Next Article in Journal
Antibacterial Activity of Thymus vulgaris L. Essential Oil Vapours and Their GC/MS Analysis Using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Syringe Headspace Sampling Techniques
Next Article in Special Issue
Chemical Composition of Essential Oils from Leaves and Fruits of Juniperus foetidissima and Their Attractancy and Toxicity to Two Economically Important Tephritid Fruit Fly Species, Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha suspensa
Previous Article in Journal
Thymodepressin—Unforeseen Immunosuppressor
Previous Article in Special Issue
Machine Learning Data Augmentation as a Tool to Enhance Quantitative Composition–Activity Relationships of Complex Mixtures. A New Application to Dissect the Role of Main Chemical Components in Bioactive Essential Oils
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Chemical Analysis and In Vitro Bioactivity of Essential Oil of Laurelia sempervirens and Safrole Derivatives against Oomycete Fish Pathogens

1
Laboratorio de Productos Naturales y Síntesis Orgánica (LPNSO), Departamento de Ciencias y Geografía, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Exactas, Universidad de Playa Ancha, Avda. Leopoldo Carvallo 270, Playa Ancha, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile
2
Facultad de Farmacia, Escuela de Química y Farmacia, Universidad de Valparaíso, Av. Gran Bretaña 1093, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile
3
Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Campus Fernando May, Universidad del Bío-Bío, Avda. Andrés Bello 720, Casilla 447, Chillán 3780000, Chile
4
Departamento de Química, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Av. Santa María 6400, Vitacura, Santiago 7630000, Chile
5
Facultad de Medicina, Instituto de Microbiología Clínica, Universidad Austral de Chile, Los Laureles s/n, Isla Teja, Valdivia 5090000, Chile
6
Centro de Investigación Austral Biotech, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Santo Tomás, Avda. Ejército 146, Santiago 8320000, Chile
7
Instituto de Química, Facultad de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Av. Universidad #330, Curauma, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile
8
Facultad de Medicina, Escuela de Obstetricia y Puericultura, Universidad de Valparaíso, Angamos 655, Reñaca, Viña del Mar 2520000, Chile
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2021, 26(21), 6551; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26216551
Submission received: 9 October 2021 / Revised: 26 October 2021 / Accepted: 27 October 2021 / Published: 29 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Chemistry of Essential Oils)

Abstract

:
In this study, the essential oil (EO) from Laurelia sempervirens was analyzed by GC/MS and safrole (1) was identified as the major metabolite 1, was subjected to direct reactions on the oxygenated groups in the aromatic ring and in the side chain, and eight compounds (4 to 12) were obtained by the process. EO and compounds 412 were subjected to biological assays on 24 strains of the genus Saprolegnia, specifically of the species 12 S. parasitica and 12 S. australis. EO showed a significant effect against Saprolegnia strains. Compound 6 presents the highest activity against two resistant strains, with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum oomyceticidal concentration (MOC) values of 25 to 100 and 75 to 125 µg/mL, respectively. The results show that compound 6 exhibited superior activities compared to the commercial controls bronopol and azoxystrobin used to combat these pathogens.

