Secondary Metabolites and Antioxidant Activity against Moko Disease as a Defense Mechanism of Musa spp. from the Ecuadorian Coast Area

Abstract

The Musa spp. represents the most commonly produced, transitioned, and consumed fruit around the globe, with several important applications in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and food industries. Moko disease is produced by Ralstonia solanacearum—a factor with a high impact on all crops in Ecuador, representing one of the biggest phytosanitary problems. Four of the most common varieties of Musa spp. were tested to identify the metabolic reaction of plants facing Moko disease. The phenolic and flavonoid content has been evaluated as a defense system, and the α-diphenyl-α-picrylhydrazyl free-radical-scavenging method (DPPH), free-radical-scavenging activity (ABTS), ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assays, and liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (LC-MS) have been adapted to analyze the active compounds with the antioxidant capacity necessary to counteract the pathogenic attack. Our results indicate that all the studied varieties of Musa spp. react in the same way, such that the diseased samples showed a higher accumulation of secondary metabolites with antioxidant capacity compared with the healthy ones, with high active compound synthesis identified during the appearance of Moko disease symptoms. More than 40 compounds and their derivatives (from kaempferol and quercetin glycosides) with protective roles demonstrate the implication of the Musa spp. defense system against R. solanacearum infection.

1. Introduction

The Musa spp. (Musaceae family) enjoys increased interest since bananas represent the world’s most commonly produced, traded, and consumed fruit, contributing to food security and incomes, and being in fourth place in importance in numerous countries [1]. Ecuador is the largest exporter globally, among Africa, Asia, and Latin America, which produce and sell bananas [2]. Besides its economic importance, the interest in banana plants grew due to their numerous uses in pharmacy, biotechnology, and food [3].

Among the factors that may affect banana manufacture, diseases caused by bacteria have serious effects [4]; Ralstonia solanacearum is one of the top 10 bacterial pathogens worldwide [5], characterized by a wide host range and wide geographic distribution, making it one of the most destructive crop pathogens in the world [6]. An alert was issued in February 2023 regarding Moko disease in Ecuador, reported in Musa plantations in more than 12 provinces [7].

Moko disease represents one of the phytosanitary problems with a great economic impact on all banana varieties and plantain crops, which affects over 70% of yield losses [6], as reported in a variety of studies regarding the treatment of this disease. Over time, some studies have been concerned about the Moko disease in Musa spp. In this way, molecular approaches like RAPD (Random Amplified polymorphic DNA) and rep-PCR-based fingerprinting (Repetitive sequence-based Polymerase Chain Reaction [8], AFLP molecular markers (Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism) [9], and real-time PCR [10] were used to investigate the genetic relationship between Ralstonia solanacearum and Musa spp. diseases. Different strategies were tested to control/or eradicate the Moko disease: resident varieties [11,12,13,14], banana leachates [15], insects and beneficial microorganisms [16].

R. solanacearum invades the vascular tissues, causing the leaf’s death, which reduces the ability to produce fruit. Insects and/or contaminated farming equipment instead of mechanical and soil are the principal transmission vectors [17]. Recent genetic studies showed that bacterial strains can survive more than 25 years, affecting native flora, organic matter in soils, and crop plants in tropical and subtropic zones [18]. Even though there are some good practices (chlorine dioxide) and resistance inducers in banana plants [19] for farmers to reduce the spread of the disease agent, no cure is available for Moko.

Secondary metabolites are directly involved in plant defense; factors like genetic, ontogenic, morphogenetic, and environmental factors may affect their biosynthesis/accumulation [20]. Recent studies have pointed out that banana flavonoids can form complex compounds with extracellular proteins that can damage the cell membrane of bacteria, followed by the release of intracellular compounds [21]. Our study aimed to demonstrate that the antioxidant capacity resulting from the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites may act as a defense mechanism against the Moko attack in Musa spp. To achieve this aim, four of the most commonly used Musa spp. were investigated in our research, such as Musa cavendish Paxton [22]—the most widespread edible variety [23], Musa paradisiaca L.—a plantain used as a nutritional and therapeutic source [24], Musa textilis Née, an important source of fibers [25] and Musa acuminata Colla—the most frequent species [26].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals

To quantify the different secondary metabolites, the following chemicals (Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Co.—St. Louis, MO, USA) were used: 2.2—diphenyl—1—picrylhydrazyl, diammonium salt of 2.2—azinobis (3–ethylbenzothiazoline– 6-sulfonic acid), 2.4.6-tri(2-pyridyl)-triazine, iron (III) chloride hexahydrate and Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, 6-hydroxy-2.5.7.8-tetramethyl chroman-2-carboxylic acid, 3.4.5-trihydroxy benzoic acid, potassium persulfate, iron (III) sulfate heptahydrate, quercetin, and ethanol. All the reagents were purchased from commercial providers.

2.2. Sample Collection and Processing

This study was carried out with plants of the genus Musa spp., from farms located in Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas province (0°05′01.6″ N, 79°26′32.8″ W), Canton La Concordia, km 38 road Santo Domingo—Quinindé. Healthy plants and plants with Moko disease symptomatology, at different stages of disease development, were collected. Each degree of infection (disease score) has been characterized and identified based on the following characteristics implemented by the Government of Kerala in 2014: Stage 1 (initial stage) symptoms are characterized by the yellowing of the central leaf, transitioning from yellow to green, weakening, and eventually breaking at the junction with the petiole. As the infection progresses, it leads to wilting and drying of young leaves, spreading to older ones. Older leaves then exhibit yellow bands with dark margins on their edges. In Stage 2 (intermediate stage), symptoms appear swiftly in the suckers, characterized by the progressive yellowing and wilting of older leaves. Additionally, small suckers exhibit a gradual death of the central leaf, which extends toward the outer leaves. In Stage 3 (advanced stage), symptoms in infected corms become evident through transverse cuts, revealing brown or black bands in the vascular bundles infected by the bacteria. Diseased pseudostems excrete bacterial exudate, while internally, vascular bundles exhibit a light to dark brown color due to blockage by extracellular polymeric substances. Plants without clusters display symptoms characterized by the grouping of vascular bundles near the pseudostem center, with significant blockages primarily observed in the petioles of the initially infected leaves, becoming less apparent toward the periphery. All the collected banana plants were in the vegetative stage, young plants of approximately 1 year old. The samples were transferred in a cooler to the university laboratory in Cantón Rumiñahui.

2.3. Active Ingredients Extraction

To determine the relationship between the antioxidant character and the phytochemical compounds involved in the defense of plants against Moko disease, in the first phase, the impurities were removed from the leaves by washing them with distilled water, and afterwards, the leaves were dried and ground (5 g) and placed in 25 mL of ethanol of HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography) grade 99.5 (v/v), overnight, in the dark, at 4 °C.

