| Literature DB >> 29986518 |
Fedia Ben Mefteh1, Amal Daoud2, Ali Chenari Bouket3, Bathini Thissera4, Yamina Kadri5, Hafsa Cherif-Silini6, Manal Eshelli7,8, Faizah N Alenezi9, Armelle Vallat10, Tomasz Oszako11, Adel Kadri12, José María Ros-García13, Mostafa E Rateb14, Neji Gharsallah15, Lassaad Belbahri16,17.
Abstract
Endophytic fungi of healthy and brittle leaf diseased (BLD) date palm trees (Phoenix dactylifera L.) represent a promising source of bioactive compounds with biomedical, industrial, and pharmaceutical applications. The fungal endophytes Penicillium citrinum isolate TDPEF34, and Geotrichum candidum isolate TDPEF20 from healthy and BLD date palm trees, respectively, proved very effective in confrontation assays against three pathogenic bacteria, including two Gram-positive bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and Enterococcus faecalis (Ef), and one Gram-negative bacterium Salmonella enterica (St). They also inhibited the growth of three fungi Trichoderma sp. (Ti), Fusarium sporotrichioides (Fs), Trichoderma sp. (Ts). Additionally, their volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were shown to be in part responsible for the inhibition of Ti and Ts and could account for the full inhibition of Fs. Therefore, we have explored their potential as fungal cell factories for bioactive metabolites production. Four extracts of each endophyte were prepared using different solvent polarities, ethanol (EtOH), ethyl acetate (EtOAc), hexane (Hex), and methanol (MetOH). Both endophyte species showed varying degrees of inhibition of the bacterial and fungal pathogens according to the solvent used. These results suggest a good relationship between fungal bioactivities and their produced secondary metabolites. Targeting the discovery of potential anti-diabetic, anti-hemolysis, anti-inflammatory, anti-obesity, and cytotoxic activities, endophytic extracts showed promising results. The EtOAc extract of G. candidum displayed IC50 value comparable to the positive control diclofenac sodium in the anti-inflammatory assays. Antioxidant activity was evaluated using α,α-diphenyl-β-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), β-carotene bleaching, reducing power (RP), and 2,2-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonique) (ABTS) radical scavenging assays. The findings revealed strong anti-oxidant power with an IC50 of 177.55 µg/mL for G. candidum EtOAc extract using DPPH assay, probably due to high polyphenol and flavonoid content in both fungal extracts. Finally, LC-HRMS (Liquid Chromatography–High Resolution Mass Spectrometry) and GC-MS (Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry) analysis of G. candidum and P. citrinum extracts revealed an impressive arsenal of compounds with previously reported biological activities, partly explaining the obtained results. Finally, LC-HRMS analysis indicated the presence of new fungal metabolites that have never been reported, which represent good candidates to follow for the discovery of new bioactive molecules.Entities:
Keywords: anti-diabetic; anti-haemolysis; anti-inflammatory; anti-obesity; anti-oxidant; antimicrobial activity; brittle leaf disease; cytotoxic
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29986518 PMCID: PMC6073733 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19071986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Antibacterial (A), antifungal (B), and volatile (C) activities of examined Geotrichum and Penicillium (Hex, EtOAc, MetOH, EtOH) against pathogenic bacteria and fungi. Data presents the mean ± standard error. Bars labelled with different letters are significantly different among the treatments at p < 0.05 using the Tukey’s HSD test. In each bar groups, bars labelled with the same letter are not significantly different from each other according to Tukey’s HSD at p < 0.05.
Figure 2Antimicrobial activity of extracts of Geotrichum and Penicillium against bacterial and fungal species in the presence of hexane, EtOAc, MetOH, EtOH. Data presents mean ± standard error. Bars labelled with different letters are significantly different among the treatments at p < 0.05 using the Tukey’s HSD test. In each bar groups, bars labelled with the same letter are not significantly different from each other according to Tukey’s HSD at p < 0.05.