1. Introduction

Over the last decades, the production of fish, crustaceans, shellfish, and amphibians through aquaculture has become the fastest growing food sector in the world. However, the growing business of aquaculture often suffers from heavy financial losses due to the development of infections caused by microbial pathogens, particularly by different species of the genus Saprolegnia [1]. The infection caused by this genus of pathogens is known as saprolegniosis; this infection occurs in all freshwater aquatic ecosystems and significantly attacks fish and eggs, mainly when certain changes occur in the culture environment, which causes the appearance of these oomycetes [2]. The mechanism of infection begins by means of its spores, which infect the epidermal tissues of fish, generally starting from the head and fins, spreading over the entire surface of the body, causing cell necrosis with cutaneous and epidermal damage. The oomycete penetrates the membrane affecting the ova, and proliferation occurs through the water to other closer ones, causing death [3]. Until 2002, Saprolegnia sp. was kept under control through the use of Malachite green; however, due to its carcinogenic and toxicological effects, treatment with this chemical has been banned internationally [4]. Formalin is another of the most potent fish oomycide, but with the drawback of having an acute impact on aquatic ecosystems [5]. Other chemical alternatives have been used to control the disease effectively, including 8-quinolinol, dichlorophen, copper sulfate pentahydrate, sodium chloride or bronopol [6,7,8]. However, to date, most of the compounds described for the control of Saprolegnia are ineffective or have negative effects on the health of fish, operators or the environment [9]. Hence, an economical, effective and friendly alternative is required.
Not insignificant is the recent increased interest in using natural substances derived from plants for different industrial purposes, not only as food seasoning or natural medicine, but also for pest management in agriculture, livestock, and aquaculture. The plant-derived products most commonly used to control diseases are the essential oils. These are complex mixtures of hydrocarbons and oxygenated hydrocarbons arising from the isoprenoid pathways, including terpenoids and phenylpropanoids [10]. These compounds have served as the starting point for the discovery and development of new antimicrobial agents.
The genus Laurelia belongs to the family Atherospermataceae, is represented by only two species, and is endemic to the southern hemisphere. Both species have a high content of alkaloids, and other compounds include terpenes, phenolics, phenylpropanoids, and flavonoids, which usually have a wide range of pharmacological activities [11,12].
Laurelia sempervirens (Ruiz and Pav.) Tul. is an evergreen endemic tree of the temperate rainforests of southern Chile [13]. Numerous pharmacological and phytochemical studies have reported repellent, insecticidal, antibacterial, antioxidant, antitumoral and antifungal activity potential of essential oil from L. sempervirens [14,15,16,17].
Safrole is a major component of Chilean laurel oil and a component of several other essential oils [18,19]. It has differential biological activities, such as cytotoxic, analgesic and antimicrobial activities [20], which can be used to participate in numerous chemical reactions.
Therefore, our working group has developed safrole derivatives, by direct reactions on oxygenated groups in the aromatic ring and the side chain, in search of new biological activities such as antioomycete.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the antioomycete activity of the essential oil of L. sempervirens, its main compound safrole, and its synthetic derivatives against strains of S. parasitica and S. australis, both pathogenic oomycetes of economic importance for salmon farming.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Yield and Chemical Constituents of EO

The extraction yield of L. sempervirens EO was 2.78% (v/dry weight) and the density was 1.15 ± 0.01 g/mL. The results of the gas chromatographic analysis of L. sempervirens EO is summarized in Table 1.
Sixteen components were identified in the leaf EO: 78.06% were phenylpropanoids, 3.08% terpenes and 0.37% benzaldehydes. Leaf EO was mainly characterized by safrole (1) (65.03%), isosafrole (2) (11.90%), and spathulenol (3) (11.16%) (see Figure 1).
Some studies of leaf EOs from L. sempervirens showed different chemical compositions according to the region. The results of this work show that the chemical composition of this EO was different with those obtained from plants collected in the Metropolitan, Ñuble, Bio-Bío and La Araucanía regions [14,16,17,22]. The most important differences are found in the absence of spatulenol content, the lower isosafrole content, and a higher safrole content. In this context, the variability in the essential oil content is influenced by the geographical origin of the species, as well as by the drying methods, the extraction time and the type of organ studied [23].
Safrole derivatives can be synthesized by chemical modification, and some of these derivatives have been proved to have better antimicrobial activity; indeed, in the last decade, this research group reported some safrole derivatives obtained by traditional organic chemistry protocols with a series of modifications [24,25].
In this work, however, the preparation of catechol from the methylenedioxy ring safrole cleavage reaction was performed with TiCl4 to shorten the reaction time and improve the yield, in comparison with the previously reported method [25].
Safrole derivatives 412 were obtained in moderate to good yields (40.0–95.0%) (Figure 2). NMR data of 412 were consistent with what we had previously reported (see Supplementary Materials).

