| Literature DB >> 34126929 |
Mandeep Kaur1, Pooja Chadha2, Sanehdeep Kaur1, Amarjeet Kaur3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last few decades, considerable attention has been paid to entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents, however little is known about their mode of action and safety. This study aimed to investigate the toxicity of Aspergillus flavus in insect Spodoptera litura by analyzing the effect of fungal extract on antioxidant and cellular immune defense. In antioxidant defense, the lipid peroxidation (Malondialdehyde content) and antioxidant enzymes activities (Catalase, Ascorbate peroxidase, Superoxide dismutase) were examined. In cellular immune defense, effect of A. flavus extract was analyzed on haemocytes using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Furthermore, mammalian toxicity was analyzed with respect to DNA damage induced in treated rat relative to control by comet assay using different tissues of rat (blood, liver, and kidney).Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant enzymes; Aspergillus flavus; Cytotoxicity; Genotoxicity; Haemocytes; Immunosuppressant; Lipid peroxidation; Oxidative stress; Spodoptera litura
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34126929 PMCID: PMC8204525 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-021-02249-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Mortality of S. litura larvae fed on diet supplemented with different concentrations of A. flavus
| Concentrations (μg/ml) | Larval mortality (%) (Mean ± S.E) |
|---|---|
| Control | 10.00 ± 4.47a |
| 125 | 16.66 ± 8.02ab |
| 250 | 26.66 ± 4.21abc |
| 500 | 36.67 ± 6.15bcd |
| 1000 | 43.33 ± 5.24cd |
| 2000 | 56.66 ± 6.14d |
| F value | 8.38** |
** (p ≤ 0.01)
The values are mean ± standard error. Different letters within the column are significantly different (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05) and signify the effect of concentration
Fig. 1(a-d): Malondialdehyde (MDA) content (a), Catalase (CAT) activity (b), Ascorbate peroxidase (APOX) activity (c) and Superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity (d) in haemolymph of S.litura after treatment with ethyl acetate extract of A.flavus for different time intervals. EG = Exposed group. Bars represent mean ± S.E. *Ascribes the significant difference between exposed group and control group (t-test, p ≤ 0.05). Different letters a, b, c, d are significantly different (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05) and signify the effect of duration
Fig. 2Microphotographs (a-d) showing Group-1 haemocytes (a). Normal haemocytes (Group-1) (b-d). Various deformities observed in haemocytes after treatment with ethyl acetate extract of A. flavus (b-c). Cell perforation (d). Surface abnormalities and Cytoplasmic leakage. Microphotographs (e-f) showing Group-2 haemocytes (e). Normal haemocyte; (f). Strumae and surface abnormalities in haemocytes after treatment with ethyl acetate extract of A.flavus. Microphotographs (g-h) showing Group-3 haemocytes (g). Normal haemocytes (h) surface abnormalities in haemocytes after treatment with ethyl acetate extract of A.flavus
Fig. 3The percentage of cells showing various deformities
Effect of different concentrations of ethyl acetate extract of A. flavus on different parameters of comet assay in rat blood
| 14.57 ± 0.18a | 14.78 ± 0.13a | 1.48 | 4.73 ± 0.41a | 5.13 ± 0.09a | 0.58 | ||
| 14.84 ± 0.21a | 14.99 ± 0.10a | 0.78 | 4.84 ± 0.02a | 5.19 ± 0.23a | 0.54 | ||
| 15.14 ± 0.04a | 15.51 ± 0.11b | 1.40 | 4.99 ± 0.45a | 5.52 ± 0.18a | 1.31 | ||
| 2.932 | 14.738** | 1.130 | 1.378 | ||||
| 1.54 ± 0.27a | 1.64 ± 0.32a | 0.48 | 2.01 ± 0.07a | 2.14 ± 0.15a | 0.75 | ||
| 1.65 ± 0.11a | 1.44 ± 0.11a | 1.38 | 2.11 ± 0.05a | 2.45 ± 0.06a | 19.27 | ||
| 2.02 ± 0.10a | 2.33 ± 0.15a | 0.66 | 2.25 ± 0.01a | 2.78 ± 0.29a | 3.71 | ||
| 0.248 | 0.062 | 4.527 | 2.72 |
** (p ≤ 0.01), The values represented as mean ± standard error. Different letters a, b within the columns are significantly different (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05) and signify the effect of concentration
Effect of different concentrations of ethyl acetate extract of A. flavus on different parameters of comet assay in rat liver
| 12.44 ± 0.15a | 12.69 ± 0.23a | 5.55 | 4.07 ± 0.29a | 4.22 ± 0.23a | 2.08 | ||
| 12.67 ± 0.20a | 12.84 ± 0.33a | 9.33 | 4.62 ± 0.22a | 4.78 ± 0.11a | 21.56 | ||
| 13.03 ± 0.27a | 12.92 ± 0.36a | 1.40 | 4.79 ± 0.25a | 4.64 ± 0.21a | 3.46 | ||
| 1.852 | 0.182 | 2.124 | 2.314 | ||||
| 1.16 ± 0.15a | 1.34 ± 0.14a | 0.84 | 1.46 ± 0.19a | 1.44 ± 0.18a | 1.82 | ||
| 1.47 ± 0.13a | 1.44 ± 0.21a | 0.12 | 1.52 ± 0.07a | 1.57 ± 0.06a | 17.50 | ||
| 1.31 ± 0.10a | 1.70 ± 0.15a | 2.07 | 1.51 ± 0.20a | 1.85 ± 0.03a | 2.14 | ||
| 1.423 | 1.133 | 0.530 | 3.277 |
The values represented as mean ± standard error. Different letters a, b within the columns are significantly different (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05) and signify the effect of concentration
Effect of different concentrations of ethyl acetate extract of A. flavus on different parameters of comet assay in rat kidney
| 14.95 ± 0.22a | 15.16 ± 0.39a | 0.34 | 4.74 ± 0.14a | 4.53 ± 0.04a | 1.39 | ||
| 15.18 ± 0.37ab | 15.21 ± 0.15a | 0.78 | 4.96 ± 0.09a | 5.07 ± 0.16b | 0.54 | ||
| 15.38 ± 0.02b | 15.57 ± 0.04a | 0.43 | 5.05 ± 0.30a | 5.06 ± 0.02b | 0.36 | ||
| 0.717 | 0.842 | 0.640 | 9.92* | ||||
| 1.70 ± 0.15a | 1.72 ± 0.16a | 2.44 | 1.93 ± 0.32a | 2.01 ± 0.31a | 0.12 | ||
| 1.92 ± 0.05a | 1.91 ± 0.31a | 1.38 | 1.99 ± 0.01a | 1.96 ± 0.35a | 19.72 | ||
| 2.12 ± 0.13a | 2.31 ± 0.09a | 1.90 | 2.10 ± 0.15a | 2.17 ± 0.17a | 1.98 | ||
| 2.970 | 0.986 | 0.189 | 0.141 |
* (p ≤ 0.05). The values represented as mean ± standard error. Different letters a, b within the columns are significantly different (Tukey’s test, p ≤ 0.05) and signify the effect of concentration
Fig. 4Photomicrographs showing DNA extracted from (a, b) rat blood cells (a) Control; (b) After treatment with A.flavus ethyl acetate extract (c, d) rat kidney cells (a) Control; (b) After treatment with A.flavus ethyl acetate extract (e, f) rat liver cells (a) Control; (b) After treatment with A.flavus ethyl acetate extract