Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Ozonation Technique for Pesticide Residue Removal in Okra and Green Chili Using GC-ECD and LC-MS/MS
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Fungicidal Effect of Some Commercial Disinfectant and Sterilizer Agents Formulated as Soluble Liquid against Sclerotium rolfsii Infected Tomato Plant
Previous Article in Journal
Contributions of Beneficial Microorganisms in Soil Remediation and Quality Improvement of Medicinal Plants
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Alternative Source of Biopesticides and Improvement in Their Formulation—Recent Advances
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 23
10.3390/plants11233201
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Actinomycete Potential as Biocontrol Agent of Phytopathogenic Fungi: Mechanisms, Source, and Applications

by
Juan A. Torres-Rodriguez
1,
Juan J. Reyes-Pérez
2,*,
Evangelina E. Quiñones-Aguilar
3 and
Luis G. Hernandez-Montiel
1,*
1
Nanotechnology and Microbial Biocontrol Group, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, Av. Politécnico Nacional 195, Col. Playa Palo de Santa Rita Sur, La Paz 23090, Mexico
2
Facultad de Ciencias Pecuarias, Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo, Av. Quito km 1.5 vía a Santo Domingo, Quevedo 120501, Ecuador
3
Centro de Investigaciones y Asistencia en Tecnología y Diseño del Estado de Jalisco, Camino Arenero, El Bajío del Arenal, Guadalajara 45019, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(23), 3201; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233201
Submission received: 6 October 2022 / Revised: 9 November 2022 / Accepted: 17 November 2022 / Published: 23 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Alternative Measures in Plant Protection)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Synthetic fungicides have been the main control of phytopathogenic fungi. However, they cause harm to humans, animals, and the environment, as well as generating resistance in phytopathogenic fungi. In the last few decades, the use of microorganisms as biocontrol agents of phytopathogenic fungi has been an alternative to synthetic fungicide application. Actinomycetes isolated from terrestrial, marine, wetland, saline, and endophyte environments have been used for phytopathogenic fungus biocontrol. At present, there is a need for searching new secondary compounds and metabolites of different isolation sources of actinomycetes; however, little information is available on those isolated from other environments as biocontrol agents in agriculture. Therefore, the objective of this review is to compare the antifungal activity and the main mechanisms of action in actinomycetes isolated from different environments and to describe recent achievements of their application in agriculture. Although actinomycetes have potential as biocontrol agents of phytopathogenic fungi, few studies of actinomycetes are available of those from marine, saline, and wetland environments, which have equal or greater potential as biocontrol agents than isolates of actinomycetes from terrestrial environments.

1. Introduction

One of the key problems in agriculture is the damage caused by phytopathogenic fungi [1]. Conventional methods to control phytopathogenic fungi have been carried out by using synthetic fungicides; however, their application causes resistance in microorganisms and harm to human, animal, and environmental health [2]. With the objective of achieving food production efficiency from an ecological and economic points of view, the search for an alternative to decrease the use of synthetic fungicides in agriculture is a global priority [3].
In recent years, the use of actinomycetes as a biocontrol agent on phytopathogenic fungi has been an alternative to the application of synthetic fungicides [4]. Actinomycetes are Gram-positive bacteria found in different habitats, humidity, pH, and temperature [5]. Actinomycetes have been isolated from different environments, such as terrestrial, marine, hypersaline, wetlands, and plant endophytes, among others [6,7].
The main antagonistic mechanisms of actinomycetes to control phytopathogenic fungi are competence for space and nutrients [8], antibiotics [9], siderophores [10], lytic enzymes [11], volatile organic compounds (VOCs) [12], and host resistance induction [13]. Additionally, actinomycetes promote plant growth and development through the synthesis of phytohormones, atmospheric nitrogen fixation, and mineral solubilization, among others [14]. Several studies of actinomycetes have been reported; however, few studies have focused on actinomycetes, isolated from different environments, used as biocontrol agents due to their effect in agriculture and antagonistic mechanisms to phytopathogenic fungi.

2. General Characteristics of Actinomycetes

Actinomycetes form vegetative or aerial mycelia and are capable of reproducing by binary fission [15]. In vitro culture and the natural environment have a typical smell of humid soil because of the production of two geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol volatile organic compounds [16]. Spore production is a result of nutrient depletion, allowing actinomycetes to remain latent until they find favorable conditions for growth [14]. Additionally, filamentous and sporulating natures allow them to compete more efficiently against other organisms found in the rhizosphere [17]. Their cell wall is a rigid structure formed by complex compounds, such as peptidoglycan, teichoic and teichuronic acids, and polysaccharides. Actinomycetes also have a high guanine and cytosine content in DNA [18].

3. Actinomycetes as Biocontrol Agents

The importance of the use of actinomycetes as biocontrol agents is explained by inherent positive characteristics: (1) they are not harmful to human and animal health; (2) they are not toxic to plants; (3) they improve plant yield; and (4) they decrease the use of synthetic fungicides [19,20]. Among the different genera, Streptomyces has been investigated extensively because it is easy to isolate [21]. Actinomycetes have a slower growth than bacteria. Thus, growth improvement techniques should be applied to obtain desirable actinomycetes in culture media. These techniques are based on selective isolation media and the pretreatment of samples, such as: soil with calcium carbonate, both by drying and heating, wet, and chemical pretreatments, among others [22]. One of the ways to stimulate actinomycete populations in soil is by adding biostimulants and organic fertilizers, such as compost and vermicompost. S. sampsonii and S. flavovariabilis isolates from soil amended with vermicompost showed the highest antagonistic activity towards Rhizoctonia solani, Alternaria tenuissima, Aspergillus niger, and Penicillium expansum [23]. In addition, soil amended with Brassica napus and Brassica rapa leaf residues promoted the increase in actinomycete populations in the soil. The increase in the actinomycete population showed a strong correlation with the suppression of the R. solani wilt disease [24]. Different actinomycetes have been studied as biocontrol agents on phytopathogenic fungi and as mechanisms of action (Table 1).

4. Main Actinomycete Antagonistic Mechanisms to Phytopathogenic Fungi

Biocontrol agents use a combination of several antagonistic mechanisms of action to control phytopathogenic fungi [30]. The main antagonistic mechanisms of actinomycetes are their competence for space and nutrients, antibiotics, siderophores, lytic enzymes, and induction of host resistance, among others [1,13,19] (Figure 1). Understanding the mechanisms of action of biocontrol agents is essential in order to improve their viability and increase their potential [31].

4.1. Competence for Space and Nutrients

Competition is an indirect mechanism of actinomycetes for the growth inhibition of phytopathogenic fungi [8]. Competence between two or more microorganisms begins for the same carbon source (carbohydrates such as sucrose, glucose, maltose, and fructose) or space for their growth [32,33]. The ecological plasticity and fast growth of antagonistic microorganisms allow them to assimilate the available nutrients in the host at a greater amount than phytopathogenic fungi; thus, the spore germination stage and infection processes to the host are reduced [34]. Competence is also an effective biocontrol mechanism when the antagonist is found in sufficient volumes and assimilates nutrients faster and in greater quantity than phytopathogenic fungi [30].