2.2. Biological Assays

The in vitro antimycotic activity of L. sempervirens EO, safrole and its derivatives 412 against twenty-four strains of S. parasitica and S. australis, twelve of each.
First, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) at 48 h of EO, safrole and its derivatives 47 (Table 2) and for compounds 812 (Table 3) was evaluated against 22 strains of Saprolegnia (S. parasitica 1–11 and S. australis 12–22, respectively).
EOs used in this study presented activity against the 22 isolates tested. The highest MIC value observed for EO was against strain 1 of S. parasitica and strain 18 of S. australis, with 50 µg/mL, while the minimum value was of 175 µg/mL for strain 15 of S. australis. When comparing the effectiveness of the oil against the strains, it was observed that EOs were very efficient against the pathogenic strain of S. parasitica on the strains of S. australis. EO showed bronopol-equivalent effectiveness against strains 1, 11, 17 and 20, while azoxystrobin showed an equivalence in the action on the strains 6, 7 and 11.
However, the EO showed higher anti-oomycete activity against strains 21 and 22 and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, for bronopol and azoxystrobin, respectively, but both controls showed lower efficiency than EO against strains 18 and 19 of S. australis. As an aside, previous studies have reported that EOs from Laureliopsis philippianna, Tymus vulgaris and Origanum vulgare present similar anti-oomycidal activity against S. parasitica, due to their high content of aromatic compounds [23,26].
For safrole and its derivatives, the results show that 6 and 7 were the most active compounds compared to the controls against the twenty-two strains tested. However, the MIC values of compound 6 for the growth inhibition of S. parasitica and S. australis were 3.125 to 6.25 and 6.25 to 75 µg/mL, respectively, while for compound 7, which differs in the presence of a primary alcohol positioned on the side chain of the aromatic ring with 6, these values decreased from 3.125 to 6.25 and 50 to 125 µg/mL for the strains, respectively. These data confirm what has been suggested in previous studies about the importance that exists between nitro groups and primary alcohols in the sense that they can generate intra-molecular hydrogen bridges that would diminish the antimicrobial action of this type of molecule [27].
Subsequently, the oil and all the compounds were evaluated against strains 23 and 24, corresponding to S. parasitica and S. australis, respectively, which were less sensitive to the commercial products tested, such us fluconazole and ketoconazole.
Table 4 summarizes the MIC, the minimum oomyceticidal concentration (MOC) and membrane damage values for the EO, safrole and its derivatives 412 against strains 23 and 24.
Our results show that nitrosylated compounds can cause greater damage to Saprolegnia strains when compared to commercial antifungal compounds (bronopol and azoxystrobin) used as controls.
In a biological system, nitro groups can be enzymatically reduced, causing very unstable nitro radicals that can be re-oxidized under aerobic conditions, generating reactive superoxide anions. However, a reduction in the NO2 groups can also originate nitroso and hydroxylamine intermediates that react with biomolecules to produce toxic effects [28], including protein cysteine thiols [29]. On the other hand, we can consider binding interactions between nitroaromatics compounds and biomacromolecules such as proteins, because nitrobenzene compounds can act as enzymatic inhibitor by interaction with tryptophan and tyrosine residues [30]. This supports the importance of specific interactions of nitro aromatic compounds to cause cell membrane proteins’ malfunction and cell membrane damage.
Nitrosylation increased the efficiency of safrole derivatives, improving their antifungal activity reflected in the damage to cell membranes. These good results for safrole-derived compounds open the possibility that they could be considered as effective control agents, including animal and plant pathogenic oomycetes, because previous studies demonstrated their low toxicity in in vitro models of healthy epithelial cells, red blood cells and Artemia salina [25,31].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. General

Standard pure compounds for co-injection in GC/MS, α-pinene, β-phellandrene, safrole, isosafrole, and piperonal were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Co. (St. Louis, MO, USA). The separation and identification of the synthesized compounds was carried out by previously performed methods [24,25].

3.2. Plant Material

The leaves of L. sempervirens were collected in Antilhue, Los Ríos Region, Chile, in December 2019. The plant material was identified by Forestry Engineer Patricio Novoa (National Botanical Garden, Viña del Mar, Chile), and a voucher specimen (LS-1219) was deposited at the Natural Products and Organic Synthesis Laboratory of Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaíso, Chile.

