 27 novel compounds were characterized and 22 metabolites were isolated between 2006 and 2017. The first study on endophytic fungi isolated from species of Artemisia was published but 18 years ago. This summary of recently acquired data illustrates the considerable diversity of biological purposes addressed by fungal endophytes of Artemisia spp.Entities:
Keywords: bioactivity; medicinal plants microbiome; phylogeny; rare fungal species
Year: 2018 PMID: 29724011 PMCID: PMC6023322 DOI: 10.3390/jof4020053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Figure 1Survey of the literature in databases (Scopus—first upper line of squares; PubMed—middle line with squares; and CAB Direct—bottom line with squares) with indexed keywords related to host plants and endophytes. * = Keywords were used as shown in the figure except for the PubMed database, where the use of wildcards is irrelevant in a standard search as it uses only the root of the term for the generating hits. The search was performed for the title, abstract and keywords or descriptors, where possible (i.e., in Scopus and CAB Direct). Values in squares are the number of publications. Squares are proportional to the number of publications. Interpretation of squares scaling was calculated per group of data as follows: cluster 1—endophytes and fungal endophytes, cluster 2—Artemisia and related keywords, cluster 3—Taxus and related keywords; the highest number of publications per each cluster was considered 100%. Transformation to log10 was performed to reduce the skewness and facilitate interpretation of the squares.
Endophytic fungi order, family, genus and host plants with values of relative abundance (RA) for genus, family, and order. Values are represented using a color scale with green representing the smallest value and red the highest value.
| Order RA % | Family RA % | Genus | Genus RA % Per Host Plant/Plants | Host Plants | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amphisphaeriales 1.92 | Pestalotiopsidaceae 2.13 | 0.9 | 1.19 | 11.76 | ||||||||||
| Botryosphaeriales 7.69 | Aplosporellaceae 2.13 | 1.22 | ||||||||||||
| Botryosphaeriaceae 6.38 | 41.67 | |||||||||||||
| 2.44 | ||||||||||||||
| 2.78 | 30.3 | 10.98 | ||||||||||||
| Cantharellales 1.92 | Ceratobasidiaceae 2.13 | 16.67 | ||||||||||||
| Capnodiales 3.85 | Cladosporiaceae 2.13 | 2.44 | 2.77 | 5.88 | 8.69 | |||||||||
| Dissoconiaceae 2.13 | 2.77 | |||||||||||||
| Diaporthales 3.85 | Diaporthaceae 4.26 | 5.56 | 16.67 | 8.33 | 9.09 | 5.88 | ||||||||
| 6.3 | 5.88 | 36.36 | ||||||||||||
| Dothideales 1.92 | Dothioraceae 2.13 | 0.9 | 3.66 | |||||||||||
| Eurotiales 7.69 | Trichocomaceae 8.51 | 8.33 | 4.55 | 8.69 | ||||||||||
| 5.55 | ||||||||||||||
| 2.77 | ||||||||||||||
| 2.78 | 1.52 | 13.8 | 5.88 | 33.33 | 13.4 | |||||||||
| Glomerellales 1.92 | Glomerellaceae 2.13 | 19.81 | 11.1 | 25 | 5.55 | 5.88 | 10.11 | 9.09 | ||||||
| Hypocreales 17.31 | Clavicipitaceae 2.13 | 1.8 | ||||||||||||
| Hypocreaceae 4.26 | 5.88 | 9.09 | ||||||||||||
| 4.34 | ||||||||||||||
| Nectriaceae 4.26 | 5.55 | 5.88 | 4.34 | |||||||||||
| 2.44 | ||||||||||||||
| Stachybotryaceae 4.26 | 1.22 | |||||||||||||
| N.A. | ||||||||||||||
| 13 | ||||||||||||||
| N.A. | ||||||||||||||
| Mucorales 3.85 | Mucoraceae4.26 | 4.34 | ||||||||||||
| N.A. | ||||||||||||||
| Onygenales 1.92 | Arthrodermataceae 2.13 | 4.34 | ||||||||||||
| Pleosporales 25.00 | Sporormiaceae 2.13 | 10.61 | 10.98 | |||||||||||
| Didymosphaeriaceae 2.13 | 1.52 | |||||||||||||
| Leptosphaeriaceae 4.26 | 1.52 | |||||||||||||
| N.A. | ||||||||||||||
| Pleosporaceae 14.89 | 24.30 | 13.89 | 75 | 25 | 66.67 | 33.33 | 33.33 | 23.5 | 36.36 | 28.79 | 41.46 | |||
| 16.66 | 33.33 | 16.67 | 8.33 | 1.52 | ||||||||||
| 0.9 | ||||||||||||||
| 2.77 | ||||||||||||||
| 3.03 | ||||||||||||||
| 0.65 | 4.88 | |||||||||||||
