J Plant Biotechnol (2024) 51:011-023
Published online January 23, 2024
https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2024.51.002.011
© The Korean Society of Plant Biotechnology
Correspondence to : e-mail: lephamtanquoc@iuh.edu.vn
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Here, we investigated the antioxidant and nematicidal activities of the aqueous leaf and stem extract of Chromolaena odorata (L.) (AECO) against Radopholus similis, a nematode pest of banana plants. In vitro antioxidant analysis involved testing AECO at concentrations ranging from 50 to 300 μg/mL in 2,2-diphenylpicrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical-scavenging assays. Both in vitro and in vivo experiments were performed using doses of 780, 1,560, 3,120, 6,250, and 12,500 mg DW/L AECO. We assessed the egg hatching inhibition and juvenile survival rate of R. similis, content of antioxidant compounds in banana roots, dry weight of the aerial parts and roots, and the nematode density in the soil. In vitro antioxidant assays revealed substantial DPPH-scavenging (59.67-92.13%) and ABTS radical inhibition (37.26% at 300 μg/mL) activities. In vitro experiments using 12,500 mg DW/L AECO exhibited significant inhibition (p < 0.05) of R. similis egg hatching (26.98%, 55.25%, and 82.92% at 24, 48, and 72 h, respectively) and reduced juvenile survival (p < 0.05). In vivo experiments demonstrated a significant decrease (p < 0.05) in malondialdehyde concentration and an increase (p < 0.05) in antioxidant production (glutathione, catalase, and superoxide dismutase) in banana roots after AECO treatment. Plant biomass showed significant differences (p < 0.05), with the highest values (15.38 ± 0.13 g the aerial part dry weight and 29.32 ± 0.15 g the root dry weight) recorded in the AECO12500 treatment. Notably, R. similis density was significantly decreased (p < 0.05) in the soil after AECO treatment, with maximum inhibition obtained using 12,500 mg/kg. These findings emphasize the potential of AECO for pest management and its relevance to the cultivation of Cavendish bananas.
Keywords Antioxidant activity, nematicidal activity, in vitro, in vivo, Radopholus similis
The burrowing nematode (
A cascade of defense responses is triggered upon
Ascorbic acid (AA) served as the reference standard, with an 800 µg/mL stock solution prepared by dissolving 2 mg of ascorbic acid in 2.5 mL of distilled water. Serial dilutions were then made using various concentrated solutions (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 µg/mL) for the corresponding extract solution, with a 0.1 mM DPPH solution used as the control. The DPPH free radical scavenging ability (DPPHRSA) was quantified as the percentage of inhibition, calculated using the formula.
where Acontrol: Absorbance of a solution containing DPPH solution and Asample: Absorbance of the sample in the presence of DPPH solution.
The resulting cation radical was further diluted in ethanol (1:1) to achieve an absorbance value of 0.7 at a wavelength of 734 nm using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer model 752N Plus (USA). Five microliters of the extract solution at various concentrations (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 µg/mL) were then combined with 4000 µL of the ABTS+ solution and incubated in the dark for 2 hours at room temperature. Subsequently, the absorbance was measured at 734 nm using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer. As a control, a mixture of 10 mL (7 mM ABTS, 2.45 mM K2S2O8) and 20 mL water for water extraction was used. Ascorbic acid (AA) serves as the reference standard for comparison with the stock solution and is also prepared using the method outlined in the ABTS radical scavenging assay. The percentage of ABTS+ free radical scavenging ability (ABTSRSA) was computed for different concentrations of standards and extracts according to the established formula.
where Acontrol: Absorbance of a solution containing ABTS solution and Asample: Absorbance of the sample in the presence of ABTS solution.
The original AECO solution was diluted with distilled water at varying ratios (1:30, 1:16, 1:8, 1:4, and 1:2) to achieve concentrations of 780, 1560, 3120, 6250, and 12500 mg DW/L. Five experimental treatments, namely AECO780, AECO1560, AECO3120, AECO6250, and AECO12500, were established to represent these concentrations. Additionally, two control treatments were included: the fenamiphos treatment at a concentration of 4.65 mg/mL as the positive control and the water treatment as the negative control. The specified concentrations of both the extract and fenamiphos were administered in both in vitro and in vivo models (Nhung and Quoc 2023).
Evaluating ratios of hatching inhibition: Eggs were collected using the approach outlined by Haroon et al. (2018). A water-based egg suspension was created, consisting of 1 mL of egg suspension (100 ± 10 eggs/mL) and 5 mL of root extract solution. The mixture was then transferred to a petri dish and maintained at room temperature. Each treatment was replicated three times, and petri dishes with 1 mL of egg suspension and 5 mL of distilled water served as controls. Following 24, 48, and 72 hours of exposure, the hatched eggs were quantified using a phase-contrast microscope. The hatching inhibition rate (RHI) was calculated by following the formula (Zaidat et al. 2020):
The nematode density per gram (NDG) is calculated by dividing the number of nematodes extracted (NNE) by the product of the volume of soil sample collected from each pot (VSSP) and the volume of extraction solution (VES).
The experimental setup adhered to a design characterized by complete randomization. In vitro and in vivo test parameters underwent the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Mean comparisons were performed using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) at a significance level of p < 0.05, facilitated by the Statgraphics Centurion XIX software.