3.3. Essential Oil Isolation and Analysis

The fresh leaves (500 g) of L. sempervirens were submitted to hydrodistillation for 4 h. The distilled leaves were extracted using ethyl acetate, dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate, and the solvent evaporated. The EO was analyzed and its components identified by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) using previously standardized instrumentation and methodology [32].

3.4. Isolation and Identification of the Major Constituent

EO obtained as described above (5.0 g) was chromatographed on a column of silica gel and eluted with a gradient of hexane/ethyl acetate (100:0 to 90:10). One hundred and fifty fractions were collected and analyzed by TLC. The fractions 18–78 were purified by flash chromatography using a mixture of hexane/ethyl acetate (95:5) as eluent. Thirty fractions were collected. Fractions 13–25 contained the active compound (2.1 g) identified as safrole (1).

3.5. Synthesis of Safrole Derivatives

Safrole derivatives (Figure 2) obtained from the natural compound 1 were synthesized and characterized by standard methods [24,25], except for compound 9, 4-allylbenzene-1,2-diol.
The natural compound 1 (100 mg, 0.62 mmol) was added to a stirred solution of TiCl4 (0.3 mL, 0.098 mmol) in dry dichloromethane (10 mL) under nitrogen atmosphere. The mixture was stirred for 8 h at room temperature, diluted with water (20 mL), extracted with ethyl acetate (2 × 50 mL), dried (Na2SO4), and concentrated. The separation and identification of the compound 9 was carried out by the previously performed method [25].

3.6. Oomycete Strain

Twelve Saprolegnia parasitica strains and twelve S. australis strains (the Cell Biology Laboratory, Faculty of medicine, Universidad de Valparaíso) were used in this study. These were isolated from Salmo salar carp eggs and biochemically and molecularly characterized in previous studies [23].

3.7. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration Evaluation

Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined by a serial dilution technique using 96-well microtiter plates. The EO, safrole (1) and compounds 412 were dissolved in 0.1% DMSO solution and added to a Gypsum (G-Y) medium with inoculum. Samples were evaluated at a series of previously defined concentrations [23]. The microplates were incubated in a rotary agitator (160 rpm) for 48 h at 20 °C. The lowest concentrations without visible mycelia growth under an optical microscope were defined as the concentrations that completely inhibited oomycete growth according to the above standardized method [23].

3.8. Spores Germination Inhibition Assay

The minimum oomyceticidal concentration (MOC) was determined by the agar dilution method [33]. Briefly, 10 μL serial sub-cultivation of the tested compound was dissolved in a cultivation medium and inoculated during 72 h in microtiter plates containing 100 μL of broth per well and with incubation for 72 h at 25 °C. The lowest concentration without visible growth or germination of spores was defined as MOC, indicating the death of 99.5% of the original. The commercial oomycides bronopol and azoxystrobin were used as positive controls.

3.9. Cell Membrane Damage Measurement (Cellular Leakage Assay)

Cell leakages were measured in order to determine the effectiveness of the EO, safrole and compounds 412 on membrane integrity. This method was assessed according to Flores [34].

3.10. Statistical Analysis

The statistical data of recovery rates were performed by comparison within isolates and between culturing media following a standard method [34].

4. Conclusions

In summary, sixteen compounds were identified from the EO of L. sempervirens. Safrole (1) is the major metabolite detected by GC/mass spectrometry. Compounds 412 were biologically active against Saprolegnia. Significant antioomycete activities of novel compounds 5, 6, 7 and 8 were observed against S. parasitica and S. australis. This study provides baseline information on the potential application of EOs as botanical fungicides in fish farms.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online. NMR data of known compounds 1, 412.

Author Contributions

A.M. supervised the whole study; M.M. collected the plant and performed the isolation of the essential oil; A.L.M. and B.S. performed the synthesis of all compounds; A.M. and I.M. conceived and designed the synthesis and biologic experiments; P.G. performed the identification and isolation of Saprolegnia strains; N.C. and V.S. performed the biological assays; A.M.; M.A.C.; E.W. and I.M. collaborated in the discussion and interpretation of the results; A.M. and I.M. wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study received no funding support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available for the scientific community.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dirección General de Investigación de la Universidad de Playa Ancha (Decreto Exento N 510/2021) and to the staff of the laboratory LPNSO, UPLA.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Samples of the essential oil and compounds are available from the authors.