2.4. Active Ingredients Determination

The Folin–Ciocalteu method was used to determine the phenolic concentration in the banana leaves [27]. Solutions from the ethanolic extracts (0.4 mL), Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (2 mL of 10% (v/v), and 7.5% Na₂CO₃ (1.6 mL) were incubated at room temperature for 30 min. The 765 nm absorbance was used to measure the concentrations. Gallic acid (0–250 mg/L concentration) was used for the calibration curve (y = 0.0112x + 0.1759, R² = 0.9794).

A colorimetric method using aluminum chloride described by Pekal et al. [28] was used for the determination of the flavonoid content. Quercetin was used for the realization of the standard solution. The standard calibration curve was performed at a concentration between 0 and 1.5 mg L⁻¹, obtaining the equation y = 1.4566x + 0.0265 with a correlation factor R² = 0.9935. To the crude extracts of the plant sample (1 mL) was added 1.5 mL of the solvent, 100 µL of CH₃COONa (1 M), 100 µL of AlCl₃ (10% v/v), and distilled water (2.3 mL). The samples are covered for 40 min at room temperature. In the blank sample, the aluminum chloride was not placed. Finally, the samples were measured at 435 nm absorbance.

2.5. Antioxidant Capacity Determination

A protocol established by Sachett et al. (2021) [29] and modified by Thaweesang [27] was used for the determination of the antioxidant capacity through the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical. A stock solution of 1 µg L⁻¹ was produced; 2 mL of stock was added to every laboratory test tube, including the 0.1 mL crude extracts sample. After the test tubes were left to incubate for 30 min at room temperature, the absorbance was measured at 517 nm and the radical scavenging activity was calculated using the following formula: control absorbance—sample absorbance/control absorbance ×100. The calibration curve (y = 158.07x − 1.6766, R² = 0.9955) was produced using a Trolox solution (positive control) with a concentration between 0 and 0.625 mM.

The establishment of the antioxidant capacity by 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonate) radical cation (ABTS^*+) free radical scavenging (obtained from the reaction between ABTS (7 mM) and potassium persulfate) was based on a study by Kuskoski et al. [30]. After incubating the solution for 12–24 h, it was diluted in absolute ethanol until 0.7 ± 0.1 at 754 nm absorbance was obtained. The inhibitory capacity was determined after the reaction between the ABTS solution (2 mL) and sample (20 µL) for 7 min at room temperature and in darkness; absolute ethanol was used for the blank. The calibration curve was established between a 0 and 2.5 mM concentration, obtaining the following equation y = 31.995x + 3.9568 with a correlation factor R² = 0.9697, using Trolox (like a positive control).

To determine the antioxidant capacity based on the Ferric ion Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) test, a FRAP solution was prepared from acetate buffer 300 mM (100 mL) pH 3.6 + HCl (40 mM) + FeCl₃ · 6 H₂O (20 mM) in the proportion of 100: 10: 10 according to the method of Rajurkar et al. (2011) [30]. The absorbance of the mixture was read at 593 nm. The standard curve (y = 0.3654x − 0.0532, R² = 0.9686) was performed by taking different concentrations of FeSO₄ · 7H₂O ranging from 0 to 5 mM. The solution consisting of sample (100 µL), distilled water (300 µL), and FRAP solution (3 mL) previously prepared was covered for half an hour at room temperature. The FRAP value (mmol Fe²⁺ g sample) was obtained by the following formula:

FRAP value = Sample absorbance − Control absorbance

2.6. LC-MS Determination

High-resolution LC-MS was used to determine the bioactive compounds in the samples of stem and leaves from M. cavendish at stage 1 of Moko disease. The plant extractions were established using a modified method based on Tohma et al. [31]. Ethanolic extracts were obtained from lyophilized samples represented by leaf and stem (1 g) and 80% ethanol (20 mL) maintained for 2 h at 30 °C and centrifuged for 10 min at 5000 rpm at 4 °C. Afterwards, the extracts were filtered and a rotary evaporator at 30 °C was used for ethanol removal. The samples were kept in well-covered plastic tubes until analysis was performed at −20 °C.

Identification and detection of different metabolites were performed by HPLC equipment (Vanquish Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA)) and Mass Detector (Ion Trap Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA)). The samples were eluted through an Accucore Vanquish 150 × 2.1 mm column at 35 °C and a 0.5 mL/min flow rate [32]. A 10 μL volume of 0.1% formic acid was used as a mobile phase to inject into the HPLC. MS scanning was used to identify the compounds from the samples based on the retention time comparison of each peak and the monitoring of the ion pairs in a standard solution [33]. The compounds were identified by comparing them with those of the standard compounds available in databases (PubChem, ChEBI, Metlin, HPLC, and the literature data) using the MZmine 2.53 software [34].

2.7. Statistical Test

The RStudio statistical program (1.3.8 version) was used. Significant differences were analyzed through a two-way ANOVA test (p < 0.05). All the experiments were realized in triplicate, with the values being presented as the mean ± SD. The correlation between the secondary metabolites analyzed and the antioxidant power was evaluated by Pearson’s correlation coefficient, while the correlation matrix was depicted as a scatter plot matrix.

3. Results

3.1. Active Ingredient Determination

The total phenolic content was evaluated for each disease stage per species. For M. cavendish, the highest phenolic content was registered in Stage I (0.507 ± 0.025 mg GAE g dw), Stage II (0.358 ± 0.052 mg GAE g dw), followed by healthy plants (0.27 ± 0.036 mg GAE g dw), while Stage III presented the lowest values. In contrast, for M. acuminata, M. paradisiaca and M. textilis, the highest phenolic content was registered in Stage II (4.114 ± 0.145 mg GAE g dw; 4.604 ± 0.215 mg GAE g dw, and 6.868 ± 0.526 mg GAE g dw, respectively), while the other stages presented a similar tendency. M. textilis showed the highest phenolic content of all the evaluated Musa spp. (Figure 1).

M. cavendish showed the highest flavonoid concentration in contrast to the other species, with Stage I presenting the highest value (3.266 ± 0.0295 mg QE/g dw). The other Musa spp. show a similar trend to the phenolic content, as the highest value was reported for M. acuminata, M. paradisiaca, and M. textilis, appearing for Stage II (2.419 ± 0.197, 2.091 ± 0.0937, 1.682 ± 0.154, respectively), followed by the healthy stage, and Stages I and III with similar values. The lowest flavonoid content was reported for M. textilis (Figure 2).

3.2. Antioxidant Activity Determination

The antioxidant capacity of the four Musa spp. was evaluated through ABTS, DPPH, and FRAP assays. Significant differences were found between the disease stages for each species, following the same trend as their respective results concerning the secondary metabolites analyzed. For the ABTS and DPPH methods, M. paradisiaca (ABTS: 62.545 ± 2.524 µmol TEAC (Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity) g dw, DPPH: 113.997 ± 4.451 µmol TEAC g dw) and M. textilis (ABTS: 52.212 ± 2.742 µmol TEAC g dw, DPPH: 225.212 ± 6.708 µmol TEAC g dw) showed the highest values for Stage II. (Figure 3 and Figure 4), while for the FRAP assay. M. acuminata (41.803 ± 1.179 µmol Fe ²⁺ g dw) and M. textilis (67.24 ± 0.284 µmol Fe ²⁺ g dw) presented the highest values (Figure 5).