The qualitative phytochemical analysis of the aqueous extract from
Table 1 Qualitative screening of phytochemicals present in the aqueous extract of
Phytochemicals | Presence in AECO | Phytochemicals | Presence in AECO |
---|---|---|---|
Alkaloids | + | Cardiac glycosides | - |
Tannins | + | Steroids | - |
Saponins | + | Terpenoids | + |
Polyphenols | + | Flavonoids | + |
AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
Table 2 Quantification of flavonoids, alkaloids, and tannins in the aqueous extract of
Sample | Total flavonoid content (mg QE/g) | Total tannin content (mg CE/g) | Total polyphenol content (mg GAE/g) |
---|---|---|---|
AECO | 37.92 ± 2.23 | 70.43 ± 1.21 | 71.84 ± 2.14 |
AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
The DPPH assay was employed to evaluate the antioxidative potential of AECO, relying on the ability of antioxidant compounds to donate atomic or hydrogen electrons to the DPPH radical, transforming it into 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazine. The assay, conducted on the aqueous extract of
The ABTS radical cation is formed by oxidizing ABTS with potassium persulfate. This cationic radical undergoes a reduction in the presence of antioxidants that provide hydrogen atoms. Fig. 2 illustrates the ABTS scavenging efficiency of the aqueous extract from
The results indicate that the aqueous extract from
Table 3 Effect of AECO treatment on the hatching of
Treatments | Hatching inhibition ratio of | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24 h | 48 h | 72 h | |||||||
INI eggs | HAT eggs | RHI (%) | INI eggs | HAT eggs | RHI (%) | INI eggs | HAT eggs | RHI (%) | |
Water treatment | 105.67 ± 2.52ab | 83.67 ± 1.53b | 20.81 ± 0.46b | 23.33 ± 1.53a | 13.67 ± 1.53a | 41.53 ± 3.43a | 10.33 ± 1.53a | 3.67 ± 1.15a | 65.00 ± 6.01a |
Fenamiphos treatment | 108.67 ± 1.53b | 79.00 ± 2.00a | 27.31 ± 0.86e | 29.67 ± 1.53d | 13.33 ± 1.53a | 54.95 ± 5.77c | 16.33 ± 1.53c | 2.67 ± 1.53a | 84.12 ± 8.17c |
AECO780 treatment | 107.33 ± 2.08ab | 84.00 ± 2.00b | 21.72 ± 2.11ab | 23.33 ± 1.53a | 13.00 ± 1.00a | 44.01 ± 6.97ab | 10.67 ± 0.58a | 3.67 ± 0.58a | 65.76 ± 3.67ab |
AECO1560 treatment | 106.33 ± 2.08ab | 81.67 ± 0.58b | 23.17 ± 1.93bc | 24.67 ± 0.58ab | 13.67 ± 0.58a | 44.61 ± 1.06ab | 11.00 ± 1.00a | 3.33 ± 0.58a | 69.80 ± 3.04ab |
AECO3120 treatment | 104.67 ± 1.53a | 78.67 ± 0.58a | 24.83 ± 1.56cd | 26.00 ± 1.00bc | 13.00 ± 1.00a | 49.95 ± 1.93bc | 13.33 ± 0.58b | 3.33 ± 0.58a | 74.91 ± 4.99bc |
AECO6250 treatment | 106.67 ± 1.53ab | 78.67 ± 1.15a | 26.25 ± 0.75de | 28.00 ± 1.00cd | 13.33 ± 0.58a | 52.30 ± 3.68c | 14.67 ± 0.58bc | 3.00 ± 1.00a | 79.52 ± 6.72c |
AECO12500 treatment | 105.00 ± 1.00a | 76.67 ± 0.58a | 26.98 ± 0.35de | 28.33 ± 0.58d | 12.67 ± 0.58a | 55.25 ± 2.92c | 15.67 ± 0.58c | 2.67 ± 0.58a | 82.92 ± 4.02c |
The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, where the letters (a, b, c, d, and e) indicate differences between treatments (p < 0.05). AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
The results of the biological assay on the survival rate of juvenile
The results depicted in Table 4 provide compelling insights, revealing a significant increase (p < 0.05) in MDA concentrations in roots infected with nematodes (water treatment). This elevation coincides with a substantial reduction in antioxidants such as GSH, CAT, and SOD (p < 0.05). Following treatments with fenamiphos and AECO, a distinct improvement in these parameters is evident. MDA concentrations show a notable decrease across all treatments (p < 0.05), with the most significant decrease was observed in the AECO12500 treatment (p < 0.05) and the fenamiphos treatment (p < 0.05). Conversely, the levels of antioxidant compounds in banana roots demonstrate a substantial rise (p < 0.05), with the most pronounced elevation seen in the AECO-treated (12500 mg/kg), nearly equivalent to the standard fenamiphos control treatment. The results suggest that fenamiphos and, notably, AECO, particularly at the highest concentration, exhibit promising effects in alleviating oxidative stress and enhancing the antioxidant defense system in banana roots affected by
Table 4 Effect of AECO on the levels of antioxidant compounds in banana roots parasitized with
Treatments | MDA (µmol/g) | GSH (µmol/g) | SOD (unit/mg protein) | CAT (unit/mg protein) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Water treatment | 21.06 ± 2.42e | 4.09 ± 1.17a | 71.45 ± 4.56a | 15.61 ± 1.28a |
Fenamiphos treatment | 4.37 ± 0.63a | 19.35 ± 1.09g | 168.08 ± 18.45f | 69.16 ± 2.78f |
AECO780 treatment | 16.14 ± 2.13d | 7.22 ± 0.23b | 86.04 ± 5.21ab | 20.54 ± 1.23b |
AECO1560 treatment | 13.54 ± 1.28c | 9.69 ± 0.69c | 101.15 ± 9.78bc | 23.57 ± 1.08c |
AECO3120 treatment | 11.09 ± 1.17bc | 11.82 ± 1.14d | 122.19 ± 12.49cd | 27.57 ± 1.27d |
AECO6250 treatment | 9.07 ± 1.15b | 13.68 ± 1.18e | 137.98 ± 15.43de | 30.48 ± 2.17d |
