| Literature DB >> 31547161 |
Li-Xia Zhao1, Min-Lei Yin2, Qing-Rui Wang3, Yue-Li Zou4, Tao Ren5, Shuang Gao6, Ying Fu7, Fei Ye8.
Abstract
The herbicide fomesafen has the advantages of low toxicity and high selectivity, and the target of this compound is protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase (PPO, EC 1.3.3.4). However, this herbicide has a long residual period and can have phytotoxic effects on succeeding crops. To protect maize from fomesafen, a series of thiazole phenoxypyridines were designed based on structure-activity relationships, active substructure combinations, and bioisosterism. Bioassays showed that thiazole phenoxypyridines could improve maize tolerance under fomesafen toxicity stress to varying degrees at a dose of 10 mg·kg-1. Compound 4i exhibited the best effects. After being treated by compound 4i, average recovery rates of growth index exceeded 72%, glutathione content markedly increased by 167% and glutathione S-transferase activity was almost 163% of fomesafen-treated group. More importantly, after being treated by compound 4i, the activity of PPO, the main target enzyme of fomesafen, recovered to 93% of the control level. The molecular docking result exhibited that the compound 4i could compete with fomesafen to bind with the herbicide target enzyme, which consequently attained the herbicide detoxification. The present work suggests that compound 4i could be developed as a potential safener to protect maize from fomesafen.Entities:
Keywords: PPO; molecular docking; safener activity; synthesis; thiazole phenoxypyridines
Year: 2019 PMID: 31547161 PMCID: PMC6843476 DOI: 10.3390/biom9100514
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Figure 1The design of the target compounds.
Scheme 1Route for the synthesis of compound 1 and compound 2.
Scheme 2Route for the synthesis of compound 3.
Scheme 3Route for the synthesis of compound 4.
Yields of title compounds 4
| Compd | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | Yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| CH3 | CH3 | COOCH3 | H | CF3 | H | H | 85 |
|
| (CH2)2CH3 | (CH2)2CH3 | COOCH3 | H | CF3 | H | H | 70 |
|
| CH3 | CH3 | H | H | CF3 | H | H | 74 |
|
| (CH2)5 | COOCH3 | H | CF3 | H | H | 87 | |
|
| CH2CH3 | CH2CH3 | H | H | CF3 | H | H | 67 |
|
| CH2CH3 | CH2CH3 | COOCH3 | H | CF3 | H | H | 73 |
|
| (CH2)2CH3 | CH3 | H | H | H | Cl | H | 51 |
|
| (CH2)4 | H | H | CF3 | H | H | 76 | |
|
| (CH2)5 | H | H | CF3 | H | H | 84 | |
|
| (CH2)2CH3 | CH3 | H | H | CF3 | H | H | 62 |
|
| (CH2)5 | H | H | CH3 | Cl | CH3 | 93 | |
|
| CH2CH3 | CH2CH3 | H | H | CH3 | Cl | CH3 | 64 |
|
| (CH2)2CH3 | (CH2)2CH3 | H | H | CH3 | Cl | CH3 | 57 |
|
| CH3 | CH3 | H | H | CH3 | Cl | CH3 | 87 |
|
| CH3 | C(CH3)3 | H | H | CH3 | Cl | CH3 | 39 |
|
| (CH2)4 | H | H | H | Cl | H | 43 | |
|
| (CH2)5 | H | H | H | Cl | H | 49 | |
|
| (CH2)2CH3 | (CH2)2CH3 | H | H | H | Cl | H | 31 |
|
| CH3 | CH3 | H | H | H | Cl | H | 46 |
|
| (CH2)2CH3 | (CH2)2CH3 | H | H | CF3 | H | H | 43 |
|
| CH3 | C(CH3)3 | H | H | H | Cl | H | 21 |
|
| CH3 | CH3 | H | Cl | H | Cl | H | 38 |
|
| CH2CH3 | CH2CH3 | H | Cl | H | Cl | H | 35 |
|
| (CH2)4 | H | Cl | H | Cl | H | 38 | |
|
| (CH2)2CH3 | (CH2)2CH3 | H | Cl | H | Cl | H | 23 |
|
| (CH2)4 | H | H | CH3 | Cl | CH3 | 42 | |
Figure 2Crystal structure of compound 4a.
Figure 3Packing view of compound 4a, hydrogen bonds are described dashed lines.
