| Literature DB >> 32731345 |
Alfredo Ambrico1, Mario Trupo1, Rosaria Magarelli1, Roberto Balducchi1, Angelo Ferraro2, Evangelos Hristoforou2, Tiziana Marino3, Dino Musmarra3, Patrizia Casella4, Antonio Molino4.
Abstract
Several bacteria pathogens are responsible for plant diseases causing significant economic losses. The antibacterial activity of Dunaliella salina microalgae extracts were investigated in vitro and in vivo. First, biomass composition was chemically characterized and subjected to extraction using polar/non-polar solvents. The highest extraction yield was obtained using chloroform:methanol (1:1 v/v) equal to 170 mg g-1 followed by ethanol (88 mg g-1) and hexane (61 mg g-1). In vitro examination of hexane extracts of Dunaliella salina demonstrated antibacterial activity against all tested bacteria. The hexane extract showed the highest amount of β-carotene with respect to the others, so it was selected for subsequent analyses. In vivo studies were also carried out using hexane extracts of D. salina against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum on young tomato plants and fruits of tomato and zucchini, respectively. The treated young tomato plants exhibited a reduction of 65.7% incidence and 77.0% severity of bacterial speck spot disease. Similarly, a reduction of soft rot symptoms was observed in treated tomato and zucchini fruits with a disease incidence of 5.3% and 12.6% with respect to 90.6% and 100%, respectively, for the positive control.Entities:
Keywords: D. salina; algal bioactive compounds; antibacterial activity; bacterial speck spot disease; microalgae; microalgae extracts; β-carotene
Year: 2020 PMID: 32731345 PMCID: PMC7459613 DOI: 10.3390/pathogens9080613
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pathogens ISSN: 2076-0817
Chemical composition of Dunaliella salina and fatty acids composition.
| Chemical–Physical Features | |
|---|---|
| Humidity * | 6.63 ± 0.25 |
| Ash # | 48.74 ± 2.50 |
| Proteins # | 10.03 ± 0.57 |
| Carbohydrates # | 25.31 ± 1.55 |
| Lipids # | 3.49 ± 0.10 |
| Total Dietary Fibers # | 8.97 ± 0.50 |
| Carotenoids # | 3.46 ± 0.15 |
| Fatty acids methyl esters composition (mg 100 g−1 on dry basis) | |
|
| |
| Tridecanoic acid | <Ldl |
| Palmitic acid | 965.00 ± 1.15 |
| Pentadecanoic acid | <Ldl |
| Heptadecanoic acid | <Ldl |
| Stearic acid | 567.68 ± 0.56 |
| Arachidic acid | <Ldl |
| ∑ SFAs | 1532.68 ± 1.70 |
|
| |
| Palmitoleic acid | <Ldl |
| cis-9-Octadecenoic acid (oleic acid) | 567.56 ± 1.29 |
| Myristoleic acid | <Ldl |
| Nervonic acid | <Ldl |
| Erucic acid | <Ldl |
| ∑ MUFAs | 567.56 ± 1.29 |
|
| |
| cis-8,11,14-Eicosatrienoic acid | <Ldl |
| Linoelaidic acid | <Ldl |
| Linoleic acid | 519.75 ± 0.63 |
| γ-Linolenic acid | 536.22 ± 0.12 |
| Arachidonic acid | <Ldl |
| cis-5,8,11,14,17-Eicosapentaenoic acid | <Ldl |
| ∑ PUFAs | 1055.97 ± 0.75 |
* %w/w on wet sample; # %w/w on dry basis; § SFAs: saturated fatty acids; MUFAs: monounsaturated fatty acids; and PUFAs: polyunsaturated fatty acids. All data are the mean value ± standard deviation. Ldl = lower detection limit.
Figure 1Extraction yield obtained by using solvents with different polarity.
Chemical characterization of D. salina extracts using solvents with different polarity.
| Compounds | Chloroform:Methanol (1:1) | Ethanol | Hexane |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ash | 30.3% | 32.5% | 36.2% |
| Protein | 26.4% | 24.8% | 14.1% |
| Carbohydrates | 3.0% | 2.6% | 1.4% |
| TDF | 9.1% | 8.5% | 5.6% |
| Carotenoids | 16.4% | 12.8% | 36.6% |
| of which: | |||
| Beta-carotene | 85.0% | 90.0% | 98.0% |
| Lutein | 15.0% | 10.0% | 2.0% |
| Lipids | 14.8% | 18.8% | 6.1% |
| of which FAMEs: | 90.1% | 85.3% | 90.0% |
| FAMEs composition: | |||
| SFAs | 30.1% | 35.0% | 32.0% |
| MUFAs | 60.1% | 56.7% | 65.9% |
| PUFAs | 9.8% | 8.3% | 2.1% |
Antibacterial activity of D. salina extracts by disc diffusion method.