AECO12500 treatment | 6.32 ± 0.62a | 17.42 ± 1.27f | 159.57 ± 15.36ef | 57.39 ± 1.16e |
The values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, where the letters (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g) indicate differences between treatments (p < 0.05). AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
The outcomes from Table 5 distinctly illustrate the significant impact of various treatment methods on the dry biomass weight of different parts of banana plants. The aerial part biomass weight of banana plants exhibits a noteworthy variance among experimental treatments (p < 0.05), with the lowest recorded in the water treatment (5.64 ± 0.44 g) (p < 0.05) and the highest in the AECO12500 treatment (15.38 ± 0.13 g) (p < 0.05), closely comparable to the fenamiphos treatment (17.33 ± 0.13 g). This suggests that employing
Table 5 Effect of AECO on the aerial part and root dry weights of banana plants parasitized with
Parameters | Water treatment | Fenamiphos treatment | AECO780 treatment | AECO1560 treatment | AECO3120 treatment | AECO6250 treatment | AECO12500 treatment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aerial part dry weight (g) | 5.64 ± 0.44a | 17.33 ± 0.13g | 6.37 ± 0.16b | 8.59 ± 0.2c | 10.45 ± 0.16d | 12.86 ± 0.13e | 15.38 ± 0.13f |
Root dry weight (g) | 17.33 ± 0.47a | 30.73 ± 0.89g | 19.18 ± 0.42b | 21.35 ± 0.36c | 23.98 ± 0.45d | 26.51 ± 0.41e | 29.32 ± 0.15f |
The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, where the letters (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g) indicate differences between treatments (p < 0.05). AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
The investigation into nematode density in the soil of banana pots infected with
This indicates the nematode-suppressing capability of
The recent strategy in nematode management focuses on specifically addressing the capability to decrease the population of plant-parasitic nematodes in the soil using natural extracts from various plant species. These methods avoid disrupting the natural biological equilibrium. Globally, the utilization of resistant plants or their by-products is a common practice to alleviate the risks linked with conventional chemical nematicides (Sikder and Vestergård 2020).
In the realm of plant extracts, secondary metabolites such as flavonoids, alkaloids, phenolics, terpenoids, saponins, tannins, and steroids manifest potent antioxidant attributes, alleviating the detrimental impacts of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Together, these compounds orchestrate a robust and all-encompassing antioxidant defense mechanism within plants, curtailing the repercussions of ROS triggered by nematode-induced infections. Flavonoids and alkaloids obstruct reactive oxygen species generation by hindering enzymes linked to oxidative pathways, such as lipoxygenase and cyclooxygenase. Phenolic compounds engage directly with ROS, establishing a defensive barrier against their assault on cellular frameworks. Terpenoids distinctly reduce ROS levels by providing electrons or hydrogens to stabilize various ROS variants. Select saponins activate the synthesis of antioxidant enzymes like superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT), establishing conducive circumstances for ROS eradication. Tannins and steroids contribute to the preservation of cell membrane stability, amplifying the efficacy of antioxidant enzymes, countering free radicals, and shielding cells from harm (Ciampi et al. 2020). Moreover, bioactive compounds present in plants hold promise as agents for combatting and deterring nematodes. Phenolics, flavonoids, and tannins assume pivotal roles in shielding plants from oxidative stress and thwarting nematode infestations. Phenolics, serving as potent antioxidants, assist plants in combating oxidative stress by nullifying reactive oxygen species (ROS). They furnish electrons to stabilize free radicals, thereby averting cell damage induced by oxidative reactions. Some phenolic compounds also exhibit nematocidal properties, disrupting the physiological processes of nematodes and impeding their growth. Flavonoids contribute to the comprehensive antioxidant defense system by scavenging free radicals and inhibiting lipid peroxidation processes. They are instrumental in protecting plants from oxidative damage attributable to diverse environmental pollutants. Certain flavonoids showcase nematocidal traits, influencing the behavior, reproduction, and development of nematodes. Tannins exhibit robust antioxidant attributes, proficiently obstructing free radicals and thwarting oxidative damage to cellular components. They play a contributory role in the overall antioxidant defense system of plants. Additionally, tannins can function as nematode repellents, shaping nematode behavior and diminishing their capacity to infect plant roots (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2018).
