Next Article in Journal
Toxin Production by Stachybotrys chartarum Genotype S on Different Culture Media
Next Article in Special Issue
Interactive Impact of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Elevated CO2 on Growth and Functional Food Value of Thymus vulgare
Previous Article in Journal
Sporulation in Ashbya gossypii
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Antibacterial Activity of Pestalotiopsis spp. under Different Culture Conditions and Their Chemical Diversity Using LC–ESI–Q–TOF–MS
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 6
Issue 3
10.3390/jof6030158
jof-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

Antagonistic Yeasts: A Promising Alternative to Chemical Fungicides for Controlling Postharvest Decay of Fruit

by
Xiaokang Zhang
1,2,†,
Boqiang Li
1,†,
Zhanquan Zhang
1,
Yong Chen
1 and
Shiping Tian
1,2,*
1
Key Laboratory of Plant Resources, Institute of Botany, Innovative Academy of Seed Design, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China
2
College of Life Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Fungi 2020, 6(3), 158; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030158
Submission received: 12 July 2020 / Revised: 23 August 2020 / Accepted: 28 August 2020 / Published: 31 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungi and Fungal Metabolites for the Improvement of Human and Animal Nutrition and Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fruit plays an important role in human diet. Whereas, fungal pathogens cause huge losses of fruit during storage and transportation, abuse of chemical fungicides leads to serious environmental pollution and endangers human health. Antagonistic yeasts (also known as biocontrol yeasts) are promising substitutes for chemical fungicides in the control of postharvest decay owing to their widespread distribution, antagonistic ability, environmentally friendly nature, and safety for humans. Over the past few decades, the biocontrol mechanisms of antagonistic yeasts have been extensively studied, such as nutrition and space competition, mycoparasitism, and induction of host resistance. Moreover, combination of antagonistic yeasts with other agents or treatments were developed to improve the biocontrol efficacy. Several antagonistic yeasts are used commercially. In this review, the application of antagonistic yeasts for postharvest decay control is summarized, including the antagonistic yeast species and sources, antagonistic mechanisms, commercial applications, and efficacy improvement. Issues requiring further study are also discussed.

1. Introduction

As an important part of the human diet, fruit provides the body with beneficial vitamins, minerals, organic acids, and antioxidants. Fruits have been shown to have many health-related effects, such as anti-cancer effects, skin protecting effects, and postponing of senescence [1,2,3,4]. As orchards are usually far away from urban areas, and the fruit maturity occurs in a relatively short period, leading to a disparity between supply and demand in the market, which necessitates a certain period of storage and transportation to adjust for this disparity. However, postharvest spoilage, which involves rot, nutrient loss, and water content loss, occurs most often during storage and transportation, which leads to considerable economic losses. It has been reported that about 25% of total fruit production is wasted after harvest in developed countries, and the postharvest losses in developing countries account for >50% of total fruit production because of lack of efficient transportation and refrigeration facilities [5].
Fungi are the main cause of postharvest spoilage. Fruit rot can be induced by wound generated during harvesting, packaging, storage, and transportation, as well as the favorable growth conditions for pathogens (e.g., high water and nutrient content, low pH, and decreased resistance after harvest) [6]. During the process of infection, many fungi produce mycotoxins, which may enter the food chain via fresh and processed fruit products and then endanger human health. For example, Penicillium expansum, which causes blue mold in many fruits, leads to not only fruit decay but also the contamination of patulin, a teratogenic, carcinogenic, and immunotoxic mycotoxin [7]. Chemical fungicides have long been used to control postharvest decay. However, overdependence on traditional chemical fungicides has resulted in a variety of problems, such as fungicide residues, environmental pollution, and increased pathogen resistance to fungicides. Therefore, identifying safe and effective approaches to control postharvest fungal disease is urgent.
Since Gutter and Littauer first reported the use of Bacillus subtilis to combat citrus fruit pathogens in 1953, the biocontrol capability of microorganisms against postharvest decay has attracted widespread attention [8,9]. Among the various microbial antagonists, yeast and yeast-like fungi occupy an important position as they are environmentally friendly, exhibit good biocontrol efficacy against pathogens, possess adequate stress tolerance, and can potentially be genetically improved; additionally, there is a well-developed system for culturing, fermentation, storage, and handling of these antagonistic yeasts [10]. Moreover, yeasts have been used in food and beverage production for thousands of years and currently play an important role in the food industry. Thus, the utilization of yeasts is generally considered safe, and easily acceptable by market. With the great properties and application superiority, antagonistic yeasts are considered as a promising alternate to synthetic chemical fungicides [5,9]. Over the past few decades, great progresses have been made in biological control based on antagonistic yeasts, including strain isolation and screening, mode of action, improvement of biocontrol efficacy, and formulation. Particularly, several antagonistic yeasts with excellent biocontrol performance have been developed and registered as commercial products. Nonetheless, the widespread use of yeast antagonists to manage postharvest diseases still faces many challenges. A deeper understanding of the mode of action of antagonistic yeasts in postharvest biocontrol system is still needed; the inconsistency of performance of antagonistic yeasts under commercial conditions need be overcome; the market penetration of products is difficult.
Here, a comprehensive overview of the applications of antagonistic yeasts in postharvest decay control is presented, including the features of antagonistic yeasts, antagonistic mechanisms, efficacy improvement, and commercial applications. The latest research results are highlighted, and issues requiring further study are also discussed.

2. Features of Antagonistic Yeasts

Yeasts are a group of eukaryotic fungi, most of which are unicellular and reproduce by budding [11]. There are also a variety of phylogenetically different groups of yeast-like fungi, such as Aureobasidium pullulans. Antagonistic yeasts (also known as biocontrol yeasts) refers to yeast or yeast-like fungi that can inhibit or interfere with the growth, development, reproduction, or activity of phytopathogens. Wilson and Wisniewski summarized the criteria for the selection of ideal biocontrol agents in 1989 [12]. With the extensive research on antagonistic yeasts, the screening criteria for antagonistic yeasts have gradually improved [13]. An ideal antagonistic yeast should be genetically stable, have simple nutrient requirements, be effective in adverse environmental conditions and at low concentrations, and be effective against multiple fungal pathogens on various fruits [6,9]. Moreover, an antagonistic yeast should have favorable commercial potential: It should be able to grow on an inexpensive growth medium, be easy to store and dispense, and be compatible with other physical and chemical treatments (e.g., controlled atmosphere, low/high temperature, chemical fungicides/pesticides, and phytohormones [5]. As for biosafety, a desirable antagonistic yeast would be environmentally friendly, have no pathogenicity regarding the host fruits, produce no metabolites that are harmful to humans, and be unable to cause infection in humans [5,9].
The isolation and screening process is the first step in the development of a biocontrol agent. Most antagonistic yeasts were isolated directly from fruit surfaces [14,15], but they have a wider distribution in nature, such as on leaves and roots and in seawater and soil (even Antarctic soil) [16,17,18,19,20]. So far, a large number of antagonistic yeasts have been isolated and screened. Some of them have been widely studied, such as Candida spp., Cryptococcus spp., Metschnikowia spp., Pichia spp., Rhodotorula spp., and yeast-like fungus A. pullulans, and several species, such as Candida oleophila, Candida sake, Metschnikowia fructicola, A. pullulans, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and Cryptococcus albidus, have been developed as commercial products [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. They have been demonstrated to antagonize common postharvest pathogens, including Botrytis cinerea, Penicillium spp., Rhizopus stolonifer, Colletotrichum spp., Monilinia fructicola, Alternaria alternata, and Aspergillus niger. Representative antagonistic yeasts that were isolated from various sources and are used for the management of postharvest diseases are shown in Figure 1.