The correlation between the two analyzed secondary metabolites was raised for the four Musa spp. The contents were correlated with the three methods of antioxidant capacity evaluation used, with each plant showing a higher positive correspondence (R > 0.90) for the total phenolic content and flavonoid content. In contrast, for the phenolic content. M. textilis showed a lower correlation, albeit still positive with the ABTS (R = 0.64), DPPH (R = 0.66), and FRAP (R = 0.64) assays (Figure 6).

3.3. LC-MS Determination

LC-MS was used to determine the bioactive compounds in the samples of stem and leaves from M. cavendish at Stage 1 of Moko disease. The compounds in the extracts were identified based on their molecular mass and retention time. The phenolic extracts from the stem (34 identified compounds) and leaf (61 identified compounds) samples yielded similar HPLC profiles. However, differences were observed between both samples in terms of the identified phenolic compounds. The leaf and stem samples showed a similar content of phenol precursors such as shikimic acid, caffeoyl alcohol, coumaroyl, and derivatives of amino acids. Flavonoids were exclusively found in the leaf samples, with derivatives of quercetin (spiraeoside, rutin), kaempferol (astragalin, kaempferol-7-O-neohesperidoside), naringenin derivatives, and other flavonoid glycosides. Flavones such as isoorientin and scutellarin 4′-methyl ether had also been identified in the leaf samples. Citric acid, gibberellic acid, and terpenes (e.g., 7-O-methyl rosmanol) were identified mostly in the stem (Table 1, Figure A1 and Figure A2).

4. Discussion

Banana, as a key crop for food security, is considered the primary food for several developing countries [13]. However, plants from the genus Musa spp. are susceptible to some pathogens, including R. solanacearum race 2. The wilt disease is determined by bacterial accumulation, which blocks the vessels, stopping the sap flow [43]. Bacterial wilt lowers the yield in banana production [13]; therefore, treatment and management of this bacterial disease involve the achievement of advanced technologies together with research. The understanding of the interaction between Musa spp. and pathogens will allow for identifying new strategies to be used to control the diseases without damaging the environment. Physical barriers, vulnerability, and phytoalexin yielding are some of the recognized traits used by Musa plants as defense mechanisms against pathogens [44,45]. Although the crops are indeed the most affected, plants possess different mechanisms to protect themselves, such as the development of secondary metabolites to eliminate the pathogen from its system.

In our case, all four of the most commonly used Musa spp. investigated (M. cavendish, M. paradisiaca, M. textilis, and M. acuminata) showed a similar trend in front of infection with R. solanacearum race 2. The diseased samples exhibited a higher antioxidant activity compared to the healthy samples, and we attempted to show that this is attributed to the presence of secondary metabolites (phenolic compounds) through the LC-MS analysis to reinforce the idea that secondary metabolites and implicitly antioxidant activity represent a defense mechanism against the pathogen that causes Moko disease. Plants possess physical and chemical barriers involved in their defense; they have a strategy to help their survival when in contact with some biotic or abiotic stresses, implicating the synthesis of secondary metabolites, which is well known as part of the plant immune system. A strong emphasis is placed on antioxidant activity to increase plant protection against the pathogen. The synthesis of metabolites comes from the primary metabolism (glycolysis, Krebs cycle, or shikimate pathway) that depends on the degree of stress to which the plant is subjected and can trigger variance in the levels of secondary metabolites, some of them toxic when stored in plant cells [46]. Synthesized phenolic compounds like simple phenols, flavonols, dihydrochals, and cones phenolic acids are antibiotic compounds that generate a response against pathogens. Phytoalexins, synthesized de novo, manage to inhibit a diversity of microorganisms by their accumulation at the infected site [47].

The antioxidant capacity of plants is related to the defense of both types of antioxidants (enzymatic and non-enzymatic) to escape from the toxic effects of free radicals. Their genetic configuration confers a great capacity to synthesize secondary metabolites under biotic or abiotic stress. Some compounds act like substrates in enzyme-catalyzed detoxification reactions and have central and interrelated functions [48,49,50].

Likewise, there is a considerable difference between plant developmental stages. The vegetative stage of the samples shows a lower content of secondary metabolites and antioxidant activity. The bioactive compounds produced depend on the environmental conditions to generate an adequate impact on the development of the metabolic pathways associated with their biosynthesis [51]. In the vegetative state, plants use photosynthesis and carbon assimilation for growth, development, and defense, and when exposed to some stress, can alter the storage and synthesis of metabolites. These include the harvest time, exposure to factors such as light, temperature, osmotic potential, nutrition, growth regulators, biotic inducers, and fruit-ripening stage, among others [52].

Based on their elemental role in plant protection against different agents, phenolics are known as antioxidants [53]. Phenolic compounds exhibiting significant antioxidant compounds were identified in each Musa spp. The predominant polyphenols in the plant defense mechanism are flavonoids, which may be classified as flavonols, isoflavonols, flavones, flavanones, catechins, and anthocyanidins [54]. New research has shown the involvement of flavonoids in plant protection, playing a significant role in the neutralization of free radicals [55], especially in terms of the highly sensitive antimicrobial effect on pathogens, in which compounds such as naringenin, kaempferol, quercetin, and dihydroquercetin stand out [56]. Recent studies have described the antibacterial effect of phenolic compounds obtained from plantain leaves against some Gram-negative bacteria (Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas) species [57,58]. The bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum race 2 (Smith, 1896) is a Gram-negative bacillus with high genetic variability that affects the vascular system of the plant [59]. The phenolic compounds identified in the current study have shown antibacterial activity toward the infection since this strain is responsible for causing the Moko disease in Musa spp., whose direct effect is aggravated by the capacity of its causative agent to remain in the soil for a long time, disabling the immediate replanting of the affected lots [60], highlighting the importance of describing plant defense mechanisms to reach a better understanding of the infection. In our current study, these compounds and their derivatives have been identified, from kaempferol (astragalin, kaempferol-7-O-neohesperidoside) and quercetin glycosides (spiraeoside, rutin), as well as flavones like isoorientin and scutellarein 4′-methyl. Quercetin and its derivatives also play significant roles in plant protection from the effects of UV radiation and/or osmotic stress, in which glycosylated derivatives are involved in osmoregulation [61]. In addition, flavonoids are known for their antioxidant capacity by decreasing ROS levels by inhibiting prooxidant enzymes, cyclooxygenase, and lipoxygenase [62].

Furthermore, signaling molecules have been identified; products of oxidative processes’ ROS (7-methyl-rosmanol), supporting the idea of the loss of some acids (carnosic acid) with antibacterial activity against both bacteria types (Gram-positive and Gram-negative) causing the accumulation of oxidized derivatives under oxidative degradation by ROS [63,64]. Microbial attack and the oxidative state of plants mediate the activation of the plant protection mechanisms against stress through different signaling pathways, which conduct the production of various protein and non-protein compounds with roles in protection [65], such as salicylic acid (2-hydroxyhippuric acid), which has also been identified in our samples through LC-MS; salicylic acid levels are known to increase during different type of infections (viruses, fungi, insects, bacteria), while exogenous treatment with salicylic acid improves the protection system of the host [66].