4.2. Antibiotic Production

Actinomycetes produce secondary metabolites with antifungal properties [1]. Approximately 80% of antibiotics, such as streptomycin, spectinomycin, neomycin, tetracycline, erythromycin, and nystatin, are produced by actinomycetes [35].
Furthermore, many metabolites have been discovered with antimicrobial properties similar to phytopathogenic fungi, such as amphotericin B, macrolides, actinomycin D, natamycin, antimycin, and neopeptine [36,37,38]. Macrolides are a group of antibiotics produced by actinomycetes that inhibit fungus protein synthesis [39]. Amphotericin B joins selectively to ergosterol in the fungal cell membrane, producing changes in permeability and inducing cell lysis [40]. Moreover, actinomycin D production by Streptomyces sp. strains limit microbial growth and RNA synthesis [9]. Antimycin inhibits the mitochondrial electron transport chain between cytochromes b and c [41]. Natamycin blocks fungal growth when it joins to the ergosterol of the fungus cell membrane [42]. Neopeptine is an inhibitor of the microbial cell wall biosynthesis at the enzymatic level [37]. Another important process that involves antibiotic production is symbiosis between actinomycetes and plants, as the antibiotic protects the plant from phytopathogenic fungi, and the plant exudates allow actinomycete development [43].

4.3. Siderophore Production

Siderophores are molecules that perform sequestration on low-molecular weight irons (500–1000 Da) and link with Fe3+ ions to be transported to the cell and secreted in response to low Fe3+ availability [44]. Siderophores are classified as: phenolate, catecholate, hydroxamate, and carboxylate; some have a group mix (mixed types) [45]. Siderophore production has been demonstrated by Streptomyces strains that produce hydroxamate-type siderophores known as deferoxamine [20]. Moreover, heterobactins are catecholate-hydroximate mixed-type siderophores that have been found in Rhodococcus erythropolis [46], and albisporachelin is a hydroxamate-type siderophore produced by Amycolatopsis albispora [47]. A sufficient amount of siderophore production by biocontrol agents limits Fe3+ availability for phytopathogenic fungi. Thus, growth and virulence are limited because microorganisms without iron in their environment cannot perform vital processes, such as synthesis and repair of nucleic acids, respiration, photosynthetic transport, and nitrate reduction or free radical detoxification [48].

4.4. Lytic Enzyme Production

Actinomycetes produce lytic enzymes, such as chitinase, β-1,3-glucanase, and protease that degrade the fungal cell wall [26] and cause loss of membrane integrity, set intracellular material free, and cell death [1]. The fungus cell wall is responsible for a cell’s physical integrity, formed by chitin, β-1,3-glucan, and protein [49]. The β-1,3 glucanase hydrolyze β-D-glycosidic bonds of β-1,3 glucan, and chitinases hydrolyze chitin β-1,4 N-acetyl-β-D-glycosamide bonds, breaking fungal cell walls [31,50]. Proteases hydrolyze proteins, specifically mannoproteins, make up the phytopathogenic fungi cell wall [51].

4.5. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are low molecular weight compounds that evaporate easily at a normal temperature and pressure, which gives them the ability to diffuse through the atmosphere and soil [52]. Most VOCs are lipid-soluble and thus have low water solubility. These organic compounds travel great distances in structurally heterogeneous environments, as well as in solid, liquid, or gaseous compounds [31]. VOCs produced by actinomycetes inhibit the growth of phytopathogenic fungi, promote plant growth, possess nematocidal activity, and induce systemic resistance in plants [11,12]. They inhibit the mycelia, causing swelling, conidia collapse, and structural alterations in the fungal cell wall [53]. The Streptomyces species produces 2-ethyl-5-methylpyrazine and dimethyl disulfide that inhibit mycelial growth and spore germination [12]. VOCs such as S-methyl ethanethioate, 1,2-dimethyldisulfane, 2-methyl propanoic acid, acetic acid, 3-methyl-butanoic acid, undecan-2-one, nonan-2-one, and 2-isopropyl-5-methylcyclohexan-1-ol have been reported from the actinomycetes Nocardiopsis sp., which inhibit mycelial growth of fungi [54].

4.6. Induction of Host Resistance

Induced resistance in plants is activated by antagonist actinomycetes that cause a defense response in the host through several chemical or biochemical reactions [13]. Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) and induced systemic resistance (ISR) are two forms of induced resistance, characterized based on signaling pathways [30]. SAR stimulates a rapid response in the phytopathogens and actinomycetes, stimulating a special ISR state called “priming”, for faster and stronger defense responses [55,56]. Actinomycetes are capable of inducing defense responses in plants through the overproduction of: (1) enzymes related to defense, which strengthen the cell wall structure, avoiding the entrance of phytopathogenic fungi, their colonization toward the plant, and catalyzing phenolic compound oxidation to quinones that are toxic for fungi [29]; (2) proteins (PR) related to pathogenesis, such as chitinase hydrolytic enzymes, and β-1,3-glucanase that break the phytopathogenic fungi cell wall structure [57]; (3) phytoalexins, which are toxic for phytopathogenic fungi, inhibit germ tube elongation and growth, decrease mycelial growth and limit glucose absorption [30,58]; (4) lignification promotion that contributes to plant cell wall hardening [59]; and (5) callus formation induction that isolates stress (biotic and abiotic) in the tissue, locally, by depositing a physical barrier [56,60].

5. Actinomycete Isolation from Different Environments

Actinomycetes have been isolated from different environments, such as terrestrial, marine, hypersaline, wetland, as well as plant endophytes, among others. Marine environments cover more than 67% of terrestrial surface, and only 1% of the microorganisms have been studied [61]. Marine actinomycetes living in extreme environmental conditions are ideal for the synthesis of new secondary metabolites because of their adaptation to reproduce, grow, and feed [5]. Endophyte actinomycetes are microorganisms that inhabit plant tissues during the totality or part of the life cycle and do not cause negative effects in the host [17]. Additionally, molecules produce functions as growth promoter metabolites, antimicrobials to phytopathogenic fungi, improve gene expression of plant defense that codify enzymes, such as phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL), and improve nutrient absorption [62]. Wetlands are biologically important ecosystems that provide habitat, food, and spawning areas for a number of plants and animals [7]. Hypersaline environments are extreme habitats with high concentrations of salt, alkalinity, and low oxygen. Actinomycetes have been isolated from different hypersaline environments, such as salt lakes, salt flats, salt mines, and brine wells; however, these environments remain unexplored [6]. Compounds and secondary metabolites of terrestrial microorganisms have been studied extensively, hence the importance of searching for new isolation sources for actinomycetes [33].

6. Antifungal In Vitro Activity of Actinomycetes Isolated in Different Environments

The Streptomyces, Micromonospora, and Nocardiopsis species are within the main actinomycetes that have been studied for their antifungal in vitro activity [63,64] and isolated from different environments, such as terrestrial, marine, saline, and wetland (Figure 2).
Actinomycetes of terrestrial origin, such as Streptomyces sp., have demonstrated to reduce the mycelial growth of R. bataticola by 65.3% [10]. Similar results were obtained for Streptomyces sp. isolated from a terrestrial environment, reducing the mycelial growth of Botrytis cinerea by 77% [59]. The antifungal activity of Streptomyces sp. VOCs of terrestrial origin inhibited the mycelial growth of F. solani by 69% [53]. In addition, in another investigation, Streptomyces sp. VOCs reduced the mycelial growth of C. acutatum by 77% [64]. Endophytic actinomycetes from marine and wetland environments have also inhibited the growth of phytopathogenic fungi under in vitro conditions. A study of S. polychromogenes endophytes from date palm roots inhibited the mycelial growth of F. solani; the in vitro antifungal activity was associated with the production of lytic enzymes that degrade the cell wall [1]. A Streptomyces sp. Extract of marine origin containing oligomycin A inhibited the growth of Pyricularia oryzae hyphae by 83%, which damaged the fungal membrane, inhibited conidial germination and appressoria formation [65]. Streptomyces spp. From marine environments have also inhibited the growth of Penicillum digitatum, A. niger and F. solani by 92, 73, and 72%, respectively [66]. Actinomycetes from marine environments, such as Streptomyces sp. And N. lucentensis, inhibited the mycelial growth of F. solani by 72 and 68%, respectively, and Streptomyces sp. showed no significant differences with the synthetic fungicide [67].

7. Antifungal Activity of Actinomycetes In Vivo Isolated from Different Environments

The diseases transmitted by soil phytopathogenic fungi are difficult to control with synthetic fungicides [21]. Plant diseases cause a yield loss of 50%, particularly in developing countries [86]. The antifungal activity of actinomycetes isolated from different environmental conditions has been demonstrated in vitro conditions. However, research in actinomycetes as biocontrol agents in vivo conditions has been limited to the study of terrestrial actinomycete isolates (Figure 3) due to difficulties in sampling and culturing microorganisms of marine, saline, and wetland environments, among others [5]. Nevertheless, interest still exists in finding more efficient strains that differ considerably with respect to their biocontrol efficiency [19].
Streptomyces species from terrestrial environments have been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of B. cinerea disease on chickpea plants by 47%, compared to the control, and induce resistance in the host plant through antioxidant enzymes and phenolic compounds [59]. The antifungal activity of the S. sichuanensis strain from terrestrial environments towards F. oxysporum was associated with siderophore production and whose extracts induced apoptosis of phytopathogen cells. In the greenhouse experiment, the S. sichuanensis strain significantly inhibited F. oxysporum infection in roots and bulbs of banana seedlings and reduced the disease index by 51% [25].
Moreover, the actinomycete endophytes of date palms decreased the sudden decline syndrome (SDS) disease, caused by F. solani, by 86% under greenhouse conditions; these effects are related to the production of antifungal metabolites of the S. coeruleoprunus strain [1]. Studies of Streptomyces sp. extracts from marine environments have shown that the disease index of F. oxyspoum significantly decreased by 80%. This effect could have been associated with secondary metabolites causing the loss of osmotic balance, cell membrane rupture and leakage of cellular components of F. oxyspoum [85]. Similarly, the application of S. vinaceusdrappus from the marine environment on tomato plants showed a disease reduction (71%) of root rot caused by R. solani compared to the untreated control [73]. In detached tomato leaves, co-inoculation of A. solani with S. puniceus extract from wetland environments reduced the disease by 98%, relative to the control, due to the presence of antifungal metabolites, such as Alteramide A [77]. These investigations confirm the potential of actinomycetes isolated from different environments, not only terrestrial, in plant disease management.

8. Antifungal Activity of Actinomycetes Isolated in Different Environments in Postharvest Fruit

The main losses in post-harvest fruit are caused by phytopathogenic fungi, which represent more than 50% of agricultural production [98]. In post-harvest fruit management, antagonists are subjected to changes in pH, temperature, and humidity because in these conditions the efficiency of biocontrol agents can be affected [99]. Actinomycetes from marine, saline, hypersaline, and wetland environments are subjected to extreme environmental conditions that allow them to adapt to the changes in temperature, pH, and humidity that occur post-harvest [19,100]. However, in most of the studies of actinomycetes and biocontrol of phytopathogenic fungi in post-harvest fruit, the isolates provided are from terrestrial environments (Figure 4). More studies should be performed with these microorganisms isolated from different environments.
In the post-harvest trial on strawberries inoculated with B. cinerea, VOCs from Streptomyces sp. isolated from terrestrial environment inhibited the development of gray mold symptoms on fruit by more than 87% compared to untreated control strawberries. In addition, B. cinerea conidia showed symptoms of swelling and crumbling and the fungal mycelium showed structural alterations [53]. Moreover, incubation of apples infected with C. acutatum in semi-closed boxes with Streptomyces sp. strains showed that the VOCs produced by Streptomyces sp. reduced the rotting areas of the apples by 66% in relation to the control treatment [64].
Marine actinomycetes, such as S. chumphonensis, reduced citrus green mold disease caused by P. digitatum by 93%. The authors suggest that this effect may be related to the production of antimicrobial substances [101]. Furthermore, Streptomyces sp. species from marine environments and their metabolites showed high efficacy in the control of C. fragariae in strawberry fruit, reducing the severity of anthracnose disease by 76%, in addition, fruit hardness and color were maintained [80].
Plants 11 03201 g004 550
Figure 4. Antifungal activity (% growth inhibition *) of actinomycetes in post-harvest isolated from different environments [3,19,20,53,64,68,84,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109].
Figure 4. Antifungal activity (% growth inhibition *) of actinomycetes in post-harvest isolated from different environments [3,19,20,53,64,68,84,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109].
Plants 11 03201 g004

9. Commercial Products Based on Actinomycetes

The main problem in obtaining commercial products based on microorganisms is that their biocontrol capacity is different in in vitro trials and field experiments. In addition, developing a commercial microorganism product is a complex, time-consuming, costly and interactive process. The success of a biocontrol agent is its formulation, which must include a specific concentration of the new microorganisms and a set of other inert ingredients to produce a commercial product for its use in field conditions, and must show repeated positive results, reasonable prices and easy handling [17]. The efficiency of these biocontrol agents is affected by environmental factors, such as temperature, humidity, precipitation, among other abiotic aspects which synthetic fungicides have overcome [33].
The factors outlined above all make the transfer of an effective biocontrol agent under controlled laboratory conditions to a commercially available product for application under field conditions difficult. Although the use of microorganisms as a biocontrol agent is a current option to reduce synthetic fungicides, the ratio of actinomycetes registered as biocontrol agents for commercial availability is still low [110]. From the commercial products based on actinomycetes, Mycostop is the only product registered in Canada, the European Union, and the United States of America (Table 2). Overall, an open field for the industry is envisaged for actinomycete-based products in agriculture.

10. Conclusions

Actinomycetes are an option to control phytopathogenic fungi in agriculture and their application reduces the use of synthetic fungicides. Marine, saline, and wetland environments are important sources for actinomycete isolation and in the discovery of new compounds and secondary metabolites. Biocontrol studies have focused on isolates of actinomycetes from terrestrial environments. Nevertheless, actinomycetes from marine, saline, and wetland environments have equal or greater antifungal activity than those from terrestrial environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.T.-R., L.G.H.-M. and J.J.R.-P.; methodology, J.A.T.-R., L.G.H.-M. and J.J.R.-P.; validation, E.E.Q.-A.; writing, J.A.T.-R., L.G.H.-M. and J.J.R.-P.; review and editing, L.G.H.-M., J.J.R.-P. and E.E.Q.-A.; visualization, L.G.H.-M. and J.A.T.-R.; supervision, L.G.H.-M. and J.A.T.-R.; project administration, L.G.H.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The first author is grateful to Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT), Mexico for Grant No. 2021910046 to carry out the Doctoral thesis project and to the State Technical University of Quevedo, for the support granted through the Competitive Fund for Scientific and Technological Research (FOCICYT) 8th Call, through the project PFOC8-10-2021 “Stimulation of biological and agricultural productivity by the application of silicon in horticultural crops.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alblooshi, A.A.; Purayil, G.P.; Saeed, E.E.; Ramadan, G.A.; Tariq, S.; Altaee, A.S.; El-Tarabily, K.A.; AbuQamar, S.F. Biocontrol potential of endophytic actinobacteria against Fusarium solani, the causal agent of sudden decline syndrome on date palm in the UAE. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Torres-Rodriguez, J.A.; Reyes-Pérez, J.J.; Castellanos, T.; Angulo, C.; Quiñones-Aguilar, E.E.; Hernandez-Montiel, L.G. A biopolymer with antimicrobial properties and plant resistance inducer against phytopathogens: Chitosan. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2021, 49, 12231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Xiao, L.; Niu, H.-J.; Qu, T.-L.; Zhang, X.-F.; Du, F.-Y. Streptomyces sp. FX13 inhibits fungicide-resistant Botrytis cinerea in vitro and in vivo by producing oligomycin A. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2021, 175, 104834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Boukaew, S.; Yossan, S.; Cheirsilp, B.; Prasertsan, P. Impact of environmental factors on Streptomyces spp. metabolites against Botrytis cinerea. J. Basic Microbiol. 2022, 62, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jagannathan, S.V.; Manemann, E.M.; Rowe, S.E.; Callender, M.C.; Soto, W. Marine actinomycetes, new sources of biotechnological products. Mar. Drugs 2021, 19, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tatar, D. Isolation, phylogenetic analysis and antimicrobial activity of halophilic actinomycetes from different saline environments located near Çorum province. Biologia 2021, 76, 773–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Maua, J.O.; Mbuvi, M.T.E.; Matiku, P.; Munguti, S.; Mateche, E.; Owili, M. The difficult choice-to conserve the living filters or utilizing the full potential of wetlands: Insights from the Yala swamp, Kenya. Environ. Chall. 2022, 6, 100427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fadhilah, Q.G.; Santoso, I.; Maryanto, A.E.; Abdullah, S.; Yasman, Y. Evaluation of the antifungal activity of marine actinomycetes isolates against the phytopathogenic fungi Colletotrichum siamense KA: A preliminary study for new antifungal compound discovery. Pharmacia 2021, 68, 837–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xia, X.; Liu, J.; Huang, L.; Zhang, X.; Deng, Y.; Li, F.; Liu, Z.; Huang, R. Molecular details of actinomycin D-Treated MRSA revealed via high-dimensional data. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Meena, L.I.; Rajeswari, E.; Ahiladevi, P.; Kamalakannan, A.; Kalaiselvi, T. Antifungal potential of Streptomyces rameus GgS 48 against mungbean root rot [Rhizoctonia bataticola (Taub.) Butler]. J. Biosci. 2022, 47, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Gebily, D.A.S.; Ghanem, G.A.M.; Ragab, M.M.; Ali, A.M.; Soliman, N.E.K.; Abd El-Moity, T.H. Characterization and potential antifungal activities of three Streptomyces spp. as biocontrol agents against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary infecting green bean. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gong, Y.; Liu, J.-Q.; Xu, M.-J.; Zhang, C.-M.; Gao, J.; Li, C.-G.; Xing, K.; Qin, S. Antifungal volatile organic compounds from Streptomyces setonii WY228 control black spot disease of sweet potato. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2022, 88, e02317-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kaari, M.; Joseph, J.; Manikkam, R.; Sreenivasan, A.; Venugopal, G.; Alexander, B.; Krishnan, S. Anti-Biofilm activity and biocontrol potential of streptomyces cultures against Ralstonia solanacearum on tomato plants. Indian J. Microbiol. 2022, 62, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mitra, D.; Mondal, R.; Khoshru, B.; Senapati, A.; Radha, T.K.; Mahakur, B.; Uniyal, N.; Myo, E.M.; Boutaj, H.; Sierra, B.E.G.; et al. Actinobacteria-enhanced plant growth, nutrient acquisition, and crop protection: Advances in soil, plant, and microbial multifactorial interactions. Pedosphere 2022, 32, 149–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. van Bergeijk, D.A.; Terlouw, B.R.; Medema, M.H.; van Wezel, G.P. Ecology and genomics of actinobacteria: New concepts for natural product discovery. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18, 546–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheng, Z.; McCann, S.; Faraone, N.; Clarke, J.-A.; Hudson, E.A.; Cloonan, K.; Hillier, N.K.; Tahlan, K. Production of plant-associated volatiles by select model and industrially important Streptomyces spp. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Vurukonda, S.S.K.P.; Giovanardi, D.; Stefani, E. Plant growth promoting and biocontrol activity of Streptomyces spp. as endophytes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Gomes, E.d.B.; Dias, L.R.L.; Miranda, R.d.C.M. Actinomycetes bioactive compounds: Biological control of fungi and phytopathogenic insect. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 17, 552–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Li, X.; Jing, T.; Zhou, D.; Zhang, M.; Qi, D.; Zang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Li, K.; Tang, W.; Chen, Y.; et al. Biocontrol efficacy and possible mechanism of Streptomyces sp. H4 against postharvest anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum fragariae on strawberry fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2021, 175, 111401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhou, D.; Jing, T.; Chen, Y.; Yun, T.; Qi, D.; Zang, X.; Zhang, M.; Wei, Y.; Li, K.; Zhao, Y.; et al. Biocontrol potential of a newly isolated Streptomyces sp. HSL-9B from mangrove forest on postharvest anthracnose of mango fruit caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. Food Control 2022, 135, 108836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zou, N.; Zhou, D.; Chen, Y.; Lin, P.; Chen, Y.; Wang, W.; Xie, J.; Wang, M. A novel antifungal actinomycete Streptomyces sp. strain H3-2 effectively controls banana Fusarium wilt. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 706647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tiwari, K.; Gupta, R.K. Diversity and isolation of rare actinomycetes: An overview. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 39, 256–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Javoreková, S.; Kovácsová, S.; Medo, J.; Maková, J.; Petrová, J.; Hleba, L.; Košťálová, D.; Cinkocki, R. Soil amended with organic fertilizers as a source of actinomycetes with high potential as biocontrol agents. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2021, 8, 1352–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ascencion, L.C.; Liang, W.J.; Yen, T.B. Control of Rhizoctonia solani damping-off disease after soil amendment with dry tissues of Brassica results from increase in Actinomycetes population. Biol. Control 2015, 82, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qi, D.; Zou, L.; Zhou, D.; Zhang, M.; Wei, Y.; Li, K.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Xie, J. Biocontrol potential and antifungal mechanism of a novel Streptomyces sichuanensis against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense tropical race 4 in vitro and in vivo. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 106, 1633–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cabrera, R.; García-López, H.; Aguirre-von-Wobeser, E.; Orozco-Avitia, J.A.; Gutiérrez-Saldaña, A.H. Amycolatopsis BX17: An actinobacterial strain isolated from soil of a traditional milpa agroecosystem with potential biocontrol against Fusarium graminearum. Biol. Control 2020, 147, 104285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ramlawi, S.; Abusharkh, S.; Carroll, A.; McMullin, D.R.; Avis, T.J. Biological and chemical characterization of antimicrobial activity in Arthrobacter spp. isolated from disease-suppressive compost. J. Basic Microbiol. 2021, 61, 745–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Allali, K.; Goudjal, Y.; Zamoum, M.; Bouznada, K.; Sabaou, N.; Zitouni, A. Nocardiopsis dassonvillei strain MB22 from the Algerian Sahara promotes wheat seedlings growth and potentially controls the common root rot pathogen Bipolaris sorokiniana. J. Plant Pathol. 2019, 101, 1115–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ebrahimi-Zarandi, M.; Bonjar, G.H.S.; Riseh, R.S.; El-Shetehy, M.; Saadoun, I.; Barka, E.A. Exploring two Streptomyces species to control Rhizoctonia solani in tomato. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lahlali, R.; Ezrari, S.; Radouane, N.; Kenfaoui, J.; Esmaeel, Q.; El Hamss, H.; Belabess, Z.; Ait Barka, E. Biological control of plant pathogens: A global perspective. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Carmona-Hernandez, S.; Reyes-Pérez, J.J.; Chiquito-Contreras, R.G.; Rincon-Enriquez, G.; Cerdan-Cabrera, C.R.; Hernandez-Montiel, L.G. Biocontrol of postharvest fruit fungal diseases by bacterial antagonists: A review. Agronomy 2019, 9, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Dutta, S.; Lee, Y.H. High-throughput identification of genes influencing the competitive ability to obtain nutrients and performance of biocontrol in Pseudomonas putida JBC17. Sci. Rep. 2022, 8, 14336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Farda, B.; Djebaili, R.; Vaccarelli, I.; Del Gallo, M.; Pellegrini, M. Actinomycetes from caves: An overview of their diversity, biotechnological properties, and insights for their use in soil environments. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Köhl, J.; Kolnaar, R.; Ravensberg, W.J. Mode of action of microbial biological control agents against plant diseases: Relevance beyond efficacy. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Palla, M.S.; Guntuku, G.S.; Muthyala, M.K.K.; Pingali, S.; Sahu, P.K. Isolation and molecular characterization of antifungal metabolite producing actinomycete from mangrove soil. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, H.; Tian, R.; Tian, Q.; Yan, X.; Huang, L.; Ji, Z. Investigation on the antifungal ingredients of Saccharothrix yanglingensis Hhs. 015, an antagonistic endophytic actinomycete isolated from cucumber plant. Molecules 2019, 24, 3686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Zhang, D.; Lu, Y.; Chen, H.; Wu, C.; Zhang, H.; Chen, L.; Chen, X. Antifungal peptides produced by actinomycetes and their biological activities against plant diseases. J. Antibiot. 2020, 73, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Polyak, Y.M.; Sukharevich, V.I. Detection and regulation of antagonistic properties of the soil actinomycete Streptomyces sp. 89. Biol. Bull. 2021, 48, 626–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vázquez-Laslop, N.; Mankin, A.S. How macrolide antibiotics work. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2018, 43, 668–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hartmann, D.O.; Shimizu, K.; Rothkegel, M.; Petkovic, M.; Ferraz, R.; Petrovski, Ž.; Branco, L.C.; Lopes, J.N.C.; Pereira, C.S. Tailoring amphotericin B as an ionic liquid: An upfront strategy to potentiate the biological activity of antifungal drugs. RSC Adv. 2021, 11, 14441–14452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Young, D.H.; Wang, N.X.; Meyer, S.T.; Avila-Adame, C. Characterization of the mechanism of action of the fungicide fenpicoxamid and its metabolite UK-2A. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 489–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Meena, M.; Prajapati, P.; Ravichandran, C.; Sehrawat, R. Natamycin: A natural preservative for food applications-a review. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2021, 30, 1481–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sharma, S.; Fulke, A.B.; Chaubey, A. Bioprospection of marine actinomycetes: Recent advances, challenges and future perspectives. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 2019, 38, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ghosh, S.K.; Bera, T.; Chakrabarty, A.M. Microbial siderophore–A boon to agricultural sciences. Biol. Control 2020, 144, 104214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Roskova, Z.; Skarohlid, R.; McGachy, L. Siderophores: An alternative bioremediation strategy? Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 819, 153144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Retamal-Morales, G.; Senges, C.H.R.; Stapf, M.; Olguín, A.; Modak, B.; Bandow, J.E.; Tischler, D.; Schlömann, M.; Levicán, G. Isolation and characterization of arsenic-binding siderophores from Rhodococcus erythropolis S43: Role of heterobactin B and other heterobactin variants. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 105, 1731–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wu, Q.; Deering, R.W.; Zhang, G.; Wang, B.; Li, X.; Sun, J.; Chen, J.; Zhang, H.; Rowley, D.C.; Wang, H. Albisporachelin, a new hydroxamate type siderophore from the deep ocean sediment-derived actinomycete Amycolatopsis albispora WP1T. Mar. Drugs 2018, 16, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Hernández-Montiel, L.G.; Rivas-García, T.; Romero-Bastidas, M.; Chiquito-Contreras, C.J.; Ruiz-Espinoza, F.H.; Chiquito-Contreras, R.G. Antagonistic potential of bacteria and marine yeasts for the control of phytopathogenic fungi. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc. 2018, 9, 4311–4321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Mottola, A.; Ramírez-Zavala, B.; Hünniger, K.; Kurzai, O.; Morschhäuser, J. The zinc cluster transcription factor Czf1 regulates cell wall architecture and integrity in Candida albicans. Mol. Microbiol. 2021, 116, 483–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dimkić, I.; Janakiev, T.; Petrović, M.; Degrassi, G.; Fira, D. Plant-associated Bacillus and Pseudomonas antimicrobial activities in plant disease suppression via biological control mechanisms-A review. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2022, 117, 101754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jadhav, H.P.; Shaikh, S.S.; Sayyed, R.Z. Role of hydrolytic enzymes of rhizoflora in biocontrol of fungal phytopathogens. An overview. In Rhizotrophs: Plant Growth Promotion to Bioremediation; Mehnaz, S., Ed.; Microorganisms for Sustainability; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 183–203. ISBN 978-981-10-4862-3. [Google Scholar]
  52. del Rosario Cappellari, L.; Chiappero, J.; Banchio, E. Invisible signals from the underground: A practical method to investigate the effect of microbial volatile organic compounds emitted by rhizobacteria on plant growth. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2019, 47, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ayed, A.; Kalai-Grami, L.; Ben Slimene, I.; Chaouachi, M.; Mankai, H.; Karkouch, I.; Djebali, N.; Elkahoui, S.; Tabbene, O.; Limam, F. Antifungal activity of volatile organic compounds from Streptomyces sp. strain S97 against Botrytis cinerea. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2021, 31, 1330–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Widada, J.; Damayanti, E.; Alhakim, M.R.; Yuwono, T.; Mustofa, M. Two strains of airborne Nocardiopsis alba producing different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as biofungicide for Ganoderma boninense. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2021, 368, fnab138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alipour Kafi, S.; Karimi, E.; Akhlaghi Motlagh, M.; Amini, Z.; Mohammadi, A.; Sadeghi, A. Isolation and identification of Amycolatopsis sp. strain 1119 with potential to improve cucumber fruit yield and induce plant defense responses in commercial greenhouse. Plant Soil 2021, 468, 125–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yu, Y.; Gui, Y.; Li, Z.; Jiang, C.; Guo, J.; Niu, D. Induced systemic resistance for improving plant immunity by beneficial microbes. Plants 2022, 11, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Vilasinee, S.; Toanuna, C.; McGovern, R.J.; Nalumpang, S. Expression of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes in tomato against Fusarium wilt by challenge inoculation with Streptomyces NSP3. Int. J. Agric. Technol. 2019, 15, 157–170. [Google Scholar]
  58. Bizuneh, G.K. The chemical diversity and biological activities of phytoalexins. Tradit. Med. 2021, 21, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vijayabharathi, R.; Gopalakrishnan, S.; Sathya, A.; Vasanth Kumar, M.; Srinivas, V.; Mamta, S. Streptomyces sp. as plant growth-promoters and host-plant resistance inducers against Botrytis cinerea in chickpea. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2018, 28, 1140–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, Y.; He, F.; Guo, Q.; Feng, Z.; Zhang, M.; Ji, C.; Xue, Q.; Lai, H. Compositional and functional comparison on the rhizosphere microbial community between healthy and Sclerotium rolfsii-infected monkshood (Aconitum carmichaelii) revealed the biocontrol potential of healthy monkshood rhizosphere microorganisms. Biol. Control 2022, 165, 104790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ameen, F.; AlNadhari, S.; Al-Homaidan, A.A. Marine microorganisms as an untapped source of bioactive compounds. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vijayabharathi, R.; Gopalakrishnan, S.; Sathya, A.; Srinivas, V.; Sharma, M. Deciphering the tri-dimensional effect of endophytic Streptomyces sp. on chickpea for plant growth promotion, helper effect with Mesorhizobium ciceri and host-plant resistance induction against Botrytis cinerea. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 122, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Jing, T.; Zhou, D.; Zhang, M.; Yun, T.; Qi, D.; Wei, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zang, X.; Wang, W.; Xie, J. Newly isolated Streptomyces sp. JBS5-6 as a potential biocontrol agent to control banana Fusarium wilt: Genome sequencing and secondary metabolite cluster profiles. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 3036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jepsen, T.; Jensen, B.; Jørgensen, N.O.G. Volatiles produced by Streptomyces spp. delay rot in apples caused by Colletotrichum acutatum. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2022, 3, 100121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Buatong, J.; Rukachaisirikul, V.; Sangkanu, S.; Surup, F.; Phongpaichit, S. Antifungal metabolites from marine-derived Streptomyces sp. AMA49 against Pyricularia oryzae. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 13, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Uba, B.O.; Okoye, E.B.; Anyaeji, O.J.; Ogbonnaya, O.C. Antagonistic potentials of actinomycetes isolated from coastal area of Niger Delta against Citrus sinensis (Sweet Orange) and Lycopersicum esculentum (Tomato) fungal pathogens. Res. Rev. A J. Biotech. 2019, 9, 4–15. [Google Scholar]
  67. Torres-Rodriguez, J.; Reyes-Pérez, J.; Castellanos, T.; Angulo, C.; Quiñones-Aguilar, E.; Hernandez-Montiel, L. Identication and morphological characterization of marine actinomycetes as biocontrol agents of Fusarium solani in tomato. Rev. Fac. Agron. Univ. Zulia 2022, 39, e223915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wan, M.; Li, G.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, D.; Huang, H.C. Effect of volatile substances of Streptomyces platensis F-1 on control of plant fungal diseases. Biol. Control 2008, 46, 552–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shimizu, M.; Yazawa, S.; Ushijima, Y. A promising strain of endophytic Streptomyces sp. for biological control of cucumber anthracnose. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2009, 75, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gholami, M.; Khakvar, R.; AliasgarZad, N. Application of endophytic bacteria for controlling anthracnose disease (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) on bean plants. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2013, 46, 1831–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Goudjal, Y.; Toumatia, O.; Yekkour, A.; Sabaou, N.; Mathieu, F.; Zitouni, A. Biocontrol of Rhizoctonia solani damping-off and promotion of tomato plant growth by endophytic actinomycetes isolated from native plants of Algerian Sahara. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 169, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Malviya, N.; Yandigeri, M.S.; Yadav, A.K.; Solanki, M.K.; Arora, D.K. Isolation and characterization of novel alkali-halophilic actinomycetes from the Chilika brackish water lake, India. Ann. Microbiol. 2014, 64, 1829–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yandigeri, M.S.; Malviya, N.; Solanki, M.K.; Shrivastava, P.; Sivakumar, G. Chitinolytic Streptomyces vinaceusdrappus S5MW2 isolated from Chilika lake, India enhances plant growth and biocontrol efficacy through chitin supplementation against Rhizoctonia solani. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 31, 1217–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Lu, D.; Ma, Z.; Xu, X.; Yu, X. Isolation and identification of biocontrol agent Streptomyces rimosus M527 against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum. J. Basic Microbiol. 2016, 56, 929–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mingma, R.; Duangmal, K. Characterization, antifungal activity and plant growth promoting potential of endophytic actinomycetes isolated from rice (Oryza sativa L.). Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2018, 45, 2652–2665. [Google Scholar]
  76. Adlin Jenifer, J.S.C.; Michaelbabu, M.; Eswaramoorthy Thirumalaikumar, C.L.; Jeraldin Nisha, S.R.; Uma, G.; Citarasu, T. Antimicrobial potential of haloalkaliphilic Nocardiopsis sp. AJ1 isolated from solar salterns in India. J. Basic Microbiol. 2019, 59, 288–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hao, L.; Zheng, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, S.; Shang, C.; Xu, Y. Inhibition of tomato early blight disease by culture extracts of a Streptomyces puniceus isolate from mangrove soil. Phytopathology 2019, 109, 1149–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wonglom, P.; Suwannarach, N.; Lumyong, S.; Ito, S.; Matsui, K.; Sunpapao, A. Streptomyces angustmyceticus NR8-2 as a potential microorganism for the biological control of leaf spots of Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensis caused by Colletotrichum sp. and Curvularia lunata. Biol. Control 2019, 138, 104046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Benhadj, M.; Metrouh, R.; Menasria, T.; Gacemi-Kirane, D.; Slim, F.Z.; Ranque, S. Broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity of wetland-derived Streptomyces sp. ActiF450. Excli J. 2020, 19, 360–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cao, P.; Li, C.; Wang, H.; Yu, Z.; Xu, X.; Wang, X.; Zhao, J.; Xiang, W. Community structures and antifungal activity of root-associated endophytic actinobacteria in healthy and diseased cucumber plants and Streptomyces sp. HAAG3-15 as a promising biocontrol agent. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Ghadhban, W.I.; Abd Burghal, A. Identification of antibiotic producing actinomycetes isolated from sediment in Basra, Iraq. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 11, b92–b98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Peng, C.; An, D.; Ding, W.-X.; Zhu, Y.-X.; Ye, L.; Li, J. Fungichromin production by Streptomyces sp. WP-1, an endophyte from Pinus dabeshanensis, and its antifungal activity against Fusarium oxysporum. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 10437–10449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Abo-Zaid, G.; Abdelkhalek, A.; Matar, S.; Darwish, M.; Abdel-Gayed, M. Application of bio-friendly formulations of chitinase-producing Streptomyces cellulosae Actino 48 for controlling peanut soil-borne diseases caused by Sclerotium rolfsii. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Boukaew, S.; Cheirsilp, B.; Prasertsan, P.; Yossan, S. Antifungal effect of volatile organic compounds produced by Streptomyces salmonis PSRDC-09 against anthracnose pathogen Colletotrichum gloeosporioides PSU-03 in postharvest chili fruit. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 131, 1452–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Li, X.; Li, K.; Zhou, D.; Zhang, M.; Qi, D.; Jing, T.; Zang, X.; Qi, C.; Wang, W.; Xie, J. Biological control of banana wilt disease caused by Fusarium oxyspoum f. sp. Cubense using Streptomyces sp. H4. Biol. Control 2021, 155, 104524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ziedan, E.S.H. A review of the efficacy of biofumigation agents in the control of soil-borne plant diseases. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2022, 62, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. El-Tarabily, K.A.; Nassar, A.H.; Hardy, G.S.J.; Sivasithamparam, K. Plant growth promotion and biological control of Pythium aphanidermatum, a pathogen of cucumber, by endophytic actinomycetes. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 107, 1765–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Costa, F.G.; Zucchi, T.D.; Melo, I.S.D. Biological control of phytopathogenic fungi by endophytic actinomycetes isolated from maize (Zea mays L.). Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2013, 56, 948–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Singh, S.P.; Gupta, R.; Gaur, R.; Srivastava, A.K. Antagonistic actinomycetes mediated resistance in Solanum lycopersicon Mill. against Rhizoctonia solani Kühn. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 87, 789–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Anusha, B.G.; Gopalakrishnan, S.; Naik, M.K.; Sharma, M. Evaluation of Streptomyces spp. and Bacillus spp. for biocontrol of Fusarium wilt in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2019, 52, 417–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Barnett, S.J.; Ballard, R.A.; Franco, C.M. Field assessment of microbial inoculants to control Rhizoctonia root rot on wheat. Biol. Control 2019, 132, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Pathom-aree, W.; Kreawsa, S.; Kamjam, M.; Tokuyama, S.; Yoosathaporn, S.; Lumyong, S. Potential of selected mangrove Streptomyces as plant growth promoter and rice bakanae disease control agent. Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2019, 46, 261–276. [Google Scholar]
  93. Zhang, J.; Gao, Z.; Li, N.; Zhang, X. The antifungal activity of biocontrol actinomycetes G-1 against Alternaria radicina. J. Henan Agric. Sci. 2019, 48, 99–104. [Google Scholar]
  94. El-Shatoury, S.A.; Ameen, F.; Moussa, H.; Wahid, O.A.; Dewedar, A.; AlNadhari, S. Biocontrol of chocolate spot disease (Botrytis cinerea) in faba bean using endophytic actinomycetes Streptomyces: A field study to compare application techniques. PeerJ 2020, 8, e8582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Gu, L.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, N.; Li, X.; Liu, Z. Control of the rubber anthracnose fungus Colletotrichum gloeosporioides using culture filtrate extract from Streptomyces deccanensis QY-3. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2020, 113, 1573–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Saeed, I.; Khan, S.H.; Rasheed, A.; Jahangir, M.M.; Jabbar, A.; Shaheen, H.M.F.; Din, W.U.; Mazhar, K. Assessment of antagonistic potential of bacteria as biocontrol agent against Alternaria leaf spot of turnip. Pak. J. Phytopathol. 2021, 33, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Yao, X.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, J.; Wei, S.; Sun, X.; Chen, Y.; Liu, H.; Li, S. Candicidin isomer production is essential for biocontrol of cucumber Rhizoctonia rot by Streptomyces albidoflavus W68. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87, e03078-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Shewa, A.G.; Gobena, D.A.; Ali, M.K. Review on postharvest quality and handling of apple. J. Agric. Sci. Food Technol. 2022, 8, 028–032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Li, Y.; Xia, M.; He, P.; Yang, Q.; Wu, Y.; He, P.; Ahmed, A.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Munir, S.; et al. Developing Penicillium digitatum management strategies on post-harvest citrus fruits with metabolic components and colonization of Bacillus subtilis L1-21. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Sarkar, G.; Suthindhiran, K. Diversity and biotechnological potential of marine actinomycetes from India. Indian J. Microbiol. 2022, Vol., 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hu, X.; Cheng, B.; Du, D.; Huang, Z.; Pu, Z.; Chen, G.; Peng, A.; Lu, L. Isolation and identification of a marine actinomycete strain and its control efficacy against citrus green and blue moulds. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2019, 33, 719–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Najmeh, S.; Hosein, S.B.G.; Sareh, S.; Bonjar, L.S. Biological control of citrus green mould, Penicillium digitatum, by antifungal activities of Streptomyces isolates from agricultural soils. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 8, 1501–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Yong, D.; Wang, C.; Li, G.; Li, B. Control efficiency of endophytic actinomycetes A-1 against apple fruit ring rot and its influence on the activity of defense-related enzymes. Acta Phytophylacica Sin. 2014, 41, 335–341. [Google Scholar]
  104. Lyu, A.; Liu, H.; Che, H.; Yang, L.; Zhang, J.; Wu, M.; Chen, W.; Li, G. Reveromycins A and B from Streptomyces sp. 3-10: Antifungal activity against plant pathogenic fungi in vitro and in a strawberry food model system. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Boukaew, S.; Petlamul, W.; Bunkrongcheap, R.; Chookaew, T.; Kabbua, T.; Thippated, A.; Prasertsan, P. Fumigant activity of volatile compounds of Streptomyces philanthi RM-1-138 and pure chemicals (acetophenone and phenylethyl alcohol) against anthracnose pathogen in postharvest chili fruit. Crop Prot. 2018, 103, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Liotti, R.G.; da Silva Figueiredo, M.I.; Soares, M.A. Streptomyces griseocarneus R132 controls phytopathogens and promotes growth of pepper (Capsicum annuum). Biol. Control 2019, 138, 104065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Boukaew, S.; Petlamul, W.; Prasertsan, P. Comparison of the biocontrol efficacy of culture filtrate from Streptomyces philanthi RL-1-178 and acetic acid against Penicillium digitatum, in vitro and in vivo. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 158, 939–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kim, J.D.; Kang, J.E.; Kim, B.S. Postharvest disease control efficacy of the polyene macrolide lucensomycin produced by Streptomyces plumbeus strain CA5 against gray mold on grapes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 162, 111115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Nguyen, H.T.T.; Park, A.R.; Hwang, I.M.; Kim, J.C. Identification and delineation of action mechanism of antifungal agents: Reveromycin E and its new derivative isolated from Streptomyces sp. JCK-6141. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2021, 182, 111700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Chaurasia, A.; Meena, B.R.; Tripathi, A.N.; Pandey, K.K.; Rai, A.B.; Singh, B. Actinomycetes: An unexplored microorganisms for plant growth promotion and biocontrol in vegetable crops. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 34, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Lahdenperä, M.L.; Simon, E.; Uoti, J. Mycostop-a novel biofungicide based on Streptomyces bacteria. In Developments in Agricultural and Managed Forest Ecology; Beemster, A.B.R., Bollen, G.J., Gerlagh, M., Ruissen, M.A., Schippers, B., Tempel, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1991; Volume 23, pp. 258–263. [Google Scholar]
  112. Tian, X.; Zheng, Y. Evaluation of biological control agents for Fusarium wilt in Hiemalis begonia. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2013, 35, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kabaluk, J.T.; Svircev, A.M.; Goettel, M.S.; Woo, S.G. The Use and Regulation of Microbial Pesticides in Representative Jurisdiction Worldwide; IOBC Global: Hong Kong, China, 2010; p. 99. [Google Scholar]
  114. Okuyama, A.; Machiyama, N.; Kinoshita, T.; Tanaka, N. Inhibition by kasugamycin of initiation complex formation on 30S ribosomes. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1971, 43, 196–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Copping, L.G.; Duke, S.O. Natural products that have been used commercially as crop protection agents. Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 524–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Copping, L.G.; Menn, J.J. Biopesticides: A review of their action, applications and efficacy. Pest Manag. Sci. 2000, 56, 651–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 03201 g001 550
Figure 1. Main actinomycete antagonistic mechanisms to phytopathogenic fungi.
Figure 1. Main actinomycete antagonistic mechanisms to phytopathogenic fungi.
Plants 11 03201 g001
Plants 11 03201 g002 550
Figure 2. Antifungal activity (% growth inhibition *) in vitro of actinomycetes isolated from different environments [1,3,4,6,10,19,20,21,53,59,60,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85].
Figure 2. Antifungal activity (% growth inhibition *) in vitro of actinomycetes isolated from different environments [1,3,4,6,10,19,20,21,53,59,60,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85].
Plants 11 03201 g002
Plants 11 03201 g003 550
Figure 3. Antifungal activity (% growth inhibition *) of actinomycetes in vivo isolated from different environments [1,4,10,21,25,29,59,60,63,69,70,71,73,74,77,78,80,83,85,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97].
Figure 3. Antifungal activity (% growth inhibition *) of actinomycetes in vivo isolated from different environments [1,4,10,21,25,29,59,60,63,69,70,71,73,74,77,78,80,83,85,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97].
Plants 11 03201 g003
Table
Table 1. Antagonistic mechanisms of actinomycetes for the control of phytopathogenic fungi.
Table 1. Antagonistic mechanisms of actinomycetes for the control of phytopathogenic fungi.
ActinomycetePhytopathogenHostIn Vivo InhibitionAntagonistic
Mechanisms		Reference
Streptomyces sp.Colletotrichum fragariaeStrawberry100%Secondary metabolites[19]
S. sampsoniiSclerotinia sclerotiorumGreen bean100%Secondary metabolites[11]
Streptomyces sp.Ralstonia solanacearumTomato97%Induction of host resistance[13]
S. sichuanensisFusarium oxysporumBanana51%Siderophores[25]
Amycolatopsis sp.F. graminearumMaize79%Lytic enzyme[26]
Arthrobacter humicolaA. alternataTomato31%Secondary metabolites[27]
Nocardiopsis dassonvilleiBipolaris sorokinianaWheat72%Siderophores and lytic enzyme[28]
S. rameusR. bataticolaBean70%Siderophores and lytic enzyme[10]
S. globisporousR. solaniTomato50%Induction of host resistance[29]
Table
Table 2. Commercial products based in actinomycetes.
Table 2. Commercial products based in actinomycetes.
Commercial ProductActinomyceteRegistered CountriesPhytopathogen Species/Target DiseaseMain EffectsReference
MycostopS. griseoviridsCanada, UE countries, and USAAlternaria, R. solani, Fusarium, Botrytis, Phytophthora, and PythiumSpace and nutrient competence and produces polyenic antibiotics [111]
ActinovateS. lydicusCanada and USAPythium, Fusarium, Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia, and Verticillium, powdery and downy mildew, and Botrytis, Alternaria, Geotrichum, and SclerotiniaInduces resistance in plants and produces extracellular chitinases[112]
Mycocide KIBCS. colombiensisSouth KoreaPowdery mildews, grey mold, and brown patchProduces enzymes and antibiotics [113]
Safegrow KIBCS. kasugaensisSouth KoreaSheath blight and large patchProduces enzymes and antibiotics [113]
Kasugamycin, KasuminS. kasugaensisUkraineLeaf spot, scab, and root rot Inhibit protein biosynthesis [114]
Agrimycin, Paushak, Cuprimicin 17, Astrepto 17S. griseusIndia, USA, New Zealand, China, Ukraine and CanadaBacterial rots, Xanthomona, and Pseudomonas Inhibit protein biosynthesis[112]
Polyoxorim (Endorse, Polyoxin Z and Stopit)S. cacaoi var. asoensisUE countriesSphaerotheca, powdery mildews, Botrytis, Sclerotium, Corynespora, Cochliobolus, Alternaria, sheath blight, and HelminthosporiumInhibit cell wall biosynthesis and causes abnormal spore germ tube swelling and hypha points[115]
Validacin, Valimun, Dantotsupadanvalida, Mycin Hustler, ValidaS. hygroscopicus-RhizoctoniaInhibit trehalase in Rhizoctonia [116]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Torres-Rodriguez, J.A.; Reyes-Pérez, J.J.; Quiñones-Aguilar, E.E.; Hernandez-Montiel, L.G. Actinomycete Potential as Biocontrol Agent of Phytopathogenic Fungi: Mechanisms, Source, and Applications. Plants 2022, 11, 3201. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233201

AMA Style

Torres-Rodriguez JA, Reyes-Pérez JJ, Quiñones-Aguilar EE, Hernandez-Montiel LG. Actinomycete Potential as Biocontrol Agent of Phytopathogenic Fungi: Mechanisms, Source, and Applications. Plants. 2022; 11(23):3201. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233201

Chicago/Turabian Style

Torres-Rodriguez, Juan A., Juan J. Reyes-Pérez, Evangelina E. Quiñones-Aguilar, and Luis G. Hernandez-Montiel. 2022. "Actinomycete Potential as Biocontrol Agent of Phytopathogenic Fungi: Mechanisms, Source, and Applications" Plants 11, no. 23: 3201. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233201

APA Style

Torres-Rodriguez, J. A., Reyes-Pérez, J. J., Quiñones-Aguilar, E. E., & Hernandez-Montiel, L. G. (2022). Actinomycete Potential as Biocontrol Agent of Phytopathogenic Fungi: Mechanisms, Source, and Applications. Plants, 11(23), 3201. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233201

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop