Antagonism ofTrichodermaorGliocladiumSpecies on Two Phytopathogenic Species ofFusarium
Source abstract
Abstract
SUMMARY The antagonistic actions of Trichoderma and Gliocladium species against two phytopathogenic species of Fusarium (a serious disease in cotton production) were studied in vitro. The antagonist induced a substantial lysis of mycelium of the target fungi which became malformed and thickened. Bulging or swollen hyphal strands occurred and sometimes with clamydospores production. Antagonists produced chitinase and β-1,3-glucanase in liquid culture contained cell wall of Fusarium spp. as a sole carbon source. Crude enzyme preparations of the antagonists with lytic enzyme activities greatly reduced the germinated conidia of Fusarium spp. Moreover, aberrant morphology of conidia was observed with germ tube lysis. On the other hand, the resulted mycelia showed wilt mycelium, coagulated protoplasm, heavy vacuolization and swelling followed by the complete destruction of the hyphae.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Plant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases · Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity · Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1128/AEM.67.12.5833-5839.200110.1128/AEM.67.12.5833-5839.2001 ↗
2. 10.1590/S1517-8382200100020000510.1590/S1517-83822001000200005 ↗
3. 10.1094/Phyto-83-106210.1094/Phyto-83-1062 ↗
4. 10.1023/A:100680242372910.1023/A:1006802423729 ↗
5. 10.1006/bcon.1995.105110.1006/bcon.1995.1051 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0007-1536(71)80050-510.1016/S0007-1536(71)80050-5 ↗
7. 10.1128/MMBR.64.1.153-179.200010.1128/MMBR.64.1.153-179.2000 ↗
8. 10.1016/S0261-2194(00)00094-610.1016/S0261-2194(00)00094-6 ↗
9. 10.1094/Phyto-73-8510.1094/Phyto-73-85 ↗
10. 10.1094/Phyto-81-28310.1094/Phyto-81-283 ↗
11. Fiddaman P. J. · Journal of Applied Bacteriology · 1993 · 74 · 11910.1111/j.1365-2672.1993.tb03004.x ↗
12. Franceschi V. R. · 1995 · 113
13. 10.1023/B:EJPP.0000021057.93305.d910.1023/B:EJPP.0000021057.93305.d9 ↗
14. 10.1016/0261-2194(91)90038-S10.1016/0261-2194(91)90038-S ↗
15. 10.1094/PHYTO.2002.92.2.17710.1094/PHYTO.2002.92.2.177 ↗
16. 10.1094/PDIS.2003.87.1.410.1094/PDIS.2003.87.1.4 ↗
17. 10.1094/PHYTO.2000.90.3.24810.1094/PHYTO.2000.90.3.248 ↗
18. Jian G. L. · Agricultural Sciences in China · 2003 · 2 · 280
19. 10.1016/S0953-7562(09)81146-510.1016/S0953-7562(09)81146-5 ↗
20. Lee Y. A. · Plant Prot. Bull. · 1984 · 26 · 293
21. 10.1080/0958315965003936810.1080/09583159650039368 ↗
22. 10.1006/bcon.1993.101710.1006/bcon.1993.1017 ↗
23. 10.1111/j.1365-3059.1987.tb02260.x10.1111/j.1365-3059.1987.tb02260.x ↗
24. 10.1006/bbrc.1995.195610.1006/bbrc.1995.1956 ↗
25. Lowry O. H. · Journal of Biological Chemistry · 1951 · 193 · 26510.1016/S0021-9258(19)52451-6 ↗
26. Mansour M. S. · Egypt. J. Phytopathology · 1999 · 27 · 47
27. 10.1021/ac60147a03010.1021/ac60147a030 ↗
28. 10.1016/0003-2697(77)90069-010.1016/0003-2697(77)90069-0 ↗
29. 10.1023/A:100686800918410.1023/A:1006868009184 ↗
30. 10.1139/m82-19210.1139/m82-192 ↗
31. Shaban G. M. · Bull. Fac. Sci. Assiut Univ. · 2004 · 33 · 115
32. 10.1111/j.1439-0434.1986.tb00892.x10.1111/j.1439-0434.1986.tb00892.x ↗
33. Sivan A. · Journal of General Microbiology · 1989 · 135 · 675
34. Sivan A. · 1992 · 335
35. 10.1016/0261-2194(93)90082-T10.1016/0261-2194(93)90082-T ↗
36. 10.1094/PD-71-058710.1094/PD-71-0587 ↗
37. Starbird I. R. · 1987
38. Taylor A. G. · Hortic. Technol. · 1994 · 4 · 105
39. Traquair J. A. · Canadian Journal of Botany · 1987 · 65 · 195210.1139/b87-267 ↗
40. Whipps J. M. · Journal of Experimental Botany · 2001 · 52 · 48710.1093/jexbot/52.suppl_1.487 ↗
41. 10.1080/0958315965003937710.1080/09583159650039377 ↗