4.5 Article

In vitro evaluation of the action of the nematophagous fungi Duddingtonia flagrans, Monacrosporium sinense and Pochonia chlamydosporia on Fasciola hepatica eggs

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY & BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 1559-1564

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11274-007-9643-9

关键词

biological control; Duddingtonia flagrans; Monacrosporium sinense; nematophagous fungus; Pochonia chlamydosporia; Fasciola hepatica; liver-fluke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work evaluated the in vitro action of four isolates of the nematophagous fungi Duddingtonia flagrans (AC001), Monacrosporium sinense (SF53) and Pochonia chlamydosporia (VC1 and VC4) on eggs of Fasciola hepatica. The eggs were plated on 2% water-agar with the grown isolates and control without fungus. After 7, 14 and 21 days, the eggs were removed and classified according to the following parameters: effect type 1, lytic effect with no morphological damage to eggshells; type 2, lytic effect with morphological changes in eggshells and embryos; and type 3, lytic effect with morphological changes in embryos and eggshells, with hyphal penetration and internal egg colonization. Pochonia chlamydosporia showed ovicidal activity on F. hepatica eggs in the studied intervals of the type-3 effect, of 12.8% (VC1) and 16.5% (VC4); 14.4% (VC1) and 18.7% (VC4), 20.1% (VC1) and 21.5 % (VC4), over 7, 14 and 21 days respectively. No statistical difference was found (P > 0.01) among the isolates VC1 and VC4 for effects type 1, 2 and 3 during the studied intervals. Duddingtonia flagrans (AC001) and Monacrosporium sinense fungi only showed effect type 1, with no significant difference between them, with the following results: 60.1% (AC001) and 57.5% (SF53); 62.3% (AC001) and 62.0% (SF53); 66.5% (AC001) and 73.4% (SF53), over 7, 14 and 21 days respectively. Pochonia chlamydosporia fungi negatively influenced the in vitro F. hepatica viability. Therefore it can be considered as a potential biological control agent for this helminth.

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