| Literature DB >> 34961034 |
Diego Cárdenas-Laverde1, Ricardo Barbosa-Cornelio1, Ericsson Coy-Barrera1.
Abstract
Plants produce various compounds as defensive barriers to naturally control fungal diseases. Among them, vascular wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum is one of the most destructive diseases in crops, causing relevant economic losses. The application of synthetic fungicides is the most used management for this disease. However, this kind of method also involves adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, alternative methods are continuously being developed as a strategy to be involved in integrated pest management programs. Thus, as part of our research on antifungals of plant origin, a group of botanical extracts was assessed for the respective inhibitory effect on mycelium and conidia of F. oxysporum. Mycelial growth inhibition was measured in 12-well plates containing amended semi-solid medium, whereas conidial susceptibility was determined through microdilution. The identification of the bioactive compounds among test extracts was performed using an indirect approach, consisting of the integration of chemical composition and antifungal activity datasets through single-Y orthogonal partial least squares (OPLS) regression. Results showed that Piper aduncum extract was the most potent mycelial growth inhibitor whereas P. elongatum exhibited the best effect on conidia susceptibility. The active compounds identified through statistical integration and subsequent isolation were piperaduncin C, asebogenin and (-)-methyllinderatin. These findings indicated that the integrative, indirect approach is useful for the identification of bioactive metabolites from botanical extracts to be further used as biological protective agents against this phytopathogen.Entities:
Keywords: Fusarium oxysporum; botanical extracts; conidial susceptibility; mycelial inhibition
Year: 2021 PMID: 34961034 PMCID: PMC8705217 DOI: 10.3390/plants10122563
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Mycelial growth inhibition (MGI) of test botanical extracts.
| # | Plant | BF a | PP b | C c | MGI d (%) | # | Plant | BF a | PP b | C c | MGI d (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Pi | L | 95.26 ± 0.15 A | 24 |
| F | L | 50.76 ± 0.73 P | ||
| 2 |
| Pi | L | 91.31 ± 0.13 B | 25 |
| Bu | L | 49.74 ± 0.11 Q | ||
| 3 |
| Pi | I | 81.26 ± 0.21 C | 26 |
| E | L | 48.43 ± 0.09 R | ||
| 4 |
| Pi | S | 76.21 ± 0.11 D | 27 |
| E | L | 47.77 ± 0.23 RS | ||
| 5 |
| F | L | 70.08 ± 0.06 E | 28 |
| Bu | B | 47.63 ± 0.22 S | ||
| 6 |
| L | L | 68.80 ± 0.07 F | 29 |
| Ru | L | 46.91 ± 0.30 T | ||
| 7 |
| Br | L | 64.67 ± 0.13 G | 30 |
| Mo | L | 42.86 ± 0.13 U | ||
| 8 |
| Bi | L | 62.71 ± 0.34 H | 31 |
| E | S | 41.96 ± 0.43 V | ||
| 9 |
| L | L | 62.66 ± 0.15 H | 32 |
| Bi | S | 41.03 ± 0.23 W | ||
| 10 |
| Bu | L | 60.66 ± 0.47 I | 33 |
| A | L | 40.67 ± 0.13 W | ||
| 11 |
| F | A | 58.48 ± 0.23 J | 34 |
| Ph | S | 39.03 ± 0.05 X | ||
| 12 |
| F | F | 56.61 ± 0.18 K | 35 |
| My | L | 38.73 ± 0.09 X | ||
| 13 |
| F | A + F | 55.69 ± 0.02 L | 36 |
| Bu | L | 36.86 ± 0.18 Y | ||
| 14 |
| F | B | 54.00 ± 0.07 M | 37 |
| F | L | 27.01 ± 0.07 Z | ||
| 15 |
| F | L | 52.35 ± 0.17 N | 38 |
| Ml | L | 24.02 ± 0.03 AA | ||
| 16 |
| F | B | 52.25 ± 0.15 N | 39 |
| F | L | 22.04 ± 0.15 AB | ||
| 17 |
| F | L | 52.21 ± 0.19 N | 40 |
| A | F | 19.43 ± 0.31 AC | ||
| 18 |
| E | L | 51.96 ± 0.23 N | 41 |
| My | L | 16.29 ± 0.04 AC | ||
| 19 |
| F | A | 51.74 ± 0.16 N | 42 |
| F | S | 14.28 ± 0.18 AE | ||
| 20 |
| A | F | 51.71 ± 0.11 NO | 43 |