Bananas and plantains are the most commonly consumed as food and are used in medicine around the world, being an attractive source of bioactive compounds. These compounds with desirable biological properties for humans are also implicated in the plant protection strategy against pathogens, as in the case of phenolics, which are a key aspect in Musa spp. in the protection mechanism, as it has been found in the present study. A higher content of phenols, flavonoids, and antioxidant capacity was noted in the late stages of the infected samples compared to healthy samples, which showed a lower amount of phenolics and activity.

Identification of the phenolic compounds demonstrated the presence of relevant flavonoids that are involved in the defense mechanism of plants and which are known for their antibacterial activity related to infection by Gram-negative bacteria like R. solanacearum responsible for the Moko disease affecting the Musa spp. genus.

5. Conclusions

Bananas and plantains belonging to the genus Musa are largely consumed all over the world as food staples and for medicinal purposes, being an interesting source of bioactive secondary metabolites. These compounds, with valuable biological properties for humans as antioxidants, also play a pivotal role in the plant’s defense mechanism against pathogens. For example, phenolic compounds are essential to the defense strategy of Musa spp., as demonstrated in the current study, enhancing the antioxidant profile of these plants. Infected samples showcased a higher concentration of phenols, flavonoids, and antioxidant activity compared to healthy ones, which exhibited lower levels of phenolics and activity. The analysis of the phenolic compounds revealed the presence of significant flavonoids that participate in plant defense mechanisms. The flavonoids, including kaempferol, quercetin, and their glycosides, which we found in the banana samples, have antibacterial properties implicated in the fight against various pathogenic bacteria by interfering with their growth and survival.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.A.M.; methodology, V.A.T.-M., K.A.P.-B. and M.J.V.-C.; formal analysis, V.A.T.-M., K.A.P.-B., M.J.V.-C., L.E.R.-G. and N.S.C.-I.; investigation, V.A.T.-M., K.A.P.-B., M.J.V.-C., L.E.R.-G. and N.S.C.-I.; writing—original draft preparation, R.A.M. and R.D.C.; writing—review and editing, R.A.M., E.J.M.-H. and R.D.C.; supervision, R.A.M.; project administration, R.A.M.; funding acquisition, R.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author due to privacy.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support of the Society Liaison Management Unit at the University of the Armed Forces-ESPE and for the valuable help with plant collection from Agrocalidad Santo Domingo and INIAP Santo Domingo.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Table

Figure 1. Total phenolic content of the tested Musa species. Legend: Stages 1, 2, and 3 represent the Moko disease stages. The plot is represented by the concentration in mg GAE/g dw on the y-axis, while the x-axis represents the stage for each plant species. Different letters denote significant differences.

Figure 2. Total flavonoid content of the tested Musa species. Legend: Stages 1, 2 and 3 represent the Moko disease stages. The plot is represented by the concentration in mg QE/g dw on the y-axis, while the x-axis represents the stage for each plant species. Different letters denote significant differences.

Figure 3. ABTS radical-scavenging assay of the tested Musa species. Legend: Stages 1, 2 and 3 represent the Moko disease stages. The plot is represented by the concentration in µmol Trolox/g dw on the y-axis, while the x-axis represents the stage for each plant species. Different letters denote significant differences.

Figure 4. DPPH radical-scavenging assay of the tested Musa species. Legend: Stages 1, 2 and 3 represent the Moko disease stages. The plot is represented by the concentration in µmol Trolox/g dw on the y-axis, while the x-axis represents the stage for each plant species. Different letters denote significant differences.

Figure 5. FRAP-reducing potential assay (µmol Fe 2+ g dw) of the tested Musa species. Legend: Stages 1, 2 and 3 represent the Moko disease stages. The plot is represented by the concentration in µmol Fe2+/g dw on the y-axis, while the x-axis represents the stage for each plant species. Different letters denote significant differences.

Figure 6. Correlation of flavonoids and total phenolic content with the ABTS, DPPH, and FRAP assays in the Musa species at different stages of R. solanacearum infection. Correlation values are expressed per species, classified by *** strong correlation, ** medium correlation, and * low correlation.

Table 1

High-resolution LC-MS analysis of the metabolites identified in Musa cavendish at Stage 1 of Moko disease.

