4.5 Article

Biological Control of Rhizoctonia Root Rot on Bean by Phenazine- and Cyclic Lipopeptide-Producing Pseudomonas CMR12a

期刊

PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 101, 期 8, 页码 996-1004

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-11-10-0315

关键词

-

资金

  1. Flemish Institute for the stimulation of Scientific-Technological Research in Industry (IWT, Belgium)
  2. Ghent University
  3. Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO) [3G000210]
  4. INTERREG IV program France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen (Phytobio project)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pseudomonas CMR12a was previously selected as an efficient biocontrol strain producing phenazines and cyclic lipopeptides (CLPs). In this study, biocontrol capacity of Pseudomonas CMR12a against Rhizoctonia root rot of bean and the involvement of phenazines and CLPs in this ability were tested. Two different anastomosis groups (AGs) of Rhizoctonia solani, the intermediately aggressive AG 2-2 and the highly aggressive AG 4 HGI, were included in growth-chamber experiments with bean plants. The wild-type strain CMR12a dramatically reduced disease severity caused by both R. solani AGs. A CLP-deficient and a phenazine-deficient mutant of CMR12a still protected bean plants, albeit to a lesser extent compared with the wild type. Two mutants deficient in both phenazine and CLP production completely lost their biocontrol activity. Disease-suppressive capacity of CMR12a decreased after washing bacteria before application to soil and thereby removing metabolites produced during growth on plate. In addition, microscopic observations revealed pronounced branching of hyphal tips of both R. solani AGs in the presence of CMR12a. More branched and denser mycelium was also observed for the phenazine-deficient mutant; however, neither the CLP-deficient mutant nor the mutants deficient in both CLPs and phenazines influenced hyphal growth. Together, results demonstrate the involvement of phenazines and CLPs during Pseudomonas CMR12a-mediated biocontrol of Rhizoctonia root rot of bean.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据