Dergiler / Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Comparative Evaluation of Two Commercial Propolis Extracts as Plant Defense Activator and Antimicrobial Agent Against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pst) strain DC3000

Sayfa
213–219
Yayın Tarihi
2021-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

While preliminary in nature, these results suggest a significant potential of propolis in plant protection in commercial and organic agriculture.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Propolis is a natural bee product that protects the beehives from internal and external factors.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Here, two different commercially available propolis extracts were evaluated for antibacterial effects on Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pst) strain DC3000.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:While preliminary in nature, these results suggest a significant potential of propolis in plant protection in commercial and organic agriculture.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Antibacterial activity · plant defense response · plant protection

Özet

Propolis is a natural bee product that protects the beehives from internal and external factors. It is a natural-complex compound with a wide potential use as an antimicrobial, anti-fungal, and anti-inflammatory effect. The role of propolis as a plant protection agent and an alternative to pesticides is an unexplored area. Here, two different commercially available propolis extracts were evaluated for antibacterial effects on Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pst) strain DC3000. Also, the activities of defense response genes WRKY70 and CaBP22 in Arabidopsis thaliana under propolis application were compared. According to the results, each propolis extract and dose had a different effect on gene expressions as well as antibacterial activity. One of the commercial brands had a significant effect at all doses while another brand’s propolis extract had its activity at only 1% concentration. Propolis reduced bacterial growth up to 93% with a 2% concentration. For the first time, propolis is also evaluated for its capacity as a plant defense activator agent and it induced WRKY70 and CaBP22 gene expression. The differences in gene expression and bacterial growth inhibition levels suggest the importance of the origins of propolis, such as plant species and regions it collected. While preliminary in nature, these results suggest a significant potential of propolis in plant protection in commercial and organic agriculture.

Abstract

Propolis is a natural bee product that protects the beehives from internal and external factors. It is a natural-complex compound with a wide potential use as an antimicrobial, anti-fungal, and anti-inflammatory effect. The role of propolis as a plant protection agent and an alternative to pesticides is an unexplored area. Here, two different commercially available propolis extracts were evaluated for antibacterial effects on Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pst) strain DC3000. Also, the activities of defense response genes WRKY70 and CaBP22 in Arabidopsis thaliana under propolis application were compared. According to the results, each propolis extract and dose had a different effect on gene expressions as well as antibacterial activity. One of the commercial brands had a significant effect at all doses while another brand’s propolis extract had its activity at only 1% concentration. Propolis reduced bacterial growth up to 93% with a 2% concentration. For the first time, propolis is also evaluated for its capacity as a plant defense activator agent and it induced WRKY70 and CaBP22 gene expression. The differences in gene expression and bacterial growth inhibition levels suggest the importance of the origins of propolis, such as plant species and regions it collected. While preliminary in nature, these results suggest a significant potential of propolis in plant protection in commercial and organic agriculture.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ATEŞ, M., ÖZKURT, N., BEKTAŞ, Y. (2021). Comparative Evaluation of Two Commercial Propolis Extracts as Plant Defense Activator and Antimicrobial Agent Against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato (Pst) strain DC3000. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 213–219. https://ajindex.com/articles/220874

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Abd-El-Rhman, A.M., 2009. Antagonism of Aeromonas hydrophila by propolis and its effect on the performance of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Fish and Shellfish Immunology, 27(3): 454-459.
  2. Abo-Elyousr, K.A.M., Seleim, M.E.A., El-Sharkawy, R.M., Khalil Bagy, H.M.M., 2017. Effectiveness of Egyptian propolis on control of tomato bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 124(5): 467-472.
  3. Ali, A.M., Kunugi, H., 2021. Propolis, bee honey, and their components protect against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A review of in silico, in vitro, and clinical studies. Molecules, 26(5): 1232. Aparicio-García, P.F., Ventura-Aguilar, R.I., Del Río-García, J.C., Hernández-López, M., Guillén-Sánchez, D., Salazar-Piña, D.A., Ramos-García, M.D.L., Bautista-Baños, S., 2021. Edible chitosan/propolis coatings and their effect on ripening, development of Aspergillus flavus, and sensory quality in fig fruit, during controlled storage. Plants, 10(1): 112. Awale, S., Li, F., Onozuka, H., Esumi, H., Tezuka, Y., Kadota, S., 2008. Constituents of Brazilian red propolis and their preferential cytotoxic activity against human pancreatic PANC-1 cancer cell line in nutrient-deprived condition. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, 16(1): 181-189.
  4. Basim, E., Basim, H., Özcan, M., 2006. Antibacterial activities of Turkish pollen and propolis extracts against plant bacterial pathogens. Journal of Food Engineering, 77(4): 992-996.
  5. Bektas, Y., Eulgem, T., 2015. Synthetic plant defense elicitors. Frontiers in Plant Science, 5(804): 1-17.
  6. Bohinc, T., Vučajnk, F., Trdan, S., 2019. The efficacy of environmentally acceptable products for the control of major potato pests and diseases. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 106(2): 135-142.
  7. Botteon, C.E.A., Silva, L.B., Ccana-Ccapatinta, G.V., Silva, T.S., Ambrosio, S.R., Veneziani, R.C.S., Bastos, J.K., Marcato, P.D., 2021. Biosynthesis and characterization of gold nanoparticles using Brazilian red propolis and evaluation of its antimicrobial and anticancer activities. Scientific Reports, 11(1): 1-16.
  8. Burdock, G.A., 1998. Review of the biological properties and toxicity of bee propolis (Propolis). Food and Chemical Toxicology, 36(4): 347-363.
  9. Cai, Y., Cao, X., Aballay, A., Nishikawa, Y., Davies, J.E., 2014. Whole-animal chemical screen identifies colistin as a new immunomodulator that targets conserved pathways. mBio, 5(4): 1-11.
  10. Cohen, Y., Vaknin, M., Mauch-Mani, B., 2016. BABA-induced resistance: milestones