| Literature DB >> 33802719 |
Jian Wang1,2,3, Xianfeng Hu1,3, Chenglong Yang2, Xiaomao Wu1,3, Rongyu Li1,3, Ming Li1,3.
Abstract
Plant diseases reduce crop yield and quality, hampering the development of agriculture. Fungicides, which restrict chemical synthesis in fungi, are the strongest controls for plant diseases. However, the harmful effects on the environment due to continued and uncontrolled utilization of fungicides have become a major challenge in recent years. Plant-sourced fungicides are a class of plant antibacterial substances or compounds that induce plant defenses. They can kill or inhibit the growth of target pathogens efficiently with no or low toxicity, they degrade readily, and do not prompt development of resistance, which has led to their widespread use. In this study, the growth inhibition effect of 24 plant-sourced ethanol extracts on rice sprigs was studied. Ethanol extract of gallnuts and cloves inhibited the growth of bacteria by up to 100%. Indoor toxicity measurement results showed that the gallnut and glove constituents inhibition reached 39.23 μg/mL and 18.82 μg/mL, respectively. Extract treated rice sprigs were dry and wrinkled. Gallnut caused intracellular swelling and breakage of mitochondria, disintegration of nuclei, aggregation of protoplasts, and complete degradation of organelles in hyphae and aggregation of cellular contents. Protection of Rhizoctonia solani viability reached 46.8% for gallnut and 37.88% for clove in water emulsions of 1000 μg/mL gallnut and clove in the presence of 0.1% Tween 80. The protection by gallnut was significantly stronger than that of clove. The data could inform the choice of plant-sourced fungicides for the comprehensive treatment of rice sprig disease. The studied extract effectively protected rice sprigs and could be a suitable alternative to commercially available chemical fungicides. Further optimized field trials are needed to effectively sterilize rice paddies.Entities:
Keywords: Rhus chinensis Mill; Syzygium aromaticum; antifungal activity; rice sheath blight
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33802719 PMCID: PMC8002394 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26061667
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Inhibition effects of ethanol extracts from plants against R.solani.
| Plants Resources | Families | Extract Position | Colony Diameter (cm) | Inhibition Ratio (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| root | (6.07 ± 0.12) d | 4.56 | |
|
| root | (3.42 ± 0.23) o | 38.93 | |
|
|
| root | (2.98 ± 0.2) q | 51.31 |
|
| rhizome | (4.28 ± 0.37) n | 23.57 | |
|
| bark | (2.02 ± 0.03) r | 66.99 | |
|
| fruit | (4.58 ± 0.11) kl | 24.55 | |
|
| total plant | (3.3 ± 0.17) p | 41.07 | |
|
| fruit | (4.35 ± 0.19) mn | 22.32 | |
|
|
| root | (6.45 ± 0.02) c | - |
|
| bark | (5.4 ± 0.02) g | 15.09 | |
|
|
| fruit | (4.62 ± 0.26) k | 17.5 |
|
| rhizoma | (5.28 ± 0.015) h | 13.73 | |
|
| leaves | (6.58 ± 0.21) b | - | |
|
|
| rhizoma | (6.8 ± 0.16) a | - |
|
| leaves | (4.42 ± 0.02) m | 21.07 | |
|
| shoot | (5.02 ± 0.17) j | 10.36 | |
|
| rhizome | (5.62 ± 0.05) ef | 11.64 | |
|
| rhizoma | (4.5 ± 0.29) l | 29.25 | |
|
|
| stem tuber | (5.22 ± 0.11) h | 6.79 |
|
| Galls on leaves | (0) s | 100 | |
|
| root | (5.07 ± 0.53) i | 20.28 | |
|
| root | (5.63 ± 0.17) e | 7.24 | |
|
| fruit | (0) s | 100 | |
|
|
| fruit | (5.54 ± 0.05) f | 8.73 |
Notes: Data in the table are mean value ± standard deviation. The different letters in the same column indicate significant differences at the 0.05 levels. Positive control: Jinggangmycin EC50 = 206.76 μg/mL; Negative control: Sterile water.
