| Literature DB >> 32042948 |
Sharifah Farhana Syed-Ab-Rahman1, Lilia Costa Carvalhais2, Dzolkhifli Omar1.
Abstract
Bacterial leaf blight (BLB) and sheath brown rot (SBR), caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae (Xoo) and Pseudomonas fuscovaginae, respectively, are bacterial diseases that lead to substantial yield losses in rice. Natural plant-based products represent a sustainable alternative to combat bacterial diseases due to their biodegradability and overall safety. However efficient ways of delivering them are crucial to their success. In an attempt to maximize the antibacterial properties of botanical bactericides for the control of these pathogens, this study evaluated the efficiency of different emulsion formulations of Piper sarmentosum extracts. The emulsion formulations were demonstrated to be effective in controlling BLB and SBR of rice in in vitro plate assays and in planta under glasshouse conditions. The observed in vitro inhibition of the bacterial pathogens and significant disease suppression in planta indicate that these plant extract formulations represent promising alternatives to be adopted in management strategies for controlling rice diseases.Entities:
Keywords: Agricultural science; Bacterial leaf blight; Biological control; Microbiology; Natural product chemistry; Piper sarmentosum; Plant biology; Plant-based formulations; Rice; Sheath brown rot
Year: 2020 PMID: 32042948 PMCID: PMC7002789 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e03151
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Ratios of the mixture for each formulation.
| No. | Compounds | Proportion | Code |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Termul 5030 (1)/Methyl ester/Crude extract | (4.9:5.1:90) | EF1 |
| 2 | Termul 5030 (2)/Methyl ester/Crude extract | (5.9:4.1:90) | EF2 |
| 3 | Termul 1284/Crude extract | (10:90) | EF3 |
Amount of emulsion components in the formulations.
| Emulsion components | Function | Amount (in %) |
|---|---|---|
| Crude extracts and water | Aqueous phase | 90 |
| Methyl ester | Oily phase | 0–5 |
| Termul 1284/5030 | Surfactants | 5–10 |
Composition of chemical constituents in the methanol extract of fresh leaves of P. sarmentosum.
| ID# | Name of compounds | Ret. time | Ret. index | Conc. unit | S/N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Butanal, 2-methyl- | 2.693 | 696 | 0.359 % | 104.72 |
| 2 | 4H-Pyran-4-one, 2,3-dihydro-3,5-dihydroxy-6-methyl- | 17.883 | 1158 | 1.880 % | 181.37 |
| 3 | 4-vinylphenol | 21.543 | 1234 | 2.221 % | 196.99 |
| 4 | Hydrocinnamate < methyl-> | 24.087 | 1288 | 0.497 % | 132.22 |
| 5 | Naphthalene <1,2,3,4,4a,7-hexahydro-, 1,6-dimethyl-, 4-(1-methylethyl)-, (1alpha,4beta,4abeta)-(±)-> | 28.373 | 1380 | 0.695 % | 23.35 |
| 6 | Cubebene < alpha-> | 28.92 | 1392 | 0.750 % | 8.87 |
| 7 | Methyl eugenol | 29.925 | 1415 | 1.810 % | 1.01 |
