4.2 Article

Effect of carbon source on production of lytic enzymes by the sclerotial parasites Trichoderma atroviride and Coniothyrium minitans

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 153, 期 5, 页码 274-279

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.2005.00969.x

关键词

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum; mycoparasitism; biocontrol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three isolates of Trichoderma atroviride and two isolates of Coniothyrium minitans known to efficiently degrade sclerotia of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum were cultured on minimal medium with sucrose, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), xylan, laminarin, colloidal chitin or powdered sclerotia as carbon source. The activity of endochitinase, endo-beta-1,3-glucanase, endoxylanase and endocellulase in culture filtrates was determined after 7 and 15 days of culture using dye-labelled substrates. The strongest inducers of chitinase were colloidal chitin and sclerotia powder. Chitinase activity appeared to be faster induced in the isolates of T. atroviride than in the isolates of C. minitans, but the maximum level of activity present in culture filtrates of the two species was similar. With CMC and xylan as carbon source, concurrent production of the corresponding enzymes was observed for the Trichoderma isolates. The isolates of C. minitans produced cellulase on xylan but not on CMC, whereas xylanase was produced on both carbon sources. Laminarin induced the formation of glucanases in the three isolates of T. atroviride but not the isolates of C. minitans. However, in the sclerotia-containing cultures of C. minitans glucanase activity was even higher than in the respective cultures of the Trichoderma isolates. During the 31-day study period, the pattern of enzyme production in shake cultures containing sclerotia powder was very similar for the isolates of T. atroviride and C. minitans. Glucanase activity generally reached a peak 24 days after inoculation of the flasks, whereas the activity of chitinase, cellulase and xylanase remained fairly constant throughout the experiment.

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

4.2
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