Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

The Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology (한국미생물·생명공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Biocontrol of Peach Gummosis by Bacillus velezensis KTA01 and Its Antifungal Mechanism

  • Tae-An Kang (Department of Applied Biosciences, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • GyuDae Lee (Department of Applied Biosciences, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kihwan Kim (NGS Core Facility, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Dongyup Hahn (Department of Integrative Biology, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Jae-Ho Shin (Department of Applied Biosciences, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Won-Chan Kim (Department of Applied Biosciences, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2023.10.06
  • Accepted : 2023.11.21
  • Published : 2024.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Peach tree gummosis is a botanical anomaly distinguished by the secretion of dark-brown gum from the shoots of peach trees, and Botryosphaeria dothidea has been identified as one of the fungal species responsible for its occurrence. In South Korea, approximately 80% of gummosis cases are linked to infections caused by B. dothidea. In this study, we isolated microbes from the soil surrounding peach trees exhibiting antifungal activity against B. dothidea. Subsequently, we identified several bacterial strains as potential candidates for a biocontrol agent. Among them, Bacillus velezensis KTA01 displayed the most robust antifungal activity and was therefore selected for further analysis. To investigate the antifungal mechanism of B. velezensis KTA01, we performed tests to assess cell wall degradation and siderophore production. Additionally, we conducted reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis based on whole-genome sequencing to confirm the presence of genes responsible for the biosynthesis of lipopeptide compounds, a well-known characteristic of Bacillus spp., and to compare gene expression levels. Moreover, we extracted lipopeptide compounds using methanol and subjected them to both antifungal activity testing and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis. The experimental findings presented in this study unequivocally demonstrate the promising potential of B. velezensis KTA01 as a biocontrol agent against B. dothidea KACC45481, the pathogen responsible for causing peach tree gummosis.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture and Forestry (IPET) through the Crop Viruses and Pests Response Industry Technology Development Program, funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (321097-3). It was additionally supported by a Korea Basic Science Institute (National Research Facilities and Equipment Center) grant funded by the Ministry of Education (2021R1A6C101A416), and also by a project to train professional personnel in biological materials under the Ministry of Environment.

References

  1. Weaver DJ. 1974. A gummosis disease of peach trees caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea. Phytopathology 64: 1429-1432. https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-64-1429
  2. Beckman TG, Pusey PL, Bertrand PF. 2003. Impact of fungal gummosis on peach trees. HortScience 38: 1141-1143. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.38.6.1141
  3. Li HY, Cao RB, Mu YT. 1995. In vitro inhibition of Botryosphaeria dothidea and Lasiodiplodia theobromae, and chemical control of gummosis disease of Japanese apricot and peach trees in Zhejiang Province, China. Crop Prot. 14: 187-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-2194(95)00011-A
  4. Wang F, Zhao L, Li G, Huang J, Hsiang T. 2011. Identification and characterization of Botryosphaeria spp. causing gummosis of peach trees in Hubei Province, Central China. Plant Dis. 95: 1378-1384. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-12-10-0893
  5. Okie WR, Prince VE, Reilly CC. 1982. 'Sunprince' Peach1 . HortScience. 17: 414-414. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.17.3.414
  6. Michailides TJ. 1991. Pathogenicity, distribution, sources of inoculum, and infection courts of Botryosphaeria dothidea on pistachio. Phytopathology 81: 566-573. https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-81-566
  7. Jo Y, Jung DR., Park TH, Lee D, Park MK, Lim K, et al. 2022. Changes in microbial community structure in response to gummosis in peach tree bark. Plants 11: 2834.
  8. Munger R, Isacson P, Hu S, Burns T, Hanson J, Lynch CF, et al. 1997. Intrauterine growth retardation in Iowa communities with herbicide-contaminated drinking water supplies. Environ. Health Perspect. 105: 308-314. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.97105308
  9. Cowen LE. 2008. The evolution of fungal drug resistance: modulating the trajectory from genotype to phenotype. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6: 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1835
  10. Heimpel GE, Mills N. 2017. Biological control as intentional invasions, pp. 19-146. In Biological Control: Ecology and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  11. Kohl J, Kolnaar R, Ravensberg WJ. 2019. Mode of action of microbial biological control agents against plant diseases: relevance beyond efficacy. Front. Plant Sci. 10: 845.
  12. Raaijmakers JM, Vlami M, de Souza JT. 2002. Antibiotic production by bacterial biocontrol agents. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 81: 537-547. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020501420831
  13. Handelsman J, Stabb EV. 1996. Biocontrol of soilborne plant pathogens. Plant Cell 8: 1855-1869 https://doi.org/10.2307/3870235
  14. Ongena M, Jacques P. 2008. Bacillus lipopeptides: versatile weapons for plant disease biocontrol. Trends Microbiol. 16: 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2007.12.009
  15. Islam T, Rabbee MF, Choi J, Baek KH. 2022. Biosynthesis, molecular regulation, and application of bacilysin produced by Bacillus species. Metabolites 12: 397.
  16. Bonmatin JM, Laprevote O, Peypoux F. 2003. Diversity among microbial cyclic lipopeptides: iturins and surfactins. Activitystructure relationships to design new bioactive agents. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen 6: 541-556. https://doi.org/10.2174/138620703106298716
  17. Mazzola M, de Bruijn I, Cohen MF, Raaijmakers JM. 2009. Protozoan-induced regulation of cyclic lipopeptide biosynthesis is an effective predation defense mechanism for Pseudomonas fluorescens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75: 6804-6811. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01272-09
  18. Huang CJ, Wang TK, Chung SC, Chen CY. 2005. Identification of an antifungal chitinase from a potential biocontrol agent, Bacillus cereus 28-9. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 38: 82-88.
  19. Ye M, Sun L, Yang R, Wang Z, Qi K. 2017. The optimization of fermentation conditions for producing cellulase of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and its application to goose feed. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4: 171012.
  20. Loper JE, Buyer JS. 1991. Siderophores in microbial interactions on plant-surfaces. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 4: 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-4-005
  21. Arguelles-Arias A, Ongena M, Halimi B, Lara Y, Brans A, Joris B, et al. 2009. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens GA1 as a source of potent antibiotics and other secondary metabolites for biocontrol of plant pathogens. Microb. Cell Fact. 8: 63.
  22. Kim YT, Kim SE, Lee WJ, Fumei Z, Cho MS, Moon JS, et al. 2020. Isolation and characterization of a high iturin yielding Bacillus velezensis UV mutant with improved antifungal activity. PloS One 15: e0234177.
  23. Lister JB. 1878. On the lactic fermentation and its bearings on pathology. Trans. Pathol. Soc. Lond. 29: 425-467.
  24. Camele I, Elshafie HS, Caputo L, Sakr SH. De Feo V. 2019. Bacillus mojavensis: biofilm formation and biochemical investigation of its bioactive metabolites. J. Biol. Res. doi.org/10.4081/jbr.2019.8296
  25. De S, Kaur G, Roy A, Dogra G, Kaushik R, Yadav P, et al. 2010. A simple method for the efficient isolation of genomic DNA from Lactobacilli isolated from traditional indian fermented milk (dahi). Indian J. Microbiol. 50: 412-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-011-0079-4
  26. Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. 2021. MEGA11: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 11. Mole. Biol. Evol. 38: 3022-3027. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab120
  27. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. 2001. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods 25: 402-8. https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262
  28. Alajlani M, Shiekh A, Hasnain S, Brantner A. 2016. Purification of bioactive lipopeptides produced by Bacillus subtilis Strain BIA. Chromatographia 79: 1527-1532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-016-3164-3
  29. Sazci A, Erenler K, Radford A. 1986. Detection of cellulolytic fungi by using Congo red as an indicator: a comparative study with the dinitrosalicyclic acid reagent method. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 61: 559-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1986.tb01729.x
  30. Ariffin H, Abdullah N, Umi Kalsom MS, Shirai Y, Hassan MA. 2006. Production and characterization of cellulase by Bacillus pumilus EB3. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 31: 47-53.
  31. Souza CP, Burbano-Rosero EM, Almeida BC, Martins GG, Albertini LS, Rivera ING. 2009. Culture medium for isolating chitinolytic bacteria from seawater and plankton. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 25: 2079-2082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-009-0098-z
  32. Louden BC, Haarmann D, Lynne AM. 2011. Use of blue agar CAS assay for siderophore detection. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 12: 51-53. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v12i1.249
  33. Chen XH, Scholz R, Borriss M, Junge H, Mogel G, Kunz S, et al. 2009. Difficidin and bacilysin produced by plant-associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens are efficient in controlling fire blight disease. J. Biotechnol. 140: 38-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2008.10.015
  34. Zaid DS, Cai S, Hu C, Li Z, Li Y. 2022. Comparative genome analysis reveals phylogenetic identity of Bacillus velezensis HNA3 and genomic insights into its plant growth promotion and biocontrol effects. Microbiol. Spectr. 10: e0216921.
  35. Huang X, Lu Z, Zhao H, Bie X, Lu F, Yang S. 2006. Antiviral activity of antimicrobial lipopeptide from Bacillus subtilis fmbj against pseudorabies virus, porcine parvovirus, newcastle disease virus and infectious bursal disease virus in vitro. Int. J. Pept. Res. Ther. 12: 373-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10989-006-9041-4
  36. Bezza FA., Chirwa EMN. 2017. The role of lipopeptide biosurfactant on microbial remediation of aged polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)-contaminated soil. Chem. Eng. J. 309: 563-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.10.055
  37. Rofeal M, El-Malek FA. 2021. Valorization of lipopeptides biosurfactants as anticancer agents. Int. J. Pept. Res. Ther. 27: 447-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10989-020-10105-8
  38. Zhang Q, Yong D, Zhang Y, Shi X, Li B, Li G, Liang W, Wang C. 2016. Streptomyces rochei A-1 induces resistance and defense-related responses against Botryosphaeria dothidea in apple fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 115: 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.12.013
  39. Sur S, Romo TD, Grossfield A. 2018. Selectivity and mechanism of fengycin, an antimicrobial lipopeptide, from molecular dynamics. J. Phys. Chem. B. 122: 2219-2226. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b11889
  40. Balhara M, Chaudhary R, Ruhil S, Singh B, Dahiya N, Parmar VS, et al. 2016. Siderophores; iron scavengers: the novel & promising targets for pathogen specific antifungal therapy. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets. 20: 1477-1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728222.2016.1254196
  41. Yuan H, Shi B, Wang L, Huang T, Zhou Z, Hou H, et al. 2022. Isolation and characterization of Bacillus velezensis strain P2-1 for biocontrol of apple postharvest decay caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea. Front. Microbiol. 12: 808938
  42. Zhang D, Shen X, Zhang H, Huang X, He H, Ye J, et al. 2022. Integrated transcriptomic and metabolic analyses reveal that ethylene enhances peach susceptibility to Lasiodiplodia theobromae-induced gummosis. Hortic. Res. 9: uhab019.