| 8 | Caryophyllene | 30.44 | 1427 | 4.037 % | 3.26 |
| 9 | alpha.-Humulene | 32.063 | 1464 | 0.450 % | 147.47 |
| 10 | Myristicin | 32.345 | 1470 | 0.474 % | 7.31 |
| 11 | Copaene < alpha-> | 32.87 | 1482 | 0.439 % | 2.01 |
| 12 | Cubebene < alpha-> | 33.187 | 1489 | 2.136 % | 141.49 |
| 13 | Naphthalene, decahydro-4a-methyl-1-methylene-7-(1-methylethenyl)-, [4aR-(4a.alpha. 7. alpha., 8a.beta.)]- | 33.582 | 1498 | 0.294 % | 29.01 |
| 14 | bicyclogermacrene | 33.817 | 1504 | 1.664 % | 5.47 |
| 15 | 34.232 | 1514 | 23.22 | ||
| 16 | Unknown | 34.57 | 1522 | 0.529 % | 58.73 |
| 17 | Cadinene < delta-> | 34.73 | 1526 | 1.229 % | 0.34 |
| 18 | Unknown | 35.185 | 1537 | 0.449 % | 9.49 |
| 19 | Benzenepropanoic acid, 4-methoxy-, methyl ester | 35.588 | 1547 | 1.227 % | 5.25 |
| 20 | Cyclohexanemethanol, 4-ethenyl-.alpha., .alpha, 4-trimethyl-3-(1-methylethenyl)-, [1R-(1.alpha. 3. alpha., 4.beta.)]- | 36.132 | 1560 | 1.539 % | 4.88 |
| 21 | Benzene, 1,2,3-trimethoxy-5-(2-propenyl)- | 36.205 | 1561 | 0.563 % | 60.92 |
| 22 | 1,6,10-Dodecatrien-3-ol, 3,7,11-trimethyl-, (E)- | 36.455 | 1567 | 0.702 % | 0.37 |
| 23 | 37.073 | 1582 | 855.98 | ||
| 24 | Caryophyllene oxide | 37.642 | 1596 | 0.356 % | 11.26 |
| 25 | 4-(4-Methoxyphenyl)-1-butanol | 37.94 | 1603 | 1.150 % | 17.27 |
| 26 | Trans (.Alpha.)-asarone | 38.942 | 1629 | 1.958 % | 48.85 |
| 27 | Apiol | 40.422 | 1666 | 2.970 % | 74.04 |
| 28 | 41.585 | 1696 | 606.46 | ||
| 29 | Unknown | 43.077 | 1735 | 8.339 % | 134.44 |
| 30 | Unknown | 45.928 | 1812 | 1.051 % | 605.26 |
| 31 | Unknown | 46.225 | 1820 | 0.358 % | 20.70 |
| 32 | Neophytadiene | 46.782 | 1836 | 0.462 % | 10.16 |
| 33 | Unknown | 48.335 | 1879 | 0.329 % | 55.09 |
| 34 | Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester | 50.143 | 1931 | 0.387 % | 36.70 |
| 35 | n-Hexadecanoic acid | 51.538 | 1972 | 0.829 % | 2.52 |
| 36 | Unknown | 52.432 | 1998 | 2.631 % | 25.36 |
| 37 | Linolenate < methyl-> | 55.955 | 2107 | 0.338 % | 61.77 |
| 38 | Phytol | 56.212 | 2115 | 8.227 % | 422.07 |
| 39 | 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid (Z,Z)- | 57.117 | 2144 | 0.324 % | 19.53 |
| 40 | 7-Tetradecenal, (Z)- | 57.33 | 2151 | 0.851 % | 9.45 |
| 41 | Unknown | 58.06 | 2174 | 0.216 % | 2.74 |
| 42 | Octanoic acid, 2-dimethylaminoethyl ester | 61.525 | 2289 | 0.493 % | 48.57 |
| 43 | Fumaric acid, 2-dimethylaminoethyl heptyl ester | 66.64 | 2470 | 0.323 % | 28.37 |
| 44 | Hexadecanoic acid, 2-hydroxy-1-(hydroxymethyl)ethyl ester | 68.265 | 2530 | 0.990 % | 34.89 |
| 45 | Unknown | 73.028 | 2714 | 0.282 % | 0.53 |
| 46 | Benzene, 1-methoxy-4-(phenylethynyl) | 73.518 | 2734 | 0.806 % | 13.70 |
| 47 | Vitamin E | 83.075 | 3147 | 0.519 % | 30.26 |
| 48 | Unknown | 85.693 | 3267 | 0.337 % | 3.58 |
| 49 | Unknown | 86.3 | 3295 | 0.462 % | 3.50 |
| 50 | Stigmast-5-en-3-ol, (3.beta.) | 88.002 | 3373 | 1.017 % | 8.31 |
S/N: signal-to-noise ratio.
