4.5 Article

Essential Oils of Myrtaceae Species Growing Wild in Tunisia: Chemical Variability and Antifungal Activity Against Biscogniauxia mediterranea, the Causative Agent of Charcoal Canker

期刊

CHEMISTRY & BIODIVERSITY
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cbdv.201700058

关键词

Eucalyptus; Myrtus communis; Essential oil; Variability; Antifungal; Biscogniauxia mediterranea

资金

  1. Tunisian Ministry of Scientific Research and Technology
  2. University of Carthage
  3. National Institute of Applied Science and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The chemical composition of five Eucalyptus species and five Myrtus communis L. populations was investigated using GC/MS and GC-FID. For Eucalyptus essential oils, 32 compounds, representing 88.56-96.83% of the total oil according to species, were identified. The main compounds were 1,8-cineole, -pinene, p-cymene, -gurjunene, -aromadendrene, and -phellandrene. For Myrtle essential oils, 26 compounds, representing 93.13-98.91% of the total oil were identified. -Pinene, 1,8-cineole, linalool, and myrtenyl acetate were found to be the major compounds. Principal component analysis (PCA) showed chemical differentiation between Eucalyptus species and between Myrtle populations. Biscogniauxia mediterranea, the causative agent of charcoal canker, was identified according to its morphological and molecular characteristics. Essential oils of the investigated Eucalyptus species and Myrtle populations were tested for their antifungal capacity against this fungus. The antifungal activity varied according to the essential oil composition. Biscogniauxia mediterranea exhibited powerful resistance to some essential oils including them of Eucalyptus lehmannii and Eucalyptus sideroxylon but it was very sensitive to Eucalyptus camaldulensis oil (IC50=3.83mg/ml) and M.communis oil from Zaghouan (IC50=1mg/ml). This sensitivity was found to be correlated to some essential oil compounds such as p-cymene, carvacrol, cuminaldehyde, and linalool.

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

4.5
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