| Literature DB >> 30090097 |
Tuan Noraida Tuan Hamzah1, Shiou Yih Lee1, Asep Hidayat2, Razak Terhem3, Ibrahim Faridah-Hanum3, Rozi Mohamed1.
Abstract
Rhizophora mucronata is an important ecosystem entity of the Malaysian mangrove forest. Since the species grows in a harsh environment, any organism that is isolated from this species would be of huge interest due to its potential in having novel bioactive compounds. In the present work, we isolated, identified and characterized, a total of 78 fungal isolates harboring inside the leaf tissues of R. mucronata. Molecular identification using the nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribe spacer (ITS) sequences returned with high similarity matches to known sequences in the GenBank. Maximum likelihood analysis revealed the phylogenetic relationship of all isolates from this study. Most of the dominating fungal endophytes were from the genera Pestalotiopsis, followed by Alternaria and Cladosporium. Six isolates representing the genera Alternaria, Fusarium, Nigrospora, Pestalotiopsis, Phoma, and Xylaria, were further screened for their antagonism activities. Dual culture test assay revealed their inhibition percentages against the phytopathogenic fungus Fusarium solani between 45-66%, and 0.8-23% when using non-volatile test assay. Of the six isolates, only Fusarium lateritium and Xylaria sp. showed antibacterial activities against the pathogenic bacteria, Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus, with the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) ranging from 0.5 to 2 mg/mL. The DPPH radical scavenging assay recorded a high level of antioxidant activity in Xylaria sp., 3-fold above that of F. lateritium. We demonstrate for the first time, two members belonging to the endophytic fungal community in the tropical mangrove species that have potential use as antagonists and antibacterial agents for future biotechnological applications.Entities:
Keywords: ITS; dual culture; fungal endophyte; minimum inhibitory concentration; scavenging activity
Year: 2018 PMID: 30090097 PMCID: PMC6068387 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01707
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Endophytic fungi isolated from the leaves of Rhizophora mucronata. Shown here are some representatives of the fungal isolates, grouped according to their color of colonies and morphological characteristics. All fungal strains were isolated from the inside leaf tissues of the tropical mangrove species and cultivated on conventional media (Medium B) for 7 days at 27°C. Details on the morphological characteristics of the 350 isolates are listed in Supplementary Table 1.
Maximum nucleotide identity match for 78 fungal isolates based on ITS sequences using BLAST analysis.
| 1 | RM1.18A.01 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 2 | RM1.18A.02 ( | 97 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Diaporthaceae | ||
| 3 | RM1.18A.03 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 4 | RM1.18A.04 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Phaeosphaeriaceae | ||
| 5 | RM1.18A.05 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Lophiostomataceae | ||
| 6 | RM1.18A.06 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Apiosporaceae | ||
| 7 | RM1.18A.07 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Tubeufiaceae | ||
| 8 | RM1.18A.08 ( | 97 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariaceae | ||
| 9 | RM1.18A.09 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 10 | RM1.18A.10 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Nectriaceae | ||
| 11 | RM1.18A.11 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 12 | RM1.18A.13 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Apiosporaceae | ||
| 13 | RM1.18A.14 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Apiosporaceae | ||
| 14 | RM2.18A.01 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Nectriaceae | ||
| 15 | RM2.18A.02 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 16 | RM2.18A.03 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 17 | RM2.18A.06 ( | 98 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Nectriaceae | ||
| 18 | RM2.18A.07 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Nectriaceae | ||
| 19 | RM3.18A.01 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 20 | RM3.18A.02 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 21 | RM3.18A.03 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 22 | RM3.18A.04 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 23 | RM3.18A.05 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Basidiomycota, Agaricomycetes, Schizophyllaceae | ||
| 24 | RM3.18A.06 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Basidiomycota, Agaricomycetes, Schizophyllaceae | ||
| 25 | RM3.18A.07 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Diaporthaceae | ||
| 26 | RM3.18A.08 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Cladosporiaceae | ||
| 27 | RM3.18A.09 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Cladosporiaceae | ||
| 28 | RM3.18A.10 ( | 93 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes | ||
| 29 | RM3.18A.11 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Apiosporaceae | ||
| 30 | RM3.18A.13 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Phaeosphaeriaceae | ||
| 31 | RM3.18A.14 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 32 | RM3.18A.15 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 33 | RM3.18A.16 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Didymellaceae | ||
| 34 | RM3.18A.17 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Didymellaceae | ||
| 35 | RM3.18A.18 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 36 | RM3.18A.20 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Didymellaceae | ||
| 37 | RM3.18A.23 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Didymosphaeriaceae | ||
| 38 | RM3.18A.24 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 39 | RM3.18A.25 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Apiosporaceae | ||
| 40 | RM3.18A.26 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Didymellaceae | ||
| 41 | RM1.30.01 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Didymellaceae | ||