3. Mechanisms of Action

Elucidating the mechanisms of action is the foundation for the development and application of antagonistic yeasts [29]. Compared with the impressive results achieved regarding the identification of antagonistic yeasts, the study of their mechanisms of action is relatively slow due to the complexity of the postharvest biocontrol system. In this system, the antagonistic yeasts, pathogenic fungi, and fruit hosts interact with each other under the influence of the environment, and the influence of the epiphytic microbiome should also be taken into consideration (Figure 2) [12,29,30,31].
The antagonistic yeasts are likely to function via multiple mechanisms, including competition for nutrients and space, mycoparasitism, induction of host resistance, production of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and toxins [9,10,31]. With the increase in the number of annotated yeast genomes and the development of “omics” technologies and transformation technologies, the modes of action of antagonistic yeasts will be further deciphered in the near future [32,33,34].

3.1. Competition for Nutrients and Space

Both postharvest pathogens and antagonistic yeasts require nutrients (e.g., carbohydrates and nitrogen) and space to colonize and develop. Therefore, the competition for nutrients and space has been considered the primary mode by which antagonistic yeasts suppress postharvest fungal pathogens [5,29]. Once the antagonistic yeasts come into contact with the surface of the injured fruit, they will occupy the wounds and rapidly deplete the nutrients, which limits the germination of fungal spores [35,36]. After that, other mechanisms of action (besides the competition for nutrition and space) cooperatively come into operation to control the postharvest pathogens [8].
Carbon, nitrogen, and iron ions are the main nutrients needed for the growth of microbes. Compared with carbohydrates, nitrogen is considered to be a key factor limiting the growth of postharvest fruit pathogens, because most fruits are rich in sugar but limited in nitrogen sources such as amino acids. The application of exogenous amino acids reduced the antagonistic effect of the yeast A. pullulans against Penicillium expansum on apple fruit, indicating the importance of nitrogen competition to biocontrol efficacy [37]. Moreover, iron plays a crucial role in the growth and virulence of pathogens. Iron is a component of cytochromes, other heme proteins, and non-heme proteins; it is also a cofactor of various enzymes in fungal cells [9,38]. The yeast Metschnikowia pulcherrima can produce iron chelators to compete for the iron required by pathogens, thus strongly inhibiting the growth of the pathogens [39]. Parafati et al. also proposed that the consumption of iron ions plays an important role in the biocontrol effect of M. pulcherrima [40]. Some antagonistic yeasts can also produce siderophores to compete for iron in a low-iron microenvironment, thus inhibiting the germination and growth of pathogens. For example, rhodotorulic acid is a dihydroxamate siderophore produced by Rhodotorula glutinis that improves the biocontrol against P. expansum [41]. Siderophores produced by A. pullulans plays an important role in yeast growth and pathogen inhibition under iron deficiency environment [13,42].
Biofilms are dense microbial communities attached on fruit surfaces, and encapsulated by polymeric extracellular matrix (ECM) [43]. Formation of biofilm is considered as another strategy utilized by antagonistic yeasts to compete for space and nutrient [10,44]. Scherm et al. found that the biofilm formation of S. cerevisiae M25 was directly related to its biocontrol effect, with only the S. cerevisiae cells collected during the biofilm formation phase effectively controlling P. expansum on apples [45]. Biofilm formation has also been hypothesized to be a key mechanism of action of Metschnikowia citriensis against Penicillium digitatum and Penicillium italicum on citrus fruit [46]. Notably, it was reported that Pichia fermentans formed biofilms and inhibited postharvest decay in apple fruits but caused rapid decay in peach fruits in the absence of a plant pathogen [47], indicating the potential risk of dimorphic antagonistic yeast becoming pathogens.

3.2. Mycoparasitism

Mycoparasitism refers to the phenomenon of antagonistic yeasts feeding on fungal pathogens via attaching to the fungal pathogen hyphae and then secreting cell wall-degrading enzymes to destroy or lyse the fungal structures. Especially in the case of nutritional deficiencies, antagonistic yeasts tend to absorb nutrients from pathogenic cells, leading to the death of these “prey” cells. During mycoparasitism, a variety of enzymes are involved in the degradation of the fungal pathogen cell wall, especially β-1,3-glucanase (GLU), chitinase (CHT), and proteases [29], and these secreted enzymes are thought to play an important role in biocontrol [48]. Wisniewski et al. first reported the mycoparasitism of Pichia guilliermondii [49]. They observed that the yeast strongly adhered to the B. cinerea mycelium and caused hyphal collapse, which was presumably due to a lectin-like interaction. It has also been reported that both Pichia membranefaciens and C. albidus can attach to and degrade the hyphae of P. expansum, M. fructicola, and R. stolonifer [50]. Banani et al. found that the chitinase gene, MfChi, of the yeast M. fructicola was significantly induced by cell wall of the postharvest pathogen M. fructicola, and MfChi-overexpressing Pichia pastoris inhibited the brown rot of peach fruits [51]. In C. oleophila, GLU was demonstrated to be associated with inhibiting conidial germination and hyphal growth of P. expansum [52].

3.3. Induction of Host Resistance

Induction of host resistance, as one of the major mechanism of antagonistic yeasts for postharvest decay control in fruits, has also been extensively studied [53,54]. Antagonistic yeasts have been reported to act as biological elicitors in the interactions with fruit hosts [29,48]. Treatment with antagonistic yeasts can increase the expression of defense-related genes and enhance the activities of defense-related enzymes. Strongly induced activities of defense-related enzymes, such as CHT, GLU, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL), and peroxidase (POD), have been reported to be responsible for the biocontrol efficacy of Cryptococcus laurentii on postharvest decay caused by A. alternata, M. fructicola, and P. expansum [55,56,57]. Chan et al. found that the antagonistic yeast P. membranaefaciens could induce the activities of three pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins, which may contribute to the resistance improvement of peach fruit to P. expansum [33]. Similarly, induced expression of defense-related genes and the activities of defense-related enzymes by W. anomalus were considered as one of the possible mechanisms in inhibiting blue mold decay caused by P. expansum in pears [58].
Moreover, application of antagonistic yeasts can enhance activity of antioxidant enzymes, which may alleviate oxidative damage cause by reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by hosts in response to pathogen infection. P. membranaefaciens has been reported to affect the activities of antioxidant enzymes, including POD, catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GPX), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and polyphenol oxidase (PPO), in peaches and sweet cherry fruits after inoculation with P. expansum [33,59]. Additionally, four antagonistic yeasts (P. membranaefaciens, C. laurentii, Candida guilliermondii, and R. glutinis) have been reported to increase the activities of POD and CAT, upregulate the expression of the corresponding genes, and reduce the levels of protein carbonylation in peach fruits caused by M. fructicola [60].
Antagonistic yeasts can also induce changes in secondary metabolites and cell structure related to disease resistance. Droby et al. found that the application of C. oleophila increased the levels of the phytoalexins umbelliferone, scoparone, and scopoletin in grape fruit peels [61]. El-Ghaouth et al. found that the antagonistic yeast Candida saitoana could induce host cell deformation, generate mastoid structures, and consequently inhibit B. cinerea infection [62].
Multiple mechanisms may be simultaneously involved in the resistance induction by antagonistic yeasts. For example, several antagonistic yeasts, such as C. laurentii [63], P. membranaefaciens [33], P. guilliermondii [64], R. glutinis [60], and R. paludigenum [25], induced changes in activities of both defense-related enzymes and antioxidant enzymes in fruit. Induction of disease resistance by antagonistic yeasts is also affected by pathogens and environmental conditions. As shown in Figure 2, there are complex interactions between the hosts, pathogens, antagonistic yeasts, and environment, which remains to be elucidated.

