4.6 Article

Antibacterial Activity and Mechanism of Action of Sulfone Derivatives Containing 1,3,4-Oxadiazole Moieties on Rice Bacterial Leaf Blight

Journal

MOLECULES
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages 11660-11675

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules200711660

Keywords

sulfone derivative; antibacterial activity; action mechanism; Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae; extracellular polysaccharide

Funding

  1. Key Technologies R D Program [2011BAE06 B05-6]
  2. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [201203022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, sulfone derivatives containing 1,3,4-oxadiazole moieties indicated good antibacterial activities against rice bacterial leaf blight caused by the pathogen Xanthomonas oryzaepv. pv. oryzae (Xoo). In particular, 2-(methylsulfonyl)-5-(4-fluorobenzyl)1,3,4- oxadiazole revealed the best antibacterial activity against Xoo, with a half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) of 9.89 mu g/mL, which was better than those of the commercial agents of bismerthiazole (92.61 mu g/mL) and thiodiazole copper (121.82 mu g/mL). In vivo antibacterial activity tests under greenhouse conditions and field trials demonstrated that 2-(methylsulfonyl)-5-(4-fluorophenyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole was effective in reducing rice bacterial leaf blight. Meanwhile, 2-(methylsulfonyl)-5-(4-fluorophenyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole stimulate the increase in superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) activities in rice, causing marked enhancement of plant resistance against rice bacterial leaf blight. It could also improve the chlorophyll content and restrain the increase in the malondialdehyde (MDA) content in rice to considerably reduce the amount of damage caused by Xoo. Moreover, 2-(methylsulfonyl)-5-(4-fluorophenyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole, at a concentration of 20 mu g/mL, could inhibit the production of extracellular polysaccharide (EPS) with an inhibition ratio of 94.52%, and reduce the gene expression levels of gumB, gumG, gumM, and xanA, with inhibition ratios of 94.88%, 68.14%, 86.76%, and 79.21%, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available