Indoor toxicity of ethanol extracts from two plants to R. solani.
| Concentration (µg/mL) | The Ethanol Extracts from Clove | Concentration (µg/mL) | The Ethanol Extracts from Gallnut | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colony Diameter (cm) | Inhibition Ratio (%) | Colony Diameter (cm) | Inhibition Ratio (%) | ||
| 0 | (6.85 ± 0.1) a | - | 0 | (6.85 ± 0.1) a | - |
| 10 | (5.62 ± 0.2) b | 17.96 | 15 | (6.56 ± 0.07) b | 4.23 |
| 20 | (3.85 ± 0.2) c | 43.8 | 30 | (3.75 ± 0.1) c | 45.26 |
| 30 | (2.69 ± 0.12) d | 60.73 | 45 | (3.22 ± 0.11) d | 52.99 |
| 40 | (1.38 ± 0.11) e | 79.85 | 60 | (2.7 ± 0.05) e | 60.29 |
| 50 | (0.68 ± 0.15) f | 89.49 | 75 | (1.57 ± 0.03) f | 77.66 |
Notes: Data in the table are mean value ± standard deviation. The different letters in the same column indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level.
Figure 1(a) The ethanol extracts from clove at concentrations from 10 to 50 µg/mL; (b) the ethanol extracts from gallnut at concentrations from 15 to 75 µg/mL.
Toxic regression equations of ethanol extracts from two plants to R. solani.
| Plants | Toxic Regression Equation (Y = A + B × X) | Correlation Coefficient | EC50 (µg/mL) | EC75 (µg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| gallnut | Y = −0.6717 + 3.5590x | 0.9678 | 41.84 | 72.59 |
| clove | Y = 0.0250 + 3.9031x | 0.9593 | 21.68 | 36.34 |
Figure 2Scanning electron micrographs (SEM) of R. solani: hyphae exposed to the ethanol extracts from two R. solani at concentrations of (a,b) 0 µg/mL and (c,d) EC75 = 36.34 µg/mL; the ethanol extracts from clove, (e,f) EC75 = 72.59 µg/mL; the ethanol extracts from gallnut. Arrows and arrowheads indicate hyphae shrinkage and partial distortion.
Figure 3Transmission electron micrographs of R. solani hyphae, where hyphae was exposed to the ethanol extracts from two plant at concentrations of (a,b) 0 µg/mL; (c,d) EC75 = 72.59 µg/m, the ethanol extracts from gallnut; and (e,f) EC75 = 36.34 µg/mL, the ethanol extracts from clove, L; CW = cell wall.
Biocontrol efficiency of ethanol extracts from gallnut and clove against rice sheath blight pathogen R. solani under green house condition.
| Ethanol Extract from Gallnut | Ethanol Extract from Clove | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Disease Index | Disease Suppression (%) | Treatment | Disease Index | Disease Suppression (%) |
| 0 | 3.59 | 0 | 3.59 | ||
| 200 µg/mL | 2.92 | 18.66 e | 200 µg/mL | 3.26 | 9.19 e |
| 400 µg/mL | 2.75 | 23.40 d | 400 µg/mL | 2.96 | 17.55 d |
| 600 µg/mL | 2.47 | 31.20 c | 600 µg/mL | 2.83 | 21.17 c |
| 800 µg/mL | 2.32 | 35.38 b | 800 µg/mL | 2.56 | 28.69 b |
| 1000 µg/mL | 1.91 | 46.80 a | 1000 µg/mL | 2.23 | 37.88 a |
Notes: Data in the table are mean value ± standard deviation. The different letters in the same column indicate significant differences at the 0.05 levels.
Figure 4Effect of ethanol extracts from two Chinese herbs on the rice sheath blight. CK: Not treated with drug; The ethanol extracts of gallnut and clove were of different concentrations: 200 μg/mL, 400 μg/mL, 600 μg/mL, 800 μg/mL, 800 μg/mL, 1000 μg/mL.
Figure 5LC–MS analysis. (a) Quantitative ion chromatogram of lauric acid; (b) Quantitative ion chromatogram of eugenol.
MRM ion pairs and mass spectral parameters for eugenol and lauric acid.
| Compounds | ESI | Parent (m/z) | Daughter (m/z) | Cone voltage/V | Colision energy/eV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| eugenol | - | 163 | 148 | 29 | 13 |
| 121 | 24 | ||||
| lauric acid | - | 259 | 245 | 75 | 30 |
| 199 | 45 |