4.7 Article

Efficacies of quorum sensing inhibitors, piericidin A and glucopiericidin A, produced by Streptomyces xanthocidicus KPP01532 for the control of potato soft rot caused by Erwinia carotovora subsp atroseptica

期刊

MICROBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 32-41

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.micres.2015.12.005

关键词

Glucopiericidin A; Piericidin A; Plant disease control; Quorum-sensing inhibitor; Soft rot; Streptomyces xanthocidicus

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea Government (MSIP) [NRF-2014R1A2A2A01005461]
  2. Korea University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To discover potential inhibitors of the quorum sensing (QS) system, a library of microbial culture extracts was screened with Chromobacterium violaceum CV026 strain. The culture extract of Streptomyces xanthocidicus KPP01532 contained quorum-sensing inhibitors (QSIs) of the CV026 strain. The active constituents of the culture extract of strain KPP01532 were purified using a series of chromatographic procedures, and based on data from NMR and mass spectroscopy, piericidin A and glucopiericidin A were identified. Erwinia carotovora subsp. atroseptica (Eca) is a plant pathogen that causes blackleg and soft rot diseases on potato stems and tubers. The virulence factors of Eca are regulated by QS. The expression of virulence genes (pelC, pehA, celV and nip) under the control of QS was monitored using, quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). The transcription levels of the four genes were significantly lower when Eca was exposed to piericidin A or glucopiericidin A. These two compounds displayed similar control efficacies against soft rot caused by Eca in potato slices as furanone C-30. Therefore, piericidin A and glucopiericidin A are potential QSIs that suppress the expression of the virulence genes of Eca, suggesting that they could have potential use as control agents of soft rot disease on potato tubers. (C) 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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