Plants rich in phenolic compounds, flavonoids, tannins, and similar constituents have attracted considerable attention for their diverse physiological benefits, encompassing activities such as scavenging free radicals, anti-mutagenic, anti-cancer, and anti-inflammatory properties. According to Adebiyi et al. (2017), the antioxidant efficacy of phenolics predominantly stems from their redox attributes, functioning as reducing agents, hydrogen donors, single oxygen quenchers, and potential metal chelators. The ABTS+, assay served as a tool to showcase the antioxidant potential of the test samples. AECO demonstrated a notable ABTS+ free radical scavenging capacity, peaking at 37.26% in this study, underscoring its proficiency in eliminating ABTS radicals. In this investigation, the DPPH radical scavenging activity exhibited an upward trend with increasing extract concentration. This pattern suggests an augmented ability to supply hydrogen ions, resulting in a lighter solution, proportionally correlated with the quantity of electrons obtained. Hence, it can be deduced that AECO engages in DPPH scavenging by converting free radicals into corresponding hydrazine through its hydro-ion-supplying capability. The demonstrated potential of the aqueous extract of
All developmental stages of
The assessment of dry biomass weight in the aerial part and root parts of banana plants aims to evaluate the distribution and expression of plant mass in distinct sections, offering insights into growth dynamics. Biomass variations serve as indicators of overall plant performance, aiding the understanding of growth patterns at different developmental stages. The measurement of the aerial part of biomass provides valuable information on resource allocation and energy utilization, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of plant growth processes (Patrick et al. 2010). The substantial reduction in dry biomass weight observed in both the aerial part and root components of banana plants subjected to water treatment highlights the severity of
Examining nematode density in the soil is paramount for understanding the infection status, evaluating the effectiveness of control measures, and creating favorable conditions for managing the cropping environment in cases of
The investigation into the antioxidant properties of the aqueous extract from
J Plant Biotechnol 2024; 51(1): 11-23
Published online January 23, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5010/JPB.2024.51.002.011
Copyright © The Korean Society of Plant Biotechnology.
Tran Thi Phuong Nhung・Le Pham Tan Quoc
Institute of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam
Correspondence to:e-mail: lephamtanquoc@iuh.edu.vn
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Here, we investigated the antioxidant and nematicidal activities of the aqueous leaf and stem extract of Chromolaena odorata (L.) (AECO) against Radopholus similis, a nematode pest of banana plants. In vitro antioxidant analysis involved testing AECO at concentrations ranging from 50 to 300 μg/mL in 2,2-diphenylpicrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical-scavenging assays. Both in vitro and in vivo experiments were performed using doses of 780, 1,560, 3,120, 6,250, and 12,500 mg DW/L AECO. We assessed the egg hatching inhibition and juvenile survival rate of R. similis, content of antioxidant compounds in banana roots, dry weight of the aerial parts and roots, and the nematode density in the soil. In vitro antioxidant assays revealed substantial DPPH-scavenging (59.67-92.13%) and ABTS radical inhibition (37.26% at 300 μg/mL) activities. In vitro experiments using 12,500 mg DW/L AECO exhibited significant inhibition (p < 0.05) of R. similis egg hatching (26.98%, 55.25%, and 82.92% at 24, 48, and 72 h, respectively) and reduced juvenile survival (p < 0.05). In vivo experiments demonstrated a significant decrease (p < 0.05) in malondialdehyde concentration and an increase (p < 0.05) in antioxidant production (glutathione, catalase, and superoxide dismutase) in banana roots after AECO treatment. Plant biomass showed significant differences (p < 0.05), with the highest values (15.38 ± 0.13 g the aerial part dry weight and 29.32 ± 0.15 g the root dry weight) recorded in the AECO12500 treatment. Notably, R. similis density was significantly decreased (p < 0.05) in the soil after AECO treatment, with maximum inhibition obtained using 12,500 mg/kg. These findings emphasize the potential of AECO for pest management and its relevance to the cultivation of Cavendish bananas.
Keywords: Antioxidant activity, nematicidal activity, in vitro, in vivo, Radopholus similis
The burrowing nematode (
A cascade of defense responses is triggered upon
Ascorbic acid (AA) served as the reference standard, with an 800 µg/mL stock solution prepared by dissolving 2 mg of ascorbic acid in 2.5 mL of distilled water. Serial dilutions were then made using various concentrated solutions (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 µg/mL) for the corresponding extract solution, with a 0.1 mM DPPH solution used as the control. The DPPH free radical scavenging ability (DPPHRSA) was quantified as the percentage of inhibition, calculated using the formula.
where Acontrol: Absorbance of a solution containing DPPH solution and Asample: Absorbance of the sample in the presence of DPPH solution.