HPLC-MS-NEGATIVE IONS
ID	Proposed Compound Identity	Molecular Formula	Retention Time	Molecular Ion	Plant Organ	Previously Found in Musa spp.
8	Decanoic acid	C10H20O2	1.17	M-H	Both	[35]
25	8-hydroxy-2,7,7,11,15-pentamethyl-5,12,16-trioxapentacyclo [9.8.0]nonadec-13(18)-ene-3,17-dione	C25H40O6	1.15	M-H	Both
37	Caffeyl alcohol	C9H10O3	1.15	M-H	Both
77	Sucrose	C12H22O11	1.19	M-H	Both
92	Citric acid	C6H8O7	1.18	M-H	Both	[35]
94	N-Benzoyl-D5-glycine	C7H4D5NO3	1.21	M-H	Both
98	α, α-Trehalose	C12H22O11	1.21	M-H	Both
102	Shikimic acid	C7H10O5	1.20	M-H	Both	[35]
124	Glucose, Fructose, Mannose, Galactose	C6H12O6	1.23	M-H	Both	[36]
131	Isoorientin	C21H20O11	1.30	M-H	Both
187	Kaempferol 7-neohesperidoside	C27H30O15	1.56	M-H	Both	[37]
188	Coumaroyl + C6H9O8	C15H12O8	1.62	M-H	Both
192	Isorhamnetin 3-rutinoside	C27H30O15	1.59	M-H	Both	[38]
198	Trihydroxyflavone C-hexoside C-pentoside	C23H46O7	1.56	M-H	Both
211	Geniposide	C17H24O10	1.59	M+HCOO	Both
213	Rutin	C27H30O16	1.62	M-H	Both	[39]
215	2-Isopropylmalic acid	C7H12O4	1.59	M-H	Both	[36]
220	Epicatechin	C15H14O6	1.46	M-H	Both	[40]
251	Isovitexin (4)	C21H20O10	1.60	M-H	Both
252	Spiraeoside, Spiraein, quercetin-4′-glucoside	C21H20O12	1.74	M+H	Both
256	Kaempferol-3-O-glucoside	C21H20O11	1.80	M-H	Both
259	Isoorientin	C19H18O10	13.48	M-H	Leaf
268	Pentose-Hexose + C10H17	C15H22O10	18.59	M+HCOO	Both
313	(10E,15E)-9,12,13-trihydroxyoctadeca-10,15-dienoic acid	C18H32O5	21.48	M-H	Both
322	Labetalol, 2-hydroxy-5-[1-hydroxy-2-(4-phenylbutan-2-ylamino) ethyl] benzamide	C19H25N3O2	23.23	M-H	Both
331	Dienogest, 2-[(8S,13S,14S,17R)-17-hydroxy-13-methyl-3-oxo-1,2,6,7,8,11,12,14,15,16-decahydrocyclopenta[a]phenanthren-17-yl] acetonitrile	C20H25NO2	24.00	M-H	Both
337	13-HpOTrE, 13S-hydroperoxy-9Z,11E,15Z-octadecatrienoic acid, (9Z,11E,15Z)-13-Hydroperoxy-9,11,15-octadecatrienoic acid	C18H32O3	24.62	M-H	Both
338	Gibberellate, Gibberellic acid, Gibberellin A3, Gibberellin	C19H22O6	24.46	M-H	Both
349	N-Acetylneuraminic acid	C11H17NO8	25.25	M-H	Both
351	3-[4-methyl-1-(2-methylpropanoyl)-3-oxocyclohexyl] butanoic acid	C13H22O3	25.66	M-H	Both
357	9-Hydroperoxy-10E,12Z-octadecadienoic acid	C20H36O3	26.09	M-H	Both
364	9-hydroxy-7-(2-hydroxypropan-2-yl)-1,4a-dimethyl-2,3,4,9,10,10a-hexahydrophenanthrene-1-carboxylic acid	C20H30O4	26.50	M+H	Both
384	2-Hydroxyhippuric acid	C9H9NO4	28.27	M-H	Both
390	Canrenone, (9S,14S)-10,13-dimethylspiro [2,8,9,11,12,14,15,16-octahydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]phenanthrene-17,5′-oxolane]-2′,3-dione	C22H28O3	28.62	M-H	Both
392	Ajmaline	C20H26N2O	28.55	M-H	Both
398	Docosanol	C22H46O	28.85	M+H	Both	[41]
414	Diacylglycerol 18:3	C39H68O5	29.23	M+HCOO	Both
421	Medroxyprogesterone	C24H34O4	29.26	M-H	Both
422	Avocadyne Acetate	C21H36O3	29.51	M+H	Both
456	7-O-Methylrosmanol	C21H36O3	29.90	M+H	Both
457	Hydroxylated linoleic acid	C18H32O4	29.93	M-H	Both
458	Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid	C18H30O3S	30.02	M+H	Both
466	Fucosyltransferase V	-	30.31	M+H	Both
470	Furosemide, 4-chloro-2-(furan-2-ylmethylamino)-5-sulfamoylbenzoic acid	C12H11ClN2O5S	30.22	M-H	Both
472	Lysophosphatidylcholine 18:3	C27H50NO7P	30.29	M+HCOO	Both
474	1-[2-methyl-6-[(2S,3R,4S,5S,6R)-3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl) oxan-2-yl] oxyphenyl] ethanone	C14H20O8	30.42	M-H	Both
495	Phosphatidylinositol 16:0	C37H71O8P	30.67	M-H	Both
520	[(4E)-7-acetyloxy-6-hydroxy-2-methyl-10-oxo-2,3,6,7,8,9-hexahydrooxecin-3-yl] (E)-but-2-enoate	C14H20O7	30.87	M+H	Both
545	Threo-7′-O-Butylresveptero acyclic dimer	C32H38O4	31.19	M-H	Both
546	Lysophosphatidylethanolamine 18:2	C40H80NO8P	31.08	M-H	Both
563	Monogalactosyldiacylglycerol 18:3	C57H102O10P	31.24	M+HCOO	Both
581	1-(9Z,12Z-Octadecadienoyl)-2-hydroxy-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine	C42H78NO8P	31.56	M-H	Both
588	Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid	C10H16N2O8	31.66	M-H	Both
620	[5-acetyloxy-3-(hydroxymethyl)-2-oxo-6-propan-2-ylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl] 3-methylpentanoate	C17H26O6	32.15	M+H	Both
621	Naringenin-7-O-glucoside	C21H22O10	32.03	M-H	Both	[39]
633	Hydroxyoctadecadienoic acid	C18H32O3	32.23	M-H1	Both
661	N-(hexadecanoyl)-1-hydroxyethane-2-amide	C20H41NO8	32.76	M-H	Both
684	9-Keto-octadecadienoic acid	C18H3O3	33.18	M-H	Both
709	Threo-7′-O-Isopropylresvepterol acyclic dimer	C29H32O6	33.87	M-H	Both
716	Sesamin	C20H18O6	33.96	M+H	Both
721	Methyl (4aR)-5,6-dihydroxy-1,1-dimethyl-7-isopropyl-2,3,4,9,10,10a-hexahydrophenanthrenanthrene-4a-carboxylate	C23H32O4	34.19	M+Na	Both
733	1-Acyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine	C26H52NO7P	34.55	M+HCOO	Both
742	Thymol-beta-D-glucoside	C16H24O6	34.68	M+H	Both
777	Beta-alanyl-L-histidine	C9H14N4O3	40.92	M+H	Both
807	2,6-Dihydroxybenzoic acid	C7H6O4	41.56	M-H	Both
822	Cystine	C6H12N2O4S2	42.03	M+H	Both
824	Norethindrone	C20H26O2	42.07	M-H	Both
839	Scutellarein 4′-methyl ether	C16H12O7	42.95	M+H	Both
HPLC-MS-POSITIVE IONS
505	Candesartan	C24H20N6O3	1.41	M+H
568	Adenosine	C10H13N5O4	1.42	M+
577	Ceramide	C34H66NO3	1.40	M+H
722	Isoshaftoside	C21H20O11	1.53	-
728	9-Methoxycamptothecin	C22H20N2O5	1.51	-
752	Kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside	C27H30O15	1.57	M+H		[42]
758	Glycochenodeoxycholic acid	C26H43NO6	1.57	M+H
763	Isovitexin	C21H20O10	1.57	-
769	Glycolithocholic acid	C26H43NO4	1.61	M+H
974	Spiraeoside	C21H20O11	10.98	M+H
980	Kaempferol-7-O-neohesperidoside	C27H30O15	11.33	M+H
984	Selenomethionine	C5H11NO2Se	11.48	M+H
985	Phytol	C20H40O	11.60	M+H		[40]
986	Orientin	C27H120O11	11.67	M+H
990	Cis-Nerolidol	C15H26O	12.05	M+
991	Luteolin 4′-O-glucoside	C21H20O11	12.11	M-2H
1004	Vitexin-2′‘-O-rhamnoside	C27H30O14	12.67	M+H
1012	Apigenin 7-O-neohesperidoside	C27H30O15	12.91	M+H
1018	5,7-dihydroxy-2-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)-3-[3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-[[(2R,3R,4R,5R,6S)-3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-methyloxan-2-yl] oxymethyl] oxan-2-yl] oxychromen-4-one	C27H30O17	13.21	M+H
1731	6-Acetoxy-9-benzoyloxy-1,8-dihydroxydihydro-β-agarofuran	C26H30O8	28.93	M+H
1741	Methyl 4-hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxybenzoate	C10H12O5	29.02	-
1755	Lauryl diethanolamide	C14H31NO2	29.19	-
1765	(Z)-9,12,13-trihydroxyoctadec-15-enoic acid	C18H34O5	29.24	M-H
1788	(1R,9S,10S)-3,4-dihydroxy-11,11-dimethyl-5-(propan-2-yl)-16-oxatetracyclo [7.5.2.0] hexadeca-2(7),3,5-triene-8,15-dione	C19H22O5	29.26	M-H
2542	Dibutylphthalate	C16H22O4	33.90	M+H
2543	1-Palmitoylglycerophosphocholine	C24H50NO7P	33.88	M+
2544	Diacylglycerol trimethylhomoserine	C31H60NOPS	33.92	M+H
2548	1-Hexacosanol	C26H54O	33.94	-
2551	1-Oleoylglycerophosphocholine	C30H60NO7P	34.00	M+
2614	Beta-Peltatin	C18H23NO5	34.46	M-H
2624	8-(2-hydroxy-3-methoxy-3-methylbutyl)-7-methoxychromen-2-one	C16H18O5	34.56	M+NH4

