| Literature DB >> 31640228 |
Yaochen Wang1, Keke Wei2, Xiaobin Han3, Donglin Zhao4, Yanfen Zheng5, Jianmin Chao6, Jianyu Gou7, Fanyu Kong8, Cheng-Sheng Zhang9.
Abstract
This study explored the chemical compositions of garlic essential oil, the inhibitory activity of garlic essential oil and diallyl disulfide (DADS) against Phytophthora nicotianae, and the effects on mycelial plasma membrane permeability and P. nicotianae inhibition. In total, 29 compounds were detected in garlic essential oil, of which 26 were detected by gas chromatography‒mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and 21 by headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) GC-MS. DADS (60.12% and 19.09%) and trisulfide di-2-propenyl (14.18% and 17.98%) were the major components identified by HS-SPME GC-MS and GC-MS analysis, respectively. Half-inhibitory concentration (Ec50, antagonism) and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC, fumigation) of DADS against P. nicotianae were 150.83 μL/L and 20 μL/L, respectively, while Ec50 of garlic essential oil was 1108.25 μL/L. Mycelial membrane permeability gradually increased in a concentration-dependent manner, and cell death increased at 450 μL/L DADS. Furthermore, DADS treatment significantly reduced the incidence of tobacco black shank and the number of P. nicotianae pathogens in rhizosphere soil. DADS also promoted root development of tobacco seedlings at low concentrations, which was inhibited at high concentrations. Therefore, DADS may play an important role in the antifungal effect against P. nicotianae by destroying mycelial cell membrane integrity, causing an increase in cell membrane permeability, and leading to cell death.Entities:
Keywords: Phytophthora nicotianae; biofumigant; diallyl disulfide; garlic essential oil; volatiles
Year: 2019 PMID: 31640228 PMCID: PMC6843687 DOI: 10.3390/biom9100632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Chemical composition of garlic essential oil (GC and GC-MS analysis).
| Compounds | RT a, min | Relative Amount (%) | Identification Method d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HS-SPME | SD b | |||
| Disulfide, dimethyl | 3.43 | 0.05 | Tr c | MS |
| Diacetone alcohol | 5.53 | 0.25 | 7 | MS, RI |
| Diallyl sulfide (DAS) | 5.9 | 5.69 | 1.78 | MS, RI |
| Disulfide, methyl 2-propenyl | 7.48 | 1.39 | tr | MS, RI |
| Disulfide, methyl (1E) -1-propenyl | 8.13 | 0.15 | 0.08 | MS, RI |
| 1,2-Dithiole | 8.64 | 0.08 | 0.05 | MS, RI |
| Dimethyl trisulfide | 9.04 | 0.08 | tr | MS, RI |
| α-Limonene | 10.92 | 0.73 | 0.19 | MS, RI |
| Diallyl disulfide (DADS) | 12.62 | 60.12 | 19.09 | MS, RI |
| 1-Allyl-2-isopropyldisulfane | 12.92 | 1.43 | 0.43 | MS, RI |
| ( | 13.1 | 1.07 | 0.32 | MS, RI |
| Disulfide, dipropyl | 13.38 | 9.13 | 2.95 | MS, RI |
| Trisulfide, methyl 2-propenyl | 14.25 | 2.24 | 0.86 | MS, RI |
| 4-Methyl-1,2,3-trithiolane | 14.77 | 0.17 | 0.22 | MS, RI |
| 3-Vinyl-3,6-dihydro-1,2-dithiine | 15.75 | 0.35 | 0.15 | MS, RI |
| 2-Vinyl-4H-1,3-dithiine | 16.5 | 0.66 | 0.36 | MS, RI |
| Carvone | 17.31 | 0.12 | 0.11 | MS, RI |
| Anethol | 18.53 | 0.42 | 0.57 | MS, RI |
| Trisulfide, di-2-propenyl (DATS) | 19.02 | 14.18 | 17.98 | MS, RI |
| 1-Allyl-3-propyltrisulfane | 19.29 | 0.14 | 0.17 | MS, RI |
| 5-Methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrathiane | 20.83 | 0.14 | 0.33 | MS, RI |
| Tetrasulfide, di-2-propenyl | 25.12 | 0.45 | 3.85 | MS, RI |
| 1-Allyl-3-(2-(allylthio) propyl) trisulfane | 31.23 | tr | 1.31 | MS, RI |
| n-Hexadecanoic acid | 34.37 | tr | 4.26 | MS, RI |
| 1-Allyl-3-(2-(allyldisulfanyl) propyl) trisulfane | 36.41 | tr | 0.28 | MS, RI |
| 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid ( | 37.92 | tr | 16.72 | MS, RI |
| 9-Octadecenoic acid, ( | 38.01 | tr | 7.74 | MS, RI |
| Octadecanoic acid | 38.2 | tr | 0.42 | MS, RI |
| Isopropyl linoleate | 39.28 | tr | 0.64 | MS, RI |
| β-Monolinolein | 43.7 | tr | 0.61 | MS, RI |
| Total identified (%) | 99.03 | 88.47 | ||
a RT, retention time, b SD, solvent diluted, c tr Trace (<0.05%), d Identification method, MS: Comparison of mass spectra with mass spectral libraries, RI: Comparison to retention indices in libraries or literature.
