Table_2_The Biocontrol Functions of Bacillus velezensis Strain Bv-25 Against Meloidogyne incognita.docx
Meloidogyne incognita is obligate parasitic nematode with a wide variety of hosts that causes huge economic losses every year. In an effort to identify novel bacterial biocontrols against M. incognita, the nematicidal activity of Bacillus velezensis strain Bv-25 obtained from cucumber rhizosphere soil was measured. Strain Bv-25 could inhibit the egg hatching of M. incognita and had strong nematicidal activity, with the mortality rate of second-stage M. incognita juveniles (J2s) at 100% within 12 h of exposure to Bv-25 fermentation broth. The M. incognita genes ord-1, mpk-1, and flp-18 were suppressed by Bv-25 fumigation treatment after 48 h. Strain Bv-25 could colonize cucumber roots, with 5.94 × 107 colony-forming units/g attached within 24 h, effectively reducing the infection rate with J2s by 98.6%. The bacteria up-regulated the expression levels of cucumber defense response genes pr1, pr3, and lox1 and induced resistance to M. incognita in split-root trials. Potted trials showed that Bv-25 reduced cucumber root knots by 73.8%. The field experiment demonstrated that disease index was reduced by 61.6%, cucumber height increased by 14.4%, and yield increased by 36.5% in Bv-25–treated plants compared with control. To summarize, B. velezensis strain Bv-25 strain has good potential to control root-knot nematodes both when colonizing the plant roots and through its volatile compounds.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nbt.1482
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.syapm.2018.11.005
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.sjbs.2019.09.007
- https://doi.org//10.1080/03235408.2013.820868
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01669.x
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cropro.2019.04.021
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02388.x
- https://doi.org//10.1128/mmbr.64.4.847-867.2000
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104134
- https://doi.org//10.1093/jxb/ert356
- https://doi.org//10.1645/15-768
- https://doi.org//10.1002/ps.692
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.05.011
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fpls.2020.00894
- https://doi.org//10.3725/jjn.45.51
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cropro.2010.12.009
- https://doi.org//10.1073/pnas.96.7.4192
- https://doi.org//10.1094/PHYTO-05-19-0164-R
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41598-021-93567-0
- https://doi.org//10.1046/j.1365-313x.2003.01620.x
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1439-0434.2008.01435.x
- https://doi.org//10.1017/S0022149X09990630
- https://doi.org//10.4014/jmb.1603.03040
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00253-009-2294-z
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0168-9452(01)00458-7
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00253-013-5247-5
- https://doi.org//10.1128/microbiolspec.TBS-0017-2013
- https://doi.org//10.1111/nph.14251
- https://doi.org//10.1080/09583150801952143
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11032-010-9487-0
- https://doi.org//10.3390/plants10020389
- https://doi.org//10.1074/jbc.M110.146274
- https://doi.org//10.1111/nph.15400
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biocontrol.2013.01.014
- https://doi.org//10.1094/MPMI-08-18-0226-R
- https://doi.org//10.1094/PHYTO-95-0076
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100359
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41396-021-01125-3
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1574-6941.2007.00349.x
- https://doi.org//10.1146/annurev.phyto.39.1.53
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.01.013
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ab.2009.12.008
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00253-012-4572-4
- https://doi.org//10.1111/jph.12712
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.11.167
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11274-015-1820-7
- https://doi.org//10.1094/PDIS-03-20-0648-RE
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fmicb.2018.00253
CC BY 4.0