Appendix A

Figure A1. LC-MS chromatogram of the compounds identified in Musa cavendish leaf samples at Stage 1 of disease. The y-axis depicts the relative absorbance, while the x-axis represents the retention time (rt) in the upper chromatogram, and the identified molar mass is represented on the lower chromatogram for each sample.

Figure A2. LC-MS chromatogram of the compounds identified in Musa cavendish stem samples at Stage 1 of the disease. The y-axis depicts the relative absorbance, while the x-axis represents the retention time (rt) in the upper chromatogram, and the identified molar mass is represented on the lower chromatogram for each sample.

References

1. International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 2000; Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/105424?show=full (accessed on 15 June 2023).

2. FAO. Banana Market Review—Preliminary Results 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022.

3. Lopes, S.; Vanz Borges, C.; de Sousa Cardoso, S.M.; de Almeida Pereira da Rocha, M.F.; Maraschin, M. Banana (Musa spp.) as a Source of Bioactive Compounds for Health Promotion. Handbook of Banana Production, Postharvest Science, Processing Technology, and Nutrition; 1st ed. Siddiq, M.; Ahmed, J.; Lobo, M.G. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.

4. Blomme, G.; Dita, M.; Jacobsen, K.S.; Pérez, V.L.; Molina, A.; Ocimati, W.; Poussier, S.; Prior, P. Bacterial Diseases of Bananas and Enset: Current State of Knowledge and Integrated Approaches Toward Sustainable Management. Front. Plant Sci.; 2017; 20, 1290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01290] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28785275]

5. Mansfield, J.; Genin, S.; Magori, S.; Citovsky, V.; Sriariyanum, M.; Ronald, P.; Dow, M.; Verdier, V.; Beer, S.V.; Machado, M.A. et al. Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2012; 13, pp. 614-629. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00804.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22672649]

6. Denny, T. Plant pathogenic Ralstonia species. Plant-Associated Bacteria; Gnanamanickam, S.S. Springer Netherlands: Cham, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 573-644.

7. Banana Moko: A Silent Threat. 2022; Available online: https://www.ecuadortimes.net/banana-moko-a-silent-threat/ (accessed on 15 June 2023).

8. Thwaites, M.; Eden-Green, S. RAPD and rep PCR-based fingerprinting of vascular bacterial pathogens of Musa spp. Plant Pathol.; 1999; 48, pp. 121-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.1999.00321.x]

9. Abadie, C.; Baudouin, L.; Daugrois, J.-H.; Dollet, M.; Vuillaume, C.; Wicker, E.; Teycheney, P.-Y. CIRAD invasive species initiatives in the Caribbean Basin. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Caribbean Food Crop Society; Miami, FL, USA, 13–17 July 2008.

10. Alvarez, E.; Gomez, E.; Mejia, J.; Prior, P. Developing a TaqMan probe to detect, through real-time PCR, Ralstonia solanacearum which causes Moko in Musa spp. in Colombia. Cirad Ritrop. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Plant Pathogenic Bacteria: Programme, Abstracts, List of Participants, INRA, Université de la Réunion; Saint-Denis, Réunion, 7 June 2010; 64.Available online: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/555761/ (accessed on 13 January 2024).

11. Oliveira Silva, S.; de Mello Véras, S.; de Gasparotto, L.; de Matos, A.P.; Maciel Cordeiro, Z.; Boher, B. Evaluation of Musa spp. for resistance to Moko disease (Ralstonia solanacearum, race 2). InfoMusa; 2000; 9, pp. 19-20.

12. Prior, P.; Wicker, E.; Fegan, M. The Ralstonia solanacearum species complex: Genetic diversity, phylogeny and molecular typing of strains with particular attention to emerging strains and bacterial wilts of banana known as moko disease, bugtok disease, and blodd disease. Proceedings of the II Seminario Internacional Sobre Producción, Comercialización e Industrialización de Plátano; Manlzales, Colombia, 29 August–2 September 2005; 49.

13. Tripathi, L.; Ntui, V.O.; Tripathi, J.N. Control of Bacterial Diseases of Banana Using CRISPR/Cas-Based Gene Editing. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2022; 23, 3619. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23073619] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35408979]

14. Grajales-Amorocho, M.; Acosta-Minoli, C.; Muñoz-Pizza, D.; Manrique-Arias, O.; Munoz-Loaiza, A. Analysis of Moko disease propagation on plantain (Musa AAB Simmonds) through a model based on system dynamics. Eur. J. Plant Pathol.; 2023; 168, pp. 437-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10658-023-02764-2]

15. Blanco, G.; Linares, B.; Hernández, J.; Maselli, A.; Rincón, A.; Ortega, R.; Medina, E.; Hernández, L.; Morillo, J. Microbiological composition and safety of pseudostems and leaf blades leachates of “Harton” plantain in Yaracuy state. Agron. Trop.; 2013; 63, pp. 111-120.

16. Ricardo, F.Á.S.; Vicente, L.F.P. Strategic tactics for the integrated management of pests and diseases in banana. Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res.; 2021; 4, pp. 4973-5000. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34188/bjaerv4n4-014]

17. Sequeira, L. Bacterial wilt: The missing element in international banana improvement programs. Bacterial Wilt Disease: Molecular and Ecological Aspects; Prior, P.; Elphinstone, A.C.J. Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; Volume 6, 14.

18. Álvarez, E.; Pantoja, A.; Gañán, L.; Ceballos, G. Current Status of Moko Disease and Black Sigatoka in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Options for Managing Them; Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT): Palmira, Colombia, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2015; 40p.

