4.5 Review

Methods for assessing the quality of AM fungal bio-fertilizer: Retrospect and future directions

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11274-022-03288-3

关键词

AM fungi; AM signature lipids; Inoculum potential; Mass production; Microscopic methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces various methods for assessing the quality of AM inocula, including microscopic methods and molecular biology methods. Researchers and inoculum manufacturers can use these methods to ensure the supply of high-quality AM inocula and promote the commercial production of AM fungi and their application in sustainable plant production systems.
In the recent past, the mass production of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi has bloomed into a large biofertilizer industry. Due to their obligate symbiotic nature, these fungi are propagated on living roots in substrate-based pot cultures and RiTDNA in in vitro or root organ culture systems. The quality assessment of AM inocula remains critical for the production and efficacy evaluation of AM fungi. The vigour of AM inocula are assessed through microscopic methods such as inoculum potential, infectivity potential/infection units, most probable number (MPN) and spore density. These methods marginally depend on the researcher's skill. The signature lipids specific to AM fungi, e.g. 16:1 omega 5cis ester-linked, phospholipid, and neutral lipid fatty acids provide more robustness and reproducibility. The quantitative real-time PCR of AM fungal taxa specific primers and probes analyzing gene copy number is also increasingly used. This article intends to sensitize AM fungal researchers and inoculum manufacturers to various methods of assessing the quality of AM inocula addressing their merits and demerits. This will help AM producers to fulfil the regulatory requirements ensuring the supply of high-quality AM inocula to end-users, and tap a new dimension of AM research in the commercial production of AM fungi and its application in sustainable plant production systems.

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