3.4. Production of VOCs and Killer Toxins

Compared to filamentous fungi, yeasts have a lower secretory capacity and produce only few secondary metabolites. Nevertheless, VOCs and killer toxins are metabolites that have been reported to exhibit antifungal activity.
VOCs are volatile compounds with low molecular weight (<300 Da), low polarity, and high vapor pressure. Some antagonistic yeasts can produce VOCs, and the mixture of VOCs has been proposed to play an important role in the control of postharvest pathogens under airtight conditions [48,65]. It was reported that Candida intermedia 410 inhibited the growth of B. cinerea on strawberries by releasing VOCs without direct contact; the absorption of VOCs by activated carbon abolished the biocontrol activity of C. intermedia 410 [16]. Two strains of A. pullulans (L1 and L8) have been reported to produce VOCs to inhibit the growth and infection of postharvest pathogens, including B. cinerea, Colletotrichum acutatum, and Penicillium spp. [66]. Moreover, VOCs have been reported to suppress the mycelial growth, sporulation, and ochratoxin A biosynthesis of Aspergillus carbonarius and Aspergillus ochraceus [67,68]. VOCs are considered to be potential biological fumigants because of their volatility, which allows them to control postharvest decay without direct contact with the edible commodities. Contarino et al. found that the main VOCs emitted by common antagonistic yeasts include ethyl alcohol, phenylethyl alcohol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, ethyl acetate, and isoamyl acetate [69]. However, VOCs produced by Muscodor albus have been reported to cause DNA damage and cytotoxicity in bacterial cells, indicating that some VOCs may be toxic [70]. Therefore, the safety of VOCs should be thoroughly evaluated in future studies.
Several toxins have been reported to be able to control postharvest pathogens, and proteinaceous killer toxins are the most prominent antifungal toxins produced by yeasts [10]. Killer toxins provide a competitive advantage to yeasts, and they can kill fungi (including other yeasts) by a variety of mechanisms, including hydrolyzation of the cell wall, destruction of the cell structure, and inhibition of DNA synthesis [71]. Yeast strains with a particular killer phenotype are immune to their own killer toxins and those in the same class while being lethal to other yeast strains [71]. Owing to this characteristic, killer toxins have long been used in the wine industry to control spoilage yeasts. As natural antifungal proteins, killer toxins are environmentally friendly, nontoxic to mammals, have a good acid tolerance, and have a low probability of inducing resistance. Therefore, killer toxins have been proposed as potential biocontrol agents. Killer toxins produced by Wickerhamomyces anomalus BS91 are encoded by the genes WaEXG1 and WaEXG2, showed exoglucanase activity, and associated with biocontrol capabilities against B. cinerea, P. digitatum, P. italicum, Monilinia fructigena, and M. fructicola [40,72,73,74,75]. P. membranaefaciens was found to produce killer toxins PMKT and PMKT2 that target (1→6)-β-D-glucans and mannoproteins in pathogen cell walls and thereby inhibit the growth of postharvest pathogens [76]. Moreover, killer toxins produced by Debaryomyces hansenii have been reported to suppress human pathogenic Candida yeasts, but only within a certain temperature and pH range, indicating the influence of environmental factors on the antifungal activity of killer toxins [77]. Furthermore, the effects of yeast killer toxins on beneficial microorganisms need to be further evaluated, especially regarding microorganisms in the phyllosphere, on edible commodities, and in the human gut.

4. Constraints on the Application of Antagonistic Yeasts, Improvement of Their Biocontrol Efficacy, and Commercial Application

4.1. Constraints on the Application of Antagonistic Yeasts

Over the past few decades, numerous yeasts with antifungal properties have been identified, but only a few have been developed as commercial antifungal products. This has mainly been due to the fact that besides having excellent biocontrol efficacy, for commercial application, an antagonistic yeast needs to meet additional requirements. Many commercial factors restrict the development and commercialization of antagonistic yeasts, including the immature commercialization technology, high development costs, small postharvest market, and low market acceptance [8,78]. Furthermore, as the utilization of antagonistic yeasts to control postharvest decay is an emerging industry, the research on antagonistic yeasts remains insufficient. In particular, although many studies have reported on the biocontrol mechanisms of antagonistic yeasts, the specific mechanisms require further clarification.
Biosafety is one of the main reasons for using antagonistic yeasts instead of chemical fungicides. Most of the identified antagonistic yeasts have been directly isolated from the surface of fruits, and humans are already exposed to these yeasts when they eat fresh fruits and vegetables in their daily lives, so there is often less concern about the biosafety of antagonistic yeasts. However, some yeasts may be the origin of human infection under rare circumstances [79,80,81]. Therefore, the biosafety of antagonistic yeasts, including their safety related to skin irritation and ingestion, needs to be fully evaluated. Registration is also an obstacle to the commercialization of many antagonistic yeasts. Biocontrol agents must be approved by relevant regulatory agencies before commercial application. Compared with synthetic chemical fungicides, the registration of an antagonistic yeast is less costly and time-consuming, but it is still a factor to be considered in the development process. The registration of an antagonistic yeast requires an accredited safety assessment report and biocontrol efficacy data. Furthermore, the difficulty of registration varies in different regions. For example, the registration of biocontrol agents in the United States takes an average of 2 years, while in Europe, it takes about 7 years [6]. In China, with government incentives, the registration of biocontrol agents takes about 2–3 years.
Compared with chemical fungicides, antagonistic yeasts still need to be improved in many respects, which also limits their commercialization and market acceptance. Antagonistic yeasts are more expensive than chemical fungicides and are inconvenient to use. Moreover, an ideal biocontrol agent for controlling postharvest decay of fruits and vegetables must be highly effective (>95%) [31]. However, according to the reported researches so far, the biocontrol efficacy using antagonistic yeast alone cannot reach the level demonstrated by chemical fungicides. In addition, the biocontrol efficacy of antagonistic yeasts regarding postharvest decay depends on the high activity and reproductive capacity of the yeasts. In addition, there are issues associated with the use of many antagonistic yeasts, such as their unstable antifungal activity, short shelf life, and strict required storage conditions.