19. Ramirez, G.J.G.O.; Munoz, A.M.; Patino, H.L.F.; Morales, O.J.G. Banana Moko disease management with resistance inducers and chlorine dioxide. Agron. Colomb.; 2015; 33, pp. 194-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v33n2.48663]

20. Yang, L.; Wen, K.S.; Ruan, X.; Zhao, Y.X.; Wei, F.; Wang, Q. Response of Plant Secondary Metabolites to Environmental Factors. Molecules; 2018; 23, 762. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules23040762]

21. Isroni, M.; EnggarPaskariani, A.; Setiawan, F.; Rakhmawati, A. Banana Peel (Musa paradisiaca) Extract’s Potency as an Antibacterial Ralstonia solanacearum cause Tomato’s Desease. Proceeding Biol. Educ. Conf.; 2018; 15, pp. 844-847.

22. Ploetz, R.C.; Kepler, A.K.; Daniells, J.; Nelson, S.C. Banana and plantain—An overview with emphasis on Pacific island cultivars. Species Profiles for Pacific Island Agroforestry; Elevitch, C.R. Permanent Agricultural Resources: Holualoa, HI, USA, 2007.

23. Peakland Heritage. 19 July 2002; Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20160314051757/http://www.peaklandheritage.org.uk/index.asp?peakkey=01001021 (accessed on 18 May 2024).

24. Ajijolakewu, K.A.; Ayoola, A.S.; Agbabiaka, T.O.; Zakariyah, F.R.; Ahmed, N.R.; Oyedele, O.J.; Sani, A. A review of the ethnomedicinal, antimicrobial, and phytochemical properties of Musa paradisiaca (plantain). Bull. Natl. Res. Cent.; 2021; 45, 86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42269-021-00549-3]

25. Horry, J.; Ortiz, R.; Arnaud, E.; Crouch, J.H.; Ferris, R.S.B.; Jones, D.R.; Mateo, N.; Picq, C.; Vuylsteke, D. Banana and Plantain. Biodiversity in Trust Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources in CGIAR Centres; Fuccillo, D.; Sears, L.; Stapleton, P. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 67-81.

26. Daniells, J.; Jenny, C.; Karamura, D.; Tomekpe, K. Musalogue (A Catalogue of Musa Germplasm): Diversity in the Genus Musa; International Plant Genetic Resources Institute: Rome, Italy, 2001; 207p.

27. Thaweesang, S. Antioxidant activity and total phenolic compounds of fresh and blanching banana blossom (Musa ABB CV.Kluai “Namwa”) in Thailand. IOP Conf. Series: Mat. Sci. Eng.; 2019; 639, 012047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/639/1/012047]

28. Pękal, A.; Pyrzynska, K. Evaluation of aluminium complexation reaction for flavonoid content assay. Food Anal. Met.; 2014; 7, pp. 1776-1782. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12161-014-9814-x]

29. Sachett, A.; Gallas-Lopes, M.; Conterato, G.M.M.; Herrmann, A.; Piato, A. Antioxidant Activity by DPPH Assay: In Vitro Protocol. Protocols Io. 2021; Available online: https://www.protocols.io/view/antioxidant-activity-by-dpph-assay-in-vitro-protoc-btbpnimn (accessed on 13 January 2024).

30. Kuskoski, E.M.; Asuero, A.G.; Troncoso, A.M.; Mancini-Filho, J.; Fett, R. Aplicación de diversos métodos químicos para determinar actividad antioxidante en pulpa de frutos. Food Sci. Technol.; 2005; 25, pp. 726-732. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-20612005000400016]

31. Tohma, H.; Köksal, E.; Kılıç, Ö.; Alan, Y.; Yılmaz, M.A.; Gülçin, İ.; Bursal, E.; Alwasel, S.H. RP-HPLC/MS/MS analysis of the phenolic compounds, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of Salvia L. species. Antioxidants; 2016; 5, 38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox5040038] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27775656]

32. Irakli, M.; Skendi, A.; Bouloumpasi, E.; Chatzopoulou, P.; Biliaderis, C.G. LC-MS identification and quantification of phenolic compounds in solid residues from the essential oil industry. Antioxidants; 2021; 10, 2016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox10122016] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34943119]

33. Rajurkar, N.S.; Hande, S.M. Estimation of phytochemical content and antioxidant activity of some selected traditional Indian medicinal plants. Indian. J. Pharm. Sci.; 2011; 73, pp. 146-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0250-474X.91574] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22303056]

34. Luskal, T.; Castillo, S.; Villar-Briones, A.; Orešič, M. MZmine 2: Modular framework for processing, visualizing, and analyzing mass spectrometry-based molecular profile data. BMC Bioinform.; 2010; 11, 395.

35. Cellier, G.; Moreau, A.; Chabirand, A.; Hostachy, B.; Ailloud, F.; Prior, P. A Duplex PCR Assay for the Detection of Ralstonia solanacearum Phylotype II Strains in Musa spp. PLoS ONE; 2015; 10, e0122182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122182]

36. Ranjitha, K.; Narayana, C.K.; Roy, T.K. Division of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, IIHR, Bangalore Aroma profile of fruit juice and wine prepared from Cavendish banana (Musa sp., Group AAA) cv. Robusta. J. Hortl. Sci.; 2013; 8, pp. 217-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24154/jhs.v8i2.305]

37. Parijadi, A.A.R.; Yamamoto, K.; Ikram, M.M.M.; Dwivany, F.M.; Wikantika, K.; Putri, S.P.; Fukusaki, E. Metabolome Analysis of Banana (Musa acuminata) Treated With Chitosan Coating and Low Temperature Reveals Different Mechanisms Modulating Delayed Ripening. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2022; 6, 835978. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.835978]

38. Sonibare, M.; Oresanya, A.I.; Guèye, B.; Abberton, M.; Dsouza, R.; Kuhnert, N. Leaves metabolomic profiling of Musa acuminata accessions using UPLC–QTOF–MS/MS and their antioxidant activity. J. Food Meas. Charact.; 2018; 12, pp. 1093-1106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11694-018-9725-4]

39. Matos da Silva, M.; Pereira Alexandre, G.; Magalhães, M.R.; Torres, A.M.; Kato, L.; Costa da Silva, V.; Teixeira de Saboia Morais, S.M.; Garcia Rodriguez, A.; Pacheco Fill, T.; Pereira, A.K. et al. Musa spp. cultivars as a neutralizing source against some toxic activities of Bothrops and Crotalus genus snake venoms. Toxicon; 2023; 228, 107106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2023.107106] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37031872]

40. Behiry, S.I.; Okla, M.K.; Alamri, S.A.; EL-Hefny, M.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Alaraidh, I.A.; Salem, A.Z.M. Antifungal and antibacterial activities of Musa paradisiaca L. Peel Extract: HPLC analysis of phenolic and flavonoid contents. Processes; 2019; 7, 215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr7040215]

41. Waghmare, J.S.; Kurhade, A.H. GC-MS analysis of bioactive components from banana peel (Musa sapientum peel). Eur. J. Exper Biol.; 2014; 4, pp. 10-15.

