The role of killer yeasts of the species Debaryomyces hansenii and Wickerhamomyces anomalus in biocontrol of Monilinia fructicola, and their involvement in plant defence mechanisms against brown rot in apple fruits, were investigated. D. hansenii KI2a and W. anomalus BS91 strains showed the highest in vitro biocontrol activity, inhibiting mycelium growth by 69.53% and 66.08% respectively, as compared to control fungal cultures. Brown rot on apple fruits was significantly reduced by BS91 and two strains of D. hansenii KI2a and AII4b by 92.46%, 85.10% and 70.02%, respectively, in comparison to infected fruits, which did not receive any pre-treatment. In enzymatic tests, the most significant changes in peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT) activities were observed in fruits inoculated either with BS91 followed by M. fructicola infection or with AII4b yeast strain alone, where POD activities were significantly higher by 67% and 54%, respectively, and CAT activities were significantly lower by 65% and 68%, respectively, than in untreated control fruits. These results confirmed the ability of killer yeasts to influence host-defence related enzyme activities in apple fruit tissue and may suggest that AII4b killer strain has a potential as biocontrol agent prior to infection by triggering immune response mechanisms in plant tissue, whereas BS91 strain is the most effective during pathogen infection and could be used as biocontrol agent in postharvest disease onset. Accordingly, the antagonistic strains of W. anomalus BS91 and D. hansenii KI2a and AII4b could be proposed as active ingredients for the development of biofungicide against M. fructicola.

Role of biocontrol yeasts Debaryomyces hansenii and Wickerhamomyces anomalus in plants' defence mechanisms against Monilinia fructicola in apple fruits

Cristina Restuccia
;
Gabriella Cirvilleri ⁠
2019-01-01

Abstract

The role of killer yeasts of the species Debaryomyces hansenii and Wickerhamomyces anomalus in biocontrol of Monilinia fructicola, and their involvement in plant defence mechanisms against brown rot in apple fruits, were investigated. D. hansenii KI2a and W. anomalus BS91 strains showed the highest in vitro biocontrol activity, inhibiting mycelium growth by 69.53% and 66.08% respectively, as compared to control fungal cultures. Brown rot on apple fruits was significantly reduced by BS91 and two strains of D. hansenii KI2a and AII4b by 92.46%, 85.10% and 70.02%, respectively, in comparison to infected fruits, which did not receive any pre-treatment. In enzymatic tests, the most significant changes in peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT) activities were observed in fruits inoculated either with BS91 followed by M. fructicola infection or with AII4b yeast strain alone, where POD activities were significantly higher by 67% and 54%, respectively, and CAT activities were significantly lower by 65% and 68%, respectively, than in untreated control fruits. These results confirmed the ability of killer yeasts to influence host-defence related enzyme activities in apple fruit tissue and may suggest that AII4b killer strain has a potential as biocontrol agent prior to infection by triggering immune response mechanisms in plant tissue, whereas BS91 strain is the most effective during pathogen infection and could be used as biocontrol agent in postharvest disease onset. Accordingly, the antagonistic strains of W. anomalus BS91 and D. hansenii KI2a and AII4b could be proposed as active ingredients for the development of biofungicide against M. fructicola.
2019
Biocontrol yeasts; Brown rot; Apple; Host-defence; POD; CAT
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Monika 2019 FM.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: Articolo
Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 734.05 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
734.05 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/362745
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 19
  • Scopus 57
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 49
social impact