Antifeedant, contact toxicity and oviposition deterrent effects of phyllostine acetate and phyllostine isolated from the endophytic fungus <i>Diaporthe miriciae</i> against <i>Plutella xylostella</i> larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Larvae of the diamond back moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella , are destructive cabbage pests causing economic losses worldwide. Continuous application of synthetic pesticides to control this pest has resulted in environmental pollution and resistant pest strains. Thus, there is a crucial need to seek natural alternatives with minimal detrimental effects. This study was designed to investigate the antifeedant activities of endophytic fungi of Cyperus iria and to determine the antifeedant, contact toxicity and oviposition deterrent activities of phyllostine acetate and phyllostine of the endophytic Diaporthe miriciae fungus. RESULTS Two cyclohexeneoxidediones, phyllostine acetate ( 1 ) and phyllostine ( 2 ), isolated from an ethyl acetate extract of D. miriciae exhibited strong antifeedant, contact toxicity, and oviposition deterrent activities against P. xylostella . Phyllostine acetate ( 1 ) and phyllostine ( 2 ) showed feeding deterrent indexes of 100% at 50 μg cm −2 in the no‐choice leaf disc assay and 50% feeding deterrence (DC 50 ) values of 9 and 4.7 μg cm −2 respectively. The median lethal concentration (LC 50 ) values of phyllostine acetate ( 1 ) and phyllostine ( 2 ) were 4.38 and 6.54 μg/larva in the contact toxicity assay. The oviposition deterrent indexes of the two compounds were 100% for phyllostine acetate ( 1 ) and 28.6% for phyllostine ( 2 ) at 50 μg cm −2 . CONCLUSION Phyllostine acetate and phyllostine show promise as compounds for the control of P. xylostella . This study encourages further investigation of endophytic fungi of the family Cyperacea, for the development of natural pest control agents in agriculture. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".