References

  1. Banfield, M.J.; Kamoun, S. Hooked and Cooked: A Fish Killer Genome Exposed. PLoS Genet. 2013, 9, e1003590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Mayer, J.; Donnelly, T.M. Saprolegniasis. In Clinical Veterinary Advisor. Birds and Exotic Pets; Elsevier Saunders: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2013; pp. 65–66. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lamour, K.; Kamoun, S. Oomycete Genetics and Genomics: Diversity, Interactions, and Research Tools; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  4. Torto-Alalibo, T.; Tian, M.; Gajendran, K.; Waugh, M.E.; van West, P.; Kamoun, S. Expressed Sequence Tags from the Oomycete Fish Pathogen Saprolegnia parasitica Reveal Putative Virulence Factors. BMC Microb. 2005, 5, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Sandoval-Gío, J.J.; Rodríguez-Canul, R.P.; Vidal-Martínez, V.M.; Fájer-Ávila, E.J.; Améndola-Pimenta, M. Formalin Toxicity to Oreochromis niloticus; its Effectiveness against Cichlidogyrus spp. and Host Stress Response. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 2019, 47, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hussein, M.M.A.; Wada, S.; Hatai, K.; Yamamoto, A. Antimycotic Activity of Eugenol against Selected Water Molds. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 2000, 12, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Caruana, S.; Yoon, G.H.; Freeman, M.A.; Mackie, J.A.; Shinn, A.P. The Efficacy of Selected Plant Extracts and Bioflavonoids in Controlling Infections of Saprolegnia australis (Saprolegniales; Oomycetes). Aquaculture 2012, 358, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Earle, G.; Hintz, W. New Approaches for Controlling Saprolegnia parasitica, the Causal Agent of a Devastating Fish Disease. Trop Life Sci. Res. 2014, 25, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Fregeneda-Grandes, J.M.; Rodríguez-Cadenas, F.; Aller-Gancedo, J.M. Fungi Isolated from Cultured Eggs, Alevins and Broodfish of Brown Trout in a Hatchery Affected by Saprolegniosis. J. Fish. Biol. 2007, 71, 510–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dhifi, W.; Bellili, S.; Jazi, S.; Bahloul, N.; Mnif, W. Essential Oils’ Chemical Characterization and Investigation of some Biological Activities: A Critical Review. Medicines 2016, 3, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Berry, E.W. The Monimiaceae and a new Laurelia. Bot. Gaz. 1935, 96, 751–754. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cassels, B.K.; Urzüa, A. Bisbenzylisoquinoline Alkaloids of Laurelia sempervirens. J. Nat. Prod. 1985, 48, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rodriguez, R.; Marticorena, C.; Alarcón, D.; Baeza, C.; Cavieres, L.; Finot, V.L.; Kiessling, A.; Mihoc, M.; Pauchard, A.; Ruiz, E.; et al. Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares de Chile. Gayana Bot. 2018, 75, 1–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Bittner, M.; Aguilera, M.A.; Hernández, V.; Arbert, C.; Becerra, J.; Casanueva, M.E. Fungistatic activity of essential oils Extracted from Peumus boldus Mol., Laureliopsis philippiana (Looser) Schodde and Laurelia sempervirens (Ruiz & Pav.) Tul. (Chilean Monimiaceae). Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 69, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Montenegro, I.; Madrid, A.; Zaror, L.; Martínez, R.; Werner, E.; Carrasco-Altamirano, H.; Cuellar, M.; Palma, H. Antimicrobial Activity of Ethyl Acetate Extract and Essential Oil from Bark of Laurelia sempervirens against Multiresistant Bacteria. Bol. Latinoam. Caribe Plant. Med. Aromat. 2012, 11, 306–315. [Google Scholar]
  16. Torres, C.; Silva, G.; Tapia, M.; Rodríguez, J.C.; Urbina, A.; Figueroa, I.; Santillan, C.; Aguilar, S.; Robles, A.; Lagunes, A. Propiedades Insecticidas del Laurelia sempervirens Polvo a Motschulsky Sitophilus zeamais: Control (Coleoptera Curculionidae). Bol. Latinoam. Caribe Plant. Med. Aromat. 2015, 14, 48–59. [Google Scholar]