The resulting cation radical was further diluted in ethanol (1:1) to achieve an absorbance value of 0.7 at a wavelength of 734 nm using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer model 752N Plus (USA). Five microliters of the extract solution at various concentrations (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 µg/mL) were then combined with 4000 µL of the ABTS+ solution and incubated in the dark for 2 hours at room temperature. Subsequently, the absorbance was measured at 734 nm using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer. As a control, a mixture of 10 mL (7 mM ABTS, 2.45 mM K2S2O8) and 20 mL water for water extraction was used. Ascorbic acid (AA) serves as the reference standard for comparison with the stock solution and is also prepared using the method outlined in the ABTS radical scavenging assay. The percentage of ABTS+ free radical scavenging ability (ABTSRSA) was computed for different concentrations of standards and extracts according to the established formula.
where Acontrol: Absorbance of a solution containing ABTS solution and Asample: Absorbance of the sample in the presence of ABTS solution.
The original AECO solution was diluted with distilled water at varying ratios (1:30, 1:16, 1:8, 1:4, and 1:2) to achieve concentrations of 780, 1560, 3120, 6250, and 12500 mg DW/L. Five experimental treatments, namely AECO780, AECO1560, AECO3120, AECO6250, and AECO12500, were established to represent these concentrations. Additionally, two control treatments were included: the fenamiphos treatment at a concentration of 4.65 mg/mL as the positive control and the water treatment as the negative control. The specified concentrations of both the extract and fenamiphos were administered in both in vitro and in vivo models (Nhung and Quoc 2023).
Evaluating ratios of hatching inhibition: Eggs were collected using the approach outlined by Haroon et al. (2018). A water-based egg suspension was created, consisting of 1 mL of egg suspension (100 ± 10 eggs/mL) and 5 mL of root extract solution. The mixture was then transferred to a petri dish and maintained at room temperature. Each treatment was replicated three times, and petri dishes with 1 mL of egg suspension and 5 mL of distilled water served as controls. Following 24, 48, and 72 hours of exposure, the hatched eggs were quantified using a phase-contrast microscope. The hatching inhibition rate (RHI) was calculated by following the formula (Zaidat et al. 2020):
The nematode density per gram (NDG) is calculated by dividing the number of nematodes extracted (NNE) by the product of the volume of soil sample collected from each pot (VSSP) and the volume of extraction solution (VES).
The experimental setup adhered to a design characterized by complete randomization. In vitro and in vivo test parameters underwent the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Mean comparisons were performed using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) at a significance level of p < 0.05, facilitated by the Statgraphics Centurion XIX software.
The qualitative phytochemical analysis of the aqueous extract from
Table 1 . Qualitative screening of phytochemicals present in the aqueous extract of
Phytochemicals | Presence in AECO | Phytochemicals | Presence in AECO |
---|---|---|---|
Alkaloids | + | Cardiac glycosides | - |
Tannins | + | Steroids | - |
Saponins | + | Terpenoids | + |
Polyphenols | + | Flavonoids | + |
AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
Table 2 . Quantification of flavonoids, alkaloids, and tannins in the aqueous extract of
Sample | Total flavonoid content (mg QE/g) | Total tannin content (mg CE/g) | Total polyphenol content (mg GAE/g) |
---|---|---|---|
AECO | 37.92 ± 2.23 | 70.43 ± 1.21 | 71.84 ± 2.14 |
AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
The DPPH assay was employed to evaluate the antioxidative potential of AECO, relying on the ability of antioxidant compounds to donate atomic or hydrogen electrons to the DPPH radical, transforming it into 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazine. The assay, conducted on the aqueous extract of
The ABTS radical cation is formed by oxidizing ABTS with potassium persulfate. This cationic radical undergoes a reduction in the presence of antioxidants that provide hydrogen atoms. Fig. 2 illustrates the ABTS scavenging efficiency of the aqueous extract from
The results indicate that the aqueous extract from
Table 3 . Effect of AECO treatment on the hatching of
Treatments | Hatching inhibition ratio of | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24 h | 48 h | 72 h | |||||||
INI eggs | HAT eggs | RHI (%) | INI eggs | HAT eggs | RHI (%) | INI eggs | HAT eggs | RHI (%) | |
Water treatment | 105.67 ± 2.52ab | 83.67 ± 1.53b | 20.81 ± 0.46b | 23.33 ± 1.53a | 13.67 ± 1.53a | 41.53 ± 3.43a | 10.33 ± 1.53a | 3.67 ± 1.15a | 65.00 ± 6.01a |
Fenamiphos treatment | 108.67 ± 1.53b | 79.00 ± 2.00a | 27.31 ± 0.86e | 29.67 ± 1.53d | 13.33 ± 1.53a | 54.95 ± 5.77c | 16.33 ± 1.53c | 2.67 ± 1.53a | 84.12 ± 8.17c |