| 42 | RM1.30.02 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 43 | RM1.30.04 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 44 | RM1.30.05 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 45 | RM1.30.07 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 46 | RM1.30.08 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 47 | RM1.30.09 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 48 | RM1.30.11 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 49 | RM1.30.12 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 50 | RM1.30.13 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 51 | RM1.30.15 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 52 | RM2.30.02 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Lophiostomataceae | ||
| 53 | RM2.30.03 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 54 | RM2.30.05 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Didymellaceae | ||
| 55 | RM2.30.07 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 56 | RM2.30.11 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Basidiomycota, Agaricomycetes, Schizophyllaceae | ||
| 57 | RM2.30.12 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Cladosporiaceae | ||
| 58 | RM2.30.15 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Didymellaceae | ||
| 59 | RM2.30.17 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Pestalotiopsidaceae | ||
| 60 | RM3.30.01 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Diaporthaceae | ||
| 61 | RM3.30.02 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Leptosphaeriaceae | ||
| 62 | RM3.30.04 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 63 | RM3.30.05 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Phaeosphaeriaceae | ||
| 64 | RM3.30.06 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Apiosporaceae | ||
| 65 | RM3.30.07 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Cladosporiaceae | ||
| 66 | RM3.30.08 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Cladosporiaceae | ||
| 67 | RM3.30.09 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Leptosphaeriaceae | ||
| 68 | RM3.30.10 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes | ||
| 69 | RM3.30.12 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Didymosphaeriaceae | ||
| 70 | RM3.30.13 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Lophiostomataceae | ||
| 71 | RM3.30.14 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Apiosporaceae | ||
| 72 | RM3.30.15 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Leptosphaeriaceae | ||
| 73 | RM3.30.16 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 74 | RM3.30.17 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Tubeufiaceae | ||
| 75 | RM3.30.18 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 76 | RM3.30.19 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota; Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae | ||
| 77 | RM3.30.20 ( | 99 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Leptosphaeriaceae | ||
| 78 | RM3.30.22 ( | 100 | 0.0 | Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporaceae |
Figure 2Maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic tree based on rDNA ITS sequences of endophytic fungal isolates and fungal ITS sequences from the GenBank. ML tree was constructed using the substitution model general time reversible (GTR) model and gamma distributed (+G) with invariant sites (+I) (= GTR+G+I). All positions containing gaps and missing data were included for analysis. Clade supports were calculated based on 1000 bootstrap re-samplings. Accession numbers of the 78 sequences belonging to the endophytic fungi isolated in this study are listed in Table 1, while the reference sequences (117) from the GenBank are listed in Supplementary Table 2.
Figure 3Dual culture plate assay between six endophytic fungal isolates against the pathogen Fusarium solani. Fusarium solani was grown in PDA plates together with (a) Fusarium lateritium, (b) Nigrospora oryzae, (c) Xylaria sp., (d) Phoma sp., (e) Alternaria macrospora, and (f) Pestalotiopsis sp. The plates were cultivated for 7 days at 27°C. Radial growths were measured and types of interaction were observed. Type B interaction was observed for F. lateritium and N. oryzae, type E for Xylaria sp. and Phoma sp., and type F for A. macrospora and Pestalotiopsis sp.
In vitro antagonism of six selected endophytic fungal isolates against the pathogenic fungus, Fusarium solani, using two types of assays.
| 69.64a ± 1.76 | 23.26a, c ± 3.31 | |
| 65.11b ± 0.91 | 25.07a, b ± 1.61 | |
| 64.03b, c ± 0.40 | 2.07d ± 3.58 | |
| 61.89c ± 2.05 | 21.19b, c ± 0.45 | |
| 59.05d ± 1.61 | 1.29d ± 1.19 | |
| 49.40e ± 1.61 | 11.63e ± 2.05 | |
Data are means of percentage of growth inhibition ± standard deviation (SD). Means followed by the same letter in each group are not significantly different at α = 0.05 according to Tukey test (LSD = 2.83 and 4.11, for A and B assays, respectively).
Preliminary screening for antibacterial activities in six selected endophytic fungal isolates against Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus using plate assay.
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| + | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | + | + | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | |
| Streptomycin | 35 | 35 | 35 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
“+” indicates the fungal isolate inhibited bacterial growth, and “–” indicates no inhibition. Streptomycin was used as positive control.
Determination of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of ethyl-acetate extracts of two endophytic fungal isolates against several pathogenic bacteria using the microdilution method.
| 2.00/2.00 | 0.50/0.50 | 0.50/0.50 | 1.00/1.00 | |
| 2.00/2.00 | 0.50/0.50 | 0.50/0.50 | 1.00/1.00 | |
Antioxidant activity of Fusarium lateritium and Xylaria sp. as determined from their free radical-scavenging capacity measured by DPPH assay.
| 1,000 | 29.95c±0.373 | 95.82a±0.079 | 61.16b±0.518 |
| 500 | 14.03c±0.879 | 91.89a±0.925 | 56.82b±4.57 |
| 250 | 8.03c±2.567 | 51.32b±0.356 | 53.03a±7.906 |
| 125 | 6.74c±1.59 | 30.32b±1.060 | 47.45a±9.733 |
| 62.5 | 6.61c±0.273 | 18.76b±1.292 | 39.61a±2.739 |
The fungal extract was prepared in a series of 2-fold dilutions. Ascorbic acid served as positive control. Data are means of inhibition of free radicals by DPPH. Means followed by the same letter across each concentration are not significantly different at α = 0.05 according to Tukey test (LSD = 9.07).