  17. Touma, J.; Navarro, M.; Sepúlveda, B.; Pavon, A.; Corsini, G.; Fernández, K.; Quezada, C.; Torres, A.; Larrazabal-Fuentes, M.J.; Paredes, A.; et al. The Chemical Compositions of Essential Oils Derived from Cryptocarya alba and Laurelia sempervirens Possess Antioxidant, Antibacterial and Antitumoral Activity Potential. Molecules 2020, 25, 5600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Montes, M.; Valenzuela, L.; Wilkomirsky, T. Safrole: Main Component of Essential Oil of Laurelia sempervirens (R. et P.) Tul. from the Bio-Bio Area (Chile). An. Real Acad. Farm. 1990, 56, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tisserand, R.; Young, R. Essential oil composition. In Essential Oil Safety. A Guide for Health Care Professionals, 2nd ed.; Tisserand, R., Young, R., Eds.; Churchill Livingstone Elsevier: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2014; pp. 5–22. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eid, A.M.; Hawash, M. Biological Evaluation of Safrole Oil and Safrole Oil Nanoemulgel as Antioxidant, Antidiabetic, Antibacterial, Antifungal and Anticancer. BMC Complement. Med. Ther. 2021, 21, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Adams, P.R. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectromety, 4.1th ed.; Allured Publishing Corp.: Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2017; pp. 20–45. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zapata, N.; Vargas, M.; Latorre, E.; Roudergue, X.; Ceballos, R. The Essential Oil of Laurelia sempervirens is Toxic to Trialeurodes vaporariorum and Encarsia formosa. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 84, 418–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Madrid, A.; Godoy, P.; González, S.; Zaror, L.; Moller, A.; Werner, E.; Cuellar, M.; Villena, J.; Montenegro, I. Chemical Characterization and Anti-Oomycete Activity of Laureliopsis philippianna Essential Oils against Saprolegnia parasitica and S. australis. Molecules 2015, 20, 8033–8047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Espinoza, L.; Madrid, A.; Taborga, L.; Villena, J.; Cuellar, M.; Carrasco, H. Synthesis of Nine Safrole Derivatives and Their Antiproliferative Activity Towards Human Cancer Cells. J. Chil. Chem. Soc. 2010, 55, 219–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Madrid Villegas, A.; Espinoza Catalán, L.; Montenegro Venegas, I.; Villena García, J.; Carrasco Altamirano, H. New Catechol Derivatives of Safrole and Their Antiproliferative Activity towards Breast Cancer Cells. Molecules 2011, 16, 4632–4641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nardoni, S.; Najar, B.; Fronte, B.; Pistelli, L.; Mancianti, F. In Vitro Activity of Essential Oils against Saprolegnia parasitica. Molecules 2019, 24, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Giordanetto, F.; Tyrchan, C.; Ulander, J. Intramolecular Hydrogen Bond Expectations in Medicinal Chemistry. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8, 139–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Olender, D.; Żwawiak, J.; Zaprutko, L. Multidirectional Efficacy of Biologically Active Nitro Compounds Included in Medicines. Pharmaceuticals 2018, 11, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Andres, T.; Eckmann, L.; Smith, D. Voltammetry of Nitrobenzene with Cysteine and other Acids in DMSO. Implications for the Biological Reactivity of Reduced Nitroaromatics with Thiols. Electrochim. Acta 2013, 92, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chen, Y.; Wang, M.; Fu, H.; Qu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Kang, F.; Zhu, D. Spectroscopic and Molecular Modeling Investigation on Inhibition Effect of Nitroaromatic Compounds on Acetylcholinesterase Activity. Chemosphere 2019, 236, 124365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Madrid, A.; Espinoza, L.; Pavéz, C.; Carrasco, H.; Hidalgo, M.E. Antioxidant and Toxicity Activity In Vitro of Twelve Safrole Derivatives. J. Chil. Chem. Soc. 2014, 59, 2598–2601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Moller, A.C.; Parra, C.; Said, B.; Werner, E.; Flores, S.; Villena, J.; Russo, A.; Caro, N.; Montenegro, I.; Madrid, A. Antioxidant and Anti-Proliferative Activity of Essential Oil and Main Components from Leaves of Aloysia polystachya Harvested in Central Chile. Molecules 2021, 26, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Escobar, B.; Montenegro, I.; Villena, J.; Werner, E.; Godoy, P.; Olguín, Y.; Madrid, A. Hemi-Synthesis and Anti-Oomycete Activity of Analogues of Isocordoin. Molecules 2017, 22, 968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Flores, S.; Montenegro, I.; Villena, J.; Cuellar, M.; Werner, E.; Godoy, P.; Madrid, A. Synthesis and Evaluation of Novel Oxyalkylated Derivatives of 2′,4′-Dihydroxychalcone as Anti-Oomycete Agents against Bronopol Resistant Strains of Saprolegnia sp. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Structures of the main compounds present in the EO of L. sempervirens.