42. Oliveira, C.S.R.; Freire, A.J.D.; Silvestre, N.; Cordeiro, I.C.; Torres, D. Lipophilic extractives from different morphological parts of banana plant “Dwarf Cavendish”. Evtuguin Ind. Crops Prod.; 2006; 23, pp. 201-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2005.06.003]

43. Oresanya, I.O.; Sonibare, M.A.; Gueye, B.; Balogun, F.O.; Adebayo, S.; Ashafa, A.O.T.; Morlock, G. Isolation of flavonoids from Musa acuminata Colla (Simili radjah, ABB) and the in vitro inhibitory effects of its leaf and fruit fractions on free radicals, acetylcholinesterase, 15-lipoxygenase, and carbohydrate hydrolyzing enzymes. J. Food Biochem.; 2020; 44, e13137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfbc.13137]

44. Cittan, M.; Çelik, A. Development and validation of an analytical methodology based on Liquid Chromatography–Electrospray Tandem Mass Spectrometry for the simultaneous determination of phenolic compounds in olive leaf extract. J. Chromatogr. Sci.; 2018; 56, pp. 336-343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/bmy003]

45. Balamurugan, A.; Sakthivel, K.; Gautam, R.K.; Sharma, S.K.; Kumar, A. Ralstonia solanacearum: Biology and its management in solanaceous vegetable crops. Rhizosphere Microbes, Microorganisms for Sustainability; Sharma, S.K.; Singh, U.B.; Sahu, P.K.; Singh, H.V.; Sharma, P.K. Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 23, pp. 259-289.

46. Vaganan, M.M.; Ravi, I.; Nandakumar, A.; Sarumathi, S.; Sundararaju, P.; Mustaffa, M.M. Phenylpropanoid enzymes, phenolic polymers and metabolites as chemical defenses to infection of Pratylenchus coffeae in roots of resistant and susceptible bananas (Musa spp.). Indian. J. Exp. Biol.; 2014; 52, pp. 252-260.

47. Wang, Z.; Jia, C.H.; Li, J.Y.; Huang, S.Z.; Xu, B.Y.; Jin, Z.Q. Activation of salicylic acid metabolism and signal transduction can enhance resistance to Fusarium wilt in banana (Musa acuminata L. AAA group, cv. Cavendish). Funct. Integ. Gen.; 2015; 15, pp. 47-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10142-014-0402-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25277445]

48. Jan, R.; Asaf, S.; Numan, M.L.; Kim, K.-M. Plant Secondary Metabolite Biosynthesis and Transcriptional Regulation in Response to Biotic and Abiotic Stress Conditions. Agronomy; 2021; 11, 968. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050968]

49. Ewané, A.C.; Lepoivre, P.; de Bellaire, L.; Lassois, L. Involvement of phenolic compounds in the susceptibility of bananas to crown rot. A review. BASE; 2012; 3, pp. 393-404.

50. Grene, R. Oxidative Stress and Acclimation Mechanisms in Plants. The Arabidopsis Book; American Society of Plant Biologists: Rockville, MD, USA, 2002; Volume 1, e0036. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1199/tab.0036.1]

51. Kasote, D.M.; Katyare, S.S.; Hegde, M.V.; Bae, H. Significance of Antioxidant Potential of Plants and its Relevance to Therapeutic Applications. Intern. J. Biol. Sci.; 2015; 11, pp. 982-991. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.12096] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26157352]

52. Isah, T. Stress and defense responses in plant secondary metabolites production. Biol. Res.; 2019; 52, 39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40659-019-0246-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31358053]

53. Olędzka, A.J.; Czerwińska, M.E. Role of Plant-Derived Compounds in the Molecular Pathways Related to Inflammation. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2023; 24, 4666. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms24054666] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36902097]

54. Kytidou, K.; Artola, M.; Overkleeft, H.S.; Aerts, J.M.F.G. Plant Glycosides and Glycosidases: A Treasure-Trove for Therapeutics. Front. Plant Sci.; 2020; 11, 357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00357] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32318081]

55. Dias, M.C.; Pinto, D.C.G.A.; Silva, A.M.S. Plant Flavonoids: Chemical Characteristics and Biological Activity. Molecules; 2021; 26, 5377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules26175377] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34500810]

56. Terao, J. Potential Role of Quercetin Glycosides as Anti-Atherosclerotic Food-Derived Factors for Human Health. Antioxidants; 2023; 12, 258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox12020258]

57. Ismail, T.N.; Awang, R.; Azmans, R.; Sobhan, M.; Shahidan, W.N.S. Chemical compounds and antimicrobial activity of acetone Musa acuminate AA/AAA leaf stalk extracts on selective Gram-negative bacteria. Malays. J. Anal. Sci.; 2018; 22, pp. 957-964.

58. Jouneghani, R.S.; Castro, A.H.F.; Panda, S.K.; Swennen, R.; Luyten, W. Antimicrobial activity of selected banana cultivars against important human pathogens, including candida biofilm. Foods; 2020; 9, 435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9040435] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32260420]

59. Ghorai, A.K.; Dutta, S.; Barman, R.A. Genetic diversity of Ralstonia solanacearum causing vascular bacterial wilt under different agroclimatic regions of West Bengal, India. PLoS ONE; 2022; 17, e0274780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274780] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36137083]

60. Mariano, R.L.R.; Silveira, N.S.S.; Michereff, S.J. Bacterial wilt in Brazil: Current Status and Control Methods. Bacterial Wilt Disease; Prior, P.; Allen, C.; Elphinstone, J. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; pp. 386-393.

61. Jańczak-Pieniążek, M.; Migut, D.; Piechowiak, T.; Buczek, J.; Balawejder, M. The Effect of Exogenous Application of Quercetin Derivative Solutions on the Course of Physiological and Biochemical Processes in Wheat Seedlings. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2021; 22, 6882. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22136882] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34206953]

62. An, J.; Kim, S.H.; Bahk, S.; Vuong, U.T.; Nguyen, N.T.; Do, H.L.; Kim, S.H.; Chung, W.S. Naringenin induces pathogen resistance against Pseudomonas syringae through the activation of NPR1 in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci.; 2021; 12, 672552. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.672552] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34093630]

63. Loussouarn, M.; Krieger-Liszkay, A.; Svilar, L.; Bily, A.; Birtić, S.; Havaux, M. Carnosic Acid and Carnosol, Two Major Antioxidants of Rosemary, Act through Different Mechanisms. Plant Physiol.; 2017; 175, pp. 1381-1394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.01183]

64. Pavić, V.; Jakovljević, M.; Molnar, M.; Jokić, S. Extraction of carnosic acid and carnosol from sage (Salvia officinalis L.) leaves by supercritical fluid extraction and their antioxidant and antibacterial activity. Plants; 2019; 8, 16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants8010016]

65. War, A.R.; Paulraj, M.G.; War, M.Y.; Ignacimuthu, S. Role of salicylic acid in induction of plant defense system in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Plant Signal Behav.; 2011; 6, pp. 1787-1792. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.6.11.17685]

66. Lefevere, H.; Bauters, L.; Gheysen, G. Salicylic Acid Biosynthesis in Plants. Front. Plant Sci.; 2020; 11, 338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00338]