| Literature DB >> 35756060 |
Wei Liu1,2, Jiawen Wang1,2, Shan Li1,2, Huaqian Zhang1,2, Li Meng1,2, Liping Liu1,2, Wenxiang Ping1,2, Chunmei Du1,2.
Abstract
Rice blast caused by Magnaporthe oryzae is one of the most destructive plant diseases. The secondary metabolites of Streptomyces have potential as biological control agents against M. oryzae. However, no commercial secondary antimicrobial products of Streptomyces have been found by gene prediction, and, particularly relevant for this study, a biocontrol agent obtained from Streptomyces bikiniensis has yet to be found. In this research, genomic analysis was used to predict the secondary metabolites of Streptomyces, and the ability to develop biocontrol pharmaceuticals rapidly was demonstrated. The complete genome of the S. bikiniensis HD-087 strain was sequenced and revealed a number of key functional gene clusters that contribute to the biosynthesis of active secondary metabolites. The crude extract of lipopeptides (CEL) predicted by NRPS gene clusters was extracted from the fermentation liquid of S. bikiniensis HD-087 by acid precipitation followed by methanol extraction, and surfactins, iturins, and fengycins were identified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). In vitro, the CEL of this strain inhibited spore germination and appressorial formation of M. oryzae by destroying membrane integrity and through the leakage of cellular components. In vivo, this CEL reduced the disease index of rice blast by approximately 76.9% on detached leaves, whereas its control effect on leaf blast during pot experiments was approximately 60%. Thus, the S. bikiniensis CEL appears to be a highly suitable alternative to synthetic chemical fungicides for controlling M. oryzae.Entities:
Keywords: Magnaporthe oryzae; Streptomyces bikiniensis; biological control; lipopeptide; whole genome
Year: 2022 PMID: 35756060 PMCID: PMC9218715 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.888645
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Figure 1Circular genome of strain HD-087 with specific features. From the outside to the inside of the circle diagram, the first and second circles are CDS, tRNA, and rRNA on the positive and negative chains, respectively. The third circle is the distribution of gene clusters. The fourth circle is GC content. The fifth circle is the GC-SKEW value. The innermost circle indicates the size of the genome.
Figure 2Analysis of genome structure and metabolic pathway of strain HD-087. (A) Go annotation of strain HD-087 genome; (B) COG annotation of strain HD-087 genome; (C) pathway annotation of strain HD-087.
Effect of CEL on spore germination and appressorium formation of Magnaporthe oryzae.
| CEL concentration (μg·ml−1) | Spore germination rate (%) | Inhibition rate of spore formation (%) | Appressorium formation rate (%) | Inhibition rate of appressorium formation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 52.23 ± 1.13e | — | 43.4 ± 3.32d | — |
| 25 | 27.5 ± 0.5c | 47.2 | 10.5 ± 0.32c | 74.9 |
| 50 | 21.84 ± 2.12d | 58.27 | 6.86 ± 0.5bc | 84.2 |
| 100 | 16.04 ± 0.95b | 69.3 | 5.64 ± 0.76ab | 93.3 |
| 200 | 11.63 ± 1.42a | 76.7 | 1.5 ± 0.65a | 96.6 |
| Regression equation | ||||
| EC50 (μg·ml−1) | 29.34 | 6.95 | ||
Different small letters indicated significant different among samples (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Morphology of spore germination and appressorium formation of Magnaporthe oryzae after treatment with crude extract of lipopeptides (CEL). (A) Non-CEL-treated (0 h control); (B–F) were CEL treated for 6 h at concentrations of 0, 25, 50, 100, and 200 μg·ml−1, respectively. Red arrowheads in figures A–C show separately the spore, appressorium and germ tube.
Figure 4Morphology of spores and mycelium of Magnaporthe oryzae under fluorescence microscope. (A) Non-CEL-treated spores under white light; (B) non-CEL-treated spores under fluorescent light; (C) CEL-treated spores under white light; (D) CEL-treated spores under fluorescent light; (E) non-CEL-treated mycelium under white light; (F) non-CEL-treated mycelium under fluorescent light; (G) CEL-treated mycelium under white light; and (H) CEL-treated mycelium under fluorescent light. The red arrowheads indicate spores and hyphae.
Figure 5Morphology of Magnaporthe oryzae under SEM. (A) Non-CEL-treated (control); (B–D) CEL treated for 6, 12, and 24 h, respectively. The red arrowheads indicate typical morphology.
Disease index and control effect of CEL against Magnaporthe oryzae at different concentrations.
| CEL concentration (μg·ml−1) | Disease index | Biocontrol efficacy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 400 | 50 ± 5.45e | 50 |
| 200 | 30 ± 2.32d | 70 |
| 100 | 70 ± 1.88c | 30 |
| 50 | 83.3 ± 3.12b | 16.7 |
| 25 | 100 ± 1.56a | 0 |
| Incidence control | 100 ± 0.86a | – |
Different small letters indicated significant different among samples (p < 0.05).
Figure 6Disease index and control effect of CEL against Magnaporthe oryzae at different concentrations.
Effect of different agents on the treatment of leaf blast of detached rice leaves.
| Reagent treatment | Disease index | Biocontrol efficacy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Isoprothiolane | 73 ± 2.21c | 15.8 |
| Tricyclazole | 73 ± 0.46c | 15.8 |
| Kasugamycin | 55 ± 2.98b | 36.6 |
| CEL | 20 ± 3.42a | 76.9 |
| Incidence control | 86.7 ± 3.12d | – |
Different small letters indicated significant different among samples (p < 0.05).
Effect of different agents on the treatment of leaf blast of potted rice.
| Reagent treatment | Disease index | Control efficacy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Isoprothiolane | 52.3 ± 0.62d | 30.2 |
| Tricyclazole | 41.6 ± 1.08b | 44.5 |
| Kasugamycin | 35.3 ± 0.86b | 52.7 |
| CEL | 30 ± 0.96c | 60.0 |
| Incidence control | 75 ± 2.12a | – |
Different small letters indicated significant different among samples (p < 0.05).
Figure 7Effect of different agents on the treatment of leaf blast of potted rice. (A) Healthy control; (B) incidence control; (C) tricyclazole-treated; (D) kasugamycin-treated; (E) isoprothiolane-treated; and (F) CEL-treated.