Effect of safener concentration on maize growth indicator recovery rates I,II,III.
| Treatment | Recovery of Plant Height (%) | Recovery of Root Length (%) | Recovery of Plant Weight (%) | Recovery of Root Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 30.20 ± 1.11 c | 32.35 ± 0.79 b | 33.36 ± 1.46 abcd | 36.35 ±2.86 bc |
|
| 40.75 ± 1.70 e | 35.52 ± 1.48 bc | 38.28 ± 0.68 defg | 44.11 ± 3.85 f |
|
| 54.02 ± 0.92 g | 52.31 ± 4.04 gh | 40.40 ± 2.47 deg | 33.62 ± 1.30 b |
|
| 56.17 ± 1.36 g | 27.39 ± 2.3 2a | 41.62 ± 0.55 fgh | 54.81 ± 1.05 gh |
|
| 40.88 ± 0.66 e | 42.37 ± 2.91 de | 29.09 ± 1.22 ab | 17.85 ± 1.28 a |
|
| 27.26 ± 0.99 b | 42.57 ± 2.49 de | 35.91 ± 1.89 de | 42.16 ± 0.37 def |
|
| 29.59 ± 1.75 bc | 47.78 ± 2.65 fg | 37.35 ± 1.11 def | 42.79 ± 2.31 cef |
|
| 50.37 ± 1.80 f | 57.13 ± 4.98 ij | 63.75 ± 1.06 kl | 66.48 ± 2.83 j |
|
| 72.41 ± 1.49 l | 73.34 ± 0.76 l | 77.33 ± 6.08 m | 81.96 ± 3.91 l |
|
| 65.81 ± 1.13 j | 60.35 ± 2.20 j | 64.54 ± 1.25 kl | 55.02 ± 1.33 gh |
|
| 61.05 ± 1.37 i | 50.33 ± 2.51 fgh | 61.43 ± 1.8 1kl | 62.31 ± 0.56 ij |
|
| 58.65 ± 0.65 h | 68.38 ± 2.05 k | 62.76 ± 1.52 kl | 65.95 ± 1.63 j |
|
| 40.40 ± 1.46 m | 59.24 ± 2.81 j | 49.04 ± 3.89 ij | 56.46 ± 0.33 g |
|
| 29.07 ± 1.05 bc | 38.92 ± 2.94 cd | 34.26 ± 2.63 bcd | 17.38 ± 8.10 a |
|
| 69.04 ± 1.32 k | 67.78 ± 1.90 k | 67.03 ± 3.24 k | 67.18 ± 2.03 i |
|
| 40.68 ± 2.93 e | 50.77 ± 2.65fgh | 66.55 ± 3.69 k | 62.86 ± 0.49 ij |
|
| 27.82 ± 0.95 bc | 39.95 ± 6.26 cd | 28.15 ± 2.29 a | 39.86 ± 5.55 def |
|
| 55.11 ± 1.19 g | 42.77 ± 2.26 de | 63.22 ± 7.56 kl | 51.190 ± 3.68 g |
|
| 40.17 ± 0.96 e | 46.12 ± 0.49 ef | 42.73 ± 2.43 gh | 52.07 ± 3.34 g |
|
| 37.29 ± 1.39 d | 38.38 ± 3.58 cd | 46.08 ± 3.30 hi | 38.70 ± 0.63 bcde |
|
| 54.32s ± 1.89 g | 51.11 ± 0.87 gh | 59.22 ± 3.30 k | 60.04 ± 1.57 hi |
|
| 51.54 ± 2.40 f | 67.78 ± 1.02 k | 52.99 ± 0.89 j | 63.24 ± 0.62 ij |
|
| 22.75 ± 0.81 a | 40.22 ± 0.51 cd | 33.86 ± 2.26 bcd | 37.41 ± 3.35 bcd |
|
| 64.93 ± 1.57 j | 53.57 ± 1.69 hi | 65.95 ± 2.91 k | 73.27 ± 3.89 k |
|
| 41.70 ± 1.87 e | 33.69 ± 1.88 b | 30.894 ± 3.82 abc | 34.93 ± 0.69 bc |
|
| 69.39 ± 0.22 l | 65.93 ± 1.44 k | 65.94 ± 0.63 l | 73.43 ± 2.04 k |
I Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation of triplicate experiments, different lowercase letters in the table display a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the tested products, different lowercase letters in the same column showed significant difference at the p < 0.05 level through Duncan’s multiple range test in SPSS statistics 20. ; III Control was treated by water.
