Back to all available

Diversity, antibacterial and phytotoxic activities of culturable gut fungi from Anax parthenope

bioengineering
biotechnology
entomology
environmental-sciences
microbiology

Abstract

Background: Insect gut fungi, as specialized symbiotic microorganisms, represent a valuable source for the discovery of novel bioactive metabolites. However, the diversity and bioactivity of gut fungal communities in Anax parthenope remain unexplored.

Results: A total of 53 fungal strains from the gut of A. parthenope were distributed across four classes in 22 genera. Antibacterial tests showed that 10 strains exhibited antibacterial activity against at least one pathogenic species. Phytotoxic tests indicated that 16 strains showed significant phytotoxic activity against Echinochloa crusgalli , with the inhibition rate exceeding 80%, and 11 strains showed significant phytotoxic activity against Abutilon theophrasti, with the inhibition rate exceeding 70%. Furthermore, four metabolites, including alternariol monomethyl ether (1), alternariol (2), dehydroaltenusin (3), and altertoxin II (4), were isolated from the Alternaria angustiovoidea QZB-4. Compound 2 exhibited potent antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas syringae pv. a ctinidiae (Psa) and Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae (Xoo), with inhibition zone diameters (IZD) of 17.0 mm and 11.7 mm, respectively, which were comparable to those of the positive gentamicin sulfate ( IZD = 23.2 and 16.0 mm). Compound 3 also showed strong antibacterial activity against Xoo and Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola (Xoc) with the IZD of 12.2 mm and 12.3 mm, respectively, which were less effective than those of the positive control. In addition, at a concentration of 100 μg/mL, compounds 1 and 3 exhibited strong inhibitory effects on the root growth of E. crusgalli and A. theophrasti, with inhibition rates of 90% and 93%, respectively, which were slightly lower than those of the positive 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid with the inhibition rate of 100%.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the gut fungi of A. parthenope had potential as a source for the development of novel antibiotics and herbicides.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].