4.7 Article

Synthesis and In Vitro and In Vivo Biological Activity Evaluation and Quantitative Proteome Profiling of Oxadiazoles Bearing Flexible Heterocyclic Patterns

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 67, 期 27, 页码 7626-7639

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b02734

关键词

oxadiazoles; heterocyclic patterns; biological activity; quantitative proteomics

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21877021, 21662009, 21702037, 31860516]
  2. Research Project of Ministry of Education of China [20135201110005, 213033A]
  3. Guizhou Provincial ST Program [[2012]6012, [2017]222, [2017]7259, [2017]5788]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel series of simple 1,3,4-oxadiazoles that bear flexible heterocyclic patterns was prepared, and their biological activities in plant pathogenic bacteria, fungi, oomycetes, and Meloidogyne incognita in vitro and in vivo were screened to explore low-cost and versatile antimicrobial agents. Screening results showed that compounds, such as A(0), B-0, and C-4, were bioactive against Xanthomonas oryzae pv oryzae in vitro and in vivo, and such bioactivities were superior to those of commercial agents bismerthiazol and thiodiazole copper. Their antibacterial mechanisms were further investigated by quantitative proteomics and concentration-dependent scanning electron microscopy images. Antifungal results indicated that compound A(0) displayed a selective and better antifungal effect on Botrytis cinerea with inhibition rate of 96.8% at 50 mu g/mL. Nematocidal bioassays suggested that compound D-1 had good in vitro nematocidal activity toward M. incognita at 24, 48, and 72 h, with the corresponding insecticidal efficiency of 48.7%, 64.1%, and 87.2% at 40 mu g/mL. In vivo study further confirmed that compounds D-1 and F-2 showed nematocidal actions at 80 mu g/mL with a disease index of 1.5. Given these advantages, this kind of molecular frameworks could be a suitable platform for exploring highly efficient agrochemicals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据