4.2. Improvement of the Biocontrol Efficacy

As mentioned above, the use of antagonistic yeast alone to prevent postharvest decay is generally inferior to the use of chemical fungicides. Therefore, while identifying new high-efficacy yeast strains, researchers are also constantly searching for effective ways to strengthen the biocontrol efficacy of existing antagonistic yeasts. The combined use of biological control and physical or chemical methods is an effective way to improve the biocontrol efficacy. For example, hot water treatment (HWT) by immersing fruit in a circulating water bath at 42 °C for 40 min improved the biocontrol efficacy of the antagonistic yeasts C. guilliermondii and P. membranaefaciens without affecting their growth [82].
Salicylic acid (SA) is an important hormone in plants that is related to the induction of the plant response against pathogens [54]. Qin et al. found that SA treatment increased the antagonism of R. glutinis against P. expansum and A. alternata in sweet cherry fruits [83]. SA at low concentrations increased the activities of defense-related enzymes but had little effect on the growth of the yeast and the two pathogens. This indicated that the biocontrol efficacy enhanced by SA may be related to the triggering of host resistance. The ability of SA to enhance the biocontrol efficacy of biocontrol microbes has been demonstrated in many yeast species [84,85,86]. Methyl jasmonate (MeJA) is another phytohormone that can induce host defense responses [74]. MeJA has also been reported to improve the biocontrol effects of antagonistic yeasts [87,88].
Moreover, it has been reported that exogenous application of brassinosteroids or nitric oxide can induce plant host resistance [89,90], but their synergistic effects when used with antagonistic yeasts remain to be studied. Many natural plant extracts can inhibit the growth and development of pathogenic fungi, such as methyl thujate [91,92], hinokitiol [93], and cinnamic acid [94]. Li et al. reported that cinnamic acid improved the biocontrol efficacy of C. laurentii [95], which indicates the potential of combined application of natural plant extracts with antagonistic yeasts for controlling postharvest pathogens. Several other microbial metabolites, such as epsilon-polylysine, natamycin, and rapamycin, have been reported to control postharvest pathogens [96,97,98], and the combined application of microbial metabolites with antagonistic yeasts is worth exploring.
The use of certain chemical reagents or other antifungal methods can also enhance the biocontrol efficacy of antagonistic yeasts. For example, CaCl2 has been reported to enhance the efficacy of antagonistic yeasts [99,100,101]. Additionally, chitosan has antifungal properties and can induce host defense responses, and multiple studies have shown that chitosan can enhance the biocontrol efficacy of antagonistic yeasts such as C. saitoana [102], C. laurentii [103], and P. membranaefaciens [104]. Furthermore, inorganic salts (e.g., ammonium molybdate, sodium bicarbonate, and trisodium phosphate) [105,106,107], minerals (e.g., silicon and boron) [108,109], and sugar protectants (e.g., maltose and lactose) [110] have been reported to enhance the biocontrol efficacy of antagonistic yeasts. It has also been reported that the use of a combination of an antagonistic yeast and a low-dose chemical fungicide can achieve a similar biocontrol efficacy to the use of the fungicide alone at a commercial dosage, which is considered to be an effective method to reduce fungicide use [14].
The mixed application of various antagonistic yeasts is also considered to be an effective way to broaden the antifungal spectrum of biocontrol reagents and to enhance the biocontrol efficacy. Calvo et al. found that the combined application of R. glutinis and C. laurentii improved their ability to control gray mold on apples [111]. However, it should be noted that compatibility between mixed antagonistic yeasts is necessary to ensure that their normal growth and function are maintained. Moreover, Zhao et al. reported that the heterologous expression of flagellin in S. cerevisiae significantly induced resistance in the host plant and improved the biocontrol efficacy of the yeast against B. cinerea, which suggests that the heterologous expression of elicitors in yeasts may be an effective strategy to improve the biocontrol efficacy [112].

4.3. Commercial Application

The commercialization of an antagonistic yeast is a long and costly process requiring extensive testing of toxicology and biocontrol efficacy under commercial conditions. Encouragingly, over the past few decades, a few antagonistic yeasts have been developed and commercialized (Table 1). Aspire (based on C. oleophila) and YieldPlus (based on C. albidus) are the first-generation commercial antagonistic yeasts [27]. They were available on the market for several years, but they have now been withdrawn due to reasons such as difficulties in market development, low profitability, and inconsistent and low efficacy under commercial conditions [29]. After that, Nexy (another product based on C. oleophila) was developed for controlling decay on pome, citrus, and banana, and it was approved for registration throughout the European Union in 2013. Shemer (based on M. fructicola) was originally registered in Israel and was successfully used for managing pre- and postharvest diseases on various fruits and vegetables [113]. It was subsequently acquired by Bayer CropScience (Germany) and then sublicensed to Koppert Biological Systems (the Netherlands) to expand its sales [114]. Moreover, Bio-ferm, an Austrian company, developed two products based on A. pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941, Blossom Protect (Boni-Protect) and Botector. With the mode of action of competition for nutrients and space, Blossom Protect is used to control postharvest decay caused by several fungal pathogens in pome fruit, while Botector is mainly used against gray mold in grape, strawberry, and tomato.

5. Conclusions and Perspectives

The environmental pollution and health hazards caused by chemical fungicides have attracted increasing attention from regulatory agencies and consumers, and there is now global interest in reducing or eliminating the use of chemical fungicides. As a potential substitute for chemical fungicides, antagonistic yeasts have been extensively studied over the past few decades, and considerable progress has been made regarding the identification and development of antagonistic yeasts. However, so far, the use of antagonistic yeast alone is still insufficient to completely replace chemical fungicides. There remain many aspects of antagonistic yeasts that could be improved, even for the few commercially available antagonistic yeasts.
Although the application of antagonistic yeasts is limited by many obstacles, there is still great potential for their improvement and development. Due to the regulatory restrictions on chemical fungicides and the declining consumer acceptance of them, it is foreseeable that the use of chemical fungicides will be gradually decreased or even discontinued. The reduction in available products on the market and the increasing demand for safe and effective antifungal products provide opportunities for the development of antagonistic yeast products. The biocontrol efficacy of antagonistic yeasts could be further improved in the future through a variety of strategies, such as combining an antagonistic yeast with a chemical or physical treatment, using multiple antagonistic yeasts, and genetically altering antagonistic yeasts. Moreover, the advancement of molecular biotechnologies and the emergence of “omics” technologies are providing powerful tools for the development and application of antagonistic yeasts.
To promote the commercial application of antagonistic yeasts, efforts can be made in the following aspects: (a) the full verification of biosafety; (b) the in-depth exploration of the involved mechanisms of action; (c) the enhancement and maintenance of biocontrol efficacy under commercial conditions; (d) the development of broad-spectrum antifungal products; (e) the extension of shelf-life; (f) the control of cost and the development of the market; and (g) the understanding of the complex interactions between the components of the biocontrol system, including the antagonistic yeast, pathogen, host, natural microbiome, and environment. Furthermore, gene editing has been considered to be a potentially effective strategy to improve the performance of antagonistic yeasts, though genetically modified microorganisms (GMOs) are restricted due to government policies and low consumer acceptance at present.

Author Contributions

S.T. designed the manuscript content; X.Z. and B.L. wrote the manuscript under the coordination of S.T.; Z.Z. and Y.C. provided some data. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (31930086; 31530057; 31722043) and The National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFD0400902).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Diane, F.; Ziegler, R.G.; Michaud, D.S.; Giovannucci, E.L.; Speizer, F.E.; Willett, W.C.; Colditz, G.A. Prospective study of fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of lung cancer among men and women. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000, 92, 1812–1823. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zakrevskii, V.V. Fruit in The Prevention of Cancer. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 2018, 9, 7099–7101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Choi, M.; Jo, H.; Kim, M.; Kang, M.; Shin, H. Fruit juice supplementation alters human skin antioxidant levels in vivo: Case study of Korean adults by resonance Raman spectroscopy. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2018, 23, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shin, S.; Son, D.; Kim, M.; Lee, S.; Roh, K.B.; Ryu, D.; Lee, J.; Jung, E.; Park, D. Ameliorating effect of Akebia quinata fruit extracts on skin aging induced by advanced glycation end products. Nutrients 2015, 7, 9337–9352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Liu, J.; Sui, Y.; Wisniewski, M.; Droby, S.; Liu, Y. Review: Utilization of antagonistic yeasts to manage postharvest fungal diseases of fruit. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 167, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nunes, C.A. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruit. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 133, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, Y.; Peng, H.; Wang, X.; Li, B.; Long, M.; Tian, S. Biodegradation mechanisms of patulin in Candida guilliermondii: An iTRAQ-based proteomic analysis. Toxins 2017, 9, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Droby, S.; Wisniewski, M.; Macarisin, D.; Wilson, C. Twenty years of postharvest biocontrol research: Is it time for a new paradigm? Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dukare, A.S.; Paul, S.; Nambi, V.E.; Gupta, R.K.; Singh, R.; Sharma, K.; Vishwakarma, R.K. Exploitation of microbial antagonists for the control of postharvest diseases of fruits: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 59, 1498–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Freimoser, F.M.; Rueda-Mejia, M.P.; Tilocca, B.; Migheli, Q. Biocontrol yeasts: Mechanisms and applications. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 35, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Barnett, J.A.; Payne, R.W.; Yarrow, D. (Eds.) Yeasts: Characteristics and Identification, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wilson, C.L.; Wisniewski, M.E. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables: An emerging technology. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1989, 27, 425–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zajc, J.; Černoša, A.; Di Francesco, A.; Casteria, R.; De Curtis, F.; Lima, G.; Badri, H.; Jijakli, H.; Ippolito, A.; GostinČar, C.; et al. Characterization of Aureobasidium pullulans isolates selected as biocontrol agents against fruit decay pathogens. Fungal Genomics Biol. 2020, 10, 163. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fan, Q.; Tian, S. Postharvest biological control of Rhizopus rot of nectarine fruits by Pichia membranefaciens. Plant Dis. 2000, 84, 1212–1216. [Google Scholar]
  15. Liu, J.; Wisniewski, M.; Droby, S.; Tian, S.; Hershkovitz, V.; Tworkoski, T. Effect of heat shock treatment on stress tolerance and biocontrol efficacy of Metschnikowia fructicola. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2011, 76, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Huang, R.; Li, G.; Zhang, J.; Yang, L.; Che, H.; Jiang, D.; Huang, H. Control of postharvest Botrytis fruit rot of strawberry by volatile organic compounds of Candida intermedia. Phytopathology 2011, 101, 859–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Long, C.; Wu, Z.; Deng, B. Biological control of Penicillium italicum of citrus and Botrytis cinerea of grape by strain 34–9 of Kloeckera apiculata. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2005, 221, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, Y.; Bao, Y.; Shen, D.; Feng, W.; Yu, T.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, X.D. Biocontrol of Alternaria alternata on cherry tomato fruit by use of marine yeast Rhodosporidium paludigenum Fell & Tallman. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 123, 234–239. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hu, H.; Yan, F.; Wilson, C.; Shen, Q.; Zheng, X. The ability of a cold-adapted Rhodotorula mucilaginosa strain from Tibet to control blue mold in pear fruit. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2015, 108, 1391–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vero, S.; Garmendia, G.; González, M.B.; Bentancur, O.; Wisniewski, M. Evaluation of yeasts obtained from Antarctic soil samples as biocontrol agents for the management of postharvest diseases of apple (Malus× domestica). FEMS Yeast Res. 2013, 13, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Qin, G.; Tian, S.; Xu, Y. Biocontrol of postharvest diseases on sweet cherries by four antagonistic yeasts in different storage conditions. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 31, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Qin, G.; Tian, S. Biocontrol of postharvest diseases of jujube fruit by Cryptococcus laurentii combined with a low dosage of fungicides under different storage conditions. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 497–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Lahlali, R.; Serrhini, M.; Jijakli, H. Efficacy assessment of Candida oleophila (strain O) and Pichia anomala (strain K) against major postharvest diseases of citrus fruits in Morocco. Commun. Appl. Biol. Sci. Ghent Univ. 2004, 69, 601–609. [Google Scholar]
  24. Spadaro, D.; Vola, R.; Piano, S.; Gullino, M.L. Mechanisms of action and efficacy of four isolates of the yeast Metschnikowia pulcherrima active against postharvest pathogens on apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 24, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lu, L.; Ye, C.; Guo, S.; Sheng, K.; Shao, L.; Zhou, T.; Yu, T.; Zheng, X. Preharvest application of antagonistic yeast Rhodosporidium paludigenum induced resistance against postharvest diseases in mandarin orange. Biol. Control 2013, 67, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ippolito, A.; Ghaouth, A.E.; Wilson, C.L.; Wisniewski, M. Technology Control of postharvest decay of apple fruit by Aureobasidium pullulans and induction of defense responses. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2000, 19, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Janisiewicz, W.J.; Korsten, L. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2002, 40, 411–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Mari, M.; Martini, C.; Guidarelli, M.; Neri, F. Postharvest biocontrol of Monilinia laxa, Monilinia fructicola and Monilinia fructigena on stone fruit by two Aureobasidium pullulans strains. Biol. Control 2012, 60, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Spadaro, D.; Droby, S. Development of biocontrol products for postharvest diseases of fruit: The importance of elucidating the mechanisms of action of yeast antagonists. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 47, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Massart, S.; Martinez-Medina, M.; Jijakli, M.H. Biological control in the microbiome era: Challenges and opportunities. Biol. Control 2015, 89, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sharma, R.; Singh, D.; Singh, R. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables by microbial antagonists: A review. Biol. Control 2009, 50, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Massart, S.; Jijakli, H.M. Use of molecular techniques to elucidate the mechanisms of action of fungal biocontrol agents: A review. J. Microbiol. Methods 2007, 69, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chan, Z.; Qin, G.; Xu, X.; Li, B.; Tian, S. Proteome approach to characterize proteins induced by antagonist yeast and salicylic acid in peach fruit. J. Proteome Res. 2007, 6, 1677–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Tian, S.; Torres, R.; Ballester, A.R.; Li, B.; Vilanova, L.; González-Candelas, L. Molecular aspects in pathogen-fruit interactions: Virulence and resistance. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Li, B.; Zhou, Z.; Tian, S. Combined effects of endo-and exogenous trehalose on stress tolerance and biocontrol efficacy of two antagonistic yeasts. Biol. Control 2008, 46, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liu, J.; Wisniewski, M.; Droby, S.; Norelli, J.; Hershkovitz, V.; Tian, S.; Farrell, R. Increase in antioxidant gene transcripts, stress tolerance and biocontrol efficacy of Candida oleophila following sublethal oxidative stress exposure. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2012, 80, 578–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bencheqroun, S.K.; Bajji, M.; Massart, S.; Labhilili, M.; El Jaafari, S.; Jijakli, M.H. In vitro and in situ study of postharvest apple blue mold biocontrol by Aureobasidium pullulans: Evidence for the involvement of competition for nutrients. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2007, 46, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Talibi, I.; Boubaker, H.; Boudyach, E.; Ait Ben Aoumar, A. Alternative methods for the control of postharvest citrus diseases. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 117, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gore-Lloyd, D.; Sumann, I.; Brachmann, A.O.; Schneeberger, K.; Ortiz-Merino, R.A.; Moreno-Beltrán, M.; Schläfli, M.; Kirner, P.; Santos Kron, A.; Rueda-Mejia, M.P. Snf2 controls pulcherriminic acid biosynthesis and antifungal activity of the biocontrol yeast Metschnikowia pulcherrima. Mol. Microbiol. 2019, 112, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Parafati, L.; Vitale, A.; Restuccia, C.; Cirvilleri, G. Biocontrol ability and action mechanism of food-isolated yeast strains against Botrytis cinerea causing post-harvest bunch rot of table grape. Food Microbiol. 2015, 47, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Calvente, V.; Benuzzi, D.; de Tosetti, M.S. Antagonistic action of siderophores from Rhodotorula glutinis upon the postharvest pathogen Penicillium expansum. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 1999, 43, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chi, Z.; Wang, X.X.; Ma, Z.C.; Buzdar, M.A.; Chi, Z.M. The unique role of siderophore in marine-derived Aureobasidium pullulans HN6.2. Biometals 2012, 25, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Costa-Orlandi, C.B.; Sardi, J.C.O.; Pitangui, N.S.; De Oliveira, H.C.; Scorzoni, L.; Galeane, M.C.; Medina-Alarcón, K.P.; Melo, W.C.M.A.; Marcelino, M.Y.; Braz, J.D.; et al. Fungal biofilms and polymicrobial diseases. J. Fungi 2017, 3, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Rendueles, O.; Ghigo, J.M. Mechanisms of competition in biofilm communities. Microbiol Spectr. 2015, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Scherm, B.; Ortu, G.; Muzzu, A.; Budroni, M.; Arras, G.; Migheli, Q. Biocontrol activity of antagonistic yeasts against Penicillium expansum on apple. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 85, 205–213. [Google Scholar]
  46. Liu, Y.; Yao, S.; Deng, L.; Ming, J.; Zeng, K. Different mechanisms of action of isolated epiphytic yeasts against Penicillium digitatum and Penicillium italicum on citrus fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2019, 152, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Giobbe, S.; Marceddu, S.; Scherm, B.; Zara, G.; Mazzarello, V.L.; Budroni, M.; Migheli, Q. The strange case of a biofilm-forming strain of Pichia fermentans, which controls Monilinia brown rot on apple but is pathogenic on peach fruit. FEMS Yeast Res. 2007, 7, 1389–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Di Francesco, A.; Martini, C.; Mari, M. Biological control of postharvest diseases by microbial antagonists: How many mechanisms of action? Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2016, 145, 711–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wisniewski, M.; Biles, C.; Droby, S.; McLaughlin, R.; Wilson, C.; Chalutz, E. Mode of action of the postharvest biocontrol yeast, Pichia guilliermondii. I. Characterization of attachment to Botrytis cinerea. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 1991, 39, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chan, Z.; Tian, S. Interaction of antagonistic yeasts against postharvest pathogens of apple fruit and possible mode of action. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2005, 36, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Banani, H.; Spadaro, D.; Zhang, D.; Matic, S.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Postharvest application of a novel chitinase cloned from Metschnikowia fructicola and overexpressed in Pichia pastoris to control brown rot of peaches. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 199, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tamayo-Urbina, C.; Guerrero-Prieto, V.; Guigon-Lopez, C.; Vargas-Albores, F.; Berlanga-Reyes, D.; Acosta-Muniz, C.; Ojeda-Barrios, D. Purification and characterization of β-1, 3-glucanase from Candida oleophila for the biocontrol of Penicillium expansum. Res. Rev. J. Bot. Sci. 2016, 5, 38–45. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yao, H.; Tian, S. Effects of pre- and post-harvest application of salicylic acid or methyl jasmonate on inducing disease resistance of sweet cherry fruit in storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2005, 35, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Romanazzi, G.; Sanzani, S.M.; Bi, Y.; Tian, S.; Gutiérrez Martínez, P.; Alkan, N. Induced resistance to control postharvest decay of fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tian, S.; Wan, Y.; Qin, G.; Xu, Y. Induction of defense responses against Alternaria rot by different elicitors in harvested pear fruit. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006, 70, 729–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tian, S.; Yao, H.; Deng, X.; Xu, X.; Qin, G.; Chan, Z. Characterization and expression of β-1,3-glucanase genes in jujube fruit induced by the microbial biocontrol agent Cryptococcus laurentii. Phytopathology 2007, 97, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Meng, X.; Tian, S. Effects of preharvest application of antagonistic yeast combined with chitosan on decay and quality of harvested table grape fruit. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 1838–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, Q.; Zhao, L.; Li, Z.; Li, C.; Li, B.; Gu, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, H. Screening and identification of an antagonistic yeast controlling postharvest blue mold decay of pears and the possible mechanisms involved. Biol. Control 2019, 133, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chan, Z.; Tian, S. Induction of H2O2-metabolizing enzymes and total protein synthesis by antagonistic yeast and salicylic acid in harvested sweet cherry fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2006, 39, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Xu, X.; Qin, G.; Tian, S. Effect of microbial biocontrol agents on alleviating oxidative damage of peach fruit subjected to fungal pathogen. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 126, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Droby, S.; Vinokur, V.; Weiss, B.; Cohen, L.; Daus, A.; Goldschmidt, E.; Porat, R. Induction of resistance to Penicillium digitatum in grapefruit by the yeast biocontrol agent Candida oleophila. Phytopathology 2002, 92, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. El-Ghaouth, A.; Wilson, C.L.; Wisniewski, M. Ultrastructural and cytochemical aspects of the biological control of Botrytis cinerea by Candida saitoana in apple fruit. Phytopathology 1998, 88, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Lai, J.; Cao, X.; Yu, T.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, X.; Lu, H. Effect of Cryptococcus laurentii on inducing disease resistance in cherry tomato fruit with focus on the expression of defense-related genes. Food Chem. 2018, 254, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zhao, Y.; Tu, K.; Shao, X.; Jing, W.; Su, Z. Effects of the yeast Pichia guilliermondii against Rhizopus nigricans on tomato fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 49, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mari, M.; Bautista-Baños, S.; Sivakumar, D. Decay control in the postharvest system: Role of microbial and plant volatile organic compounds. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Di Francesco, A.; Ugolini, L.; Lazzeri, L.; Mari, M. Production of volatile organic compounds by Aureobasidium pullulans as a potential mechanism of action against postharvest fruit pathogens. Biol. Control 2015, 81, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Farbo, M.G.; Urgeghe, P.P.; Fiori, S.; Marcello, A.; Oggiano, S.; Balmas, V.; Hassan, Z.U.; Jaoua, S.; Migheli, Q. Effect of yeast volatile organic compounds on ochratoxin A-producing Aspergillus carbonarius and A. ochraceus. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 284, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tilocca, B.; Balmas, V.; Hassan, Z.U.; Jaoua, S.; Migheli, Q. A proteomic investigation of Aspergillus carbonarius exposed to yeast volatilome or to its major component 2-phenylethanol reveals major shifts in fungal metabolism. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 306, 108265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Contarino, R.; Brighina, S.; Fallico, B.; Cirvilleri, G.; Parafati, L.; Restuccia, C. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced by biocontrol yeasts. Food Microbiol 2019, 82, 70–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Alpha, C.J.; Campos, M.; Jacobs-Wagner, C.; Strobel, S.A. Mycofumigation by the volatile organic compound-producing fungus Muscodor albus induces bacterial cell death through DNA damage. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 1147–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Mannazzu, I.; Domizio, P.; Carboni, G.; Zara, S.; Zara, G.; Comitini, F.; Budroni, M.; Ciani, M. Yeast killer toxins: From ecological significance to application. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2019, 39, 603–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Platania, C.; Restuccia, C.; Muccilli, S.; Cirvilleri, G. Efficacy of killer yeasts in the biological control of Penicillium digitatum on Tarocco orange fruits (Citrus sinensis). Food Microbiol. 2012, 30, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Parafati, L.; Cirvilleri, G.; Restuccia, C.; Wisniewski, M. Potential role of exoglucanase genes (WaEXG1 and WaEXG2) in the biocontrol activity of Wickerhamomyces anomalus. Microb. Ecol. 2017, 73, 876–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Aloui, H.; Licciardello, F.; Khwaldia, K.; Hamdi, M.; Restuccia, C. Physical properties and antifungal activity of bioactive films containing Wickerhamomyces anomalus killer yeast and their application for preservation of oranges and control of postharvest green mold caused by Penicillium digitatum. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 200, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Grzegorczyk, M.; Zarowska, B.; Restuccia, C.; Cirvilleri, G. Postharvest biocontrol ability of killer yeasts against Monilinia fructigena and Monilinia fructicola on stone fruit. Food Microbiol. 2017, 61, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Belda, I.; Ruiz, J.; Alonso, A.; Marquina, D.; Santos, A. The biology of Pichia membranifaciens killer toxins. Toxins 2017, 9, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Banjara, N.; Nickerson, K.W.; Suhr, M.J.; Hallen-Adams, H.E. Killer toxin from several food-derived Debaryomyces hansenii strains effective against pathogenic Candida yeasts. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 222, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Droby, S. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables: Difficulties and challenges. Phytopathol. Pol. 2006, 39, 105–117. [Google Scholar]
  79. Opulente, D.A.; Langdon, Q.K.; Buh, K.V.; Haase, M.A.; Sylvester, K.; Moriarty, R.V.; Jarzyna, M.; Considine, S.L.; Schneider, R.M.; Hittinger, C.T. Pathogenic budding yeasts isolated outside of clinical settings. FEMS Yeast Res. 2019, 19, foz032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Enache-Angoulvant, A.; Hennequin, C. Invasive Saccharomyces infection: A comprehensive review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2005, 41, 1559–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. De Llanos, R.; Querol, A.; Pemán, J.; Gobernado, M.; Fernández-Espinar, M.T. Food and probiotic strains from the Saccharomyces cerevisiae species as a possible origin of human systemic infections. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 110, 286–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zong, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, B.; Qin, G.; Tian, S. Effects of yeast antagonists in combination with hot water treatment on postharvest diseases of tomato fruit. Biol. Control 2010, 54, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Qin, G.; Tian, S.; Xu, Y.; Wan, Y. Enhancement of biocontrol efficacy of antagonistic yeasts by salicylic acid in sweet cherry fruit. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2003, 62, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Farahani, L.; Etebarian, H.R. Enhancement of the efficacy of two antagonistic yeasts with salicylic acid against Penicillium expansum. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2012, 45, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Xu, X.; Chan, Z.; Xu, Y.; Tian, S. Effect of Pichia membranaefaciens combined with salicylic acid on controlling brown rot in peach fruit and the mechanisms involved. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008, 88, 1786–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Shao, Y.; Zeng, J.; Tang, H.; Zhou, Y.; Li, W. The chemical treatments combined with antagonistic yeast control anthracnose and maintain the quality of postharvest mango fruit. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 1159–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Yao, H.; Tian, S. Effects of a biocontrol agent and methyl jasmonate on postharvest diseases of peach fruit and the possible mechanisms involved. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2005, 98, 941–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Guo, J.; Fang, W.; Lu, H.; Zhu, R.; Lu, L.; Zheng, X.; Yu, T. Inhibition of green mold disease in mandarins by preventive applications of methyl jasmonate and antagonistic yeast Cryptococcus laurentii. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2014, 88, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhu, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Qin, G.; Tian, S. Effects of brassinosteroids on postharvest disease and senescence of jujube fruit in storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2010, 56, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lai, T.; Wang, Y.; Li, B.; Qin, G.; Tian, S. Defense responses of tomato fruit to exogenous nitric oxide during postharvest storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2011, 62, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ji, D.; Chen, T.; Ma, D.; Liu, J.; Xu, Y.; Tian, S. Inhibitory effects of methyl thujate on mycelial growth of Botrytis cinerea and possible mechanisms. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 142, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ma, D.; Ji, D.; Liu, J.; Xu, Y.; Chen, T.; Tian, S. Efficacy of methyl thujate in inhibiting Penicillium expansum growth and possible mechanism involved. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 161, 111070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Chen, T.; Xu, Y.; Tian, S. Antifungal effects of hinokitiol on development of Botrytis cinerea in vitro and in vivo. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 159, 111038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhang, Z.; Qin, G.; Li, B.; Tian, S. Effect of cinnamic acid for controlling gray mold on table grape and its possible mechanisms of action. Curr. Microbiol. 2015, 71, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Li, J.; Li, H.; Ji, S.; Chen, T.; Tian, S.; Qin, G. Enhancement of biocontrol efficacy of Cryptococcus laurentii by cinnamic acid against Penicillium italicum in citrus fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2019, 149, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Li, H.; He, C.; Li, G.; Zhang, Z.; Li, B.; Tian, S. The modes of action of epsilon-polylysine (ε-PL) against Botrytis cinerea in jujube fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2019, 147, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. He, C.; Zhang, Z.; Li, B.; Xu, Y.; Tian, S. Effect of natamycin on Botrytis cinerea and Penicillium expansum—Postharvest pathogens of grape berries and jujube fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2019, 151, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ma, D.; Ji, D.; Zhang, Z.; Li, B.; Qin, G.; Xu, Y.; Chen, T.; Tian, S. Efficacy of rapamycin in modulating autophagic activity of Botrytis cinerea for controlling gray mold. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2019, 150, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Tian, S.; Fan, Q.; Xu, Y.; Jiang, A. Effects of calcium on biocontrol activity of yeast antagonists against the postharvest fungal pathogen Rhizopus stolonifer. Plant Pathol. 2002, 51, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gramisci, B.R.; Lutz, M.C.; Lopes, C.A.; Sangorrín, M.P. Enhancing the efficacy of yeast biocontrol agents against postharvest pathogens through nutrient profiling and the use of other additives. Biol. Control 2018, 121, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tournas, V.H.; Katsoudas, E.J. Effect of CaCl2 and various wild yeasts from plant origin on controlling Penicillium expansum postharvest decays in Golden Delicious apples. Microbiol. Insights 2019, 12, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Elghaouth, A.; Smilanick, J.L.; Wilson, C.L. Enhancement of the performance of Candida saitoana by the addition of glycolchitosan for the control of postharvest decay of apple and citrus fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2000, 19, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Meng, X.; Qin, G.; Tian, S. Influences of preharvest spraying Cryptococcus laurentii combined with postharvest chitosan coating on postharvest diseases and quality of table grapes in storage. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 43, 596–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zeng, K. Efficacy of Pichia membranaefaciens combined with chitosan against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides in citrus fruits and possible modes of action. Biol. Control 2016, 96, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Janisiewicz, W.J.; Saftner, R.A.; Conway, W.S.; Yoder, K.S. Control of blue mold decay of apple during commercial controlled atmosphere storage with yeast antagonists and sodium bicarbonate. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 49, 374–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wan, Y.; Tian, S.; Qin, G. Enhancement of biocontrol activity of yeasts by adding sodium bicarbonate or ammonium molybdate to control postharvest disease of jujube fruits. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 37, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Cai, J.; Chen, J.; Lu, G.; Zhao, Y.; Tian, S.; Qin, G. Control of brown rot on jujube and peach fruits by trisodium phosphate. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2015, 99, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Qin, G.; Tian, S. Enhancement of biocontrol activity of Cryptococcus laurentii by silicon and the possible mechanisms involved. Phytopathology 2005, 95, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Cao, B.; Hua, L.; Tian, S.; Qin, G. Boron improves the biocontrol activity of Cryptococcus laurentii against Penicillium expansum in jujube fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2012, 68, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zheng, F.; Zhang, W.; Sui, Y.; Ding, R.; Yi, W.; Hu, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhu, C. Sugar protectants improve the thermotolerance and biocontrol efficacy of the biocontrol Yeast, Candida oleophila. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Calvo, J.; Calvente, V.; Orellano, M.E.D.; Benuzzi, D.; Tosetti, M.I.S.D. Improvement in the biocontrol of postharvest diseases of apples with the use of yeast mixtures. Biocontrol 2003, 48, 579–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zhao, S.; Guo, Y.; Wang, Q.; Luo, H.; He, C.; An, B. Expression of flagellin at yeast surface increases biocontrol efficiency of yeast cells against postharvest disease of tomato caused by Botrytis cinerea. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 162, 111112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Blachinsky, D.; Antonov, J.; Bercovitz, A.; El-ad, B.; Feldman, K.; Husid, A.; Lazare, M.; Marcov, N.; Shamai, I.; Droby, S. Commercial applications of “Shemer” for the control of pre- and postharvest diseases. IOBC WPRS Bull. 2007, 30, 75–78. [Google Scholar]
  114. Droby, S.; Wisniewski, M.; Teixidó, N.; Spadaro, D.; Jijakli, M.H. The science, development, and commercialization of postharvest biocontrol products. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wisniewski, M.; Droby, S.; Norelli, J.; Liu, J.; Schena, L. Alternative management technologies for postharvest disease control: The journey from simplicity to complexity. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jof 06 00158 g001 550
Figure 1. Representative antagonistic yeasts from various sources used for the management of postharvest decay. Species that have been already in commercial use are highlighted in red.
Figure 1. Representative antagonistic yeasts from various sources used for the management of postharvest decay. Species that have been already in commercial use are highlighted in red.
Jof 06 00158 g001
Jof 06 00158 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the possible interactions among components of the biocontrol system, including the pathogens, antagonistic yeasts, host, epiphytic microbiome, and environment. Antagonistic yeasts can inhibit pathogens through competition for nutrient and space, mycoparasitism, VOCs, and killer toxins. Conversely, pathogens also compete with antagonistic yeasts for nutrient and space to affect their colonization and growth. In addition, antagonistic yeasts can induce the resistance of hosts to inhibit infection, while reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by hosts may be an oxidative stress to yeasts. During the interaction between fruit hosts and pathogens, hosts can resist the pathogen attack through oxidative burst, innate immune system, and antifungal metabolites, while pathogens can suppress host resistance through pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), effectors, phytotoxins, pH modification, and suppression or stimulation of the oxidative burst. The epiphytic microbiome on hosts is also associated with the host resistance. Moreover, environmental conditions have a wide influence on the pathogenicity of pathogens, the efficacy of antagonistic yeasts, and the resistance of hosts.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the possible interactions among components of the biocontrol system, including the pathogens, antagonistic yeasts, host, epiphytic microbiome, and environment. Antagonistic yeasts can inhibit pathogens through competition for nutrient and space, mycoparasitism, VOCs, and killer toxins. Conversely, pathogens also compete with antagonistic yeasts for nutrient and space to affect their colonization and growth. In addition, antagonistic yeasts can induce the resistance of hosts to inhibit infection, while reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by hosts may be an oxidative stress to yeasts. During the interaction between fruit hosts and pathogens, hosts can resist the pathogen attack through oxidative burst, innate immune system, and antifungal metabolites, while pathogens can suppress host resistance through pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), effectors, phytotoxins, pH modification, and suppression or stimulation of the oxidative burst. The epiphytic microbiome on hosts is also associated with the host resistance. Moreover, environmental conditions have a wide influence on the pathogenicity of pathogens, the efficacy of antagonistic yeasts, and the resistance of hosts.
Jof 06 00158 g002
Table
Table 1. Antagonistic yeast-based commercial products developed for the management of postharvest pathogens (adapted from [9] and [115] with modification).
Table 1. Antagonistic yeast-based commercial products developed for the management of postharvest pathogens (adapted from [9] and [115] with modification).
ProductYeastFruitTarget PathogensManufacturerIn Use
AspireCandida oleophilaStone fruit, pome, citrus, strawberry Botrytis, Penicillium, MoniliniaEcogen, USANo
Blossom ProtectAureobasidium pullulansPomePenicillium, Botrytis, MoniliniaBio-ferm, AustriaYes
BotectorAureobasidium pullulansGrape, strawberry and tomatoBotrytis cinereaBio-ferm, AustriaYes
CandifruitCandida sakePomePenicillium, Botrytis, RhizopusIRTA/Sipcam-Inagra, SpainNo
NexyCandida oleophilaPome, banana, citrusBotrytis, PenicilliumLesaffre, BelgiumYes
NoliMetschnikowia fructicolaStrawberry, blueberry, grape, stone fruitBotrytis,
Monilinia		Koppert, The NetherlandsYes
RemeoSaccharomyces cerevisiaeGrapeBotrytis, Erysiphe,
Plasmopara		BASF/Agrauxine, FranceYes
ShemerMetschnikowia fructicolaPome, strawberry, grape, stone fruitBotrytis, Penicillium, Rhizopus,
Aspergillus		Bayer/Koppert, The NetherlandsYes
YieldPlusCryptococcus albidusPome, citrusBotrytis, Penicillium, MucorLallem,
South Africa		No

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, X.; Li, B.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Tian, S. Antagonistic Yeasts: A Promising Alternative to Chemical Fungicides for Controlling Postharvest Decay of Fruit. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030158

AMA Style

Zhang X, Li B, Zhang Z, Chen Y, Tian S. Antagonistic Yeasts: A Promising Alternative to Chemical Fungicides for Controlling Postharvest Decay of Fruit. Journal of Fungi. 2020; 6(3):158. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030158

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Xiaokang, Boqiang Li, Zhanquan Zhang, Yong Chen, and Shiping Tian. 2020. "Antagonistic Yeasts: A Promising Alternative to Chemical Fungicides for Controlling Postharvest Decay of Fruit" Journal of Fungi 6, no. 3: 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030158

APA Style

Zhang, X., Li, B., Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., & Tian, S. (2020). Antagonistic Yeasts: A Promising Alternative to Chemical Fungicides for Controlling Postharvest Decay of Fruit. Journal of Fungi, 6(3), 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030158

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