4.6 Article

Uncovering Phytotoxic Compounds Produced by Colletotrichum spp. Involved in Legume Diseases Using an OSMAC-Metabolomics Approach

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof9060610

关键词

Colletotrichum spp; fungal metabolites; anthracnose; legumes; phytotoxins; metabolomics; chemotaxonomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different fungal species of Colletotrichum genus cause anthracnose disease in major crops, resulting in significant economic losses globally. This study utilized the OSMAC approach integrated with targeted and non-targeted metabolomics profiling to investigate the secondary phytotoxic metabolites produced by pathogenic isolates of Colletotrichum truncatum and Colletotrichum trifolii. The phytotoxicity of the fungal crude extracts was also evaluated on their primary hosts and related legumes, correlating with the metabolite profile under different cultural conditions.
Different fungal species belonging to the Colletotrichum genus cause anthracnose disease in a range of major crops, resulting in huge economic losses worldwide. Typical symptoms include dark, sunken lesions on leaves, stems, or fruits. Colletotrichum spp. have synthesized, in vitro, a number of biologically active and structurally unusual metabolites that are involved in their host's infection process. In this study, we applied a one strain many compounds (OSMAC) approach, integrated with targeted and non-targeted metabolomics profiling, to shed light on the secondary phytotoxic metabolite panels produced by pathogenic isolates of Colletotrichum truncatum and Colletotrichum trifolii. The phytotoxicity of the fungal crude extracts was also assessed on their primary hosts and related legumes, and the results correlated with the metabolite profile that arose from the different cultural conditions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the OSMAC strategy integrated with metabolomics approaches has been applied to Colletotrichum species involved in legume diseases.

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

4.6
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