AECO780 treatment | 107.33 ± 2.08ab | 84.00 ± 2.00b | 21.72 ± 2.11ab | 23.33 ± 1.53a | 13.00 ± 1.00a | 44.01 ± 6.97ab | 10.67 ± 0.58a | 3.67 ± 0.58a | 65.76 ± 3.67ab |
AECO1560 treatment | 106.33 ± 2.08ab | 81.67 ± 0.58b | 23.17 ± 1.93bc | 24.67 ± 0.58ab | 13.67 ± 0.58a | 44.61 ± 1.06ab | 11.00 ± 1.00a | 3.33 ± 0.58a | 69.80 ± 3.04ab |
AECO3120 treatment | 104.67 ± 1.53a | 78.67 ± 0.58a | 24.83 ± 1.56cd | 26.00 ± 1.00bc | 13.00 ± 1.00a | 49.95 ± 1.93bc | 13.33 ± 0.58b | 3.33 ± 0.58a | 74.91 ± 4.99bc |
AECO6250 treatment | 106.67 ± 1.53ab | 78.67 ± 1.15a | 26.25 ± 0.75de | 28.00 ± 1.00cd | 13.33 ± 0.58a | 52.30 ± 3.68c | 14.67 ± 0.58bc | 3.00 ± 1.00a | 79.52 ± 6.72c |
AECO12500 treatment | 105.00 ± 1.00a | 76.67 ± 0.58a | 26.98 ± 0.35de | 28.33 ± 0.58d | 12.67 ± 0.58a | 55.25 ± 2.92c | 15.67 ± 0.58c | 2.67 ± 0.58a | 82.92 ± 4.02c |
The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, where the letters (a, b, c, d, and e) indicate differences between treatments (p < 0.05). AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
The results of the biological assay on the survival rate of juvenile
The results depicted in Table 4 provide compelling insights, revealing a significant increase (p < 0.05) in MDA concentrations in roots infected with nematodes (water treatment). This elevation coincides with a substantial reduction in antioxidants such as GSH, CAT, and SOD (p < 0.05). Following treatments with fenamiphos and AECO, a distinct improvement in these parameters is evident. MDA concentrations show a notable decrease across all treatments (p < 0.05), with the most significant decrease was observed in the AECO12500 treatment (p < 0.05) and the fenamiphos treatment (p < 0.05). Conversely, the levels of antioxidant compounds in banana roots demonstrate a substantial rise (p < 0.05), with the most pronounced elevation seen in the AECO-treated (12500 mg/kg), nearly equivalent to the standard fenamiphos control treatment. The results suggest that fenamiphos and, notably, AECO, particularly at the highest concentration, exhibit promising effects in alleviating oxidative stress and enhancing the antioxidant defense system in banana roots affected by
Table 4 . Effect of AECO on the levels of antioxidant compounds in banana roots parasitized with
Treatments | MDA (µmol/g) | GSH (µmol/g) | SOD (unit/mg protein) | CAT (unit/mg protein) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Water treatment | 21.06 ± 2.42e | 4.09 ± 1.17a | 71.45 ± 4.56a | 15.61 ± 1.28a |
Fenamiphos treatment | 4.37 ± 0.63a | 19.35 ± 1.09g | 168.08 ± 18.45f | 69.16 ± 2.78f |
AECO780 treatment | 16.14 ± 2.13d | 7.22 ± 0.23b | 86.04 ± 5.21ab | 20.54 ± 1.23b |
AECO1560 treatment | 13.54 ± 1.28c | 9.69 ± 0.69c | 101.15 ± 9.78bc | 23.57 ± 1.08c |
AECO3120 treatment | 11.09 ± 1.17bc | 11.82 ± 1.14d | 122.19 ± 12.49cd | 27.57 ± 1.27d |
AECO6250 treatment | 9.07 ± 1.15b | 13.68 ± 1.18e | 137.98 ± 15.43de | 30.48 ± 2.17d |
AECO12500 treatment | 6.32 ± 0.62a | 17.42 ± 1.27f | 159.57 ± 15.36ef | 57.39 ± 1.16e |
The values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, where the letters (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g) indicate differences between treatments (p < 0.05). AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
The outcomes from Table 5 distinctly illustrate the significant impact of various treatment methods on the dry biomass weight of different parts of banana plants. The aerial part biomass weight of banana plants exhibits a noteworthy variance among experimental treatments (p < 0.05), with the lowest recorded in the water treatment (5.64 ± 0.44 g) (p < 0.05) and the highest in the AECO12500 treatment (15.38 ± 0.13 g) (p < 0.05), closely comparable to the fenamiphos treatment (17.33 ± 0.13 g). This suggests that employing
Table 5 . Effect of AECO on the aerial part and root dry weights of banana plants parasitized with
Parameters | Water treatment | Fenamiphos treatment | AECO780 treatment | AECO1560 treatment | AECO3120 treatment | AECO6250 treatment | AECO12500 treatment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aerial part dry weight (g) | 5.64 ± 0.44a | 17.33 ± 0.13g | 6.37 ± 0.16b | 8.59 ± 0.2c | 10.45 ± 0.16d | 12.86 ± 0.13e | 15.38 ± 0.13f |
Root dry weight (g) | 17.33 ± 0.47a | 30.73 ± 0.89g | 19.18 ± 0.42b | 21.35 ± 0.36c | 23.98 ± 0.45d | 26.51 ± 0.41e | 29.32 ± 0.15f |
The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, where the letters (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g) indicate differences between treatments (p < 0.05). AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
The investigation into nematode density in the soil of banana pots infected with
This indicates the nematode-suppressing capability of
The recent strategy in nematode management focuses on specifically addressing the capability to decrease the population of plant-parasitic nematodes in the soil using natural extracts from various plant species. These methods avoid disrupting the natural biological equilibrium. Globally, the utilization of resistant plants or their by-products is a common practice to alleviate the risks linked with conventional chemical nematicides (Sikder and Vestergård 2020).