Effect of compounds on GSH, GST, and PPO activity of maize I,II.
| Treatment | GSH Content (μg·g−1) | GST Activity (nmol ·min−1·mg−1 Protein) | PPO Activity (U/L) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.5 ± 0.2 fg | 6.4± 0.2 cde | 79.3 ± 0.4 b |
|
| 3.2 ± 0.3 abcd | 5.9 ± 0.2 abc | 162.4 ± 0.9 p |
|
| 3.5 ± 0.5 bcde | 8.1 ± 0.6 hi | 99.6 ± 3.5 fg |
|
| 3.9 ± 0.4 def | 5.7 ± 0.3 ab | 97.4 ± 0.5 f |
|
| 3.8 ± 0.2 de | 9.4 ± 0.2 k | 104.3 ± 1.4 gh |
|
| 3.6 ± 0.2 cde | 9.0 ± 0.2 jk | 107.3 ± 4.5 hi |
|
| 2.5 ± 0.3 a | 8.5 ± 0.2 ij | 113.1 ± 0.3 ij |
|
| 3.9 ± 0.4 ef | 8.6 ± 0.4 ij | 86.2 ± 3.2 cd |
|
| 4.1 ± 0.4 ef | 8.4 ± 0.1 ij | 115.9 ± 0.7 jk |
|
| 6.4 ± 0.6 i | 6.3 ± 0.2 bcd | 153.8 ± 6.6 o |
|
| 8.4 ± 0.4 k | 10.4 ± 0.8 l | 154.7 ± 4.5 o |
|
| 5.1 ± 0.2 gh | 6.3 ± 0.1 bcde | 143.9 ± 0.3 n |
|
| 5.4 ± 0.2 h | 6.5 ± 0.2 de | 126.5 ± 1.6 m |
|
| 6.8 ± 0.2 i | 6.9 ± 0.4 ef | 123.0 ± 0.2 lm |
|
| 5.1 ± 0.4 gh | 9.5 ± 0.4 k | 85.3 ± 0.2 cd |
|
| 3.8 ± 0.2 cde | 8.6 ± 0.1 ij | 88.4 ± 3.9 de |
|
| 6.8 ± 0.7 i | 9.3 ± 0.2 k | 155.5 ± 11.2 o |
|
| 3.0 ± 0.3 abc | 6.7 ± 0.4 de | 93.6 ± 2.3 ef |
|
| 3.8 ± 0.2 cde | 5.5 ± 0.2 a | 111.1 ± 2.1 ij |
|
| 3.9 ± 0.3 ef | 5.5 ± 0.3 a | 81.6 ± 0.2 bc |
|
| 4.1 ± 0.3 ef | 6.4 ± 0.1 cde | 66.9 ± 0.7 a |
|
| 3.1 ± 0.2 abc | 7.3 ± 0.1 fg | 97.2 ± 0.8 f |
|
| 3.8 ± 0.2 cde | 5.8 ± 0.3 abc | 113.1 ± 0.2 ij |
|
| 4.9 ± 0.2 gh | 6.2 ± 0.3 bcd | 120.0 ± 0.7 kl |
|
| 3.1 ± 0.6 abc | 7.7 ± 0.2 gh | 86.8 ± 2.4 cd |
|
| 5.1 ± 0.3 gh | 6.8 ± 0.4 def | 128.8 ± 4.7 m |
|
| 2.8 ± 0.1 ab | 5.9 ± 0.4 abc | 94.5 ± 0.6 f |
|
| 7.8 ± 0.6 j | 9.2 ± 0.2 k | 151.4 ± 6.2 o |
I Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation of triplicate experiments, different lowercase letters in the table display a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the tested products, different lowercase letters in the same column showed significant difference at the p < 0.05 level through Duncan’s multiple range test in SPSS statistics 20; II Control was treated by water.
Figure 4Structure–activity relationships for thiazole phenoxypyridines derivatives 4 against maize.
Figure 5The receptor-ligand interaction of fomesafen (A) and compound 4i (B) with the PPO active site.
Figure 6Zoomed-in view of the docking modeling of fomesafen (A) and 4i (B) with PPO at active site. The carbon atoms are shown in yellow (A) and indigo (B); the sulfur atoms are shown in brown (A,B); the oxygen atoms are shown in red (A,B); the nitrogen atoms are shown in blue (A,B).