Peer Review, UGC Care
THE ROLE OF CHITINASE IN THE PATHOGENICITY OF LECANICILLIUM LECANII BASED ON GENETIC – ENZYMATIC ANALYSIS AND BIOASSAY AGAINST NYMPH POD SUCKING BUG RIPTORTUS LINEARIS
View PDF

Keywords

ultraviolet-C radiation (UV-C), Chit1 gene, mutation, chitinase production, ability to infect.

How to Cite

Yayuk Mulyati, Toto Himawan, Estri Laras A, & Latief Abadi. (2015). THE ROLE OF CHITINASE IN THE PATHOGENICITY OF LECANICILLIUM LECANII BASED ON GENETIC – ENZYMATIC ANALYSIS AND BIOASSAY AGAINST NYMPH POD SUCKING BUG RIPTORTUS LINEARIS. International Journal of Research and Development in Pharmacy & Life Sciences, 4(5), 1743-1749. Retrieved from https://ijrdpl.com/index.php/ijrdpl/article/view/439

Abstract

Objectives: The research aimed to evaluate the role of chitinase in the pathogenicity of Lecanicillium lecanii based on comprehensive analysis of mutation occurences in the partial sequence of Chit1 gene, comparison and correlation of chitinase production and pathogenicity between wild type and mutant.

Methods: Mutation was conducted using ultraviolet-C radiation (UV-C) with the period of exposure of 0, 2 (UV-C2), and 4 (UV-C4) hours. Genomic DNA was isolated using NucleoSpin Plant II kit, and then was PCR-sequenced, and the sequencing result of wild type and mutant was analysis for their alignment. Chitinase production were analyzed using Schales methods. Pathogenicity of wild type and mutant tested against nymphs pod sucking bug Riptortus linearis in laboratory conditions.

Results and Conclusions: The results showed that UV radiation caused mutations of partial sequence of Chit1 genes. The mutation occurences in the mutant UV-C2 is 2.47 times higher than mutant UV-C4. Wild type and mutant showed significantly different chitinase secretion. Chitinase production in mutant UV-C2 and mutant UV- C4 were 1.003 and 1.012 fold higher than wild type, respectively. The higher ability of mutant to produce chitinase compared to wild type was not followed by their pathogenicity. The mortality of R. linearis nymph was higher when it was infected by wild type compared to mutant. The wild type and mutant showed no difference in their pathogenicity in the sixth and tenth days of observation. Evaluation of the overall findings of these study lead to the conclusion that chitinase is not the most important hydrolytic enzyme in the pathogenicity of L. lecanii.

View PDF

References

Florido EB, Camilo PB, Reyes LM, Cervantes RG, Cruz PM, Azaola A. (2009) Interciencia. 34: 356 – 360.

Prayogo Y, Suharsono. (2005) Jurnal Litbang Pertanian. 24: 123-130.

Xie Y, Liu W, Xue J, Peng Z, Han, Zhang Y. (2010) Entomologia Hellenica. 19: 66-75.

Khan S, Guo L, Shi H, Mijit, Qiu D. (2012) African Journal of Biotechnology. 11: 14193-14203.

Leland JE: “Environmental-Stress Tolerant Formulations of that there has been a temporary inactivation on mutant [21].

Metarhizium anisopliaevar. Accridum for control ofAfrican Desert Locust (Schistocerca gregaria)”, Dissertation, Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, 2001.

Sini MKA, Abu-Elteen KH, Elkarmi AZ. (2007) Biotechnology. 6: 210-217.

Chelico L, Haughian JL, Woytowich AE, Khachatourians GG. (2005) Mycologia. 97: 621-627.

Shahbazi S, Ispareh K, Karimi M, Askari H, Ebrahimi MA. (2014) International Journal of Farming and Allied Sciences. 3: 543-554

Sahab AF, Sabbour MM, Attallah AG, Nivin AS. (2014) International of ChemTech Rsearch. 6(5): 3228-3236.

Lu ZX, Laroche A, Huang HC. (2005) Can. J. Microbiol. 51: 1045-1055.

Roberts WK, Selitrennikoff CP, (1988). J Gen Microbiol. 134: 169–176.

Rattanakit N, Yano S, Plikomol A, Wakayama M, Tachiki T. (2007) J. Biosci. Bioeng. 103: 535-541.

Spindler K-D: “Chitinase and Chitosanase Assays”, In: Chitin Handbook (eds.: R.A.A. Muzzarelli and M.G. Peter),1997.

Patil AS.(2012) The Experiment: International Journal of Science and Technology. 4: 228-242

Livnat A.(2013) Livnat Biology Direct. 8: 2-53.

Griffiths AJF, Miller JH, Suzuki DT, Lewontin RC, Gelbart WM: “An Introduction to Genetic Analysis”, WH Freeman Publisher, New York, Edition 7th, 2000.

Kavil SP, Pallavesam A, Sumesh KM, Shivarudrappa BB, Sadashiv SO, Chandrashekhar U, Catherine RP. (2013) World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 3: 1717-1726.

Selvakumar R, Srivastava KD, Rashmi A, Sing DV, Prem D. (2000) Ind. Phytopathol. 53: 185–189.

Mohamed HAA, Wafaa H, Attallah MAG. (2010) Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America. 1: 273-284

Balasubramanian N, Priya VT, Gomathinayagam S, Shanmugaiah V, Jshnie J, Lalithakumari D.(2010) Australian Journal of Basic and Apllied Sciences. 4: 4701- 4709.

Braga GUL, Rangel DEN, Flint SD, Miller CD, Anderson AJ, Roberts, DW.(2002) The mycological Society of America. 94: 912-920.

Costa HS, Robb KL, Wilen AA. (2001) Hortscience. 36: 1082-1084.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2020 Array

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.