Figure 1GC-MS total ion chromatograms of garlic essential oil. (A) Diluted with n-hexane; (B) volatile compounds sampling by HS-SPME method. 1, diallyl sulfide (DAS); 2, diallyl disulfide (DADS); 3, disulfide, dipropyl; 4, trisulfide, methyl 2-propenyl; 5, trisulfide, di-2-propenyl (DATS); 6, tetrasulfide, di-2-propenyl.
Figure 2Fumigation effect of 20 μL/L DADS on P. nicotianae. (A) Control; (B) mycelia treated with 3 μL/dish (equivalent to fumigation concentration 20 μL/L) of DADS.
Figure 3Effect of DADS on relative conductivity of P. nicotianae mycelia.
Figure 4Effect of DADS on cell death of P. nicotianae. (a-1) Mycelia treated with 450 μL/L DADS under the laser field; (a-2) mycelia treated with 450 μL/L DADS under ordinary light field; (b-1) control under the laser field; (b-2) control under ordinary light field.
The control efficacy of the garlic essential oil and diallyl disulfide (DADS) treatments against tobacco black shank.
| Treatment | Root Irrigation Effect | Fumigation Effect | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease Index | Control Effect (%) | Disease Index | Control Effect (%) | |
| GEO 1000 a | 66.67 ± 1.10 b | 19.40 ± 0.53 d | 48.15 ± 1.33 b | 41.80 ± 0.265 c |
| GEO 500 b | 44.44 ± 2.42 d | 46.35 ± 1.70 b | 41.98 ± 1.39 c | 49.27 ± 0.51 b |
| DADS 1000 c | 51.85 ± 2.02 c | 37.36 ± 1.00 c | 46.91 ± 1.85 bc | 43.33 ± 0.93 c |
| DADS 500 d | 41.48 ± 1.21 d | 49.87 ± 0.31 a | 33.33 ± 2.42 d | 59.80 ± 2.01 a |
| CK e | 82.72 ± 1.91 a | - | 82.72 ± 1.91 a | - |
a 1000-times dilution of garlic essential oil diluted with 1% DMSO, b 500-times dilution of garlic essential oil diluted with 1% DMSO, c 1000-times dilution of DADS diluted with 1% DMSO, d 500-times dilution of DADS diluted with 1% DMSO, e control.
DNA copies of P. nicotianae treated with garlic essential oil and DADS.
| Treatment | Copies of Root Irrigation Effect | Copies of Fumigation Effect |
|---|---|---|
| GEO 1000 1 | 558,251.04 ± 9385.42 b | 15,531.74 ± 617.53 d |
| GEO 500 2 | 38,276.60 ± 2752.51 d | 1413.87 ± 98.33 d |
| DADS 1000 3 | 238,512.00 ± 22,176.61 cd | 4623.86 ± 246.49 d |
| DADS 500 4 | 62,955.76 ± 80.94 d | 752.19 ± 2.50 d |
| CK 5 | 9,234,399.25 ± 324,740.51 a | 9,234,399.25 ± 324,740.51 a |
1 1000-times dilution of garlic essential oil diluted with 1% DMSO, 2 500-times dilution of garlic essential oil diluted with 1% DMSO, 3 1000-times dilution of DADS diluted with 1% DMSO, 4 500-times dilution of DADS diluted with 1% DMSO, 5 control.
Effects of different concentrations of DADS on tobacco root development.
| Treatment | Root Length (mm) |
|---|---|
| CK 1 | 19.50 ± 0.764 d |
| DADS 1000 2 | 27.33 ± 0.601 c |
| DADS 500 3 | 27.83 ± 0.603 c |
| DADS 200 4 | 41.50 ± 0.866 b |
| DADS 100 5 | 44.83 ± 0.928 a |
1 Control, 2 1000-times dilution of DADS diluted with 1% DMSO, 3 500-times dilution of DADS diluted with 1% DMSO, 4 200-times dilution of DADS diluted with 1% DMSO, 5 100-times dilution of DADS diluted with 1% DMSO.