Assessment of in vitro biological activities of Geotrichum and Penicillium extracts. Data presents mean ± standard error. Different letters inside of parenthesis indicate the significant difference among the treatments at p < 0.05 using the Tukey’s HSD test.
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| EtOH | 1.53 ± 0.17 (a) | 1.37 ± 0.08 (b) | 170.29 ± 0.83 (c) | - | 162.56 ± 2.91 (d) |
| EtOAc | 1.35 ± 0.07 (a) | 0.47 ± 0.006 (a) | 160.08 ± 0.86 (b) | 145.55 ± 23.55 (b) | 118.84 ± 0.83 (b) |
| Hexane | 0.96 ± 0.03 (a) | 2.3 ± 0.08 (c) | 169.47 ± 1.04 (c) | 163.73 ± 1.76 (d) | |
| MetOH | 2.47 ± 0.24 (a) | 4.31 ± 0.3 (d) | 222.45 ± 4.29 (d) | 177.97 ± 22.94 (b) | 147.36 ± 1.38 (c) |
| Acarbose 1 | - | - | - | - | 17.94 ± 0.33 (a) |
| Aspirin 2 | 0.34 ± 0.1 (b) | - | - | - | - |
| Sodium Diclofenac 3 | - | 0.41 ± 0.01 (a) | - | - | - |
| Orlistat 4 | - | - | 12.86 ± 0.05 (a) | - | - |
| Paclitaxel 5 | - | - | - | 0.52 ± 0.03 (a) | - |
|
| |||||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| EtOH | 5.25 ± 1.84 (a) | 1.88 ± 0.15 (b) | 175.83 ± 1.34 (b) | - | 188.69 ± 1.66 (c) |
| EtOAc | 2.55 ± 0.42 (a) | 3.67 ± 0.32 (d) | 173.87 ± 0.35 (b) | - | 177.27 ± 2.09 (b) |
| Hexane | 1.64 ± 0.15 (a) | 2.32 ± 0.36 (bc) | 314.29 ± 7.46 (d) | - | 329.73 ± 4.37 (d) |
| MetOH | 1.55 ± 0.12 (a) | 2.64 ± 0.08 (c) | 210.14 ± 4.47 (c) | - | 174.79 ± 3.97 (b) |
| Acarbose 1 | - | - | - | - | 17.94 ± 0.33 (a) |
| Aspirin 2 | 0.34 ± 0.1 (b) | - | - | - | - |
| Diclofenac Sodium Diclofenac 3 | - | 0.41 ± 0.01 (a) | - | - | - |
| Orlistat 4 | - | - | 12.86 ± 0.05 (a) | - | - |
| Paclitaxel 5 | - | - | - | 0.52 ± 0.03 | - |
| Positive controls | |||||
IC50 values corresponding to the amount of the extract providing 50% of inhibition percentage. 1: (2R,3R,4R,5S,6R)-5-[(2R,3R,4R,5S,6R)-5-[(2R,3R,4S,5S,6R)-3,4-dihydroxy-6-methyl-5-[[(1S,4S,5S,6S)-4,5,6-trihydroxy-3-(hydroxymethyl)cyclohex-2-en-1-yl]amino]oxan-2-yl]oxy-3,4-dihydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxan-2-yl]oxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-2,3,4-triol; 2: 2-Acetoxybenzoic acid; 3: 2-(2,6-dichloranilino)phenylacetic acid; 4: tetrahydrolipstatin; 5: (1S,2S,3R,4S,7R,9S,10S,12R,15S)-4,12-Diacetoxy-15-{[(2R,3S)-3-(benzoylamino)-2-hydroxy-3-phenylpropanoyl]oxy}-1,9-dihydroxy-10,14,17,17-tetramethyl-11-oxo-6-oxatetracyclo[11.3.1.0~3,10~.0~4,7~]heptadec-13-en-2-ylrel-benzoate.