In the realm of plant extracts, secondary metabolites such as flavonoids, alkaloids, phenolics, terpenoids, saponins, tannins, and steroids manifest potent antioxidant attributes, alleviating the detrimental impacts of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Together, these compounds orchestrate a robust and all-encompassing antioxidant defense mechanism within plants, curtailing the repercussions of ROS triggered by nematode-induced infections. Flavonoids and alkaloids obstruct reactive oxygen species generation by hindering enzymes linked to oxidative pathways, such as lipoxygenase and cyclooxygenase. Phenolic compounds engage directly with ROS, establishing a defensive barrier against their assault on cellular frameworks. Terpenoids distinctly reduce ROS levels by providing electrons or hydrogens to stabilize various ROS variants. Select saponins activate the synthesis of antioxidant enzymes like superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT), establishing conducive circumstances for ROS eradication. Tannins and steroids contribute to the preservation of cell membrane stability, amplifying the efficacy of antioxidant enzymes, countering free radicals, and shielding cells from harm (Ciampi et al. 2020). Moreover, bioactive compounds present in plants hold promise as agents for combatting and deterring nematodes. Phenolics, flavonoids, and tannins assume pivotal roles in shielding plants from oxidative stress and thwarting nematode infestations. Phenolics, serving as potent antioxidants, assist plants in combating oxidative stress by nullifying reactive oxygen species (ROS). They furnish electrons to stabilize free radicals, thereby averting cell damage induced by oxidative reactions. Some phenolic compounds also exhibit nematocidal properties, disrupting the physiological processes of nematodes and impeding their growth. Flavonoids contribute to the comprehensive antioxidant defense system by scavenging free radicals and inhibiting lipid peroxidation processes. They are instrumental in protecting plants from oxidative damage attributable to diverse environmental pollutants. Certain flavonoids showcase nematocidal traits, influencing the behavior, reproduction, and development of nematodes. Tannins exhibit robust antioxidant attributes, proficiently obstructing free radicals and thwarting oxidative damage to cellular components. They play a contributory role in the overall antioxidant defense system of plants. Additionally, tannins can function as nematode repellents, shaping nematode behavior and diminishing their capacity to infect plant roots (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2018).
Plants rich in phenolic compounds, flavonoids, tannins, and similar constituents have attracted considerable attention for their diverse physiological benefits, encompassing activities such as scavenging free radicals, anti-mutagenic, anti-cancer, and anti-inflammatory properties. According to Adebiyi et al. (2017), the antioxidant efficacy of phenolics predominantly stems from their redox attributes, functioning as reducing agents, hydrogen donors, single oxygen quenchers, and potential metal chelators. The ABTS+, assay served as a tool to showcase the antioxidant potential of the test samples. AECO demonstrated a notable ABTS+ free radical scavenging capacity, peaking at 37.26% in this study, underscoring its proficiency in eliminating ABTS radicals. In this investigation, the DPPH radical scavenging activity exhibited an upward trend with increasing extract concentration. This pattern suggests an augmented ability to supply hydrogen ions, resulting in a lighter solution, proportionally correlated with the quantity of electrons obtained. Hence, it can be deduced that AECO engages in DPPH scavenging by converting free radicals into corresponding hydrazine through its hydro-ion-supplying capability. The demonstrated potential of the aqueous extract of
All developmental stages of
The assessment of dry biomass weight in the aerial part and root parts of banana plants aims to evaluate the distribution and expression of plant mass in distinct sections, offering insights into growth dynamics. Biomass variations serve as indicators of overall plant performance, aiding the understanding of growth patterns at different developmental stages. The measurement of the aerial part of biomass provides valuable information on resource allocation and energy utilization, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of plant growth processes (Patrick et al. 2010). The substantial reduction in dry biomass weight observed in both the aerial part and root components of banana plants subjected to water treatment highlights the severity of
