Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 30, pp 29775–29783 | Cite as

Biocontrol activity of effusol from the extremophile plant, Juncus maritimus, against the wheat pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici

  • Ramla Sahli
  • Céline Rivière
  • Ali Siah
  • Abderrazak Smaoui
  • Jennifer Samaillie
  • Thierry Hennebelle
  • Vincent Roumy
  • Riadh Ksouri
  • Patrice Halama
  • Sevser Sahpaz
Chemistry, Activity and Impact of Plant Biocontrol products

Abstract

Zymoseptoria tritici, responsible for Septoria tritici blotch, is the most important pathogen of wheat. The control of this parasite relies mainly on synthetic fungicides, but their use is increasingly controversial and searching for alternative management strategies is encouraged. In this context, the biocontrol potential of crude methanolic extracts of eight extremophile plant species from Tunisia, including three xerophytes and five halophytes, against Z. tritici was assessed. Only the extract of Juncus maritimus rhizomes showed significant in vitro antifungal activity. In extremophile plants, the production of secondary metabolites is often influenced by abiotic conditions. Thus, we collected several samples of J. maritimus rhizomes at different vegetative stages, at different periods, and from different substrates to compare their antifungal activities. Our results suggest that the plant environment, especially the substrate of the soil, should be taken into account to identify great sources of natural antifungal products. From the most active sample, a 9,10-dehydrophenanthrene derivative, effusol, absent from other J. maritimus rhizomes extracts, was purified. This product showed a strong antifungal activity against the pathogen, with a minimal inhibitory concentration of 19 μg mL−1 and an half-maximal inhibitory concentration of 9.98 μg mL−1. This phenanthrene derivative could be a promising biocontrol molecule against Z. tritici.

Keywords

Zymoseptoria tritici Wheat Biofungicides Extremophile plants Juncus maritimus Effusol 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by an internal financial support from the Charles Viollette Institute. The authors wish to thank platforms of CUMA (University of Lille 2, Pr. J.F. Goossens) and LARMN (University of Lille 2, Pr. N. Azaroual) for access to equipment.

Supplementary material

11356_2017_9043_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb).

References

  1. Awaad AS, Zain ME, Al Othman MR, Al-Dosary SK (2014) Phytochemical analysis and antimicrobial activity of medicinal plants against pathogenic microorganisms. Life Sci J 11:350–354Google Scholar
  2. Baysal-Gurel F, Miller SA (2015) Management of powdery mildew in greenhouse tomato production with biorational products and fungicides. Sci Hortic 1069:179–184Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharyya J (1980) Structure of effusol: a new phenolic constituent from Juncus effusus. Experientia 36:27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheval P, Siah A, Bomble M et al (2017) Evolution of QoI resistance of the wheat pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici in Northern France. Crop Prot 92:131–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cowger C, Hoffer ME, Mundt CC (2000) Specific adaptation by Mycosphaerella graminicola to a resistant wheat cultivar. Plant Pathol 49:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dayan FE, Cantrell CL, Duke SO (2009) Natural products in crop protection. Bioorg Med Chem 17:4022–4034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dow AI, Cline TA, Horning EV (1981) Salt tolerance studies on irrigated mint. Bulletin of Agriculture Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman 906: 11Google Scholar
  8. El-Shamy AI, Abdel-Razek AF, Nassar MI (2015) Phytochemical review of Juncus L. genus (Fam. Juncaceae). Arab J Chem 8:614–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisch H, Flick BH, Arditti J (1973) Structure and antifungal activity of hircinol, loroglossol and orchinol. Phytochemistry 12:437–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fones H, Gurr S (2015) The impact of Septoria tritici blotch disease on wheat: an EU perspective. Fungal Genet Biol 79:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ishiuchi K, Kosuge Y, Hamagami H et al (2015) Chemical constituents isolated from Juncus effusus induce cytotoxicity in HT22 cells. Nat Med 69:421–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jess S, Kildea S, Moody A, Rennick G, Murchie AK, Cooke LR (2014) European Union policy on pesticides: implications for agriculture in Ireland. Pest Manag Sci 70:1646–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kovács A, Vasas A, Hohmann J (2008) Natural phenanthrenes and their biological activity. Phytochemistry 69:1084–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ksouri R, Megdiche W, Debez A et al (2007) Salinity effects on polyphenol content and antioxidant activities in leaves of the halophyte Cakile maritime. Plant Physiol Biochem 45:244–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ksouri R, Ksouri WM, Jallali I et al (2012) Medicinal halophytes: potent source of health promoting biomolecules with medical, nutraceutical and food applications. Crit Rev Biotechnol 32:289–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maisuthisakul P, Suttajit M, Pongsawatmanit R (2007) Assessment of phenolic content and free radical scavenging capacity of some Thai indigenous plants. Food Chem 100:1409–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Olson S (2015) An analysis of the biopesticide market now and where it is going. Outlooks on Pest Management 26:203–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ponomarenko A, Goodwin SB, Kema GH (2011) Septoria tritici blotch (STB) of wheat. Plant Health Instructor. doi: 10.1094/PHI-I-2011-0407-01
  19. Ravensberg W (2015) Crop protection in 2030: towards a natural, efficient, safe and sustainable approach. International Symposium Swansea University 7–9 September 2015Google Scholar
  20. Siah A, Deweer C, Morand E et al (2010) Azoxystrobin resistance of French Mycosphaerella graminicola strains assessed by four in vitro bioassays and by screening of G143A substitution. Crop Prot 29:737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tóth B, Liktor-Busa E, Urbán E et al (2016) Antibacterial screening of Juncaceae species native to the Carpathian Basin against resistant strains and LC-MS investigation of phenanthrenes responsible for the effect. Fitoterapia 115:69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang YG, Wang YL, Zhai HF et al (2012) Phenanthrenes from Juncus effusus with anxiolytic and sedative activities. Nat Prod Res 26:1234–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramla Sahli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Céline Rivière
    • 1
  • Ali Siah
    • 1
  • Abderrazak Smaoui
    • 2
  • Jennifer Samaillie
    • 1
  • Thierry Hennebelle
    • 1
  • Vincent Roumy
    • 1
  • Riadh Ksouri
    • 2
  • Patrice Halama
    • 1
  • Sevser Sahpaz
    • 1
  1. 1.EA 7394—ICV, Institut Charles ViolletteUniversity Lille, INRA, ISA, University Artois, University Littoral Côte d’OpaleLilleFrance
  2. 2.The Laboratory of Aromatic and Medicinal PlantsBiotechnology Centre of Borj-Cédria (CBBC)Hammam-LifTunisia

Personalised recommendations