| 1.52 | ||||||||||||||
| 1.52 | 7.32 | 2.77 | 4.34 | |||||||||||
| Pleosporineae 1.92 | Camarosporiaceae 2.13 | 1.52 | 1.22 | |||||||||||
| Pythiales 1.92 | Pythiaceae 2.13 | 4.34 | ||||||||||||
| Saccharomycetales 1.92 | Debaryomycetaceae 2.13 | 9.09 | ||||||||||||
| Sordariales 3.85 | Chaetomiaceae 4.26 | 2.44 | 11.76 | |||||||||||
| 2.44 | ||||||||||||||
| Sporidiobolales 1.92 | Sporidiobolaceae 2.13 | 5.88 | ||||||||||||
| Xylariales 9.62 | Apiosporaceae 4.26 | 5.88 | ||||||||||||
| 5.56 | 33.33 | 75 | 25 | 3.03 | ||||||||||
| Graphostromataceae 2.13 | 2.44 | |||||||||||||
| Hypoxylaceae 2.13 | N.A. | |||||||||||||
RA % for genus—calculated as the number of isolates belonging to a genus divided by the total number of individuals. Each value of RA of a genus was calculated for a host (except A. capillaris + A. indica + A. lactiflora, where all three species were considered as one pool as the study did not allow other analysis). For the column RA %—genus, each cell represents a RA % value calculated for a host species or more; host species are shown in the right column, separated by “;”. Each cell corresponds to a host species in the right column. RA % for family and order—the number of times that one taxa was found in this survey divided by the total number of taxa (No. of families = 47, No. of order = 52); although no quantitative data was found for genera such as Hypoxylon, Leptosphaeria, Mucor and Myrothecium; these were used only to calculate the RA of the order/family. *—calculation of relative abundance made by the present authors using the data provided in the reviewed studies. For host plant species the geographical location was provided only at the first time of appearance in the text: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong island, IN = India, LP = La Palma island, TF = Tenerife island; except LP and TF to distinguish two locations for the same host species in the same study. N.A. – no available data (we used genera with no available data for RA % only if it provided a new family). Following studies were used for the table: A. capillaris + A. indica + A. lactiflora*—[22]; A. thuscula—[24]; A. argy*—[29]; A. lactiflora*—[39]; A. annua*—[25,40,41,42,43]; A. tangutica, A. brachyloba, A. subulata, A. argy, A. lavandulifolia—[23]; A. nilagirica*—[30].
Figure 2(a) The number of all endophytic fungi (EF) genera plotted in a log-normal distribution (fitted mean = 0.05, variance = 0.68, chi2 = 2.81, p = 0.42) for different abundance octaves. The octaves refer to power-of-two abundance classes. The species which theoretically are expected to be present are veiled, as their low abundance prevents them for being represented in the sample. The log-normal distribution was a poor fit to this data due to an overabundance of rare species compared with that expected from the log-normal curve; (b) Abundant EF genera (> eight individuals) predicted by a log-normal distribution (mean = 1.28, variance = 0.12, chi2 = 3.9, p = 0.04); a poor fit, as the first interval is dominated by a genus, namely Alternaria; (c) Rare EF species (< eight individuals) predicted by a log series distribution (α = 29.32, x = 0.66, chi2 = 0.72, p = 0.99), where many rare genera (17 genera with one strain) are represented by a jagged line because predicted values are rounded to the nearest number; (d) Rank abundance curve of the endophytic fungal genera. The slope is extremely steep at the beginning at the curve, meaning that evenness of the community is low, where few of the genera are highly abundant. For (a–c), only absolute counts, as opposed to relative proportions, were considered, while for (d), relative proportions were considered. Abundance model were calculated with PAST 3.18 software (Øyvind Hammer, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway) [50].
Literature review on bioactive endophytic fungi (EF) isolated from species of Artemisia: host species, plant part of isolation, fungal taxa, endophyte isolation method, bioactive compounds/extracts, class of compounds, bioactivity, and references.
| Plant Part | EF Taxa | EF Identification Method | Compound/Extract | Class of Compounds | Bioactivity | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| root | N.A. | spore solution (106 mL−1) | N.A. | Antifungal inhibition of diameter of lesions on vine berries: 75% and 91% | [ | ||
| stem | morphology | ethyl acetate crude extract | N.A. | Antibacterial, antifungal | [ | ||
| Antibacterial | |||||||
| N.A. | 10-phenyl-[ | Cytochalasan, alkaloids | Cytotoxic IC50 = 26.2 µM | [ | |||
| morphology | 3β-hydroxy-ergosta-5-ene | Ergosterol derivatives | Antifungal %I (200 µg mL−1): 77–85% | [ | |||
| Antimicrobial MIC (µg mL−1): 50–75 | |||||||
| 3-oxo-ergosta-4,6,8(11),22-tetraene | Triunsaturated steroids | Antifungal %I (200 µg mL−1): 75% | |||||
| Antimicrobial MIC (µg mL−1): 25–75% | |||||||
| 3β-hydroxy-5α,8α-epidioxy-ergosta-6,22-diene | Ergosterol peroxides | Antimicrobial MIC (µg mL−1): 50–75 | |||||
| 6-isoprenylindole-3-carboxylic acid | indoles | Antifungal %I (200 µg mL−1): 57–77% | |||||
| Antimicrobial MIC (µg mL−1): 25–75 | |||||||
| 3β,5α-dihydroxy-6β-acetoxy-ergosta-7,22-diene | sterols | Antifungal %I (200 µg mL−1): 75–77% | |||||
| Antimicrobial MIC (µg mL−1): 50–100% | |||||||
| 3β,5α-dihydroxy-6β-phenylacety- loxy-ergosta-7,22-diene | Antifungal %I (200 µg mL−1): 50–66% | ||||||
| Antimicrobial MIC (µg mL−1): 50–75 | |||||||
| morphology and 18S rDNA sequence | daldinone C | Benzo[j]fluoranthenes (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) | Cytotoxic IC50 = 49.5 µM | [ | |||
| daldinone D | Cytotoxic IC50 = 41 µM | ||||||
| myrothecine A | Sesquiterpene-based trichothecenes | Cytotoxic IC50 = 8.5 µg mL−1 | [ | ||||
| myrothecine B | Cytotoxic IC50 = 0.76 µg mL−1 | ||||||
| myrothecine C | Cytotoxic IC50 = 32.21 µg mL−1 | ||||||
| roridin E | Macrocyclic trychothecenes | Cytotoxic IC50 = 0.03 µg mL−1 | |||||
| mytoxin B | Trychothecene macrolides | Cytotoxic IC50 = 0.002 µg mL−1 | |||||
| dihydromyrothecine C | Cytotoxic IC50 = 44.48 µM | ||||||
| roritoxin E | Cytotoxic IC50 = 0.26 µg mL−1, 10.54 µg mL−1 | ||||||
| 5- | Pyrimidinones (aromatic heterocyclic diazenes) | Cytotoxic RF = 1.5–6 µM | [ | ||||
| 5- | Cytotoxic RF = 2–9.5 µM | ||||||
| 5- | Cytotoxic RF = 2.5–8 µM | ||||||
| 5- | Cytotoxic RF = 1.5–7 µM | ||||||
| morphology | oligosaccharides extract elicitor for artemisinin | oligosaccharides | increment of artemisinin = 64.29% | [ | |||
| ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 | heat-killed mycelium degrading triclosan (TCS) | N.A. | max. adsorbing capacity of TCS = 17.60 mg g−1 | [ | |||
| leaves | elicitor extract for artemisinin | N.A. | 2–6% elicitor extract ( | [ | |||
| morphology | ethyl acetate extract | N.A. | Antibacterial | [ | |||
| stem | N.A. | paranolin | polycyclic aromatic compounds (xanthene-based) | Cytotoxic IC50 values > 50 µg mL−1 | [ | ||
| crude EtOAc extract = BB1, fraction Hex/EtOAc/MeOH = BB4, fractions MeOH = BB8, BB9, BB10 | N.A. | Cytotoxic: IC50 (µg mL−1) BB1 = 17.11, BB4 = 0.7; %I (20 µg/mL) BB8 = 1.97, BB9 = 0.53, BB10 = 52.98 | [ | ||||
| tyrosol (purified from BB10) | Phenolic compounds | ||||||
| N.A. | ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 | ethyl acetate + ethyl acetate/water extract | N.A. | Antifungal %I (1 mg mL−1) = 34.57; Cytotoxic %I (20 µg mL−1) = 81.69 | [ | ||
| Antifungal %I (1 mg mL−1) = 23.46 | |||||||
| Antibacterial | |||||||
| Antibacterial | |||||||
| Antibacterial; Cytotoxic %I (20 µg mL−1) = 53.47, 71.43, 97.03 | |||||||
| Antibacterial | |||||||
| Antibacterial | |||||||
| Cytotoxic %I (20 µg mL−1) = 16.41, 23.56, 78.28 | |||||||
| Cytotoxic %I (20 µg mL−1) = 11.22, 26.95, 71.99 | |||||||
| stem | morphology and ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 | ethyl acetate crude extract | N.A. | Antifungal %I (1 mg mL−1): 48.37, 11.94, 24.92 | [ | ||
| ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 | Tricyclic polyketides | Antifungal MIC (µg mL−1): 8–64 Antibacterial MIC (µg mL−1): 8–64 | [ | ||||
| 1,6-di- | Antifungal MIC (µg mL−1): 64 Antibacterial MIC (µg mL−1): 32–64 | ||||||
| 15-hydroxykoninginin A | Antifungal MIC (µg mL−1): 64 Antibacterial MIC (µg mL−1): 16–64 | ||||||
| 10-deacetylkoningiopisin | Bicyclic polyketides | Antifungal MIC (µg mL−1): 8–64 Antibacterial MIC (µg mL−1): 32–64 | |||||
| koninginin T | Tricyclic polyketides | Antifungal MIC (µg mL−1): 16 Antibacterial MIC (µg mL−1): 32–64 | |||||
| koninginin L | Antifungal MIC (µg mL−1): 16 Antibacterial MIC (µg mL−1): 32–64 | ||||||
| trichoketide A | Bicyclic polyketides | Antifungal MIC (µg mL−1): 4–64 Antibacterial MIC (µg mL−1): 16–64 | |||||
| morphology and ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 | ethyl acetate crude extract | N.A. | Antifungal %I (1 mg mL−1): 29.8, 33.2, 42.4 | [ | |||
| flower | ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 | ethyl acetate extract of mycelia; Trolox equivalent antioxidant content (TEAC), Total phenolic content (TPC) | phenolic acids, flavonoids | TEAC (µM trolox equivalent/100 mL culture) = 127.41; TPC (mg gallic acid equivalent/100 mL culture) = 13.71 | [ | ||
| TEAC (µM trolox equivalent/100 mL culture) = 526.93; TPC (mg gallic acid equivalent/100 mL culture) = 49.22 | |||||||
| TEAC (µM trolox equivalent/100 mL culture) = 177.12; TPC (mg gallic acid equivalent/100 mL culture) = 18.43 | |||||||
| leaves | TEAC (µM trolox equivalent/100 mL culture) = 100.2; TPC (mg gallic acid equivalent/100 mL culture) = 6.88 | ||||||
| TEAC (µM trolox equivalent/100 mL culture) = 102.21; TPC (mg gallic acid equivalent/100 mL culture) = 8.69 | |||||||
| TEAC (µM trolox equivalent/100 mL culture) = 217.76; TPC (mg gallic acid equivalent/100 mL culture) = 21.27 | |||||||
| N.A. | ethyl acetate crude extract | N.A. | Cytotoxic, antioxidant | [ | |||
| stem | morphology and ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 | Antifungal EC50 = 0.03; %I (1 mg mL−1) = 31.5 and 100 | [ | ||||
| Antifungal %I (1 mg mL−1): 85.79, 22.4 | |||||||
| morphology | colletotric acid | Phenolic acids | Antibacterial MIC (µg mL−1): 25–50 | [ | |||
| morphology and ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 | ethyl acetate crude extract | N.A. | Antifungal %I (1 mg mL−1): 8.95, 52.09, 77.9 | [ | |||
| N.A. | N.A. | isofusidienol A, B, C, and D | chromones (benzopyran derivatives) | Antibacterial | [ |
EF—endophytic fungi; MIC—minimum inhibitory concentration; %I—percentage of inhibition, TEAC—trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TPC—total phenolic content; where both %I and EC50 are presented, it means that results were expressed as such depending on the pathogenic strains tested and conditions employed. InChI keys are provided as supplementary materials.