Examining nematode density in the soil is paramount for understanding the infection status, evaluating the effectiveness of control measures, and creating favorable conditions for managing the cropping environment in cases of
The investigation into the antioxidant properties of the aqueous extract from
Table 1 . Qualitative screening of phytochemicals present in the aqueous extract of
Phytochemicals | Presence in AECO | Phytochemicals | Presence in AECO |
---|---|---|---|
Alkaloids | + | Cardiac glycosides | - |
Tannins | + | Steroids | - |
Saponins | + | Terpenoids | + |
Polyphenols | + | Flavonoids | + |
AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
Table 2 . Quantification of flavonoids, alkaloids, and tannins in the aqueous extract of
Sample | Total flavonoid content (mg QE/g) | Total tannin content (mg CE/g) | Total polyphenol content (mg GAE/g) |
---|---|---|---|
AECO | 37.92 ± 2.23 | 70.43 ± 1.21 | 71.84 ± 2.14 |
AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
Table 3 . Effect of AECO treatment on the hatching of
Treatments | Hatching inhibition ratio of | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24 h | 48 h | 72 h | |||||||
INI eggs | HAT eggs | RHI (%) | INI eggs | HAT eggs | RHI (%) | INI eggs | HAT eggs | RHI (%) | |
Water treatment | 105.67 ± 2.52ab | 83.67 ± 1.53b | 20.81 ± 0.46b | 23.33 ± 1.53a | 13.67 ± 1.53a | 41.53 ± 3.43a | 10.33 ± 1.53a | 3.67 ± 1.15a | 65.00 ± 6.01a |
Fenamiphos treatment | 108.67 ± 1.53b | 79.00 ± 2.00a | 27.31 ± 0.86e | 29.67 ± 1.53d | 13.33 ± 1.53a | 54.95 ± 5.77c | 16.33 ± 1.53c | 2.67 ± 1.53a | 84.12 ± 8.17c |
AECO780 treatment | 107.33 ± 2.08ab | 84.00 ± 2.00b | 21.72 ± 2.11ab | 23.33 ± 1.53a | 13.00 ± 1.00a | 44.01 ± 6.97ab | 10.67 ± 0.58a | 3.67 ± 0.58a | 65.76 ± 3.67ab |
AECO1560 treatment | 106.33 ± 2.08ab | 81.67 ± 0.58b | 23.17 ± 1.93bc | 24.67 ± 0.58ab | 13.67 ± 0.58a | 44.61 ± 1.06ab | 11.00 ± 1.00a | 3.33 ± 0.58a | 69.80 ± 3.04ab |
AECO3120 treatment | 104.67 ± 1.53a | 78.67 ± 0.58a | 24.83 ± 1.56cd | 26.00 ± 1.00bc | 13.00 ± 1.00a | 49.95 ± 1.93bc | 13.33 ± 0.58b | 3.33 ± 0.58a | 74.91 ± 4.99bc |
AECO6250 treatment | 106.67 ± 1.53ab | 78.67 ± 1.15a | 26.25 ± 0.75de | 28.00 ± 1.00cd | 13.33 ± 0.58a | 52.30 ± 3.68c | 14.67 ± 0.58bc | 3.00 ± 1.00a | 79.52 ± 6.72c |
AECO12500 treatment | 105.00 ± 1.00a | 76.67 ± 0.58a | 26.98 ± 0.35de | 28.33 ± 0.58d | 12.67 ± 0.58a | 55.25 ± 2.92c | 15.67 ± 0.58c | 2.67 ± 0.58a | 82.92 ± 4.02c |
The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, where the letters (a, b, c, d, and e) indicate differences between treatments (p < 0.05). AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
Table 4 . Effect of AECO on the levels of antioxidant compounds in banana roots parasitized with
Treatments | MDA (µmol/g) | GSH (µmol/g) | SOD (unit/mg protein) | CAT (unit/mg protein) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Water treatment | 21.06 ± 2.42e | 4.09 ± 1.17a | 71.45 ± 4.56a | 15.61 ± 1.28a |
Fenamiphos treatment | 4.37 ± 0.63a | 19.35 ± 1.09g | 168.08 ± 18.45f | 69.16 ± 2.78f |
AECO780 treatment | 16.14 ± 2.13d | 7.22 ± 0.23b | 86.04 ± 5.21ab | 20.54 ± 1.23b |
AECO1560 treatment | 13.54 ± 1.28c | 9.69 ± 0.69c | 101.15 ± 9.78bc | 23.57 ± 1.08c |
AECO3120 treatment | 11.09 ± 1.17bc | 11.82 ± 1.14d | 122.19 ± 12.49cd | 27.57 ± 1.27d |
AECO6250 treatment | 9.07 ± 1.15b | 13.68 ± 1.18e | 137.98 ± 15.43de | 30.48 ± 2.17d |
AECO12500 treatment | 6.32 ± 0.62a | 17.42 ± 1.27f | 159.57 ± 15.36ef | 57.39 ± 1.16e |
The values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, where the letters (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g) indicate differences between treatments (p < 0.05). AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
Table 5 . Effect of AECO on the aerial part and root dry weights of banana plants parasitized with
Parameters | Water treatment | Fenamiphos treatment | AECO780 treatment | AECO1560 treatment | AECO3120 treatment | AECO6250 treatment | AECO12500 treatment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aerial part dry weight (g) | 5.64 ± 0.44a | 17.33 ± 0.13g | 6.37 ± 0.16b | 8.59 ± 0.2c | 10.45 ± 0.16d | 12.86 ± 0.13e | 15.38 ± 0.13f |
Root dry weight (g) | 17.33 ± 0.47a | 30.73 ± 0.89g | 19.18 ± 0.42b | 21.35 ± 0.36c | 23.98 ± 0.45d | 26.51 ± 0.41e | 29.32 ± 0.15f |
The values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, where the letters (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g) indicate differences between treatments (p < 0.05). AECO, aqueous leaf and stem extract of
Sodam Kang・Sang Hwi Im・Ju-Sung Kim
J Plant Biotechnol 2023; 50(1): 200-206Sung-Chul Park ・Su Hyun Park ・Soyoung Kim・Yu Jeong Jeong・Cha Young Kim・Jae Cheol Jeong
J Plant Biotechnol 2022; 49(3): 187-192Sora Jin ・Seounggun Bang ・Min-A Ahn ・Kyubin Lee ・Kyunghwan Kim・Tae Kyung Hyun
J Plant Biotechnol 2021; 48(2): 100-105
Journal of
Plant Biotechnology