Assessment of total polyphenol, total flavonoid content and antioxidant activity of Geotrichum and Penicillium extracts. Data presents mean ± standard error. Different letters inside of parenthesis indicate the significant difference among the treatments at p < 0.05 using the Tukey’s HSD test.
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
| EtOH | 28.93 ± 0.89 (ab) | 14.41 ± 0.16 (c) | 222.16 ± 3.08 (d) | 219.14 ± 1.02 (d) | 211.48 ± 0.37 (c) | 191.36 ± 0.41 (e) |
| EtOAc | 33.39 ± 0.49 (b) | 11.25 ± 1.03 (ab) | 177.55 ± 0.96 (b) | 162.86 ± 0.34 (b) | 190.3 ± 3.36 (b) | 151.31 ± 4.2 (c) |
| Hexane | 27.51 ± 2.78 (a) | 10.03 ± 0.27 (a) | 223.14 ± 2.71 (d) | 220.27 ± 2.07 (d) | 218.71 ± 3.24 (d) | 205.98 ± 8.35 (f) |
| MetOH | 31.77 ± 2.23 (ab) | 12.46 ± 0.6 (b) | 207.44 ± 1.48 (c) | 171.75 ± 1.08 (c) | 205.93 ± 0.41 (c) | 177.9 ± 1.71 (d) |
| BHT 1 | - | - | 34.33 ± 0.03 (a) | 50.11 ± 0.18 (a) | - | - |
| Trolox 2 | - | - | - | - | - | 132.98 ± 0.95 (b) |
| Ascorbic Acid | - | - | - | - | 182.08 ± 1.12 (a) | 116.75 ± 0.32 (a) |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
| EtOH | 18.87 ± 0.36 (a) | 5.11 ± 0.19 (d) | 268.4 ± 4.46 (d) | 252.84 ± 1.66 (c) | 272.49 ± 4.44 (c) | 266.4 ± 6.41 (e) |
| EtOAc | 21.24 ± 1.4 (ab) | 2.29 ± 0.06 (b) | 246.36 ± 0.45 (c) | 239.42 ± 1.71 (b) | 264.76 ± 4.43 (c) | 227.03 ± 1.37 (d) |
| Hexane | 16.69 ± 1.51 (a) | 1.41 ± 0.33 (a) | 370.8 ± 3.39 (e) | 264.55 ± 2.59 (d) | 301.78 ± 5.81 (d) | 277.02 ± 6.58 (f) |
| MetOH | 24.12 ± 3.36 (b) | 4.07 ± 0.08 (c) | 227.87 ± 0.49 (b) | 235.28 ± 1.15 (b) | 233.89 ± 3.32 (b) | 215.04 ± 1.31 (c) |
| BHT 1 | - | - | 34.33 ± 0.03 (a) | 50.11 ± 0.18 (a) | - | - |
| Trolox 2 | - | - | - | - | - | 132.98 ± 0.95 (b) |
| Ascorbic Acid | - | - | - | - | 182.08 ± 1.12 (a) | 116.75 ± 0.32 (a) |
| Positive control | ||||||
(mg GAE/g): mg of gallic acid equivalent per g of fungal extract; (mg QE/g): mg of quercitin acid equivalent per g of fungal extract; IC50 (µg/mL) values corresponding to the amount of the extract providing 50% of inhibition percentage. 1: 1,2,3-benzothiadiazole-7-carbothioic acid S-methyl ester; 2: 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid.
GGDC values for Penicillium citrinum and Geotrichum candidum isolates.
| Query Genome | Reference Genome | Formula 2 (Identities/HSP Length) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DDH | Distance | Prob. DDH ≥ 70% | ||
| 97.3 | 0.0040 | 97.7 | ||
| 18.6 | 0.2367 | 0 | ||
Figure 3Heat map of the mining of genes contributing to secondary metabolite clusters (A). antiSMASH hits of core and accessory genomes (B) of examined Geotrichum and Penicillium strains.