Figure 1. Structures of the main compounds present in the EO of L. sempervirens.
Molecules 26 06551 g001
Figure 2. Structure of safrole derivatives 412.
Figure 2. Structure of safrole derivatives 412.
Molecules 26 06551 g002
Table 1. EO composition of leaves of L. sempervirens.
Table 1. EO composition of leaves of L. sempervirens.
NRT (min)Components% Area aRI bRI cIdentification
110.22α-Pinene1.48941941RL, MS, Co
210.24Camphene0.11956957RL, MS
310.32α-Phellandrene0.3310101009RL, MS
410.60p-Cymene0.1210321033RL, MS
510.77β-Phellandrene1.0810381035RL, MS, Co
610.833-Carene0.4211471148RL, MS
710.88Isosafrole11.9012271229RL, MS, Co
811.04Safrole65.0312931295RL, MS, Co
911.13Piperonal0.3713481347RL, MS, Co
1011.943-Allyl-6-methoxyphenol1.1313601362RL, MS
1112.26β-Caryophyllene0.7413951396RL, MS
1212.52α-Gurjunene0.2413971399RL, MS
1315.83Humelene0.3514411442RL, MS
1415.90Germacrene D2.3314801480RL, MS
1516.05Spathulenol11.1615601562RL, MS
1616.10α-Cadinol1.1016151615RL, MS
Total identified97.89
a Surface area of GC peak; b RI: retention indices relative to C8-C36 n-alkanes on the HP-5 MS capillary column; c RI: retention index from the literature [20]. RL: comparison of the RI with those of the literature [21]; MS: comparison of the mass spectra with those of the NIST 14; Co: co-elution with standard compounds available in our laboratory.
Table 2. MIC values a of leaf EO, safrole and compounds 47 against mycelium at 48 h.
Table 2. MIC values a of leaf EO, safrole and compounds 47 against mycelium at 48 h.
N Strains MIC (µg/mL)
EO 14567BronopolAzoxystrobinDMSO
1501251753.1253.1253.12550100i
2751001506.256.256.2550100i
3751251506.256.256.2550100i
47510015012.53.12512.550100i
5100125175256.25255075i
6125175175506.255075125i
7100150175503.1255050100i
8100150200506.255075150i
9125150150506.255050100i
10125150>200503.12550100100i
11100150>200506.2550100100i
12125175>200506.2550100100i
13150175>2005012.550100100i
14150175200502550100100i
15175200>200252550100100i
16125150>20025507550100i
177512517512.5252575100i
18501001506.255075100100i
19751251505012.550125100i
20150175>20010050100150125i
21125150>20010050100150100i
22125175>20012575125150100i
a Each value represents the mean of three experiments, performed in quadruplicate. i: inactive.
Table 3. MIC values a of compounds 812 against mycelium at 48 h.
Table 3. MIC values a of compounds 812 against mycelium at 48 h.
N StrainsMIC (µg/mL)
89101112BronopolAzoxystrobinDMSO
112.55012515010050100i
212.55012515010050100i
31257510015010050100i
41507512517510050100i
51501001501501255075i
61757512517512575125i
71505015020015050100i
8>20010020017515075150i
91255012517515050100i
1017575200150175100100i
11175175200>200200100100i
12125150150200>200100100i
13150150175>200150100100i
14175175175>200125100100i
1517575200>200200100100i
16>20050>200200>20050100i
171255017515017575100i
1817550175>200200100100i
1910050125150150125100i
2020050200175175150125i
21175175175150125150100i
22175175175150125150100i
a Each value represents the mean of three experiments, performed in quadruplicate. i: inactive.
Table 4. Summary of the anti-oomycete activity of EO, safrole and derivatives against resistant strains of S. parasitica and S. australis.
Table 4. Summary of the anti-oomycete activity of EO, safrole and derivatives against resistant strains of S. parasitica and S. australis.
CompoundS. parasítica
(Strain 23)
S. australis
(Strain 24)
MIC (µg·mL−1) aMOC (µg·mL−1) aMembrane Damage (%) bMIC (µg·mL−1) aMOC (µg·mL−1) aMembrane Damage (%) b
EO507586.3 ± 0.4757584.3 ± 0.9
112515075.4 ± 0.615015072.4 ± 1.1
41501756.3 ± 0.41751755.9 ± 0.4
515017580.3 ± 0.217520050.5 ± 0.6
6257596.3 ± 0.310012590.6 ± 0.9
710012577.4 ± 0.715017560.8 ± 0.4
812515033.4 ± 0.617520027.5 ± 0.7
910015055.8 ± 0.415017540.4 ± 0.8
1015017517.4 ± 0.117520012.2 ± 0.4
11200>2000>200>2000
1215017525.6 ± 0.4>200>20021.4 ± 0.3
Bronopol5010027.1 ± 0.310015026.0 ± 0.4
Azoxystrobin100125Nd100150Nd
SDS--100--100
DMSOiiiiii
a Each value represents the mean of three experiments. b Each value represents the mean ± SD of three experiments, performed in quadruplicate. Nd: not detected; i: inactive.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Madrid, A.; Morales, A.L.; Saffirio, V.; Cuellar, M.A.; Werner, E.; Said, B.; Godoy, P.; Caro, N.; Melo, M.; Montenegro, I. Chemical Analysis and In Vitro Bioactivity of Essential Oil of Laurelia sempervirens and Safrole Derivatives against Oomycete Fish Pathogens. Molecules 2021, 26, 6551. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26216551

AMA Style

Madrid A, Morales AL, Saffirio V, Cuellar MA, Werner E, Said B, Godoy P, Caro N, Melo M, Montenegro I. Chemical Analysis and In Vitro Bioactivity of Essential Oil of Laurelia sempervirens and Safrole Derivatives against Oomycete Fish Pathogens. Molecules. 2021; 26(21):6551. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26216551

Chicago/Turabian Style

Madrid, Alejandro, Ana Lizeth Morales, Valentina Saffirio, Mauricio A. Cuellar, Enrique Werner, Bastián Said, Patricio Godoy, Nelson Caro, Mirna Melo, and Iván Montenegro. 2021. "Chemical Analysis and In Vitro Bioactivity of Essential Oil of Laurelia sempervirens and Safrole Derivatives against Oomycete Fish Pathogens" Molecules 26, no. 21: 6551. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26216551

APA Style

Madrid, A., Morales, A. L., Saffirio, V., Cuellar, M. A., Werner, E., Said, B., Godoy, P., Caro, N., Melo, M., & Montenegro, I. (2021). Chemical Analysis and In Vitro Bioactivity of Essential Oil of Laurelia sempervirens and Safrole Derivatives against Oomycete Fish Pathogens. Molecules, 26(21), 6551. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26216551

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop