| Literature DB >> 35684227 |
Carlos García-Latorre1, Sara Rodrigo1, Oscar Santamaria2.
Abstract
Fungal endophytes have been found to protect their hosts against multiple fungal pathogens. Frequently, the secondary metabolites produced by the endophyte are responsible for antifungal activity. To develop new bio-products that are more environmentally friendly than synthetic pesticides against Phytophthora cinnamomi, a serious pathogen of many plant species, the antifungal activity of filtrates or extracts from four endophytes was evaluated in different in vitro tests and in plants of Lupinus luteus. In the dual culture assays, the filtrate of one of the endophytes (Drechslera biseptata) completely inhibited the mycelial growth of the pathogen. Moreover, it showed a very low minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC). Epicoccum nigrum, an endophyte that also showed high inhibitory activity and a low MIC against P. cinnamomi in those two experiments, provided a clear growth promotion effect when the extracts were applied to L. luteus seedlings. The extract of Fusarium avenaceum also manifested such a promotion effect and was the most effective in reducing the disease severity caused by the pathogen in lupine plants (73% reduction). Results demonstrated the inhibitory activity of the filtrates or extracts of these endophytes against P. cinnamomi. A better insight into the mechanisms involved may be gained by isolating and identifying the metabolites conferring this inhibitory effect against this oomycete pathogen.Entities:
Keywords: Phytophthora cinnamomi; bioprotection; dehesas; endophytic fungi; metabolites; plant growth promotion
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684227 PMCID: PMC9182999 DOI: 10.3390/plants11111455
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Effect of endophytic filtrates on the mycelial growth in vitro of Phytophthora cinnamomi colony over five measurements (after 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 h). Values are expressed as mean (n = 16) ± standard error (error bars). The bar in the upper-left corner indicates the least significant difference (LSD) at α = 0.05.
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of the filtrates (expressed in ratio for one unit) and extracts (expressed in μg mL−1) of each endophyte against Phytophthora cinnamomi in comparison with a positive control using cycloheximide (C) and a negative one using yeast extract medium (B).
| Treatments | MIC | |
|---|---|---|
| Filtrate Dilution | Extract | |
| B | 0 | 0.00 |
| C | - | 2.34 |
| E063 | 0 | 150.00 |
| E064 | 1/2 | 300.00 |
| E168 | 0 | 300.00 |
| E179 | 1 | 300.00 |
Figure 2Effect of endophytic extracts on the germination percentage of Lupinus luteus seeds inoculated with Phytophthora cinnamomi over 11 measurements (from 5 to 15 days). Values are expressed as mean (n = 16) ± standard error (error bars). The bar in the upper-left corner indicates the least significant difference (LSD) at α = 0.05. B (blank): seedling receiving no extract nor Phytophthora inoculation. C (control): Phytophthora—inoculated seeds receiving no extract.
Effect of the pre-emergence application of endophytic extracts on different growth traits (Sl: shoot length; Rl: root length; number of leaves and roots; DMs: shoot dry matter weight; DMr: root dry matter weight; DMt: total dry matter weight) in Lupinus seedlings inoculated with Phytophthora cinnamomi in vitro. Values are expressed as mean (n = 5) ± standard error. A summary of ANOVAs is also given at the bottom of the table (df: degree of freedom; F: F-value; and p-value).
| Treatments | Sl (cm) 1 | Rl (cm) | Leaves # | Roots # | DMs (mg) | DMr (mg) | DMt (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B 2 | 7.7 ± 1.0 | 5.5 ± 1.0 c | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 10.8 ± 1.0 b | 72.0 ± 7.4 | 24.8 ± 6.4 | 96.8 ± 13.5 |
| C 3 | 6.3 ± 0.3 | 6.4 ± 0.1 bc | 3.0 ± 0.0 | 9.0 ± 0.5 bc | 53.0 ± 5.2 | 16.0 ± 3.8 | 69.0 ± 9.0 |
| E063 | 7.9 ± 0.7 | 6.9 ± 0.9 bc | 3.8 ± 0.6 | 13.0 ± 0.7 a | 63.5 ± 4.5 | 18.3 ± 2.5 | 81.8 ± 4.9 |
| E064 | 7.5 ± 0.8 | 7.7 ± 0.3 ab | 2.8 ± 0.3 | 10.0 ± 0.8 b | 62.8 ± 10.5 | 16.5 ± 5.3 | 79.3 ± 15.1 |
| E168 | 5.5 ± 0.7 | 7.0 ± 0.6 abc | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 7.8 ± 0.9 c | 56.8 ± 7.9 | 12.5 ± 0.6 | 69.3 ± 7.8 |
| E179 | 7.5 ± 0.5 | 8.6 ± 0.4 a | 3.0 ± 0.3 | 9.5 ± 0.3 bc | 66.0 ± 5.1 | 19.8 ± 0.3 | 85.8 ± 4.9 |
|
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
|
| 2.24 | 3.63 | 0.97 | 8.02 | 1.21 | 1.53 | 1.48 |
|
| 0.0943 | 0.0191 | 0.4613 | 0.0004 | 0.3451 | 0.2316 | 0.2448 |
1 For each parameter, different letters indicate significant differences according to LSD (least significant difference) test at α = 0.05. When letters do not appear, no significant effect (p > 0.05) was found according to ANOVA. 2 B: blank. Seedling receiving no extract nor Phytophthora inoculation. 3 C: control. Phytophthora—inoculated seedling receiving no extract.
Effect of the post-emergence application of extracts of endophytes on the disease severity, expressed in terms of the area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC), and different growth traits (Rl: root length; number of roots; DMs: shoot dry matter weight; DMr: root dry matter weight; DMt: total dry matter weight) in Lupinus plants inoculated with Phytophthora cinnamomi under greenhouse conditions. Values are expressed as mean (n = 5) ± standard error. A summary of ANOVAs is also given at the bottom of the Table (df: degree of freedom; F: F-value; and p-value).
| Treatments | AUDPC 1 | Rl (cm) | Roots # | DMs (mg) | DMr (mg) | DMt (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B 2 | 0.0 ± 0.0 d | 19.6 ± 2.7 c | 14.2 ± 0.4 ab | 456.3 ± 51.8 c | 271.9 ± 26.0 bc | 728.3 ± 69.8 b |
| C 3 | 168.0 ± 0.0 a | 14.7 ± 1.4 d | 6.2 ± 1.0 d | 415.4 ± 42.6 c | 242.9 ± 17.6 c | 658.3 ± 44.2 b |
| E063 | 103.2 ± 5.4 b | 20.2 ± 0.6 bc | 14.6 ± 0.6 a | 427.0 ± 33.7 c | 266.7 ± 21.2 c | 693.7 ± 54.1 b |
| E064 | 105.6 ± 13.0 b | 25.9 ± 0.9 a | 12.8 ± 0.4 bc | 455.6 ± 34.5 c | 259.8 ± 41.1 c | 715.4 ± 73.6 b |
| E168 | 45.6 ± 10.7 c | 25.2 ± 1.9 a | 11.6 ± 0.6 c | 637.3 ± 37.9 b | 353.9 ± 51.0 ab | 991.3 ± 81.8 a |
| E179 | 81.6 ± 14.3 b | 24.2 ± 0.8 ab | 13.6 ± 0.4 ab | 746.4 ± 28.2 a | 365.0 ± 20.0 a | 1111.4 ± 30.5 a |
|
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
|
| 47.53 | 9.44 | 32.29 | 15.35 | 3.34 | 11.56 |
|
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0197 | <0.0001 |
1 For each parameter, different letters indicate significant differences according to LSD (least significant difference) test at α = 0.05. When letters do not appear, no significant effect (p > 0.05) was found according to ANOVA. 2 B: blank. Plants receiving no extract nor Phytophthora inoculation. 3 C: control. Phytophthora—inoculated plants receiving no extract.
Figure 3Temperatures and relative humidity values in the greenhouse during the experiments.