Figure 1Total-ion current (TIC) of GC-MS chromatogram of 50 major compounds in a P. sarmentosum leaf extracts.
Figure 2Phase diagram system of Termul 1284/methyl ester/water with 20% (w/w) active ingredients.
Figure 3Phase diagram system of Termul 5030/methyl ester/water with 20% (w/w) active ingredient.
Characterization of the emulsion formulations of P. sarmentosum crude extract.
| Formulations | Particle size (d.nm) | Polydispersive index (PDI) | Zeta potential (mV) | Cond. (mS/cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EF1 | 78.3 | 0.294 | -30.9 | 0.95 |
| EF2 | 112 | 1.0 | -32.5 | 1.9 |
| EF3 | 198 | 0.595 | -31.2 | 0.83 |
Figure 4Inhibition zones on Mueller Hinton agar plates by agar well diffusion assay of EF1 emulsion formulation of P. sarmentosum crude extract against Xoo.
Antibacterial activity of emulsion formulations of P. sarmentosum crude extract against rice pathogenic bacteria, Pseudomonas fuscovaginae and Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae.
| Bacteria Treatments | Xoo | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agar well diffusion (cm) | Disc diffusion (cm) | Agar well diffusion (cm) | Disc diffusion (cm) | |
| EF1 | 19.6 ± 0.86 b | 15.42 ± 0.97 bc | 20.8 ± 0.52 a | 15.78 ± 0.86 b |
| EF2 | 19.73 ± 0.77 b | 15.7 ± 0.81 b | 19.48 ± 0.5 b | 15.55 ± 0.83 b |
| EF3 | 19.67 ± 0.58 b | 15.88 ± 0.9 b | 20.25 ± 0.51 ab | 15.62 ± 0.94 b |
| CE | 17.52 ± 0.85 c | 14.3 ± 0.44 c | 17.43 ± 1.05 c | 14.57 ± 0.69 b |
| PC | 21.12 ± 0.44 a | 20.97 ± 0.27 a | 21.18 ± 0.4 a | 20.08 ± 0.61 a |
| NC | 0 d | 0 d | 0 d | 0 c |
Within columns, values with different letters indicate significantly significant differences (Tukey Kramer HSD, P < 0.05). All the tests were performed in triplicate. The experiment was repeated twice. EF: Emulsion formulation CE: Crude extract PC: Positive control (Streptomycin sulphate, 100 ppm) NC: Negative control (Methanol (v/v) IC: Infected control.
Effect of P. sarmentosum emulsion formulation on sheath brown rot (SBR) and bacteria leaf blight (BLB) disease severity and reduction of rice plants under glasshouse conditions.
| Treatments | Disease severity (%) | Reduction (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBR | BLB | SBR | BLB | |
| EF1 | 29.63 ± 1.03 ab | 14.81 ± 0.82 a | 55.56 ± 0.12 a | 80.96 ± 0.54 a |
| EF2 | 25.9 ± 0.82 b | 14.81 ± 0.82 a | 61.15 ± 0.18 a | 80.96 ± 0.54 a |
| EF3 | 29.63 ± 1.03 ab | 14.81 ± 0.82 a | 55.56 ± 0.09 a | 80.96 ± 0.54 a |
| PC | 11.11 ± 1.1 a | 9.26 ± 0.82 a | 83.34 ± 1.3 b | 88.09 ± 0.9 b |
| IC | 66.67 ± 0.21 c | 77.78 ± 0.41 b | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Values in the column represent the mean ± SE. Different letters within columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments according to the least significant difference test (P < 0.05). PC: positive control, IC: infected control, SBR: sheath brown rot, BLB: bacterial leaf blight.