| Ml | B | 14.23 ± 0.09 AE | ||
| 21 |
| Mt | L | 51.68 ± 0.11 NO | 44 |
| A | S | 12.93 ± 0.18 AF | ||
| 22 |
| L | L | 51.64 ± 0.05 NO | - |
| - | - | 99.1 ± 0.06 | ||
| 23 |
| Ro | Fr | 51.02 ± 0.08 OP | - |
| - | - | 94.4 ± 0.36 |
a BF = Botanical Family: Pi = Piperaceae; F = Fabaceae; L = Lauraceae; Br = Brassicaceae; Bi = Bignonaceae; Bu = Burseraceae; E = Euphorbiaceae; A = Asteraceae; Mt = Melastomataceae; Ro = Rosaceae; Ru = Rutaceae; Mo = Moraceae; Ph = Phyllanthaceae; My = Myristicaceae; Ml = Meliaceae; b PP = Plant Part used to prepare the extract: L = Leaves; R = Roots; S = Stems; I = Inflorescences; A = Aerial part; F = Flowers; B = Bark; Fr = Fruits; c = Code assigned to each extract; d MGI = Mycelial growth inhibition expressed in percentage. The bioassay involved a final concentration of 0.2% (w/v) of each extract; Values presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different superscript uppercase letters indicate significant differences according to the post hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Microscopic visualization of F. oxysporum mycelium stained with lactophenol blue. (A) Normal growth of F. oxysporum mycelium (Control). 2000×. bar 25 μm. (B) Treatment with P. aduncum leaves-derived extract at 0.2% (w/v). 2000×. 25 μm. (C) Treatment with Dithane at 0.2% (w/v). 2000×. bar 25 μm. Features: (co) conidia, (cd) cytoplasm densification (lc) loss of cytoplasm, (cl) cross-linking of hyphae, (arrow) reduction and lysis, (dc) disintegration of cytoplasm.
Conidial susceptibility of active extracts.
| Plant | Plant Part a | Code b | CGI c (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| L | 83.52 ± 0.78 A | |
|
| S | 73.95 ± 0.18 B | |
|
| S | 47.60 ± 0.11 C | |
|
| S | 24.01 ± 0.15 D | |
|
| L | 21.13 ± 0.02 E | |
|
| F | 15.36 ± 0.06 F | |
|
| - | - | 97.36 ± 0.02 |
|
| - | - | 53.62 ± 0.26 |
a Plant Part used to prepare the extract: L = Leaves; S = Stems; F = Flowers; b C = Code assigned to each extract; c CGI = Conidial germination inhibition expressed in percentage. The bioassay involved a final concentration of 0.1% (w/v) of each extract. Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 4). Different superscript uppercase letters indicate significant differences according to the Tukey test (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Single-Y orthogonal partial least squares (OPLS) as the integration tool for chromatographic data and mycelial inhibition of F. oxysporum (as continuous Y-variable) datasets. (A) Scores plot. (B) S-line plot. Extracts codification is related to the information presented in Table 1.
Figure 3Single-Y orthogonal partial least squares (OPLS) as the integration tool for chromatographic data and conidial susceptibility of F. oxysporum (as continuous Y-variable) datasets. (A) Scores plot. (B) S-line plot. Sample codification is related to the information presented in Table 1.
Figure 4Structures of isolated compounds after OPLS-based recognition.
Antifungal activity of isolated compounds from Piper species.
| Piperaduncin C (1) | Asebogenin (2) | (−)-Methyllinderatin (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MGI IC50 (µM) a | 38.2 (31.5–44.8) | 25.6 (23.5–29.3) | 689.2 (623.8–744.9) |
| CGI IC50 (µM) b | >1000 | >1000 | 22.3 (17.8–29.7) |
a Half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50 in μM) for the inhibition of F. oxysporum mycelial growth. b Half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50 in μM) for the inhibition of F. oxysporum conidial germination. Data are expressed as best-fit value (95% confidence interval) (n = 4).