| Literature DB >> 30808281 |
Wanggege Qin1, Chengxiong Liu1,2, Wei Jiang1,3, Yanhong Xue1,2, Guangxi Wang3, Shiping Liu4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drought and its resulting oxidative damage are the major yield limiting factors for crops in arid and semi-arid regions. Recent studies have found that endophytic fungi coexisting in plants can alleviate biotic or abiotic damage to plant growth and development. In order to screen for the endophytes associated with drought stress, 12 strains of endophytic fungi with high antioxidant activity isolated from riparian plants Myricaria laxiflora were evaluated for their effects in rice by the crude extracts.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Aspergillus fumigatus; Drought stress; Endophytic fungus; NFA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30808281 PMCID: PMC6390358 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-019-1419-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Characteristics of twelve endophytes isolated from M. laxiflora
| Strain number | Tissue origin | Isolated conditiona | T-AOC (U/mL) b | Serial number in Genbank | The most homologous speciesc | Similarity (%) | Survival rate (%)d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HG-2 | Root | AF | 24.85 ± 0.22 | MK450292 |
| 99 | 0 |
| HY-1 | Leaf | AF | 34.88 ± 0.80 | MK450293 |
| 98 | 0 |
| MG-23 | Root | AF | 21.32 ± 0.10 | MK450294 |
| 99 | 0 |
| MY-15 | Leaf | AF | 27.47 ± 0.92 | MK450295 |
| 98 | 0 |
| MY-22 | Leaf | AF | 18.56 ± 0.28 | MK450296 |
| 98 | 0 |
| QY-1 | Leaf | BF | 55.90 ± 0.84 | KU954091 |
| 100 | 23.33 |
| SG-16 | Root | BF | 19.65 ± 0.13 | MK450297 |
| 96 | 0 |
| SG-17 | Root | BF | 29.64 ± 0.17 | MK450298 |
| 99 | 36.67 |
| SG-4 | Root | BF | 15.85 ± 0.36 | MK450299 |
| 98 | 16.67 |
| SG-5 | Root | BF | 20.20 ± 0.46 | MK450300 |
| 99 | 0 |
| SG-6 | Root | BF | 21.03 ± 0.17 | MK450301 |
| 99 | 0 |
| SY-15 | Leaf | BF | 25.99 ± 0.47 | KX822145 |
| 98 | 13.33 |
| Average T-AOC of 163 fungi | 8.22 ± 1.76 | – | – | – | – | ||
| NFA | – | – | – | – | 50 | ||
| Proline (Pro) | – | – | – | – | 30 | ||
| Ascorbic acid (Vc) | – | – | – | – | 0 | ||
aNote: AF means that the fungus was isolated from M. laxiflora plants after flooding, and BF before flooding. bT-AOC: Total antioxidant capacity. cThe most homologous species are obtained by ITS sequence alignment in Genbank [34]. dSurvival rate was investigated by applying the crude extract of endophytic fungi or other substances to 30 rice seedlings after drought
Fig. 1Effect of SG-17 crude extract on rice against drought stress. a Rice seedlings after 20 days of drought. b Drought + SG-17 crude extract. c Drought + Proline. d Well watered + SG-17 crude extract. e Drought + SG-17 living hyphae. f Well watered seedlings. g Dry weight (DW) of the seedlings, * means significant difference with P < 0.05 and ** for P < 0.01 compared with drought group, n = 3
Fig. 2Physiological analysis of rice against drought by SG-17 crude extract. a Proline content. Dr.: seedlings subjected to drought for 20 days. Dr. + SG-17: Drought + SG-17 crude extract. Pro: Drought + Proline. Normal: well watered. Ducan’s multiple range test, p < 0.05 and n = 3. b MDA content. c Membrane relative permeability. d Relative water content
Antioxidant activity of SG-17 crude extract assayed by two methods
| Substances | T-AOC(U/mL)a | DPPH Clearance rate(%) |
|---|---|---|
| SG-17 crude extract | 62.56 ± 0.16** | 90.57 ± 0.35** |
| Vc as a control | 196.33 ± 0.11** | 91.87 ± 0.05** |
| Fraction 1 | 0.00 ± 0.05 | 3.42 ± 0.16** |
| Fraction 2 | 3240.94 ± 25.99** | 23.79 ± 0.27** |
| Fraction 3 | 0.00 ± 0.03 | 11.38 ± 0.25** |
| Fraction 4 | 769.67 ± 12.59** | 0.00 ± 0.05 |
| Blank | 0.00 ± 0.07 | 0.00 ± 0.03 |
aANOVA analysis was compared with the blank group at n = 3, and * means significant difference at P < 0.05, ** for P < 0.01
Fig. 3Effect of fraction 2 in protecting SH-SY5Y cells from oxidative stress. a Various concentration of fraction 2 and the resultant relative survival rate with or without simulated oxidant, t-test, * means P < 0.05, and ** for 0.01. b Leakage rate of lactate dehydrogenase under oxidant stress. Enzyme activity of SOD (c), Caspase 3 (d) and Caspase 9 (e) response to simulated oxidant and fraction 2
Fig. 4Identification of fraction 2 as NFA. a Structure of NFA. b Structure of ENFA. Separation of NFA (c) and ENFA (d) by TLC. e Separation of fraction 2 by semi-preparative HPLC. f 1H-NMR and 13C-NMR data of compound fraction 2
Fig. 5Effects of NFA on rice resistance to drought stress. a Well watered rice seedlings. b Seedlings under drought. c Drought + NFA. d Drought + Proline. e Drought + Vc
Fig. 6Oxidative metabolism affected by NFA in rice under drought adversity. Dynamic data were acquired after drought for 5, 10, 15 and 20 days. a SOD enzyme activity. b POD enzyme activity. c NADPH oxidase content. d HSP70 content