| Samples | Concentration (mg mL−1) | Inhibition Zone (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chloroform:Methanol extract | 350.0 | 10.0 ± 0.1 | 8.0 ± 0.1 | 13.0 ± 0.1 |
| Ethanol extract | 214.0 | 11.0 ± 0.1 | 9.0 ± 0.1 | 21.0 ± 0.2 |
| Hexane extract | 97.0 | 9.0 ± 0.1 | 12.0 ± 0.1 | 20.0 ± 0.2 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 0.15 | 20.0 ± 0.2 | 24.0 ± 0.2 | 32.0 ± 0.3 |
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of D. salina extract against P. carotovorum, P. syringae, and B. subtilis.
| MIC Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Chloroform:Methanol | >3.0 | >3.0 | 3.0 |
| Ethanol | >3.0 | >3.0 | 3.0 |
| Hexane | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.3 |
Disease incidence (DI) and disease severity (DS) of bacterial specks on inoculated tomato plants at 5, 10, and 15 days post-inoculation.
| Treatments | 5 | 10 | 15 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DI (%) | DS (%) | DI (%) | DS (%) | DI (%) | DS (%) | |
| Positive Control | 3.2 ± 0.1 b* | 0.82 ± 0.3 b | 25.2 ± 0.1 b | 1.8 ± 0.3 b | 37.9 ± 0.2 b | 2.2 ± 0.1 b |
| Solvent Control | 3.5 ± 0.1 b | 0.93 ± 0.2 b | 24.2 ± 0.1 b | 1.85 ± 0.1 b | 36.7 ± 0.9 b | 2.9 ± 0.2 b |
| Hexane extract | 0.0 a | 0.0 a | 7.2 ± 0.5 a | 0.02 ± 0.1 a | 13.2 ± 0.4 a | 0.505 ± 0.1 a |
* Data are shown as the means ± standard deviation. Within each column, mean values followed by the same letter (a, b) are not significantly different according to Tukey’s test (α = 0.05).
Figure 2Symptoms of bacterial speck disease on inoculated tomato leaves after 10 (a) and 15 (b) days post-inoculation.
Figure 3Effect of D. salina extracts against P. carotovorum subsp. carotovorum on tomato fruits: (a) positive control, (b) solvent control, (c) Dunaliella salina extract 5 g L−1, (d) Dunaliella salina extract 10 g L−1.
Disease incidence (DI) on tomato and zucchini fruits after 48 and 96 h from inoculation.
| Treatments | Disease Incidence (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomatoes Fruits | Zucchini Fruits | |||
| Incubation Time (hours) | ||||
| 48 | 96 | 48 | 96 | |
| Positive control | 33.4 ± 0.32 a* | 80.6 ± 0.56 b | 90.4 ± 0.33 a | 100.0 b |
| Solvent control | 27.7 ± 0.32 a | 77.9 ± 0.43 b | 86.2 ± 0.23 a | 100.0 b |
| Extract 10 mg mL−1 | 0.0 c ± 0.0 | 5.3 ± 0.23 c | 0.0 c ± 0.0 | 12.6 ± 0.15 c |
| Extract 5 mg mL−1 | 0.0 c ± 0.0 | 12.7 ± 0.12 a | 0.0 c ± 0.0 | 26.1 ± 0.22 a |
* Data are shown as the means ± standard deviation. Within each column, mean values followed by the same letter (a, b, c) are not significantly different according to Tukey’s test (α = 0.05).
Antibacterial activity of D. salina extracts at a concentration of 100 mg mL−1 and β-carotene (chemical standard) at concentrations of 10, 5, and 3 mg mL−1.
| Inhibition Zone (mm) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | Sample Concentration (mg mL−1) | β-carotene Concentration |
| ||
| β-carotene SD | 10 | 9.8 ± 0.5 a* | 10.5 ± 0.4 a | 18.1 ± 0.2 a | |
| β-carotene SD | 5 | 5.1 ± 0.3 b | 8.4 ± 0.3 b | 9.3 ± 0.2 c | |
| Chloroform:Methanol extract | 100 | 13.9 | 6.2 ± 0.2 b | 7.7 ± 0.3 b | 9.1 ± 0.6 c |
| Hexane extract | 100 | 35.9 | 10.5 ± 0.8 a | 11.2 ±0.7 a | 19.7 ± 0.2 a |
| Ethanol extract | 100 | 11.5 | 7.2 ± 0.2 b | 6.4 ± 0.4 c | 14.2 ± 0.8 b |
* Data are shown as the means ± standard error. In column, the means followed by a different letter (a, b, c) are significantly different according to the Tukey’s HSD test (α = 0.05).