4.5 Article

Inhibition of the growth of Paenibacillus larvae, the causal agent of American foulbrood of honeybees, by selected strains of aerobic spore-forming bacteria isolated from apiarian sources

Journal

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
Volume 91, Issue 3, Pages 141-146

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2005.12.002

Keywords

American foulbrood; Paenibacillus larvae; biocontrol; bacterial antagonists; Bacillus cereus; Bacillus megaterium; Bacillus licheniformis; Bacillus pumilus; Bacillus subtilis; Brevibacillus laterosporus; honeybees; Apis mellifera

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The bacterium Paenibacillus larvae, the causative agent of American foulbrood disease of honeybee larvae, occurs throughout the world and is found in many beekeeping areas of Argentina. The potential as biocontrol agents of antagonic aerobic spore-forming bacteria isolated from honey samples and other apiarian sources were evaluated. Each isolate was screened against one strain of Paenibacillus larvae (ATCC 9545) by using a perpendicular streak technique. Ten randomly selected bacterial strains from the group that showed the best antagonistic effect to P. larvae ATCC 9545 were selected for further study. These were identified as Bacillus subtilis (m351), B. pumilus (m350), B. licheniformis (m347), B. cereus (mv33), B. cereus (m387), B. cereus (m6c), B. megaterium (m404), Brevibacillus laterosporus (BLAT169), B. laterosporus (BLAT170), and B. laterosporus (BLAT171). The antagonistic strains were tested against 17 P. larvae strains from different geographical origins by means of a spot test in wells. The analysis of variance and posterior comparison of means by Tukey method (P < 0.01) showed that the best antagonists were B. megaterium (m404), B. licheniformis (m347), B. cereus (m6c), B. cereus (mv33), and B. cereus (m387). (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available