4.7 Article

Chitosan oligosaccharides affect xanthone and VOC biosynthesis in Hypericum perforatum root cultures and enhance the antifungal activity of root extracts

期刊

PLANT CELL REPORTS
卷 37, 期 11, 页码 1471-1484

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00299-018-2317-2

关键词

Hypericum perforatum; Root cultures; Chitooligosaccharides; Xanthones; Volatile organic compounds

资金

  1. Sapienza Universita di Roma [C26A15MLP9, AR11715C81A4ABDF]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Key messageWater-soluble chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) affect xanthone and volatile organic compound content, as well as antifungal activity against human pathogenic fungi of extracts obtained from Hypericum perforatum root cultures.AbstractSeveral studies have demonstrated the elicitor power of chitosan on xanthone biosynthesis in root cultures of H. perforatum. One of the major limitations to the use of chitosan, both for basic and applied research, is the need to use acidified water for solubilization. To overcome this problem, the elicitor effect of water-soluble COS on the biosynthesis of both xanthones and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was evaluated in the present study. The analysis of xanthones and VOCs was performed by HPLC and GC-MS headspace analysis. The obtained results showed that COS are very effective in enhancing xanthone biosynthesis. With 400mgL(-1) COS, a xanthone content of about 30mgg(-1) DW was obtained. The antifungal activity of extracts obtained with 400mgL(-1) COS was the highest, with MIC50 of 32 mu gmL(-1) against Candida albicans and 32-64 mu g mL(-1) against dermatophytes, depending on the microorganism. Histochemical investigations suggested the accumulation of isoprenoids in the secretory ducts of H. perforatum roots. The presence of monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes was confirmed by the headspace analysis. Other volatile hydrocarbons have been identified. The biosynthesis of most VOCs showed significant changes in response to COS, suggesting their involvement in plant-fungus interactions.

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